Family Is ‘Devastated’ After a Hospital Removes Their 2-Year-Old Son from Life Support Against Their

[NWCorona]

Source: Time

?quality=75&strip=color&w=550

A family has been left in shock after their 2-year-old son died after being removed from life support against their wishes, according to several reports.


On Thursday afternoon, 2-year-old Israel Stinson was removed from a breathing ventilator at Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles after a judge upheld the hospital’s decision to remove life support, according to the Los Angeles Times. Now, the toddler’s parents, Jonee Fonseca and Nathaniel Stinson, are left “devastated,” as expressed by Alexandra Snyder, an attorney with the Life Legal Defense Foundation, a pro-life group representing Israel’s family pro bono.

“I was on the phone with his mother when the doctors disconnected him,” Snyder said, according to the Los Angeles Times. “They were in such a hurry to do it, they didn’t even sit down and explain what was going on.”

A spokesperson for the Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles, Lorenzo Benet, tells PEOPLE, “Due to health privacy regulations, we cannot comment.”

Read more: http://time.com/4469884/israel-stinson/

---

Heartless

[LisaL]

1. You do realize he was brain dead, or no?

Do you suggest to indefinitely keep brain dead patients on organ support? What would be the purpose? There is no chance of recovery from brain death.

[NWCorona]

3. Yes I can read.

“They were in such a hurry to do it, they didn’t even sit down and explain what was going on.”

[LisaL]

5. You clearly don't know the story.

He was declared brain dead quite some time ago. He was then taken out of the country. Then the family brought him back.
They knew about his diagnosis for quite some time.

[NWCorona]

10. And how does that change the qoute I provided?

I'm quite aware that this child was brain dead.

[LisaL]

17. He was declared brain dead in April.

Yet you seem to argue removal of organ support was too sudden?

[cleanhippie]

55. Diagnosed in April, taken to other doctors for second opinions. Not heartless at all.

[Historic NY]

177. They even went to Guatemala.

[cleanhippie]

179. Exactly.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

102. What would be the explaination?

"We're going to do what you've been preventing us from doing for months"?

[yeoman6987]

77. Doesn't matter. The parents should decide PERIOD!!!!!

[Ilsa]

84. And sometimes it is kinder to remove the decision to

another qualified group so they don't have to feel the guilt of making the hard choice, especially when a lot of family members are involved. Sometimes religious beliefs or culture drive that decision when neither should.

But it should never be rushed. Everything should be explained and be well-understood.

[LisaL]

86. He was declared brain dead in April.

So what do you consider "not rushing?"

[Ilsa]

89. I wasn't speaking to this case specifically. I was speaking in general terms. nt

[LisaL]

92. Relatives of brain dead patients might be given a few days for final goodbyes.

Israel has been brain dead since April.

[Ilsa]

97. Actually, sometimes it can go on for a couple of weeks.

My family has been there, done that. It can vary between facilities, but sometimes they allow the body to start showing more signs of brain injury if it is completely hopeless and it is known there will be eventual, "brain death" in the strictist terms, with no chance for contradictory EEG.

Personally, as an outsider, I don't think it is possible to have all of the detailed information. Even the article contradicts the statement that he was declared brain dead in April, but was by May, and then later EEGs in Guatemala reflected minimal brain activity.

My point is that declaring brain death is more of a process, based on everything I've seen as a nurse and family member of someone taken off life support.

[LisaL]

98. He was declared brain dead in US hospital.

Physicians from two different hospitals declared him brain dead. Hospital was going to remove life support. Parents took him to Guatemala in order to prevent life support removal, where they claim EEGs showed activity. Then they brought him back to US.
"In his case, three separate physicians – one from UC Davis Medical Center and two from Kaiser Roseville – declared young Israel Stinson clinically brain dead. But his parents, Vacaville residents Jonee Fonseca and Nathaniel Stinson, believe he can partially recover. Backed by pro bono attorneys and an out-of-state physician, they sued the hospital, saying they don’t believe their son is dead until his heart stops beating."

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/health-and-medicine/article80225292.html#storylink=cpy

http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/health-and-medicine/article80225292.html

[Ilsa]

101. Hey, I get that.

But there is always more to the story, including a family in denial. They see an involuntary movement, a foot twitch, the toes curl, decorticate or decerebrate posturing, etc and they think he's getting better. I've observed this in patients and the families' hopeful reactions. Sometimes the problem is staff not explaining the process of how the brain and body dies well enough for them to really grasp it and come to terms with the brain dying and the body dying. Maybe their concept of death isn't as clearly understood as ours is. Maybe they are just too grieved to take it in. That's why I said time was important -- so they can see the body slipping away and see the impact of brain death and come to terms with it on a medical basis, not just as a parent or from a cultural point of view. This is one of the most difficult and emotional positions for doctors, specialists, and nurses to be in.

It's a news report about a family not accepting the loss of their child after numerous things going on that unfairly and falsely gave them hope. It's rarely as simple as a reporter makes it out to be in a newspaper column.

[LisaL]

114. I don't think his family would ever accept it.

Per what they were saying, they don't believe someone is dead if the heart is beating. Because of the ventilator, the heart could go on beating for many years. So you could never give the family enough time to accept that brain dead patient will never recover.

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

117. Yes they would have, but they were not allowed to grieve and accept their loss

It sounds like the hospital was in too big of a rush to remove life support. This would have prevented any family from being able to actually go through the grieving process and accept the diagnosis and make the decision on their own. They were told in May that their son was brain dead and they immediately started pushing for removal of life support. Instead of allowing that family to grieve and accept the situation and let go on their own terms they were backed into a corner and forced to focus on defending their son instead of peacefully saying goodbye and letting him go. What the hospital did (and the court) is quite disgusting and cruel. That family has most likely been permanently traumatized and will probably never be able to fully grieve the loss of their child.

[LisaL]

123. How could they possibly ever accept it, if they don't believe that brain dead person is dead?

They think as long as the heart is beating, the person isn't dead. Well, the heart is only beating because the person is on ventilator.

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

128. No, the hospital started pushing to test and remove life support within 24 hours of transfer

This was NOT after going to another country. The baby had an asthma attack and went to the hospital and was stabilized and then transferred to another local hospital where he had another attack and ended up on a ventilator. The parents were concerned about the care at the second facility and due to their insurance coverage/facilities they had him moved to the 3rd local hospital. Before even 24 hours had passed they began pushing to test to see if he was brain dead while telling the parents they would likely turn off the ventilator.

There have been cases where patients have tested to be brain dead who woke up just before their organs were harvested, or just woke up out of the blue. While I don't think keeping anyone alive indefinitely is the best thing, I also consider trying to disconnect life support without even trying to give them some time to recover is beneath contempt, disgusting and unethical. Doctors make mistakes. Test results can be wrong. A hospital having the power do this is exactly what those who oppose universal healthcare mean by "death panels." I just don't understand where you are coming from on this issue. Your responses to people are coming off as so cold and uncaring. I just don't get it.

[Blandocyte]

144. There might have been a facility willing to take the baby and keep him on machines

and there might have been people who would have been willing to help the parents pay for the services as long as the family wanted the services. I wonder if a network of providers and donors will rise to these occasions in the future.

[LisaL]

169. And brain dead patients will still remain brain dead.

[Joe Chi Minh]

166. That was utterly, utterly scandalous. Diabolical.

[yeoman6987]

99. Very good points.

[whathehell]

105. Kinder, schminder -- Who should have the right to "remove the decision" from the family?

and on what grounds? Who has the right to decide that the family's culture or religion "really shouldn't" impact their decision? Who would have "better" criteria and why would it be better? The real reason the hospital pulled the plug is likely money.

What you seem to be suggesting is taking away people's rights and that sets a dangerous precedent.

[Ilsa]

112. At some point the parents have to understand that the patient isn't

Going to wake up, get better. Instead, the body begins showing the signs of brain injury with decerebrate posturing, and will begin deteriorating. The parents see movement, and mistake it for brain activity because they don't understand, and cannot accept the tragedy. These parents were living with false hope, a delusion. And already in at least one state, the facility can go to court to remove life support.

I'm all for giving the family plenty of time and lots of counseling about what is happening. And if they can find a place to take the patient, that's great. But at some point, anywhere they go, the facility will be talking to them about the hopelessness of the situation and someone will have to agree to stop treating what essentially is a corpse. If the parents can't do it, I suspect some states require the hospital to take it to a judge. Should the hospital keep the patient on life support for a year? Two years? Several decades? Where is the line going to be drawn on hopeless cases where there is no brain activity? I'd rather accept the opinion of professionals trained in this specialty. And given the limited resources in many places, they don't have the luxury of maintaining a body on life support.

What would you have the hospital do if the ICU is full, and another child needs to be in ICU, but can't be treated? What do you tell those parents when the best hope for their child is usurped by a body on a ventilator? The hospital and professionals have to fight for those kids, too.

Why did they bring the child back to the US where it was known the doctors would likely declare him brain dead again?

Not everyone wants to make that life/death decision about a beloved family member. You have misunderstood part of my post: Some of those people may believe it is a mortal sin to consent to removing life support. I know people who believe this. They don't want to make that decision, even though it's obviously the right one.

My family has had to deal with this, BTW, regarding a mom in her 40's, my SIL.

[whathehell]

137. "Not everyone wants to make that life/death decision about a family member"

Maybe not, but this family clearly did, which is why they are suing. If the hospital wanted to override the parents' decision, they should have taken it to court. They did not, imo, treat this family with respect.

My family, btw, has also had to deal with this decision.

[TipTok]

147. Maybe someone else needed that equipment and all the man hours put into caring...

... for a dead child who happened be be breathing because he was hooked up to a machine.

It can't just go on forever.

[whathehell]

172. The question was who had the legal right

not how many reasons could be listed.

[TipTok]

174. That questions seems to have been settled...

[whathehell]

176. Not with a lawsuit pending...

[lindysalsagal]

158. Exactly. Hospitals have committees and procedures so the parents don't have to decide.

It is the compassionate thing to do, when parents are unable.

[Warpy]

91. Medical resources aren't limitless, not even at big city hospitals

How would you feel if your kid was waiting for a pediatric ventilator bed with something survivable but couldn't get one because some parents weren't able to admit their child was already dead?

I've seen false hope last for months and years, especially with parents. It's heartbreaking. It shouldn't be the basis for medical decisions, though.

Remember the Schiavo case?

This little kid was already dead. Letting him go was the kindest thing to do.

[Unit 001]

93. Perhaps the medical equipment and resources used to keep the baby "alive"

are needed for patients with a chance of recovery.

[tymorial]

106. do you have any idea what is involved with keeping someone on life support?

They are constantly monitored, require physical therapy, must be turned frequently to prevent bed sores etc etc etc. If the parents can afford to pay for these services out of pocket then sure, I'm all for letting them decide. No insurance company is going to cover the cost of indefinite life-support for a patient who has zero chance of recovery. The hospital cannot be expected to absorb the administrative and healthcare costs for a brain dead patient. Resource management of healthcare costs is a huge issue in this country and while you probably think I'm cruel and heartless these issues are important to consider. Even if we fell under a single payer system, there no way a patient like this would be permitted to stay on life support indefinitely.

[mostlyalurker]

118. No the parents should not decide period.

The costs alone of this kind of life support are staggering. And the body will begin to rot on the ventilator as the autonomic functions that keep homeostasis going become deranged. If the family wants to do this, they need to take him home, rent or buy the equipment and medications needed to keep him going and provide the care themselves or hire people to do it. I have worked ICU for years and when there is no hope, there is no hope. Sometimes bad things happen. There are many things worse than death.

[dflprincess]

119. There comes a point when all hope is gone that it makes more sense to let nature take it's course

how ever sad and difficult that course is.

[Lunabell]

135. Who's footing the bill?

I'm sorry but if a panel of doctors decide this child will never live without mechanical support, that is no life at all. As a taxpayer, I don't want to be left holding the multi million dollar bill because parents are unable to accept the inevitable. I know they are grieving, but reality must take over at some point and if they can't face it, we can. It is not and should not be up to the parents.

[obamanut2012]

141. Two words: Jahi McMath

So no, you are wrong.

[Historic NY]

178. We haven't heard anything about her now.

[snooper2]

146. and who pays for it? Just keep a brain dead human on life support for decades?

[titaniumsalute]

180. Yes because parents are always correct right?

Parents should be able to discipline a child by beating them correct? Or maybe they need some serious verbal abuse to "make the point" right? Sheesh.

[Chemisse]

2. This is a difficult issue.

On the one hand, I feel so sorry for these parents. It must be so hard to let go of their precious child.

On the other hand, should we - as a society - pay huge sums of money to keep brain-dead patients on life support, for years on end because their families cannot face the truth?

It seems like there should be a standardization of criteria for keeping patients alive on life support.

[NWCorona]

4. I'm all for having an SOP in these situations.

[LisaL]

6. SOP is to turn these patients off, because in brain death is legal death in most states.

[Chemisse]

8. ?SOP? Standardization of Practices perhaps? n/t

[NWCorona]

12. standard operation procedures

[Chemisse]

13. Ahh. Thanks.

[yardwork]

57. There is an SOP and it was followed in this case.

[LisaL]

9. A brain dead patient isn't alive.

He is already legally dead in the US (with an exception of New Jersey).

[Chemisse]

11. That's interesting to know.

But how does that affect what happens in medical practice? Are people generally allowed to die fairly promptly once brain death has been established? What about the family's wishes? This child has been kept alive since April!

[LisaL]

20. He hasn't been kept alive. His organs were kept alive.

He is legally dead once he is brain dead.
Standard SOP is removal of organ support once patient is declared brain dead. Parents didn't want that done, so they took him out of the country. But then they brought him back.

[Joe Chi Minh]

161. 'Legally dead ?' Is that your legal criterion ? You are confused.

[tammywammy]

162. Brain dead = legally dead

[Joe Chi Minh]

164. That's called, 'begging the question'.

[skepticscott]

71. So that explains

Chris Christie?

[OnDoutside]

78. That accounts for Chris Christie then...

[ChairmanAgnostic]

116. NJ's governor is the sole exception.

[EL34x4]

16. It isn't just the cost of treatment.

Resources being used to care for this child are unavailable to other patients who might benefit from them.

[LisaL]

21. And costs are astronomical because due to brain being dead, it takes a lot of effort to keep the

organs alive. Team of people needs to care for the body, make sure organs don't shut down, etc. Considering these patients could never recover, what would be the purpose?

[BigDemVoter]

61. I work in healthcare, and there is a SOP for situations like this.

[Hestia]

75. Nope, we shouldn't. There are an estimated 10,000 people living on life-support because once

someone is put respirator, they rarely come off, which is usually when funding has dried up.

PBS has a fantastic documentary about this very thing - it's part of their dying series.

[William Seger]

7. It was the right thing to do for many reasons (n/t)

[NWCorona]

14. I agree but it seems like there was poor communications with the parents

[LisaL]

18. He was declared brain dead in April.

Parents took him out of the country to prevent removal of organ support, then brought them back.
Why would they expect he be kept on organ support if he is legally dead?

[left-of-center2012]

27. "... poor communications with the parents"

No. The parents just did not want to accept that their child was dead,
and only 'mechanical means' kept his organs surviving.

And it didn't happen all of a sudden. It's been through the courts, through various doctors, etc for months.

There was no "poor communications".
It's called 'denial', on the part of the parents.

And now, of course, they'll sue -- because they're still in denial.

[LisaL]

33. Exactly. It wasn't sudden. Child was diagnosed as brain dead in April.

Hospitals wanted to turn off life support back then, as is SOP. Parents had to take him out of the country but then they brought him back.
They had to have realized that the hospital would turn off life support, as is SOP for brain dead patients.

[Igel]

35. Consider the alternatives.

You know the hospital did.

You tell the parents, once again, that their child is dead and life support will be discontinued. That this will free up money, staff, and equipment to help living children. What happens?

Perhaps they'll say, "Okay." But they've had 4-5 months of not saying okay and went to fairly extreme measures to make sure that their child's body was still functioning. You discount this as a likely course of event. You've trie d it, probably several times, before forcing them through the full course of due process.

Perhaps they'll try to get an injunction, appeal, etc. Go the legal route. Tying up yet more money, and continuing the same drain on staff and equipment availability. Other children might die or other families put under undue economic hardship as they scurry to find some way to keep their living kids' bodies functioning.

Perhaps they'll show up kicking and screaming, disrupting things and making it harder for the professionals to be professional and meet professional obligations.

Perhaps they'll go to the media and create a shitstorm for the hospital because the hospital isn't seeking their private good but something more akin to the common good and institutional good. After all, the odds are that this kid's care isn't coming from their purse but from the collective purse--institutional, investor, or government. (But hey, for them it's free. Privatize the good and socialize the cost. Isn't that what we say about people we *don't* like?)

That media shitstorm can produce all kinds of bad consequences for the hospital, which usually means "for the living patients."

What are good alternatives here? Alternatives that allow for the probability that the parents are not socially alruistic and hospital administrators are not automatically to be considered bloodsucking parasites, that is. (Let's avoid the stereotypes.)

[cleanhippie]

56. No, there wasn't. The parents simply could accept reality for what it was.

[yardwork]

59. There was extensive communication, over months, with the parents.

They didn't want to accept what was said. They are not reliable narrators of what happened and now the situation is being used by right wing political operatives with an agenda. I'm sorry for the parents' loss, and especially sorry about how they are being used, in their grief.

[skepticscott]

72. As other posters have noted

The child was declared brain dead 4 months ago. Of course the situation had been explained to the parents, long before this, probably multiple times.

[awoke_in_2003]

100. There was good communication

The parents just refused to accept reality.

[hotrod0808]

15. From my personal experience

I had a terminally ill child. Granted, her circumstance was not as immediate as this child's was. However, from the day that she was diagnosed, the only advice that we received from the medical staff (every fucking member of them) was "take her home and love her." They had no interest in extending her life, nor in seeing her often. It wasn't until we transported her to a hospital in Columbus that we were advised on how to properly care for her. I only state this because I have experienced a hard-nosed medical staff firsthand, and I feel that they do what they want against parental wishes often.

[PatSeg]

22. That is an awfully cold response

to someone who is sharing their own personal story about their terminally ill child.

[Joe Chi Minh]

28. An awful lot of them have turned out to not be dead.Science does not

have the first clue about the nature of life, but what has been established is that our minds are not coterminous with our brains, which appear to be a kind of receiver, like a TV set. Moreover, some individuals possessing less than half of their brain, function almost perfectly normally, nor are they retarded.

[LisaL]

30. Israel didn't have half of his brain function.

He had no brain function. Brain death is irreversible condition. Therefore claim that "an awful lot of them have turned out not be dead" is bunk.

[Joe Chi Minh]

54. Rubbish ! The medical progfession have only taken a stab at defining the point of death.

They don't claim it to be the last word on the subject.

There is zero difference in the constitution of the body's cells between a live person and a dead body. If, as many on here do, you doubt the existence and role of the supernatural, read this brilliant piece by an American called William J Murray, on how we resort to the supernatural all the time :

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/experience-rational-debate-science-depend-on-the-supernatural/.

[LisaL]

58. Well, all the doctors did is to turn off the ventilator.

If he wasn't brain dead, there would be nothing to prevent him from breathing on his own. And the doctors would have been proven wrong. But that's not what happened. Once the ventilator was turned off, his heart stopped beating. Because the ventilator was the only thing keeping his organs alive.

[Joe Chi Minh]

159. 'Because the ventilator was the only thing keeping his organs alive.' Therefore,

he was alive.

[LisaL]

170. His organs were alive, not him.

You can remove a heart and circulate solutions through it. It will beat if you use the right solutions. It doesn't mean that whoever had this heart is still alive.

[mrs_p]

95. I'm not sure what you mean by no difference

in the constitution of the body's cells in life and death. My specialty training is in pathology, and I do see microscopic differences between fresh biopsies from live tissues and dead tissues and I know of molecular differences as well. I can't speak to anything spiritual, but physically there is a definite difference.

[Joe Chi Minh]

153. You should inform the scientists who post to Uncommondescent. I suspect

you are not talking about more or less IMMEDIATELY after death, but, at best, a short time thereafter. That would be what I meant in reference to 'difference'.

[msanthrope]

68. Delete this response. nt

[PatSeg]

23. Thank you for sharing your own experience

That must have been very difficult. Sometimes, the lack of empathy or compassion in our complex medical establishments can be devastating. Fortunately there are a few who go above and beyond. It doesn't always compensate for the cold and clinical atmosphere, but it does help.

I am so sorry for the pain you had to endure.

[hotrod0808]

26. Thank you.

It was difficult. As I stated and some posters chose to ignore, Sofia wasn't in the same condition that this child was. I merely wanted to highlight how forceful and overbearing a hospital staff can be without showing any mercy or empathy. Thank you for understanding.

[PatSeg]

31. You are so welcome

I have witnessed and experienced the effects of insensitive staff. I would have hoped not to witness it here.

[still_one]

48. Nothing is worse than what you went through, and I extend my sympathies to you and your

family what you went through

[msanthrope]

67. I am sorry for your loss and your experience. nt

[renate]

152. I'm so sorry that you had to endure the loss of your child, especially without proper support

It's bad enough to feel unmoored and unsupported during regular life, but to feel that way when you're dealing with a soul-altering loss like yours... it must have been beyond terrible. I'm truly sorry for your loss and for what you had to go through.

[hotrod0808]

175. Thank you all for your support

This poor family endured the worst heartache imaginable, and I was fortunate to finally find an advocate for my little girl. It upsets me that they could not, and were forced to say goodbye to their child before they were ready. The hope is that hospitals will employ some kind of an advocate to counsel these families. The social worker were Sofia was did the best that she could, but the alternative was various clergy that would stop by and ask us inane questions like, "which of your family will welcome her to heaven when she passes?" Or, my favorite, the nun who asked my fiancee, "are you afraid to love her because she will be gone soon?" There should have been someone who asked, "how can we help your family get to a place that can truly help since we aren't prepared for your kind of problem here?" This family needed some understanding from the staff, since the child had no brain activity and they did not want to say goodbye yet, not a court order that took their child as though he were just shot or run over by a bus.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

24. The poor child was brain dead.

It's also why I don't consider fetuses to be human until they show regular brain waves at about week 25.

The main difference is potential. This child wasn't going to develop a new brain.

[Elmergantry]

25. BLM

even little ones.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

29. Terri Schiavo was white.

She was removed from life support too.

[LisaL]

32. Schiavo wasn't even actually brain dead.

She still had lower brain function. She didn't need a ventilator. Her life support was her feeding tube.

[TexasBushwhacker]

79. And her husband was her next of kin

He said she wouldn't want to exist like that and asked that her feeding tube be removed. Then her parents, who were no longer her legal next of kin, went to the courts and found a sympathetic judge. But eventually the husband prevailed. She was cremated and her gravestone has the date of her birth, her death and her date of "rest", 15 years later. And a note from her husband. "I kept my promise."

[Joe Chi Minh]

155. Everyone makes mistakes, and many spouses make bad choices.

The divorce rate alone in the US tells its story. No spouse or hospital functionary should have the power of life or death, against the wishes of just one nuclear family member, who has proved a loving, caring relative.

[TexasBushwhacker]

168. He never divorced her

He was legally her next of kin, not her parents. He even sought special treatment for her out of state.

[Joe Chi Minh]

156. You can see from the photo of her with that ecstatic expression and gesture that

she had greater emotional intelligence in her little finger than a lot of people not a million miles from this board have in their heart or head.

That hospital ward was made into a little Belsen for her. When people lose sight of God, so too is the individual person lost from sight or consideration.

[tammywammy]

160. "When people lose sight of God"

[Joe Chi Minh]

163. Do you beleive that the most sophisticated computer-software

in existence, anywhere in the world, just came together by chance ? Imagine a coded software, not binary but quaternary, almost unimaginably more complex, subtle and scientifically-sophisticated, and there you have a strand of DNA in a cell.

Did that all come together by chance ? Or was it actually designed, nay, created by a mind of humanly-inconceivable greatness. We tend to call that, 'God'.

[Lil Missy]

151. which has absolutely nothing to do with this case .....

[Shrike47]

34. I suspect the staff rushed to disconnect because they knew how the parents would respond.

The medical staff is made up of human, frequently nurturing humans. They have listened to the parents for months. The parents have essentially accused them of being murderers. This is a miserable, awful situation for everybody.

[LisaL]

36. He wasn't in that particular hospital for months.

He was diagnosed as brain dead in April. Parents took him out of the country to prevent his organ support from being disconnected. Then they brought him back to the state he was considered to be legally dead.
Patients declared legally dead aren't being kept on life support in California.
So any patient would have been disconnected. But the hospital that disconnected organ support isn't the original hospital.

[whathehell]

138. Quite possible...Unfortunately for them, it's not a legitimate reason for doing it.

It will be decided in court.

[LisaL]

171. It already was decided in court. Hospital removed life support after going to court and getting

permission from the judge.

[whathehell]

173. It looks like that decision is being appealed..

[left-of-center2012]

37. The Terri Schiavo case

The Terri Schiavo case in Florida, 2005, where the husband wanted his brain dead wife removed from life support and her family sued to keep her on it.

Courts ruled in his favor, and an autopsy showed the brain weighed only half the weight expected for a female of her age ... 70% of cortical cells – critical to the functioning of the cortex – were completely lost.
The damage was "irreversible, and no amount of therapy or treatment would have regenerated the massive loss of neurons."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo_case

[LisaL]

38. Schiavo was not brain dead. She was in persistent vegetative state.

Her brain was damaged but not dead.

[left-of-center2012]

41. Read the autopsy

"autopsy showed the brain weighed only half the weight expected for a female of her age ...
70% of cortical cells – critical to the functioning of the cortex – were completely lost.

The damage was "irreversible, and no amount of therapy or treatment would have regenerated the massive loss of neurons."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo_case

[tammywammy]

43. Her brain was damaged, but her brain stem was still functioning

Leaving her in a persistent vegetative state. The autopsy showed the damage to her brain was irreversible. Schiavo was not brain dead.

[LisaL]

46. Yep, she was in PVS, not brain dead.

Her brain was severely damaged and was never going to become a normal brain, but it wasn't dead.

[LisaL]

44. She had a brain that weighted half of expected-but she still had a brain.

Therefore she was brain damaged, not brain dead.

[rocktivity]

47. There was fluid where her brain was supposed to be.

Her brain stem may have capable of persistently sending signals to her brain (with the help of life support), but with a non-existent brain unable to respond, she was not alive.


rocktivity

[LisaL]

49. Her life support was her feeding tube.

Her feeding tube wasn't sending any signals to her brain. She didn't need a ventilator and was not on a ventilator. Which is why it took so long before she died after feeding tube was removed.

[rocktivity]

40. Way to blow your case, counselor!

...(D)octors at UC Davis in Sacramento and Kaiser Permanente in Roseville had declared Israel was brain dead...(A) federal judge rejected the family’s lawsuit to keep their son on a ventilator. Fonseca and Stinson then took their son to Guatemala, where doctors conducted tests that showed Israel had brain activity, according to CBS. After the tests came back, Snyder told CBS that Children’s Hospital Los Angeles agreed to take Israel as a patient. He was checked into the hospital on Aug. 8, according to the Los Angeles Times. But soon after he was admitted, the hospital said Israel was brain dead and needed to be taken off life support.

“I’m just baffled as to why the hospital would have agreed to take him for the sole reason of putting him to death,” Snyder said. “They knew his condition when he came to the hospital.”

Well, I'm baffled, too: If Israel was "improving" in Guatemala, why didn't his parents keep him there? And isn't it possible that either Children's Hospital concluded that the Guatemalan hospital had concluded incorrectly, or Israel lost what remained of his brain activity while in transit? For Ms. Synder to even suggest otherwise is outright defamatory. And if she is effectively admitting Israel really WAS brain dead all along and his parents are guilty of chronic denial, what is the basis of their case?


rocktivity

[left-of-center2012]

42. Hmm - Is it possible?

Doctors in Guatemala are better than doctors at UC Davis and Kaiser Permanente ?

I doubt it.

[Stryst]

66. There is a zero percent chance that he was getting better in Guatemala

If the Guatamalan's have a brain regenerating and reactivating technology, they've managed to keep it secret from the rest of us in the medical community.

[cloudbase]

45. Kind of like the McMath situation in the denial of the obvious. n/t

[mnhtnbb]

50. Very sad situation when parents are unable to face the reality of brain death.

I was an assistant administrator at CHLA for 10 years during the 70's and 80's; there are still people I know there who are in major leadership
positions who would have been involved in this decision--both medical and nursing--and I would definitely trust their judgment. Believe me, you are not getting the full story here.

[arithia]

51. I find it suspicious and sad

that the only hospital offering the hope of brain activity came from out of the country. Three US specialists all determined brain death. The family went against recommendations and spent their time and energy and money to search for an answer they preferred over their baby being dead.

Those quacks hooked this poor dead kid up to equipment for 3 months and handed the family 2 EEGs that supposedly proved the baby was still alive. EEG results are *NOT* the primary means of diagnosis for brain death. They aren't even the secondary or tertiary from what I understand, for that matter. It's no surprise at all that they get back to the US and the experts there said "yeah ..... no. Sorry. That baby is dead."

This poor family was sold an expensive, heartbreaking lie. Sadder still, they bought it up eagerly instead of just grieving and letting go.

[jalan48]

52. What is their purpose in filing a lawsuit?

[cstanleytech]

63. The purpose was to keep the life support in place even though there was zero chance of a recovery

atleast with todays medical knowledge because they didnt want to let go and I can understand that feeling completely.
Might be a different story 100+ years from now but currently when it come to issues like this involving the brain there isnt any treatment to regrow the brain and even if they could do that there isnt anyway to restore the memories to the regrown brain since those are lost forever once the areas in original brain where such things are stored is dead.

[jalan48]

90. Thanks.

I was unsure whether or not the family was planning to sue the hospital.

[cab67]

53. One of many reasons I never became a physician.

I don't think I could face parents and deliver the news of a child's brain-dead status or terminal diagnosis. It's just not in me.

[Agnosticsherbet]

60. The sensationalist title is deceptive, written to pluck heartstrings.

It is the sixth paragraph before we get the critical information that we as readers need to understand the story.

"This tragic battle started in April, when Israel suffered a brain injury following an asthma-related cardiac arrest at UC Davis Medical Center, the Sacramento Bee reported. While doctors were able to restart his heart, he reportedly went about an hour without oxygen and doctors determined he was brain dead, according to Los Angeles Times reported."

Most people do not read entire stories. They stop well before they reach information that is critical to understand the story.

Time.com wrote this deceptive piece of crap.

[Cryptoad]

62. sad

but no good ending to this story,,,,,,,,,

[Agnosticsherbet]

65. Time chose to write a deceptive story rather than inform.

That is sad.

The child's tragic death occured in April. Sadly, his parents could not deal with it.

[WinkyDink]

64. THIS--“I was on the phone with his mother when the doctors disconnected him"--IS THE AWFUL PART. No

action as permanent as the one taken ought to have been done without giving the mother the chance to hold her child's hand whilst the "unplugging" occurred.

I DO NOT CARE HOW MUCH WENT ON IN COURTS AND OFFICES AND HOSPITAL HALLWAYS PRIOR TO THIS MOMENT.

I DO NOT CARE WHAT OTHERS SAY OF "DENIAL" OR EVEN LUNACY.

THAT HOSPITAL STAFF COULD HAVE DONE THE RIGHT THING FOR A MOTHER ABOUT TO BE FACED WITH NEVER EVER SEEING HER CHILD ON THIS PLANET AGAIN.

Full disclosure: I have a hundred stories of my mistreatment, my ill husband's mistreatment unto his death, and my mother's mistreatment unto hers.

Hell ought to be a place where some employees beg for help to use the bathroom, and no-one ever arrives.

[Indydem]

69. "Ma'am, it is time. We must disconnect your child from life support."

"No! I'm calling my lawyer!"

She had the option, after all this time, to grieve and be with her child as he died. She chose to cling to a fantasy instead.

[LeftyMom]

87. Depending on the equipment involved it's a long process, and nurses suggest stepping out

of the room for parts that people often find upsetting, particularly removing ventilator tubing.

If you're getting a thirdhand impression that somebody threw a switch, the already dead kid officially died and the mom wasn't there because the staff are unfeeling jerks, it's a safe bet that about three layers of bullshit stand between you and the truth of the situation.

[tymorial]

109. this entire thread is filled with so much supposition, opinion and straight out lies

THANK YOU for inserting some valuable truth and information. The fact that some people on here seem to have this notion that its just no big deal to keep someone on life support indefinitely is staggering. Apparently it is as simple as making coffee with a kcup.

[LeftyMom]

110. My mom spent two weeks on a ventilator in April, so this process is fresh in my mind.

I get the impression that a lot of people opining on it, whether in the RW press or on DU, only "know" how it works from TV medical dramas.

[Sand Rat Expat]

94. She could have held her son's hand as the machines were disconnected.

Instead, she chose to call her lawyer, as if her lawyer had the power in that moment to stop what was happening. She made a choice to do that rather than be with her child as his heart stopped beating. She made that choice after months of litigation in which it became painfully clear that the disconnection was going to occur. Let's not pretend that the hospital did anything underhanded or sneaky here. They didn't wait til the child's parents were away from his bedside to do this.

I'm very sorry for their loss, and very sorry this child is dead. It is a tragic ending for a young life, but the world is, sadly, full of such tragedies every single day. But it is in no way the hospital's or the staff's fault that at the critical moment this woman chose to phone her lawyer instead of being with her child. That choice was hers and hers alone, and to blame anyone else for it is ridiculous.

[perdita9]

70. I wouldn't want to be kept alive by machines

I'm sorry for this family's pain, but I've heard a lot of stories over the years from my friends in nursing about people being kept alive when there's no possibility of recovery.

[obamanut2012]

142. The child was already dead, and this couldn't even be kept alive

But yes, I agree.

[Boomer]

73. This is beyond my understanding

Not the actions of the hospital, but the actions of the parents. It's a horrible case of child abuse. They were so caught up in this fantasy of some Hollywood-movie miracle recovery that they dragged their poor child's body through Hell.

[SunSeeker]

74. Reminds me of the situation with Jahi McMath brain death.

Last edited Sun Aug 28, 2016, 06:40 PM - Edit history (1)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jahi_McMath_case

Jahi's parents similarly couldn't accept reality. Wonder what macabre set up they have trying to keep Jahi's body "alive." Haven't heard much about it since her parents took her body to an "undisclosed location."

[LisaL]

76. She is in New Jersey.

New Jersey considers wishes of the relatives in case of brain dead patients. Other states consider these patients legally dead.

[LeftyMom]

88. She's dead. She's been dead for years. Her body is in New Jersey.

[Starry Messenger]

104. She was transported there from CA.

She legally died at Children's Hospital in Oakland. Just a point of information.

[LisaL]

111. I know that. I was responding to a poster who didn't know where she was at now.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

103. Yeah

A lot of people forget her body is being housed for no good reason at all other than her parent's refusal to let go.

[SunSeeker]

115. Well, apparently there is one good reason: money.

Apparently if they can prove she is "alive," they will get more money in their malpractice suit against her doctors.

If the court rules Jahi is alive, the family could sue her surgeon and hospital for millions of dollars, however if the court rules she is dead, they would be limited to a wrongful-death lawsuit capped at $250,000.

http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-news/ci_30124280/jahi-mcmath-family-clears-another-legal-hurdle-civil

[LisaL]

122. It would be a very tall order to prove that she is alive.

[Hekate]

81. Asthma killed him, poor little guy. May his family find peace.

The hospital did the right thing in letting him go -- he was already dead.

[Hekate]

82. Second thoughts: if they had the money to go to Guatemala, why was his asthma untreated here?

I say untreated because he should have been closely monitered by a pediatrician and allergy specialist, his parents should have been thoroughly educated in how to monitor his health and do home treatments, and they should have known to take him to the ER before it got so critical the poor little guy had a heart attack and died.

Like the Jahi story, there is more here than meets the eye. The hospital and the doctors did not "kill" either one of those children.

[LisaL]

85. I am pretty sure the money to go to Gutemala were collected after he was declared brain dead.

[Duval]

83. I know the law.

However, I think the doctors should have been considerate enough to talk to the family before pulling the plug. Plain ole "bedside manner" is
sinking.

[Chemisse]

96. I suspect they had used up all their 'bedside manner' moments with this couple.

And just wanted to get it done the moment they could, and without a big scene, media involvement, etc.

[whathehell]

108. I suspect that if the parents had money, they would have been shown more respect & consideration

I would, in fact, bet on it.

[Joe Chi Minh]

167. The very recommendation I was about to make.

[tymorial]

107. The family was well aware of both the recommendations and the procedure

They were notified in April and took the child to receive a second opinion before bringing her back. There is far more to this story than what the OP chose to post.

[Adsos Letter]

113. Link to a story on this from the Washington Post back in May of this year.

The story adds some further details, and scrolling through the comments section provides further insights into what has been going on with this case.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2016/05/06/god-is-telling-me-not-to-let-go-a-mother-fights-to-keep-her-2-year-old-on-life-support/

[Bradical79]

120. Were they being scammed by the hospital in Guatemala?

It seems odd they had to go to Guatemala to get someone to say their child wasn't brain dead.

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

121. The boy was only put on life support on April 1st

I wanted to look into this case more. The boy had an asthma attack on April 1st. He went into cardiac arrest and was declared brain dead just 40 minutes later. On April 6th, while on life support his parents were told that his heart and lungs were functioning on their own. On April 12th he was transferred to another hospital and were told again that he was brain dead and that they would be removing life support. Not even TWO WEEKS after being put on life support and less than a week after being told that his heart and lungs were functioning on their own they were told that the plug was being pulled. There also was at least one doctor that believed the boy could recover with proper treatment if someone was willing to treat him. He was responding to voice and touch. It also sounds like the hospital refused to feed him. If you don't provide nutrients how would he be able to heal? I can see why the parents behaved as they did. I probably would behave the same way. You can't expect those parents to disconnect life support just 6 days after being led to believe their baby would survive. You also do not immediately try to unplug life support for a toddler. Give the parents time to grieve and heal for God's sake.

[LisaL]

124. There can not be either recovery or healing for someone who is brain dead.

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

129. Perhaps you should tell that to Hanna Lottritz....

Or Taylor Hale, Martin Pistorius, Steven Thorpe, Zack Dunlap or the countless others who have been declared brain dead who are not only very much alive but also very much awake.

[obamanut2012]

143. None of tehm were brain dead -- brainv dead is dead

They need to just start calling it "dead." Because people like you and the parents in the OP and Jahi McMath's mother don't get it.

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

148. Yes, they were all deemed brain dead

Those are just a few examples I found in just a matter of a few minutes searching. Each and every one of those names I listed were tested and their families were told they were brain dead. And please don't assume to know what kind of person I am. You don't know me. I sat with both of my parents as they died when they were removed from ventilators. I also made the decision to take my own mother off life support and watched her die as a result. I "get it" perfectly since I have actually experienced it. If that hospital had of tried to pull the plug on my mother before our family was allowed the opportunity to decide what was best I know how traumatic and life destroying that would have been for me. Perhaps I'm not the one that doesn't get it. People cannot grieve if they are forced to go into defensive mode. Now, I am not in any way, shape or form opposed to turning off life support when that is the right thing to do. In this case, it was NOT the right thing to do. I spent several hours researching the case and time line of what happened. Did you?

[obamanut2012]

165. No, none of them were

It doesn't matter how many times you say it, or how LONG you take to say it, no true.

Those are the facts.

You are wrong.

You don't wish to get it.

[tammywammy]

127. Dr. Paul Byrne is not a credible source.

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

130. I looked him up and he appears to be licensed

Why do you say he's not credible?

[tammywammy]

131. You should read up more on him

He is not credible in any discussion regarding brain death.

http://www.docbastard.net/2013/12/misinformation.html?m=1

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

133. That is a blog, not anything official.

Do you have links to actual sanctions or malpractice cases against him? I don't operate on opinions, even from professionals. I'm a facts kind of gal.

[tammywammy]

134. I said he's not credible

There are plenty of quacks that aren't sanctioned and licensed to practice medicine.

Try reading his blogs about organ donation and brain death. And there's the whole fact that he's a neonatologist and pediatrician not a neurologist.

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

149. I'm sorry, but I will not discredit a licensed medical professional based on opinions and not facts

A neonatologist specializes in newborn infants, especially premature infants and babies who require intensive care/life support. Based on what I read he is a voice for patient rights of young patients who he and many others believe are not given a fair chance to recover because their organs are a hot commodity.

As for neurologists...I have a child with neurological issues. She had her first seizure at 8 years old. It's 8 years later, many tests, hospital stays, scans, blood work, etc...and all of their high tech tools still can't pick up her seizures even while she has them. They don't have all the answers. This is why it is SO IMPORTANT to err on the side of caution. There have been plenty of people who were deemed to be brain dead by that official test who are alive and well today because an effort was made to help them heal and give them time to recover.

[CreekDog]

157. Sure you'll discredit licensed medical professionals

You accused none in particular of being vampirish organ harvesters and you're questioning brain death, in favor of a quack because you like what he said on his blog.

What's funny is that you somehow think your opinion on this is impressive. It's not.

[woundedkarma]

125. huh what?

I see a lot of comments from people who didn't bother to read the article.

Israel was declared brain dead.

The parents looked for a hospital that would take him in and help them care for him.

A hospital said yes, we'll take him in.

Then the hospital disconnected him and let him die.

As far as I can tell that's the chain of events.

From the article, the parents wanted to bring him home and take care of him at home.

Having seen what this does to people first hand, I don't recommend it. My brother went into cardiac arrest at the age of 20. 20 years later... my mother died taking care of him. My father is now dying of cancer having taken care of him for all that time. They never had money. They never left the house except to buy things like groceries. They gave up their lives in service. Now my sister has given up hers to take care of my brother and my father.

They are the most selfless people I will ever know.

These parents wanted to take home their baby and take care of him and they should have been allowed to do that. Instead, the hospital murdered their son.

Nothing will bring back their son but the hospital was wrong and should never be allowed to do such a thing again.

[LisaL]

126. Did you bother to read the article?

After he was declared brain dead, parents took him out of the country to prevent removal of life support. After several months they brought him back to the US hospital.
If they wanted to care for him at home, then they shouldn't have brought him back to a hospital.
And as far as I can tell, you can't murder someone who is already dead. So the hospital didn't "murder" him.

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

132. You really need to do more research on this case rather than look at that one article

The child had an asthma attack and went to the nearest ER where he was stabilized. That hospital did not have a pediatric care unit so they moved him to another hospital where he had another asthma attack and by the sounds of it, it took way too long for someone to care for him when he stopped breathing and he ended up on a ventilator. Obviously the parents wanted to have him moved to what they believed would be a place that would provide the best possible care to try to help him recover. Then in less than 24 hours at the third US hospital they told the parents they were going to test brain activity and that he would probably be brain dead and removed from life support. Yes, that is right...not even 24 freaking hours! The mother then posted signed letters all over her son's room denying permission for them to perform the tests because she was seeking an injunction from doing them yet. They performed the tests against her permission after being told no. That hospital refused to give that baby any feeding other than sugar water. No nutrients whatsoever. THAT is why she took him out of the country after nearly a month of that hospital denying nutrients/feeding. When in Guatemala they put in feeding tubes and he was beginning to improve. All they wanted to give their baby a chance to recover. There have been many cases where people were deemed brain dead who are alive and well today, some even woke up just before their organs were about to be harvested. If the family does not want to remove life support then a minimum of 3 months of honest effort with FULL care needs to be put forth before even suggesting removal from life support unless the family brings it up first.

[randome]

145. "They performed the tests against her permission"?

Since when do parents decide what tests to administer?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

150. Since they withdrew permission to do the test

The mother posted signed letters all over the room stating she had filed for an injunction and forbid them from testing her minor child's brain function until the court ruled. She also clearly stated that she wanted to bring in another doctor to provide a second opinion and the hospital would not allow them to.

[LeftyMom]

136. He died in April.

That's how people work: everything that makes us who we are is in our brains. Our very vulnerable brains. When the brain doesn't get oxygen for too long and it dies we're not there any more and we don't come back.

I have all the compassion in the world for his parents. I also had a family member die unexpectedly and far too young, also this April as a matter of fact, when problems with another part of their body cut off the oxygen supply to their brain. It was gutting and being in a position where you have to make some kind of affirmative decision to "let" somebody die when their brain is long gone but their heart hasn't got the message is a weird, weird feeling, especially after an illness and hospitalization where every breath and every moment has been focused on keeping your loved one alive. It's a hard decision to face after days or weeks spent on those awful foldout chairbeds, in the anxious monotony of the ICU, watching monitors beep and your loved one's chest rise and fall in time with a ventilator pump. You're exhausted and emotionally drained, and in no position to go get yourself lunch, let alone make the toughest call you'll ever make.

But you know what? Keeping a dead empty husk of a person in some perverse simulation of life isn't love. It's selfishness and it's ghoulish.

They're from my area so I know the hospitals involved in the story well. They took him from the best hospital in the region to a perfectly good suburban hospital and got opinion after opinion. Every doctor who examined him was clear: he was brain dead, he could not breathe or maintain a heart beat without intervention and had no prospect for improvement on any of these facts. He was issued a death certificate. The parents refused to sign the death certificate and fled to a third world country with substandard medical care when the courts would not back up their nonsense. Presumably the hospital in LA took him based on whatever nonsense the Guatemalan hospital thought, and then promptly came to the same conclusion as the doctors at UC Davis and Kaiser Rosevile had, that he's brain dead, has no prospect for improvement, and that further support was futile and contrary to standards of care. They did the only thing they can do in such a circumstance.

[Hekate]

154. +1000

[Odin2005]

139. Heartless? Seriously? The parents are delusional, it's Terri Schiavo all over again.

You are falling for RW bullshit.

[obamanut2012]

140. Good -- we do not need a redux of poor Jahi McMath

Whose rotting corpse is still being vented -- years later -- because of a cowardly judge.