The following comes from a December 17 LifeSiteNews article by Father Mark Hodges:
13-year-old Jahi McMath went into cardiac arrest after a routine tonsillectomy in 2013. Though Jahi lived, her doctors said she was “brain-dead,” and UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital Oakland and Alameda County officials issued a death certificate. Jahi caught the attention of the media when her mother refused to take her off life support.
The Winkfields note that Jahi’s heart is beating on its own, and her organs are not failing, as would be the case if she were brain-dead. They have released several videos showing Jahi moving and reacting to stimuli.
Jahi’s mother, Nailah Winkfield, sued Jahi’s doctor, Dr. Frederick Rosen, for failing to tell her that Jahi’s surgery would be “complex and risky” due to Jahi’s susceptibility to heavy bleeding and for failing to share that risk with nurses taking care of her recovery after surgery.
Now, Jahi’s biological father, Milton McMath, has sued as well.
In October, a judge ruled that Jahi’s family could present evidence to determine if she is alive or dead. If dead, the suit would be for wrongful death, with a maximum of $250,000 for damages.
If Jahi is declared legally alive, the lawsuit could be for many millions of dollars.
I’m glad to see a priest writing about this. I THINK that Jahi is with her Father in Heaven, but I HOPE that she’s still with her family here on Earth.
My prayers go to this innocent child and her family. No amount of money will return their child to them. I dont know the details of their case but I pray for them. God be with them. We pray for a miracle.
Finally—-a very, very good lawsuit. Facing such liability, I am sure that someone might day, “We were wrong. she is still alive,”
Hope that Jahi wakes up !!!
Why can’t people see that the brain “dead” diagnosis is not biological death. Catholic bioethicists who defend it as being an accurate declaration of death use the “body as a whole integrity” theory. They say that if the brain or brain stem ceases to function that the whole body will soon thereafter start to deteriorate “proves” that the person is truly dead. Never mind that “soon thereafter” can take weeks to months to even years to occur if the person is well taken care of.
The question we need to ask ourselves is when does the soul leave the body? If we hold to the “whole body integrity theory” then wouldn’t we also need to say that if one’s kidneys ceased to function this too would “prove” that the person was “truly…
12/19/15 12:15 pm post cont. -The question we need to ask ourselves is when does the soul leave the body? If we hold to the “whole body integrity theory” then wouldnʼt we also need to say that if oneʼs kidneys ceased to function this too would “prove” that the person was “truly dead”? Indeed, a man who looses 100% function of his kidneys will surely die within a couple of weeks without the “life support” of dialysis. Even then his body on the “life support” of dialysis will deteriorate faster than if his kidneys had continued to function properly. Yet we would never say that this unfortunate person is dead until he was 100% biologically dead!
I recommend the following exhaustive academic paper for those CCD readers who are interested in delving deeper into the topic of what constitutes death.
“Death, Brain Death, and the Limits of Science: Why the Whole-BrainConcept of Death is a Flawed Public Policy” by
Mike Collins, Ph.D.The Bioethics ProgramMount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NYDepartment of PhilosophyHunter College, New York, NYDivision of Clinical ResearchNathan Kline Institute for Psychiatric Research, Orangeburg, NY
https://www.academia.edu/202011/Death_brain_death_and_the_limits_of_science
Thank you for the excellent resources. God bless you.