You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Why Jahi McMath's mom is sure her daughter isn't brain dead- WHAS ABC
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
E
Emily2014
Guest
Cannot help wondering what her future quality of life will be.
J
JamalChristophr
Guest
That is inspiring…it remind’s me of Terri, who was worse off, but I think she was not 100% brain dead either…obviously that’s not the correct term…
Witholding food and water is inherently evil and against Catholic teaching.
Science is progressing, and this girl is young, only God has the right to take her life, no one else.
Witholding food and water is inherently evil and against Catholic teaching.
Science is progressing, and this girl is young, only God has the right to take her life, no one else.
T
TarkanAttila
Guest
It’s odd, isn’t it? The so-called “progressives” are less and less willing to preserve the lives of their brethren, even though technology is making it easier and more likely.That is inspiring…it remind’s me of Terri, who was worse off, but I think she was not 100% brain dead either…obviously that’s not the correct term…
Witholding food and water is inherently evil and against Catholic teaching.
Science is progressing, and this girl is young, only God has the right to take her life, no one else.
J
JamalChristophr
Guest
I think it’s because the “progressives” are Social Darwinists for lack of a better term.It’s odd, isn’t it? The so-called “progressives” are less and less willing to preserve the lives of their brethren, even though technology is making it easier and more likely.
E
EmperorNapoleon
Guest
The girl is dead and that is a medical fact. Putting her corpse on “life” support only slows the rate of decomposition.Science is progressing, and this girl is young, only God has the right to take her life, no one else.
J
JamalChristophr
Guest
Medical FACT??? C’mon Napoleon.The girl is dead and that is a medical fact. Putting her corpse on “life” support only slows the rate of decomposition.
So you’re stating that which of the below:
a) the girl did not squeeze the hand of the mother upon questioning.
b) it was some sort of anomalous muscle twitch that was random.
c) you don’t care for the observable empirical data, but it was still a “medical fact”.
Am I missing something??
E
EmperorNapoleon
Guest
Yes, and that was very well established both by the hospital and the independent expert in neurology during the original court case. Of particular note was that her corpse was already showing early signs of decomposition even then. It is only a matter of time before they are externally visible.Medical FACT??? C’mon Napoleon.
J
JamalChristophr
Guest
Must have just been an oversight, but you did not answer my question.
E
EmperorNapoleon
Guest
What are you missing? A lot, but its difficult to explain without using medical jargon. The movements Jahi’s corpse makes is called a “Lazarus reflex” and they are involuntary. These are not uncommon in dead bodies and are caused by random or even externally triggered spinal motor and sensory neuron activity. You could even do a patellar reflex test on a brain-dead corpse and see the same result as you would in a living person. Why? Because the neurons which control your motor reflexes are located in your spinal column, not your brain.Must have just been an oversight, but you did not answer my question.
J
JamalChristophr
Guest
And how do you know I am not dead and just a bunch of randomly firing neurons? I could be, you know, it fits your theory.
Sorry, but if you’r trying to convince me, you’re going to have to do better than that. I’m not read really on this whole situation, but are you now saying that you know better than the doctors that have since judged her to be severely brain injured? Or are you saying that severely brain injured people are dead or as good as dead? Again, I’m asking.
Sorry, but if you’r trying to convince me, you’re going to have to do better than that. I’m not read really on this whole situation, but are you now saying that you know better than the doctors that have since judged her to be severely brain injured? Or are you saying that severely brain injured people are dead or as good as dead? Again, I’m asking.
E
EmperorNapoleon
Guest
It doesn’t fit my “theory” for obvious reasons.And how do you know I am not dead and just a bunch of randomly firing neurons? I could be, you know, it fits your theory.
That is what an attorney has stated but I have not seen anything from any respected neuroscientist declaring her to be brain-injured rather than brain dead. Since you’re not familiar with the case then I suggest reading the assessment of the hospital and the independent neuroscience expert from earlier this year first.Sorry, but if you’r trying to convince me, you’re going to have to do better than that. I’m not read really on this whole situation, but are you now saying that you know better than the doctors that have since judged her to be severely brain injured?
J
JamalChristophr
Guest
I concede that you might be correct. I will (would) have to look more into the case, and I’d like to see some images of the brain scans that were done on her to come to the conclusions that were reached.
And what about you yourself, have you looked further into this assertion?
And what about you yourself, have you looked further into this assertion?
” After inspecting her latest medical records, two respected neurologists testified in sworn declarations that she is not brain dead.
N
NeedsMercy
Guest
It’s B. Here’s an except from a report by a certified registered nurse anesthetist who watched the short videos of the event provided by the family’s law firm:Medical FACT??? C’mon Napoleon.
So you’re stating that which of the below:
a) the girl did not squeeze the hand of the mother upon questioning.
b) it was some sort of anomalous muscle twitch that was random.
c) you don’t care for the observable empirical data, but it was still a “medical fact”.
Am I missing something??
Everyone wishes that this tragedy did not happen to this young girl, but spasmodic muscle movements are insufficient to say that Jahi is truly alive. She’s not.The two video snips provided by the Dolan Law Firm, IMO, are not comprehensive enough to demonstrate anything except that Jahi’s body has random spasmodic movements of a hand and foot. We have no context, and nothing to compare these video snips with—for all we know, her body may make random spasmodic movements all day long, and the video with mother coaching is simply “timed” to the spasmodic movements. Nailah Winkfield herself said that hours and hours may go by with no movements, then between 1 and 3 am there is more activity. Nailah Winkfield interprets this as Jahi being “more awake”—however, the time of day could simply be a rhythmic response. We have no idea how many times Nailah Winkfield has encouraged Jahi to move, and Jahi has not responded. There simply is not enough information in those brief video snips to make any determinations beyond spasmodic movments of the extremities, which is well known in both brain damaged, spinal cord damaged, and brain dead individuals. Like the Lazarus sign (google it), it is impressive to watch in isolation, without proper context or interpretation, which, IMO, is why they used these snips. One snip is from May 20 of this year—were there no more recent video opportunities?
sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/search/label/Jahi%20McMath
N
NeedsMercy
Guest
The two doctors, Dr. Machado and Phillip Defina, espouse ideas about total brainstem functioning that are pretty far afield from today’s medical and scientific beliefs. (See previous link)I concede that you might be correct. I will (would) have to look more into the case, and I’d like to see some images of the brain scans that were done on her to come to the conclusions that were reached.
And what about you yourself, have you looked further into this assertion?
C
cjforJesus
Guest
The video released showing Jahi moving her hand twice is oddly compelling supporting she is not truly dead. If you look closely at the end of the video she drops what is in her hand but then she actually lifts her hand from the side of the bed and her fingers move.This is most interesting as spinal reflexes are characterized by mechanical movements such as the laazarus sign which is an odd movement seen when people are removed from vents.It consists of lifting the arms slightly bending the elbows and crossing the hands over the chest.Oddly this same movement has been recognized in developing fetuses via cameras. The most common movement is twitching of the fingers which Jahi is obviously not doing. Also of finterest is a scan done at Reutgers showing she does have some blood flow to her brain.The two doctors, Dr. Machado and Phillip Defina, espouse ideas about total brainstem functioning that are pretty far afield from today’s medical and scientific beliefs. (See previous link)
Sad to say our brain death laws are over 30 years old and have not kept up with medical advances.
C
cjforJesus
Guest
So what you are saying is a person can be dead and decomposing yet still heal from 3 complex surgeries without having any nutrition or antibiotics? A far as Dr Floris report goes she also attributed jahis increase in movements to better muscle tone! Really dead people can get fit?Yes, and that was very well established both by the hospital and the independent expert in neurology during the original court case. Of particular note was that her corpse was already showing early signs of decomposition even then. It is only a matter of time before they are externally visible.
P
Path_Finder
Guest
And what you don’t say is that they are respected doctors in their field of research.The two doctors, Dr. Machado and Phillip Defina, espouse ideas about total brainstem functioning that are pretty far afield from today’s medical and scientific beliefs. (See previous link)
prurgent.com/2012-11-19/pressrelease273443.htmAn army veteran of the first Gulf War himself, Dr. DeFina and his team have been successful in awakening over seventy individuals from coma and from minimally conscious or vegetative states; seven of those were injured soldiers, and some have even returned to work or school. Dr. DeFina has used various treatments with success, such as electronic brain stimulation and hyperbaric oxygen therapy. He realizes the importance of the electrochemical balance in the brain.** Dr. DeFina wants to reverse the thought that there is no hope for traumatic brain injury patients.**
So apparently, Dr. DeFina has some real success and wants to change the way people think versus those who think others should be left to die. (see link)
Dr.DeFina and his team have successfully awakened over 70 individuals from coma and from minimally conscious and vegetative states. If this is being “far afield”, I’ll take it.
But nevertheless, thank you for the “blog” entries.
P
Path_Finder
Guest
mercurynews.com/science/ci_26644995/jahi-mcmath-family-seeks-have-brain-death-ruling“The family maintains that Jahi responds to voice commands and touch. The new court documents say the teen has entered into puberty and started her menstrual cycle.”
So this could get interesting alright, whether one could be brain-dead but do the underlined, I don’t know.
T
TarkanAttila
Guest
It might worth knowing that “brain-death” as the criteria for death, period, is a legal term, not really a clinical one. The point at which an human being actually “dies” is still not fully understood by biological science.
Case in point: anencephaly. Granted, an anencephalic baby is not likely to live for long outside the womb, even with medical care. Over half are miscarriages. But somehow, even without a brain, some are not stillborn. Curious, isn’t it? And actually, there have been parents to some few anencephalic babies that have managed to keep them alive for at least a few years.
So, a bit short-sighted, methinks, to attribute medical or biological power to a purely legal term.
All this being said, all this talk requires prudence in judging the difference between ordinary and extraordinary healthcare. I do not think doctors have the right to stop the parents of a supposedly brain-dead child from keeping the child alive, if they want and it will not prove a harmful burden to them or to their other children and dependents. But I am not decided on the necessity of keeping the brain-dead alive at our current level of technology. It seems like a coin-flip to me. People have come back from “brain death”. But are the chances likely? … I doubt it.
Case in point: anencephaly. Granted, an anencephalic baby is not likely to live for long outside the womb, even with medical care. Over half are miscarriages. But somehow, even without a brain, some are not stillborn. Curious, isn’t it? And actually, there have been parents to some few anencephalic babies that have managed to keep them alive for at least a few years.
So, a bit short-sighted, methinks, to attribute medical or biological power to a purely legal term.
All this being said, all this talk requires prudence in judging the difference between ordinary and extraordinary healthcare. I do not think doctors have the right to stop the parents of a supposedly brain-dead child from keeping the child alive, if they want and it will not prove a harmful burden to them or to their other children and dependents. But I am not decided on the necessity of keeping the brain-dead alive at our current level of technology. It seems like a coin-flip to me. People have come back from “brain death”. But are the chances likely? … I doubt it.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.