The Jahi McMath Case

 Did you know that a 13 year old could go brain dead? Well thirteen year old, Jahi McMath went brain dead on December 12, 2013, due to her surgery to treat pediatric obstructive sleep apnea. Once the hospital declared her brain dead, her parents did not believe, so on December 20th they filed a court case against the hospital. Ethical questions that will be introduced and raised during this case study are such as how do we interpret the word “death” and how long we should give compassionate care to brain-dead patients.

Jahi was declared brain dead due to a hemorrhagic complication following complex oropharyngeal surgery. The doctors also state that after the surgery in the intensive care unit she had started to bleed and fell into cardiac arrest. This resulted the hospital declaring Jahi brain dead. Even though she is brain dead her heart continues to beat still, as oxygen comes through a ventilator. However, her parents did not accept Jahi was dead, so a couple days later after the incident they filed a court case against the hospital. This lead conflict between the hospital in removing the ventilator that would stop providing oxygen to her body, but her parents still believes that she could recover still. This also made a disagreement that would mark into a deep legal and ethical battle between them.

So in 2015, her parents filed a malpractice lawsuit against the hospital and the surgeon who did her surgery, Dr. David Duran, arguing that Jahi was not dead but disabled since her brain was not working but her other organ systems were functional, so while she was brain dead her body could go through puberty. But the court thought otherwise and Jahi parents lost, since doctors believed that she was already dead and that the Alameda County coroner was ready to write her death certificate. The rulings that against her family had some legal documents and principles associated with it as well such as Rooker-Feldman Doctrine. This was legal principle that prevented the federal court from re-examining the state court’s decision that Jahi was brain that prevented the federal court from re-examining the state court’s decision that Jahi was brain dead. This doctrine blocked the family’s request for a declaratory relief that Jahi was never brain dead under California law. However her parents gained in a temporary victory which was that she could be transferred to New Jersey, a place where there was no rules against being brain dead and life support, as the law was based off of religious beliefs. This means that if any family go against the declaration on religious grounds, they can request to be on life support forever. So she was transferred to a undisclosed place in New Jersey, but in 2018 she unfortunately passed away due to abnormal complications.

Legal responsibilities involved in this case was malpractice and “informed consent” as Jahi parents’s filed malpractice lawsuit and that they did not explain the surgery correctly and both can lead into deep legal consequences. This would imply that the surgeon was not performing the surgery properly and that it was his and the hospitals fault for Jahi being brain dead and this situation. Following that, another legal responsibility discussed in the Jahi McMath case was state laws and such that different states have different laws regarding brain death and life support such as New Jersey has specific laws about brain death than California. Medical ethics raised during this case are conceptual and are metaphysical issues concerning the definition and term death. Death is defined biologically as the irreversible loss of the functioning of the organism, which typically occurs after the loss of a cardiorespiratory function. It could also be defined as the loss of neurological function. During Jahi’s case this was interpreted by which if she could communicate or talk and if she couldn’t they would classified her as dead even though she showed signs such as she went through puberty. So through a hospital point of view of Jahi that might just see her as brain dead and not feel emotion , but in comparison through the family point of view they might feel emotional and hope to survive since it’s they’re daughter. Although her heart was beating that was only able to happen since she was on ventilator so oxygen could reach her heart. This questions still ponders to this day as we as society don’t know the answer to the question but in Jahi’s case this was ruled unethically using unreasonable information. Another, ethical dilemma presented in this case is organ donation because once Jahi went brain dead there were discussions whether Jahi could be an organ donor. Her parents said no to this since they wanted her to be still kept on life support and on the ventilator. So this was unethical because her parents should have allowed the donation of her organs, because this can help another person struggling with other medical problems to survive.

So in conclusion, the Jahi McMath case has some twists and turns to it but we can learn from those mistakes and not make them in the present time or future. Even though that we may not know the answer to every ethical dilemma presented in this case study we can still try to not make these mistakes and implement them so we do get peaceful resolution. We can also try understand the position of family so we don’t have to make legal court cases and cause up a whole mess and that would cause negative effects on both sides which would be the hospital and doctors while also the family and the patient. There is more information to this case but we cannot get that, because of the hospital’s privacy. Written by Vaishant