You see, THIS is why I'm not an organ donor

[LegendofNation]

No no no not that organ, I donate that to a lot of guy's wives around here.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,504964,00.html

[VolFrannie]

Well...see...once you're declared brain dead, your next of kin has to sign paperwork, whether or not you are an organ donor or even a candidate for donation, to remove you from the ventilator. Standard operating procedure at every hospital in America. If you've never been present for it---unfortunatly, I have, many times--it can sound much worse than it is.

This hospital did nothing wrong or out of the ordinary. Sounds like the parents regret their decision after the fact. Perfectly understandable in their grief, but nothing illegal or unethical took place.

[gallavol]

was begun before the patient lost brain activity, or even cardiac function, that he was "alive" and that they never signed a consent form. That the subjects "death" occured because of surgery to remove his organs. Thats a hell or a lot more than taking him off the ventilator. Without signed consent forms from either spouse or parents I believe the family has a strong case.

[VolFrannie]

Of course the surgery begins before you lose cardiac function if it's a brain death donation. How else do you think the organs stay oxygenated? There is also what's known as cardiac death donation, where a patient is removed from the ventilator and if after 5 minutes, there is no respiration or cardiac function, then the patient is pronounced dead. The cardiac death donation process is no where near as prevalent, and fewer organs can be used.

No hospital can harvest organs without signed consent from next of kin....even if you're an organ donor. No where in the US.

I understand what the parents are claiming, it does not mean that's what happened. If any hospital harvested organs without signed consent it would be deadly to the entire organ donation process. Having worked in healthcare, in hospitals, and been involved in organ donation, for 13 years, I find it highly unlikely signed consent wasn't obtained.

Here...the case has been looked at by the District Attorney, and been found baseless.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hqu6BnEKsoSmAjMm56glgGOQWEjAD96OME380

Erie County District Attorney Brad Foulk said Friday that he reviewed medical files from Hamot (HAM'-ut) Medical Center in Erie. He says the hospital followed proper procedures when they declared Gregory Jacobs dead and got permission to take his organs in March 2007.

Sounds like a greedy and unethical lawyer preying on grieving parents to me.

[AtlantaVol]

1) You don't take someone off the Vent and let them officially "die" by brain activity since this cuts off the Oxygn supply to organs and can make some of them useless.

2) Nothing and I repeat NOTHING would have happened if someone like the parents had not have signed consent to do so. This is a classic case of remourse for officially pulling the plug on this kid who had been without much brain function for several YEARS as I recall.

3) Sure this Organ donation group makes some money- it is their business to hook up donors with worthy recipients. But they have to stay in business and they have to follow a HUGE amount of ethical, legal, and medical guidelines. But without these facilitators then there would not be transplants.

4) I will even take a different tack and suggest our current Medical system is fucked up when it involves end of life issues. I can guarandamntee you that this poor kids family was paying next to NOTHING (and likely nothing at all) for his care. He either didn't have insurance originally and had been kept alive for years by taxpayer Medicaide paltry payments to MD's and Hospitals OR he had insurance and spent his Deducable and Max Out of Pocket payments of maybe a few thousand dollars long ago. In the latter case the hospital and MD's and Physical Therapy were eating the cost of taking care of a person with very little brain activity left. I see this ALL THE TIME. The family's obviously have an emotional involvement and don't want to be the person who pulls the plug for the final time on an ICU patient for months with no chance for recovery. But there is NO financial incentive for them to come to grips with the fact their loved one ain't coming back so we all sit in limbo. I have always maintained that if there was a paltry $5 a day that the family would be required to pay a week in advance (or daily) then they would come to their logical senses months (and in some cases YEARS) earlier. Bottom line is that these cases cost either the government (your tax money) OR they cost the local hospital and medical system (who then try to pass that cost onto others) many MILLIONS of wasted (IMO) dollars each and every year.

[gallavol]

Obviously you guys are right and I am wrong about this matter, however the opportunistic legalize side of me sees a great tact the family could take, if they were willing to sit in the witness stand in a courtroom and commit perjry, that they never signed a document. There are large hospitals that would settle something (sometimes a large sum) on the family just to avoid the cost and negative publicity of going to court. Sad that we live in such times, but true.

[VolFrannie]

The problem there is, the hospital has that signed document. Kind of hard to say you didn't sign something when the document is readily available for a judge to see, just like the DA saw it. There's at least 2 witnesses to the signing, as well...usually the attending physician and a nurse. I seriously doubt it'd ever get as far as a jury trail. Any sane judge would throw out the case well before it got that far. And I don't see any hospital settling in this kind of case because of the damage it could do to the organ donation system in the US.

[gallavol]

Sorry Frannie, I'm not saying who is right or wrong in this, but if that family's attorneys are able to get this in front of a jury, the jury usually finds for the plaintiff. You see the jury is usually made up of non professional people and the plaintiffs are (as AV points out) not professional people, and so there is an emotional identification that occurs when the jury sees a weeping mother who has lost her child. As I read the article the case is fairly well along and this aspect cannot help the defendants.

The suit claims Hamot contacted the Center for Organ Recovery and Education about the donation of Jacobs' organs even though his parents, who were at the hospital, wanted him to live. CORE directed that Jacobs' organs be removed in the absence of a valid consent, the suit said.

The insurance carrier for the defense knows these facts about jurys as well and in my opinion would settle to cut their losses. I am not saying this fair, but it is the nature of our culture.

[VolFrannie]

Yes, I understand where you're coming from...and I don't disagree that a jury would be torn emotionally for the parents.

But, the parents have now changed their story. The facts don't support their story...at all. They're now claiming they didn't give consent, but their signature on a consent form is going to damage that claim badly.

If they wanted their son kept alive, why sign a consent form for him to be removed from life support and his organs donated? The defendant has those signed and witnessed documents, according to the DA. That's why I don't see a judge letting this get to a jury.