Granted, usually (though not always) the courts grant only temporary (stop-gap) relief, giving everybody a chance to catch their breath and explore options. Rarely does the court issue a permanent injunction. On the other hand, the physiological nature of these cases typically means that there is no need for families to ask for permanent injunctive relief. The patient will, within the TRO o temporary injunction period, satisfy both the either-or prongs of the criteria for death: complete brain death and complete cessation of cardio-pulmonary function.
Still, if we are litigating over how to deploy medical treatment for corpses, that surely indicates that we are hardly anywhere the requisite consensus over how to deploy medical resources for the dying or terminally ill.
3 comments:
But are all people who are declared brain-dead actually "corpses"? Articles that I've read (that you yourself highlighted on this blog) demonstrate there is a high degree of variability between hospitals when it comes to diagnostic criteria/testing used in determining brain death.
One of the articles quoted Moreno saying she "doesn't agree with the procedure that's used to declare someone dead and the way it's handled."
Maybe she's read the same articles I have.
That lack of consistency in determining brain death may account for "miraculous" stories like that of Zack Dunlap - a "corpse" who's doing pretty well right now. ;-)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23768436/
Just a clarification - the articles referred to in the second paragraph are news articles linked in your first blog entry on this story.
Okay, I'll concede that there is an error rate due to (1) inconsistent criteria and (2) inconsistent application of criteria.
Moreover, the injunction in this case is apparently primarily for the purpose of confirming the brain death diagnosis through additional measures.
As soon as I finish off a brief for the Betancourt v. Trinitas (NJ) case, I'll try to get more solid details on this WV case.
Post a Comment