5 ms·

> The lawsuit claimed that the hospital and OPO had frozen Mike out of the decision-making process for Brittany’s care, instead favoring Mike’s ex-wife, Shawna,

> The lawsuit claimed that the hospital and OPO had frozen Mike out of the decision-making process for Brittany’s care, instead favoring Mike’s ex-wife, Shawna, Brittany’s mother. Mike said they did this as soon as they learned that he did not want her organs to be donated and that he believed she may still be alive. > Brittany was an unmarried adult without adult children. The suit claimed that both organizations had colluded to violate the California Uniform Anatomical Gift Act by conspiring to obtain consent from only one parent instead of the legally required two, and that they made no “reasonable effort” to contact Mike for his consent. That seems like a pretty open and shut case if they failed to get the legally required consent so I'm curious why this case hasn't been settled yet. Is it because the plaintiff is going for "intentional infliction of emotional distress" and wants them to admit guilt, or is there more to the story? If the hospital did as alleged, what in the world was the medical team's incentive? I thought organ transplant waiting lists were strictly controlled and there's practically no way any of them would have a relationship to someone on the list. Do they get a bonus per transplant done or something?

Topgamer7 3y ago
Also form the article: > Hospitals are paid for the organ procurement organizations’ use of their operating rooms and surgical resources.
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  The hospital is also paid for keeping a brain-dead patient on life support.
  - registeredcorn 3y ago
    Medical bills can be dismissed through bankruptcy, leaving the hospital with little to recoup their loss - a hospital has little reason to believe that any average family would be able to afford a decades worth of constant care.
jollyllama 3y ago
Indeed, it should be cut and dry. Sounds like they failed to get the necessary consent from both parties to achieve the required majority, and proceeded anyway.
KittenInABox 3y ago
I'm saying this assuming the absolute best faith of the medical people. Hospital doctors are forced, day in and day out, to be exposed to people who need transplants. The entire medical system is forced to be exposed to totally, completely innocent people who, through cruel fate alone, need to wait for a suitable someone to die. In a sense, these innocent people's lives are halted in a way that can be argued to be a death themselves. Doctors, who are human beings with empathy (so much so they are at risk of killing themselves from all the suffering they're exposed to) are day in and day out forced to face this insane fateful cruelty. These doctors see the miracles an organ transplant can do. Give back a single mother her ability to raise her children. Allow the opportunity for a father to see the birth of his child. Enable a child to envision a future for themselves for the first time in their life. So when someone else is dead, or basically dead, occurs, each doctor knows that this one death can relieve the "deaths" of dozens of other needy and completely innocent people. Especially when the doctor is confident that, effectively, the soul has already left the body and the organ that actually contains our consciousness has died. The family members can be excused as ignorant folks who, unlike doctors, don't get to witness firsthand how much suffering can be relieved by harvesting an already-basically-dead person. In a situation like that, a doctor can very easily make what they believe to be the moral choice in attempting to persuade a family towards organ harvesting even though they may personally be unrelated to anyone who needs an organ.
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  > The family members can be excused as ignorant folks who, unlike doctors, don't get to witness firsthand how much suffering can be relieved by harvesting an already-basically-dead person. And honestly, a bit of ignorance is to be expected here. Most people have never been in the room with a brain-dead person on life support; it's a brand-new scenario to almost anyone. The docs will have seen and heard stuff like "She is without a doubt responding to my touch..." and "Brain dead patients cannot respond to touch, and she clearly is… right?" from people. They know the reasons - confirmation bias on random movements, body reflexes, etc. - but explaining that to someone in the midst of the worst grief of their lives is... tough.

Topgamer7 3y ago

Also form the article: > Hospitals are paid for the organ procurement organizations’ use of their operating rooms and surgical resources.

ceejayoz 3y ago
The hospital is also paid for keeping a brain-dead patient on life support.
- registeredcorn 3y ago
  Medical bills can be dismissed through bankruptcy, leaving the hospital with little to recoup their loss - a hospital has little reason to believe that any average family would be able to afford a decades worth of constant care.

jollyllama 3y ago

Indeed, it should be cut and dry. Sounds like they failed to get the necessary consent from both parties to achieve the required majority, and proceeded anyway.

KittenInABox 3y ago

I'm saying this assuming the absolute best faith of the medical people. Hospital doctors are forced, day in and day out, to be exposed to people who need transplants. The entire medical system is forced to be exposed to totally, completely innocent people who, through cruel fate alone, need to wait for a suitable someone to die. In a sense, these innocent people's lives are halted in a way that can be argued to be a death themselves. Doctors, who are human beings with empathy (so much so they are at risk of killing themselves from all the suffering they're exposed to) are day in and day out forced to face this insane fateful cruelty. These doctors see the miracles an organ transplant can do. Give back a single mother her ability to raise her children. Allow the opportunity for a father to see the birth of his child. Enable a child to envision a future for themselves for the first time in their life. So when someone else is dead, or basically dead, occurs, each doctor knows that this one death can relieve the "deaths" of dozens of other needy and completely innocent people. Especially when the doctor is confident that, effectively, the soul has already left the body and the organ that actually contains our consciousness has died. The family members can be excused as ignorant folks who, unlike doctors, don't get to witness firsthand how much suffering can be relieved by harvesting an already-basically-dead person. In a situation like that, a doctor can very easily make what they believe to be the moral choice in attempting to persuade a family towards organ harvesting even though they may personally be unrelated to anyone who needs an organ.

ceejayoz 3y ago
> The family members can be excused as ignorant folks who, unlike doctors, don't get to witness firsthand how much suffering can be relieved by harvesting an already-basically-dead person. And honestly, a bit of ignorance is to be expected here. Most people have never been in the room with a brain-dead person on life support; it's a brand-new scenario to almost anyone. The docs will have seen and heard stuff like "She is without a doubt responding to my touch..." and "Brain dead patients cannot respond to touch, and she clearly is… right?" from people. They know the reasons - confirmation bias on random movements, body reflexes, etc. - but explaining that to someone in the midst of the worst grief of their lives is... tough.