GESTIÓN EN SALUD PÚBLICA: BioEdge: Who ‘pulls the plug’ for an abused child?

domingo, 10 de noviembre de 2019

BioEdge: Who ‘pulls the plug’ for an abused child?

BioEdge: Who ‘pulls the plug’ for an abused child?

Bioedge

Who ‘pulls the plug’ for an abused child?

by Michael Cook | 10 Nov 2019 | 1 comment

^{Gabriella's parents, Brittany Rodriquez and Andrew Lamorie}

The question of who is authorised to “pull the plug” on severely brain-damaged patients is always controversial. A case in Arizona shows how complex and unsettling it can be.

In January 2018 two-year-old Gabriella Lamorie died from blunt-force head and neck trauma. She was also suffering from severe malnutrition and weighed less than half the standard body weight for a child of her age.

Doctors told police that Gabriella was brain-dead and unlikely to survive. Even if she did, “she would not lead a normal life.” An official from Arizona’s Child Protective Service had her removed from life support and ordered her body to be cremated.

With the child dead, her parents, Andrew Lamorie and Brittany Rodriquez, were charged with both child abuse and first-degree murder. They appear to be drug addicts.

Now Lamorie has filed a lawsuit from jail, arguing that Arizona officials violated his parental rights by removing his daughter from life support without notifying him.

Once the case was put under the spotlight, who was actually responsible for the decision became murky. The Arizona Department of Child Safety’s policy is that employees should consult with parents about health-care decisions when possible. If a child dies in department custody, they should “respect the parent’s/legal guardian’s wishes” on how to care for the remains.

But now a spokesperson for DCS says Gabrielle had never been in its custody. “DCS policy would not apply in this case since we did not have custody,” he said. “DCS mourns the tragic loss of this innocent child.”

Michael Cook is editor of BioEdge

It sounds like the premise for a Stephen King novel, but it’s real life. Benjamin Schreiber, a 66-year-old man, is serving a life sentence for murder in an Iowa prison. Back in 1996, he bludgeoned a man to death with an axe handle. In 2015 he suddenly became seriously ill, so ill that he lapsed into a coma and “died”.

But he recovered. Disappointed that he was still alive, he appealed to have his life sentence voided as it had already “expired”.

It’s an intriguing argument. Can you live two lives? Are you the same person after being resuscitated? Or are you literally a dead man walking?

Unfortunately for Schreiber, the court took a dim view of his request.

“We do not find his argument persuasive,” wrote a judge this week. She concluded: “Schreiber is either still alive, in which case he must remain in prison, or he is actually dead, in which case this appeal is moot.”

This ruling will allow the citizens of Iowa to sleep easier at night, but philosophically isn’t a bit naive in the way it addresses the problem of identity? Isn’t it possible that Mr (1996) Schreiber is dead and that Mr (2019) Schreiber is a different person? If S(2019) identifies as a dead person, shouldn’t we accept his carefully considered opinion?