Family of brain-dead California girl, 13, fight to have death certificate revoked
Jahi McMath declared deceased at Oakland children's hospital in December 2013 but parents say religious faith compels them to dispute definition
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.More than three years after a coroner declared a teenage girl dead, a northern California judge is expected to soon decide whether to revoke her death certificate.
In court documents filed last month supporting the family's lawsuit to have the death certificate revoked, retired neurologist Dr Alan Shewmon said videos recorded by Jahi McMath's family from 2014 to 2016 show the teen is still alive.
Shewmon is a longtime critic of how brain death is defined and has filed similar court papers supporting efforts by McMath's family to undo the death certificate. The family has previously shown video clips of McMath twitching her fingers, which they said showed she still has brain function.
Several doctors, including two hired by an Alameda County court, have said brain-dead patients can still twitch and move slightly.
Doctors at Children's Hospital in Oakland, California, declared 13-year-old McMath brain dead in December 2013 after a routine tonsillectomy went awry.
Jahi's mother has previously acknowledged that her daughter's brain is severely and irreparably damaged. But Latasha Spears Winkfield said her daughter is still alive and her Christian belief compels her fight to keep her daughter on life support.
The case adds to the debate over parents' right to choose childrens' medical treatment. The parents of 11-month-old Charlie Gard announced on Monday they were dropping their legal fight in London to stop doctors from switching off their baby's life support. They previously resisted, arguing that an experimental treatment could extend and improve Charlie's life.
Lawyers for the California hospital argued in court documents that the family's attorneys have declined to turn over to them the most recent video clips Shewmon said he viewed. The lawyers also said they want copies of the videos so they can independently analyse the footage.
Hospital lawyer Jennifer Still said in a 6 July court filing that “body movements could be easily manipulated.”
Still said McMath was “typically covered up with blankets” in videos previously shown by the family, making it impossible to determine if something might have been occurring under the blankets to make the body move.
“Often the camera only shows a convenient angle, such as a close up of her foot or hand,” Still wrote.
Still said in an interview on Monday that since the family has not subjected McMath to tests accepted by the American Medical Association to determine whether someone is brain dead.
Bruce Brusavich and Andrew Chang, lawyers representing Jahi's family, did not return telephone messages left at their offices seeking comment.
Jahi's family moved her to New Jersey because of that state's only-in-the-US law that prohibits doctors from removing brain-dead patients from ventilators over families with religious objections. Court records show that New Jersey Medicaid has picked up some of the cost of McMath's care. Still said she could not disclose the exact amount.
A judge heard arguments on the case 13 July and is expected to rule in the next two months whether to allow the lawsuit to proceed.
Associated Press
Subscribe to Independent Premium to bookmark this article
Want to bookmark your favourite articles and stories to read or reference later? Start your Independent Premium subscription today.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments