I'm going to be vague because I just got back from lab, got a run in and am tired, but as far as the parents are concerned I think they are being played by a lawyer. I mean I dropped out of medical school as I've found medicine to not be an exact science and got into a neuroscience program, plus it's all lawyers and insurance now rather than actually helping people. You treat what their insurance allows the patient to be treated... it's sickening. But anyway, to me the term "brain dead" is in a literal sense impossible to dictate so much that this kid was in the social and culturally aspect dead, but in a legal limbo of life and death.
Asked why he believes it, Michael resplied, "Because they did. I know they did, by the evidence of what my wife has told me." Solid argument from the start.
Teresa says, "The records indicated that they started harvesting procedures including the incision when he was alive. And he was not even pronounced dead until 29 minutes later. That's pretty shocking." It's not shocking at all. It's all dependent on how you define what is alive. Look at someone in a permanent state of coma and someone sleeping, unless you really go in and analyze it all, they are the same with the exception that only one condition wakes up.
The Jabobs' attorney, Dennis Boyle added, "Our experts are telling us that, had his organs not been taken, he may very well have survived and recovered from this accident." Depending on the brain trauma and areas affected, he could, in the legal sense, "recover", but in the actual form he would never be the same or have a normal life at all. He could even "recover" from his trauma but be placed in a permanent coma
When Rodriguez noted that, "The hospital will tell you that they did everything on the up-and-up. ... They say Greg met the criteria for death technically."
"That simply is not the case," Boyle responded. "Even the hospital's own records show that he had brain stem function Haha! Hilarious. What regions of the brain stem? What was functioning? I could run loops around this all day but I don't have the time. Plus saying the brain stem was functioning does not mean they had consciousness or was alive at all. Just because a body is breathing and has a pulse does not mean that person is still alive. minutes before he was taken to the operating room to have his organs removed. He never met the criteria for brain dead. And, in fact, he never was dead or brain dead. You know, it is shocking, but I saw the hospital statements, and the only thing we can say is we're looking forward to going into court and presenting this evidence."
The general public lacks enough information on brain processes and neuroscience that a lawyer can seemingly convince and take advantage of parents grief to get into a situation like this. What society lacks is a solid enough definition of what is alive. I forgot what the trial was, but it was a lawyer trying to get a death noticed reversed or something on the grounds that in the legal definition a beating heart means a person is still alive, but because so&so's heart was still beating as an organ donor, the lawyer tried to convince a judge so&so was still alive.