13-Year-Old Girl Wins The Right to Die

Hannah Jones is just 13 years old, but for 9 of those 13 years she has been in and out of hospital. She has acute myeloid lukemia and cardiomyopathy (a hole in her heart). She is terminally ill and needs a heart transplant to survive. She has made it clear that she does not want the operation and, with a maturity that belies her 13 years, she told her doctors that she wanted to go home and die surrounded by her loving family. The hospital went to court seeking to gain custody of the girl from her parents and force her to undergo the operation.

Hannah's parents Kristy and Andrew Jones, though heart-broken at her decision, both supported their daughter's wishes. They were shocked when they learned of the hospital's attempt to take away their daughter from them.

Hear the interview with Andrew Jones here.

Mr Jones said: "The threat that somebody could come and forcibly remove your daughter from you against her wishes, against our wishes, was quite upsetting really." He added: "We didn't get too involved in (Hannah's) decision.

"Hannah made that decision consciously on her own, a bit like a grown up, even though she was only 12 at the time and she has maintained that decision. How she coped with it, what her mind was thinking at the time, I've got great admiration for her in that and, as I said, we have to support her and her decision."

In making her decision, Hannah said that she was tired of hospitals and didn't want to go through any more operations.

"I just decided that there were too many risks and even if I took it there might be a bad outcome afterwards. I have been in hospital too much," Jones said. She added: "I have had too much trauma. I didn't want this [a heart transplant] and it's not my choice to have it."

Although her decision means that she may have only months to live, Jones said: "I have made the right decision at the moment and I'm not going to change it." adding: "There's a chance I may be well and there's a chance I may not be as well as I could be. That's a chance I'm willing to take."

Even the hospital had to admit that the operation was risky at best and may cause complications.

However, doctors have warned her that a heart transplant is risky and that, even if it succeeded, the drugs used to prevent her body rejecting the new heart could prompt a recurrence of the leukemia.

The family first learned that the hospital wished to force the operation on their daughter when they received a phone call telling them the hospital was applying for an order removing Hannah from the family home on the grounds that her parents were “preventing her treatment”. Mrs Jones, 43, said that the locum doctor had wanted to give Hannah a drug to facilitate her transfer to Great Ormond Street for the operation.

“The doctor wanted to give her a drug she had already said she didn’t want again . . . The family was in tears thinking she was going to be taken from us against her wishes.”

However, Great Ormond Street told the family that they would not admit the teenager without her consent.

After the incident the Jones' wrote to Herefordshire Primary Care Trust complaining about its intervention. In his reply, Chris Bull, the PCT’s chief executive, described Hannah as a “brave and courageous young woman” but defended the doctor’s decision.

However a nurse from the child protection team was called in to interview Hannah in private. The teenager was adamant that she did not want the transplant and she convinced the authorities that the operation was not in her best interests. It was then decided not to apply for a court order. In the letter to the family, Mr Bull concluded:

“Hannah appears to understand the serious nature of her condition . . . Treatment options were discussed and Hannah was able to express her clear views that she did not wish to go back on a pump or to go into hospital for cardiac treatment.”

Hannah’s father said he was not sure exactly what his daughter had told the child protection officer at their private meeting, “but it must have been powerful enough to convince some very high-up people that she was right. Hannah has been through enough already. To have the added stress of a possible court hearing or being forcibly taken into hospital is disgraceful.”

Dr Daniel Sokol is a lecturer in medical ethics at St George's Hospital in London, he also backs the 13-year-old's decision.

"She's evaluated the risks of the procedure, the risk of dying on the operating table, or suffering a whole host of nasty complications and in contrast to that are the benefits which is living longer," he said.

"She's a professional patient, she's been a patient for most of her life and if she is able to understand, she comprehends and has enough information then it doesn't matter whether she's 13 or 88, it should ultimately be her decision in my view."

Doctor's warn that without the transplant Hannah could die within months.

[polldaddy poll=1099241]

Man Sues over Amputated Penis

Phillip Seaton, 61, went into hospital for a circumcision. When he awoke after surgery he found that his penis had been cut off. He and his wife, Deborah, have filed a lawsuit seeking unspecified compensation and also unspecified punitive damages for the removal of his penis. They claim that the penis was amputated without consulting either Phillip or Deborah Seaton, or giving them an opportunity to seek a second opinion. See the TV coverage here.

Being sued are:

• Dr. John M. Patterson, who performed the surgery


• Commonwealth Urology, where the procedure took place


• Dr. Oliver James – Anaesthesiologist for use of general anaesthesia, when Seaton had specifically asked for it not to be administered.

In the lawsuit, filed in Kentucky State Court, the couple claim "loss of service, love and affection." Phillip Seaton claims he has suffered mental anguish, pain, and has lost the enjoyment of life. The lawsuit states that Dr. Patterson received consent to perform a circumcision and only a circumcision, and that Seaton did not consent to his penis being removed.

The Seaton's lawyer, Kevin George, said Dr. Patterson amputated the organ after finding cancer, but he only had consent to remove the foreskin.

"Sometimes you have an emergency and you have to do this, but he could very easily closed him up and said, 'Here are your options. You have cancer,' and the family would have said, 'We want a second opinion. This is a big deal,'" George said.

Dr. Patterson's attorney, Clay Robinson, of Lexington said the procedure was ‘medically necessary’ and authorized by the patient. He said Dr. Patterson performed the surgery because the patient, 61-year-old Phillip Seaton, had cancer and had already given permission to perform any medical procedure deemed necessary. The doctor's post-surgical notes show the doctor thought he detected cancer and removed the penis. Attorney Kevin George said a later test did detect cancer.

The Seatons' suit is similar to one in which an Indianapolis man was awarded more than $2.3 million in damages after he claimed his penis and left testicle were removed without his consent during surgery for an infection in 1997.

Comatose Illegal Alien to be Deported

This is the story of 30-year-old Francisco Pantaleon, an illegal immigrant from Mexico. He had a brain hemorrhage and is in a coma at the University of Illinois Medical Center at Chicago. The hospital wants to send him back to Mexico. They say they have the permission of his immediate family but his sister and a cousin have retained a lawyer to fight his deportation.

There is something about this story that just seems wrong to me. Have we, as a nation, forgotten what it is to be compassionate? Yes, we are talking about an illegal immigrant who has no insurance and will very likely need intensive, long term medical care. But we are also talking about a human being who has spent 11 years in this country working menial jobs to support his family and who, by no fault of his own, became sick. It seems to me on a purely humanitarian level he deserves to be treated with the same level of medical assistance offered to any citizen or legal resident. He is after all a human being.

This story appeared in the Wall Street Journal and the Chicago Tribune. This topic is also covered by the New York Times.

According to his sister, Socorro, Francisco Pantaleon, 30, arrived illegally in the United States 11 years ago. He has two children and worked at a carwash but has no insurance. In mid-July Mr. Pantaleon suffered a severe brain hemorrhage. He is currently in a coma at the University of Illinois Medical Center at Chicago. His case has brought to light a little known policy of hospitals to send medically needy undocumented immigrants back to their countries of origin.

The hospital claims the immediate family has consented to have Francisco returned to Mexico. In a statement the hospital said that since there is "little hope for recovery" they have arranged, at their own expense, to send him to a hospital in Acapulco. Pantaleon's wife was not available to confirm or deny this.

Pantaleon's sister and cousin are protesting that arrangement and have retained lawyers in hopes of preventing it. "This is an injustice," said his sister, who worries that Pantaleon won't survive the trip or find adequate care in Mexico.

Legally hospitals are required to treat and stabilize anyone who is in need of emergency medical assistance, regardless of their immigration or insurance status. But here is where it gets murky: After stabilizing a patient hospitals are required to arrange to transfer patients to settings where they can receive adequate care said Doreena Wong, staff attorney for the National Health Law Program. The problem is nursing homes in Chicago usually will not serve undocumented immigrants who don't have health insurance or any means to pay for care.

"We can't arrange long-term care here, so we try to do the best we can in the country of origin," said Dr. William Chamberlin, chief medical officer at UIC Medical Center.

According to Sonal Ambegaokar, health policy attorney at the National Immigrant Law Center, this may put the hospital in the position of acting as an immigration agent by effectively getting into the deportation business. She suggests that their actions may deprive the patient of due process.

"It's important to make sure that hospitals aren't permitted to dump patients on an international level when they can't do it on a local level," said James Geraghty, a Chicago lawyer working with Pantaleon's sister and cousin.

The hospital is of course concerned with the cost of providing patient care with limited financial resources.

"Hospitals don't have the financial resources to meet all of the acute care needs [of patients without insurance], let alone take on all the chronic care needs that present with patients like this," Chamberlin said.

Howard Peters, senior vice president of government relations at the Illinois Hospital Association, said "the family ought to be grateful" that UIC found a facility in Mexico willing to take Pantaleon and volunteered to pay for the trip.

The New York Times has a similar story about Luis Alberto Jiménez, another illegal immigrant who suffered brain damage after being involved in a car accident with a drunken driver. The hospital wanted to send him home to his native Guatemala. Lawyers filed a suit on his behalf which the hospital won, but while the case was being appealed the hospital went ahead and deported him. The lawyers won the case on appeal but Jiménez was already in Guatemala where, after a brief stay in a local hospital, he was sent home to fend for himself. See the Luis Alberto Jimenez story here.

I understand that hospitals have financial concerns and that the cost of medical care in this country is outrageous. However, a hospital, by its very definition, is a place where people go when they need medical assistance. We as a society, have the responsibility to take care of our sick. Even the vilest of criminals in the penal system are afforded medical attention. There is something wrong with the system when the bottom line is more important than a human life. There should be no discrimination nor proof of residency nor proof of insurance status when it comes to providing health care. But for the accident of birth you or your loved one could be Francisco or Luis.

The Exercise Pill

Ever feel lethargic, lazy or listless? Are you overweight? Are you a couch potato? Does taking the garbage out leave you breathless? Well, you know that a good exercise regime, 2 or 3 times a week, could give you back that pep in your step and get you feeling young and energetic again......or you could just take a pill and forget about all that sweat and exertion.

Scientists have developed a drug that gives you all the benefits of exercise without getting all sweaty.....if you are a mouse!

Sedentary mice that took the drug for four weeks burned more calories and had less fat than untreated mice. And when tested on a treadmill, they could run about 44 percent farther and 23 percent longer than untreated mice.

"We have exercise in a pill," said Ron Evans of the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, Calif., and an author of the study. "With no exercise, you can take a drug and chemically mimic it."

Scientists are also looking at another drug that has similar benefits for mice who exercised. This second drug made their workout much more effective at boosting endurance.

After a month of taking that drug and exercising, mice could run 68 percent longer and 70 percent farther than other mice that exercised but didn't get the drug.

The first, no-exercise, drug is is called AICAR and is in advanced human testing to see if it can prevent a complication of heart bypass surgery. But, noting that this drug might be used by athletes looking for an unfair advantage, Evans said his team has developed detection tests for use by the World Anti-Doping Agency. Nevertheless, experts who study muscles agree that a drug like AICAR may prove useful someday in treating obesity and diabetes. AICAR stimulates muscles to remove sugar from the blood. People who can't exercise because of a medical condition like joint pain or heart failure might also benefit from such a drug.

This drug is still in the experimental stage and scientists are amazed that it even works. According to Ron Evans who performed the experiments on the mice at the suggestion of another scientist:

"Honestly, I just don't know how that happens. Whether it would happen in a person, I don't know. I think it's a small miracle it happened at all."

Even if the pill proved to be safe for people to take, it may not provide the same benefits as in mice. Laurie Goodyear of the Joslin Diabetes Center in Boston said exercise has such widespread benefits in the body that she doubts any one pill will ever be able to supply all of them.

"For the majority of people," she said, "it would be better to do exercise than to take a pill."

Parents Prayed While Daughter Died

Madeline Kara Neumann,11, of Weston, Wisconsin died of diabetic ketoacidosis. Her parents, Dale and Leilani Neumann, believed so strongly in the power of prayer, that they refused to seek medical attention for their daughter until it was too late to save her life.

In fact when their daughter fell unconscious the first 911 call did not come from the Neumann's house in Wisconsin. The call came from Ariel Gomez, the sister-in-law of Leilani Neumann, who lives in California. Ariel Gomez had to call 911 twice because she did not have the Neumann's complete address. She told the dispatcher:

"My sister in law is, her daughter's severely, severely sick and she believes her daughter is in a coma. And, she's very religious so she's refusing to take (Kara) to the hospital, so I was hoping maybe somebody could go over there."


"Please. I mean, she's refusing. She's gonna fight it so, she's gonna fight it. We've been trying to get her to take (Kara) to the hospital for a week, a few days now so."

After getting the correct address, the dispatcher sent the police and EMS to the Neumann house. While on the way, another 911 call was placed from the Neumann house. EMS arrived at the house to find Kara not breathing and transported her to Saint Claire's hospital where she was pronounced dead. Hear both 911 calls here.

It is unusual for children to die from diabetic ketoacidosis. It is a serious but treatable form of type 1 diabetes, caused by acid build up in the blood. Kara's parents claim the did not know that she had diabetes. Kara had not been to see a doctor since she was 3-years-old. The Neumanns believed in the power of prayer to cure illness.

Wisconsin Social Services has interviewed the family's three other children — ages 13, 14 and 17 — and had them examined by a medical doctor, Vergin said. They will most likely be returned to the home.Police Chief Dan Vergin of the Everest Metro Police said that during an interview with detectives the parents said "they believed even though they knew she was ill, they had enough faith and prayer that God would heal her."

"They said it was the course of action they would take again," Vergin said. "They firmly believe even if they had taken her to a doctor, if this was the time God had chosen for her to die, she would die regardless of medical interference."

Through an autopsy it was determined she had diabetic ketoacidosis.

"The doctor who did the autopsy and others have said she would have been showing signs for about six months, and she would have been symptomatic, very thirsty, lots of urination, dry skin for the last week," Vergin said. "They felt she would have been quite ill."

This young girl did not have to die but Vergin said the death of the girl brings up difficult issues.

"At what point do religious beliefs take over for medical help? And the flip of the coin is at what point are the parents responsible for the health and welfare of their children," he said. "These people truly believed their prayer and faith would heal their daughter. They have no question about that."

So far the parents have not been charged with committing any crime. However the police are now preparing a report for prosecutors. It will be up to the district attorney to decide whether or not to file charges.

Under Wisconsin statutes, parents can't be accused of abuse or neglect if the sole reason for the injury is that they relied on prayer, said Norman Fost, professor of bioethics and pediatrics at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health in Madison, adding that the First Amendment to the Constitution gives citizens the right to practice religion.

But Robyn S. Shapiro, an attorney who is professor of bioethics and director of the Bioethics Center at the Medical College of Wisconsin, said abuse or neglect can include "failure to appropriately respond or supply medical care to your kid."

"A Jehovah's Witness can refuse life-saving blood transfusion based on their religious belief," he said. "They're protected. But they can't refuse it for their child . . . the First Amendment extends to their own behavior but not their children's."

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwpHDLw2Jno&watch_response]

"The parents certainly didn't want their daughter to die, they didn't want her to be ill," Vergin said. "They just chose a course of action that allowed her to regress into coma and then death."