There must be evidence that withdrawing life support is in the best interests of the patient or in compliance with their wishes, that when the patient can’t decide for herself, a family member can make that decision, and when the patient’s wishes are unknown, California law errs on the side of preserving life.
Petitioners cite various provisions of the California Probate Code to support these arguments. California law gives the McMath family the right to make medical decisions for their minor child, including the decision to continue ventilation, and if the hospital and family can’t agree, the hospital must make arrangements to transfer the patient (Jahi) to a facility that will provide the requested treatment. There are three main arguments advanced by petitioner in this document: They also ask for time to get another opinion on treatment and prognosis for Jahi. At this time, the Petitioner’s court documents describe Jahi as in a comatose condition with brain damage. Specifically, the request asks the court for an order to prohibit the Children’s Hospital of Oakland (CHO) from discontinuing ventilation (this is a temporary request initially, with the further request that after the hospital has a chance to respond, it be made permanent), and further asks the court to order the hospital to provide a feeding tube, antibiotics and any other medicines that would support organ function. On 12/20/13, Jahi McMath’s family (Plaintiff or Petitioner) filed a request for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and a request for a court order to force the hospital to provide medical treatment for Jahi. The court disallowed the ex parte request and requested CHO to submit a response prior to the hearing) : I’m not going to address CHO’s response unless someone is unclear on their position and specifically asks for clarification, nor am I going to address the merits of the arguments made.Īlameda County Superior Court (incorrectly identified as “Oakland County” by Petitioner in one pleading):ġ2/20/13 Hearing – ex parte hearing on initial request for Temporary Restraining Order (ex parte means the requesting party doesn’t have to give advance notice to the other side, and can have a hearing without the opposing party present, something that is usually not allowed. Let me see if I can sum up the actions that have occurred in each court, and their outcomes, thus far, to help clarify why the extensions were granted, and by which court.
I think part of the confusion is that this case has been heard now in three separate courts – the Alameda County Superior Court (state trial court), the First (Second? – the pleading captions vary) Appellate District Court (state sppeals court) and the District Court of California (federal trial court).
There has been a lot of confusion about the court proceedings in the Jahi McMath case, and a number of questions as to why Judge Grillo extended the initial temporary restraining order (TRO) out to January 7, nearly 3 weeks after the initial TRO was granted. Sprocket.Ġ1/03/14 The Long, Sad Death of Jahi McMath - by CaliGirl9Ġ1/05/14 Jahi McMath: Merely Dead, or Really Most Sincerely Dead? - by KZĠ1/10/14 Jahi McMath: A Body in Limbo - by Sprocket I have verified that VenomousFeminist is a real attorney, licensed with the California State Bar. T&T is fortunate to have one of our readers, VenomousFeminist, a California attorney, explain the court documents and rulings in the Jahi McMath case.