Veatch Says Let Jahi Mcmath's Parents Choose their Own Definition of Death

Eminent bioethics expert Robert Veatch argues that the parents of Jahi Mcmath should get to choose their own definition of death.  

He asks why "American law continues to force one standard of death on Jahi's parents and others who have plausible alternative definitions."  After all, Veatch argues, "the choice among the options is not a cut-and-dried matter of medical science."  "Why not let people have some choice based on their personal religious and cultural views?"

Indeed, California could have followed New Jersey and required that "the death of an individual shall not be declared upon the basis of neurological criteria . . . when the licensed physician authorized to declare death, has reason to believe, on the basis of information in the individual's available medical records, or information provided by a member of the individual's family or any other person knowledgeable about the individual's personal religious beliefs that such a declaration would violate the personal religious beliefs of the individual."

But California did not follow New Jersey.  Indeed, in 2008, California revisited its 1982 adoption of the Uniform Determination of Death Act.  Yet, while perfectly aware of the New Jersey rule, California did not seek to alter or amend those requirements.  It simply added a requirement for a "reasonably brief period of accommodation."

I am not sure that the evidence establishes that Jahi Mcmath would satisfy the New Jersey rule, even if it were adopted in California.  But the fact remains that it has not.

Veatch is correct to observe that, in any case, the determination of death debate is beside the point.  Many California hospitals have futility policies that would authorize the removal of cardiopulmonary support even on a living patient in Jahi Mcmath's devastated and irreversible condition.