General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

Revived Girl Baffles Medical Experts

Started by Asfd · · Last activity · 22 posts · 948 views

This thread is locked and is currently read-only.

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
General fitness, health and nutrition
Published
17 December 2003
Last activity
17 December 2003
Original author
Asfd
Posts
22
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
948
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–20 of 22
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. November 14, 2003 Revived Girl Baffles Medical Experts By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

    FULLERTON, Calif. (AP) -- Detective Mike Kendrick began photographing the body of a little girl on
    an emergency room table for an investigation of a drowning.

    Then, through the lens, he saw her chest move. Just spasms, he thought. Then he saw it move again.
    And again.

    ``Am I seeing things? Does she look like she's breathing?'' Kendrick asked his partner.

    Less than an hour earlier, Kendrick had broken the news to the girl's mother that she had been
    pronounced dead by doctors. Minutes earlier, he stood by as the mother said goodbye to her daughter.

    But 20-month-old Mackayala Jespersen was indeed alive. On Friday, she was in serious condition at
    Children's Hospital of Orange County, where she was transferred after being revived.

    Her case has baffled hospital and emergency workers. They had struggled to revive her with CPR,
    breathing tubes, a heated blanket. How could they have missed the fact that the toddler was alive?

    The Medical Board of California has launched an inquiry into whether physician error played a role,
    although the state Department of Health Services already has found that Anaheim Memorial Hospital
    followed proper protocol.

    The girl's family declined to be interviewed by The Associated Press.

    On Friday, the girl was breathing without a ventilator but was not fully alert. She was moving her
    eyes and her body somewhat, hospital spokeswoman Denise Almazan said. Earlier in the week, one of
    the girl's doctors said brain scans showed no serious brain damage.

    Mackayala slipped out the back door of her family's home in Fullerton, about 30 miles south of Los
    Angeles, on Nov. 7. A family member found the girl floating face-down in the 52-degree water of the
    swimming pool shortly after 9 a.m., according to police reports and emergency workers.

    The girl's mother, Melissa Jespersen, placed a frantic 911 call. Minutes later, two police officers
    arrived and began performing cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

    ``We did CPR for six or seven minutes. It seemed like a million years,'' said one of the officers,
    Steve Rubio.

    At one point, Mackayala spit up water, or perhaps it was forced from her lungs by the chest
    compressions.

    Paramedics arrived and took Mackayala by ambulance to the hospital.

    Kendrick and his partner, Detective Brent Rebert, were driving to the Jespersen home when they got
    word that Mackayala had been pronounced dead at 10:06 a.m.

    At the home, Kendrick took the mother into her daughter's bedroom, sat her on the bed and told her
    the news. She went limp, fell to the floor and curled into a fetal position.

    ``The look on this mom's face was absolute horror and disbelief,'' he said.

    The two detectives put her in their car. ``All the way to the hospital, she kept saying, `This isn't
    true. God wouldn't take her at this age,''' Kendrick said.

    At Anaheim Memorial, the detectives escorted her into a room off the ER to say farewell to her
    daughter. A few minutes later, they began the routine of photographing the body and making notes.

    The heart monitor had a flat line. Her breathing tube had been disconnected. Her body was still
    wrapped in a heating blanket that had apparently been used to try to raise her body temperature. By
    all appearances, Mackayala was dead.

    Then, at 10:45 a.m. -- 39 minutes after she had been pronounced dead -- her chest appeared to spasm.
    At first, the detectives thought it was releasing gas -- a natural process after death. But the
    spasms continued and became longer.

    ``It looks like she's breathing,'' Kendrick told his partner. ``Go and get somebody.''

    Rebert returned with a nurse, who put a stethoscope to the girl's chest. Doctors raced in. Machines
    were turned back on. Mackayala had a pulse. The two police officers shook their heads in disbelief.

    Kendrick had the job of telling Mackayala's mother that her daughter was alive. This time, she fell
    to her knees and thanked God.

    Three days later, Kendrick and another officer stopped by the hospital to visit Mackayala. ``We were
    a little bit worried about how they would react to us. But we couldn't stay away,'' he said.

    He got a hug from Mackayala's mother.

    ``She asked if I would come back and visit Mackayala when she comes home,'' Kendrick said. ``I
    said sure.''

    ===============================================

  2. The last I heard, some four or six days after the drowning event, the girl was showing signs of
    voluntary movement. I'm afraid the rest of the story is, the oxygen deprivation to her brain broke
    its developmental chain; and she's going to mature into a retarded adult. This will of course, not
    make the news.

    I recall an episode in ER in which a physician revived a person who had been pronounced, and the
    consequences were discussed there. Also, an episode on Public Television about a girl child who had
    fallen into an icy stream and was lost in a drain system. She was found and revived but was
    handicapped in her later development.

    Was it really so nice this child survived? I'd sure like to think so but I'm glad I'm not
    involved in this.

    Cheers -- Martha Adams

  3. (Martha H Adams) said:

    The last I heard, some four or six days after the drowning event, the girl was showing signs of
    voluntary movement. I'm afraid the rest of the story is, the oxygen deprivation to her brain broke
    its developmental chain; and she's going to mature into a retarded adult. This will of course, not
    make the news.

    It never does. The news media has no interest in reality.

    Quoted message said:

    I recall an episode in ER

    Please don't believe a single thing you see on that show. It is pure fantasy.

    Quoted message said:

    Was it really so nice this child survived? I'd sure like to think so but I'm glad I'm not
    involved in this.

    No, it probably won't be so nice. Being so young, it's hard to say how much brain function she'll
    recover, and it would be wonderful if she continued her miracle performance, but it's unlikely
    she'll survive the long-term as anything more than a devastating expense and a sad example of modern
    medicine's ability to keep all the organs functioning except the one that counts. I pity her, her
    parents, and all those involved with her care.

  4. Carey Gregory said:
    (Martha H Adams) said:

    Was it really so nice this child survived? I'd sure like to think so but I'm glad I'm not involved
    in this.

    No, it probably won't be so nice. Being so young, it's hard to say how much brain function she'll
    recover, and it would be wonderful if she continued her miracle performance, but it's unlikely
    she'll survive the long-term as anything more than a devastating expense and a sad example of
    modern medicine's ability to keep all the organs functioning except the one that counts. I pity
    her, her parents, and all those involved with her care.

    And perhaps, if she ends up leading a pitiful long-term existence, confined to a wheelchair,
    drooling on herself, being fed by a tube, the new governor Arnold will pull a Jeb Bush and declare
    that she must be kept alive no matter what anyone else thinks might be ethical.

    PF

  5. In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

    Quoted message said:


    And perhaps, if she ends up leading a pitiful long-term existence, confined to a wheelchair,
    drooling on herself, being fed by a tube, the new governor Arnold will pull a Jeb Bush and declare
    that she must be kept alive no matter what anyone else thinks might be ethical.

    Because it's always better to starve someone to death on no more than the say-so of someone who will
    gain financially and relationally by their death (gets to marry his new girlfriend).

    Always a good reason to have a living will in place. Terry Schiavo's parents are obviously being
    optimistic, but I also wouldn't want my husband to be able to kill me because he found me
    inconvenient.

    Michelle Flutist

    --
    Drift on a river, That flows through my arms Drift as I'm singing to you I see you smiling, So
    peaceful and calm And holding you, I'm smiling, too Here in my arms, Safe from all harm Holding you,
    I'm smiling, too -- For Xander [9/22/98 - 2/23/99]

  6. [email hidden] (PF Riley) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:

    And perhaps, if she ends up leading a pitiful long-term existence, confined to a wheelchair,
    drooling on herself, being fed by a tube, the new governor Arnold will pull a Jeb Bush and declare
    that she must be kept alive no matter what anyone else thinks might be ethical.

    Yes, I have always felt that one can not really understand ethics until they have killed someone.

    -TOE

    "Saddam is getting Nigerium from Uranus." -Mark Steyn

    Quoted message said:

    PF

  7. "PF Riley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]... .
    :
    : And perhaps, if she ends up leading a pitiful long-term existence, confined to a wheelchair,
    : drooling on herself, being fed by a tube, the new governor Arnold will pull a Jeb Bush and declare
    : that she must be kept alive no matter what anyone else thinks might be ethical.
    :
    so if the government insists on keeping me alive while in a vegetative coma indefinitely, i demand i
    be read an entire copy of a major newspaper every day, from front to back including all
    advertisements. this way if i come out of said coma i'll be up to date on all of the events i will
    have missed over the years i was in said coma! don't just wave balloons in my face like you would to
    a 2 year old!

  8. Michelle J. Haines said:

    Because it's always better to starve someone to death on no more than the say-so of someone who
    will gain financially and relationally by their death (gets to marry his new girlfriend).

    Just a wee bit of hyperbole, yes? It takes considerably more than the say-so of a single person.

  9. In article <[email hidden]>,

    Michelle J. Haines said:

    In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

    Quoted message said:


    And perhaps, if she ends up leading a pitiful long-term existence, confined to a wheelchair,
    drooling on herself, being fed by a tube, the new governor Arnold will pull a Jeb Bush and
    declare that she must be kept alive no matter what anyone else thinks might be ethical.

    Because it's always better to starve someone to death on no more than the say-so of someone who
    will gain financially and relationally by their death (gets to marry his new girlfriend).

    Always a good reason to have a living will in place. Terry Schiavo's parents are obviously being
    optimistic, but I also wouldn't want my husband to be able to kill me because he found me
    inconvenient.

    Michelle Flutist

    there seems to be evidence that the husband in this case sought for many years to find rehab for his
    wife -- that he tried a number of suggested new treatments etc etc -- In other words, he did his
    best to give her a shot at life and has found -- and doctors agree -- that she is gone.

    What is the motive of the parents in maintaining their daughter [at public expense presumably since
    they claim the lawsuit money is gone] as a vegetable indefinately? It sounds like they have allowed
    themselves to become political puppets of interest groups and that they are motivated by spite
    against the husband. What good do they think it will do Terri?

    none of us knows these people [so anything we say is based on what we read and assumptions we are
    making -- and could be off base ] -- but the court had a chance to look at the evidence and the
    people involved -- being kept 'alive' like this indefinately would be my personal nightmare -- would
    you want it for yourself? They are my pick for intrusive nightmare parents of the year.

  10. Michelle J. Haines said:

    Because it's always better to starve someone to death on no more than the say-so of someone who
    will gain financially and relationally by their death (gets to marry his new girlfriend).

    Always a good reason to have a living will in place. Terry Schiavo's parents are obviously being
    optimistic, but I also wouldn't want my husband to be able to kill me because he found me
    inconvenient.

    I think you're substantially exaggerating Terry's husband's sins in that case, and
    substantially underestimating the irrationality of the hope held by her parents, painful as
    this situation is for them.

  11. In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

    Quoted message said:
    Michelle J. Haines said:

    Because it's always better to starve someone to death on no more than the say-so of someone who
    will gain financially and relationally by their death (gets to marry his new girlfriend).

    Just a wee bit of hyperbole, yes? It takes considerably more than the say-so of a single person.

    The only reason it's being considered it because the husband is saying "It's what she wants." We
    only have HIS word for that.

    Michelle Flutist

    --
    Drift on a river, That flows through my arms Drift as I'm singing to you I see you smiling, So
    peaceful and calm And holding you, I'm smiling, too Here in my arms, Safe from all harm Holding you,
    I'm smiling, too -- For Xander [9/22/98 - 2/23/99]

  12. In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

    Quoted message said:
    Michelle J. Haines said:

    Because it's always better to starve someone to death on no more than the say-so of someone who
    will gain financially and relationally by their death (gets to marry his new girlfriend).

    Always a good reason to have a living will in place. Terry Schiavo's parents are obviously being
    optimistic, but I also wouldn't want my husband to be able to kill me because he found me
    inconvenient.

    I think you're substantially exaggerating Terry's husband's sins in that case, and substantially
    underestimating the irrationality of the hope held by her parents, painful as this situation is
    for them.

    For a man who has money in a trust for her rehabilitation that she never received, who just had a
    baby with a new girlfriend, and suddenly it's time to end it all, even though she's been in this
    state for ten years?

    He's been neglecting his wife, at best.

    And how about insisting her feeding tube is removed, but then not allowing her to be given
    communion, because she might choke?

    Her parents are probably way overstating her ability to recover and her recognition of her mother,
    but he's just as far over the edge the other direction, IMO.

    Michelle Flutist

    --
    Drift on a river, That flows through my arms Drift as I'm singing to you I see you smiling, So
    peaceful and calm And holding you, I'm smiling, too Here in my arms, Safe from all harm Holding you,
    I'm smiling, too -- For Xander [9/22/98 - 2/23/99]

  13. Michelle J. Haines said:

    The only reason it's being considered it because the husband is saying "It's what she wants." We
    only have HIS word for that.

    Wants? She has no wants. She has no opinions, thoughts, feelings, or awareness of anything at all.
    She is gone. She died years ago.

    And to be blunt about it, what does it really matter what she wanted? Keeping her body functioning
    serves no one. Not the woman who used to inhabit that body, not her family, and not the public. Even
    if she did want to bankrupt her family and deprive others of scarce resources to maintain her body's
    biological functions indefinitely, that desire is selfish, unreasonable, and comes at a huge cost to
    the living. No one should be able to demand that their body be maintained as some sort of biological
    temple at society's expense. If they want such an arrangement, they should make plans and pay for it
    in advance.

  14. In article <[email hidden]>,

    Michelle J. Haines said:

    In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

    Quoted message said:
    Michelle J. Haines said:

    Because it's always better to starve someone to death on no more than the say-so of someone who
    will gain financially and relationally by their death (gets to marry his new girlfriend).

    Just a wee bit of hyperbole, yes? It takes considerably more than the say-so of a single person.

    The only reason it's being considered it because the husband is saying "It's what she wants." We
    only have HIS word for that.

    Michelle Flutist

    It's my understanding that the court that made the decision had more to go on than that.

    It certainly is what *I* would want in her position.

    meh
    --
    Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

  15. Michelle J. Haines said:

    For a man who has money in a trust for her rehabilitation that she never received, who just had a
    baby with a new girlfriend, and suddenly it's time to end it all, even though she's been in this
    state for ten years?

    Her doctors and the court apparently see it quite differently. I'm extremely skeptical that
    political activists, the news media, and a bunch of politicians are in possession of more accurate
    information. I'm also extremely skeptical that they have her best interests in mind. Frankly, I
    doubt very much if they give a damn about her or her husband.

    Quoted message said:

    He's been neglecting his wife, at best.

    His wife has been dead many years. That's the part you don't seem to grasp.

    Quoted message said:

    And how about insisting her feeding tube is removed, but then not allowing her to be given
    communion, because she might choke?

    A feeding tube is not a choking hazard, but *anything* by mouth for an unconscious person most
    certainly is. Would you prefer to kill her by airway obstruction or aspiration pneumonia? Do you
    really think that's better somehow?

    Quoted message said:

    Her parents are probably way overstating her ability to recover and her recognition of her mother,
    but he's just as far over the edge the other direction, IMO.

    Ask yourself why her doctors would be "over the edge." You seem to think this decision is all his.
    It is not.

  16. In article <[email hidden]>,

    Michelle J. Haines said:

    In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

    Quoted message said:
    Michelle J. Haines said:

    Because it's always better to starve someone to death on no more than the say-so of someone
    who will gain financially and relationally by their death (gets to marry his new girlfriend).

    Always a good reason to have a living will in place. Terry Schiavo's parents are obviously
    being optimistic, but I also wouldn't want my husband to be able to kill me because he found
    me inconvenient.

    I think you're substantially exaggerating Terry's husband's sins in that case, and substantially
    underestimating the irrationality of the hope held by her parents, painful as this situation is
    for them.

    For a man who has money in a trust for her rehabilitation that she never received, who just had a
    baby with a new girlfriend, and suddenly it's time to end it all, even though she's been in this
    state for ten years?

    the parents claim the money is all gone -- spent on legal fees

    the husband tried all sorts of recommended therapy for years -- all of it to no avail --

    Quoted message said:


    He's been neglecting his wife, at best.

    he hasn't had a wife for over a decade -- if she had been injured for a year I might find your
    argument credible -- but there is ample evidence that he very aggressively sought treatment and
    spent time trying to bring her back for YEARS -- it is insane to think a man should remain tied to
    someone incapable of any human relationship at all for over a decade and that it is somehow
    negligent to find a new relationship

    Quoted message said:


    And how about insisting her feeding tube is removed, but then not allowing her to be given
    communion, because she might choke?

    Her parents are probably way overstating her ability to recover and her recognition of her mother,
    but he's just as far over the edge the other direction, IMO.

    Michelle Flutist

  17. "Michelle J. Haines" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    For a man who has money in a trust for her rehabilitation that she never received, who just had a
    baby with a new girlfriend, and suddenly it's time to end it all, even though she's been in this
    state for ten years?

    He's been neglecting his wife, at best.


    He started proceedings to have the feeding tube removed at least six years ago, perhaps longer. It's
    not as if he suddenly decided on this course of action after 12 years; to the contrary, he has been
    trying for quite a long time to carry out her wishes.

    Quoted message said:

    Her parents are probably way overstating her ability to recover and her recognition of her mother,
    but he's just as far over the edge the other direction, IMO.


    In general, the medical community seems to agree more with his assessment of her state of being than
    with her parents'. The only members of the medical community who claim otherwise are those offering
    various therapies for "curing" her, none of which have ever been shown to be effective and for the
    provision of which they will undoubtedly at no small financial benefit. IOW, the doctors supporting
    the parents' claims are not exactly disinterested third parties.
    --
    Be well, Barbara (Julian [6], Aurora [4], and Vernon's [20mo] mom)

    This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop: "Rejuvinate your skin." -- Hydroderm ad

    Daddy: You're up with the chickens this morning. Aurora: No, I'm up with my dolls!

    All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful. Needless to say, they are not
    those of my Internet Service Provider, its other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise
    is itchin' for a fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman

  18. Michelle J. Haines <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:

    In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

    Quoted message said:
    Michelle J. Haines said:

    Because it's always better to starve someone to death on no more than the say-so of someone
    who will gain financially and relationally by their death (gets to marry his new girlfriend).

    Always a good reason to have a living will in place. Terry Schiavo's parents are obviously
    being optimistic, but I also wouldn't want my husband to be able to kill me because he found
    me inconvenient.

    I think you're substantially exaggerating Terry's husband's sins in that case, and substantially
    underestimating the irrationality of the hope held by her parents, painful as this situation is
    for them.

    For a man who has money in a trust for her rehabilitation that she never received, who just had a
    baby with a new girlfriend, and suddenly it's time to end it all, even though she's been in this
    state for ten years?

    Most of the money from the lawsuit *was* spent on her care. And on lawyers fees.

    It doesn't make sense that he's just motivated to do this because he wants to marry the girlfriend.
    Since there's little money left, and since it's very easy to divorce (if he wanted to) and since
    there is little stigma these days to have AND raise the kids out of wedlock, I doubt strongly that
    the girlfriend and baby have all that much to do with his decision.

    Cathy Weeks Mommy to Kivi Alexis 12/01

  19. In article <mehouck-0AE877.16390919112003@newssvr13- ext.news.prodigy.com>,
    [email hidden] says...

    Quoted message said:


    It certainly is what *I* would want in her position.

    So?

    Michelle Flutist

    --
    Drift on a river, That flows through my arms Drift as I'm singing to you I see you smiling, So
    peaceful and calm And holding you, I'm smiling, too Here in my arms, Safe from all harm Holding you,
    I'm smiling, too -- For Xander [9/22/98 - 2/23/99]

  20. "dragonlady" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    In article <[email hidden]>, Michelle J. Haines

    Quoted message said:

    In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

    Quoted message said:

    Michelle J. Haines <[email hidden]> wrote:


    The only reason it's being considered it because the husband is saying "It's what she wants." We
    only have HIS word for that.


    It's my understanding that the court that made the decision had more to go on than that.


    My impression is that when it comes to determine what *she* would have wanted, there is not much
    more to go on than her husband's word. She did not have a living will/advanced directive (but then,
    few people do). Her family feels she made indirect statements suggesting she felt otherwise (things
    like saying, "Where there's life, there's hope."😉.

    The question is: whose word do we trust in such cases? Do we trust the spouse, who was the
    patient's most intimate partner and whom the patient herself selected as her next of kin by the
    very act of marrying him, or the family, who may well be close to the patient but who are neither
    intimate with her nor were selected by her to make such decisions? The law, at least, presumes the
    spouse is the most likely person to know what the patient would have wished and to act in the
    patient's best interest. Barring evidence of foul play on the part of the spouse, that seems a
    reasonable position to take.
    --
    Be well, Barbara (Julian [6], Aurora [4], and Vernon's [20mo] mom)

    This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop: "Rejuvinate your skin." -- Hydroderm ad

    Daddy: You're up with the chickens this morning. Aurora: No, I'm up with my dolls!

    All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful. Needless to say, they are not
    those of my Internet Service Provider, its other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise
    is itchin' for a fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.