Calling Motl Brody's Brain

Three years is too short a time for this to be brought up again. I was so ready to forget Terry Schiavo in 05.

Background: Motl Brady was a 12 year old boy who had a horrible brain tumor that ate through him in six months. Last week, he was pronounced dead due to a cessation of brain function. However, his Orthodox Jewish parents disagree with the hospital's definition of death, citing that the Jewish religion defines death as a cessation of ALL organ function, and since life support is making Motl's heart beat and lungs inflate/deflate, he's still alive. Since he is still alive, it is the hospital's duty to continue treating him.

This is tragic, really. No parents should have to live through their children's deaths, especially not a young kid like that, and in such a horrible way. Sigh. My sincerest condolences to the Brody family.

The legal issues here could be considered by the Terry Schiavo precedent, except that Terry wasn't COMPLETELY brain-dead like Motl is, but rather in a persistent vegetative state (PVS). She could perspire on her own and her heart was still beating, which is why it was her feeding tube that was the center of attention. A better legal precedent is that of little Jesse Koochin, who died in 2004: this article details that case. Aside from the parents' motivations, the two cases are very similar.

The Koochins were hoping for a miracle. The Brody family has no such delusions, yet they are at the center of a religious debate. In fact, it's not a tenet of the Jewish faith that death is defined by complete organ failure. Death is defined by the moment when the soul leaves the body, as far as I know. But of course, since the intricacies of the Jewish faith have always been the subject of vigorous debate, why should this be an exception? Why should we let the states decide? Details about the religious debate within Jewish law... It's a pretty interesting read.

Here's the main reason why Motl Brody and Terry Schiavo are different: the implications for the rest of us. The Brody family isn't looking to change any laws, they are just looking for an exception to be made for what they feel is their duty to their son and God. The Schiavo case had pro-life implications that were pretty terrifying. If the life of Terry (a person with a barely functioning brain that would never function properly again) was protected under the law, then what did that say about a fetus with a functioning brain and full potential?

The only thing at stake here is one hospital bed and the time of some nurses. I mean, that's important too, but it's not the end of the world. He won't be alive for five more years like Terry. Eventually his body will stop responding to the drugs. Explain to me why the Brodies can't take Motl back on life support like the Koochins did?