Christianity: Grounds to exempt a patient from being considered "dead"?

What would you do if a family member of yours was suddenly pronounced brain dead? This is a trying issue for a family in New Jersey.

According to The Daily Beast, two years ago, at the age of thirteen, Jahi McMath was wheeled into an operating room in her home state of California, for what was expected to be a tonsillectomy. However, after she began to hemorrhage blood during the surgery, she became unconscious, and was eventually pronounced brain dead.

A majority of the time, when a patient is pronounced brain dead, they are considered to no longer be a living being, due to their vegetative state. In fact, within the United States, 50 of the 51 states consider a patient whom is brain dead to no longer be living, issuing patients who do encounter this state, a death certificate. According to the National Kidney Foundation, brain death is an irreversible condition, which occurs after some sort of injury or trauma to the brain, which inhibits a blood supply from flowing into the brain. Without an active blood supply, the brain will no longer function, and as a result, will die. As stated previously, this condition is irreversible. There has never been a reported case of a patient who has recovered from brain death. In addition, brain death is a legal definition of death.

Once a patient is proclaimed brain dead, with the permission of family members, they are removed from life support. However, this is not the case with fifteen year-old, Jahi McMath and her family.

Shortly after the incident, the state of California issued Jahi McMath a death certificate, seeing as she was in an irreversible, vegetative state. Jahi McMath’s mother, Nailah Winkfield, did not agree with the doctor’s prognosis, claiming that although her daughter was brain dead, that she was not actually dead, and would, with the help of her Christian God, be able to make a full recovery. As a result, Winkfield refused to allow the doctors to remove her daughter from life support.   

Now, two years later, Winkfield has moved her daughter to the state of New Jersey, the only state within the United States, which considers Jahi McMath to still be a living being. Since moving to New Jersey, Winkfield has worked hard in order to get the state of California to rescind Jahi McMath’s death certificate, under the request of a religious exemption. It is here that one may ask: should Jahi McMath be exempted from being considered dead by the state of California, due her family’s religious beliefs?

Winkfield wishes to be exempt from California’s law due to the fact that she believes her daughter, with the help of prayer and other religious activity, will make a full recovery, since becoming brain dead. According to nj.com, Winkfield claims that Jahi McMath’s brain death was wrongly proclaimed due to the fact that she still has parts of her brain, which are still active, and has, with the help of her God, made improvements within the past two years. In addition, Winkfield desires to move back to her home state of California, however, fears her daughter will not receive ongoing medical care. Thus, Winkfield is requesting a religious exemption, asking that the death certificate be repealed.

In all, Jahi McMath should be exempted from the California state law. While one could make the argument that voiding Jahi McMath’s death certificate is wrong, and to some degree pointless based upon scientific evidence, her parents do have the right to free exercise based upon their Christian beliefs and values.

Similar to Wisconsin v. Yoder, it may be determined that Jahi McMath’s parents have the right to decide whether or not their daughter, who with the help of modern day medicine still has a functioning heart and lungs, should be deemed dead or alive; it all comes down to the fact that Winkfield and her family have the right to keep their daughter on life support, due to their belief that their God will heal Jahi. In all, Jahi McMath is incapable of making the decision herself, thus allowing her parents to make the decision for her, due to their right to practice their rights as her parents.

However, giving Jahi McMath’s family a religious exemption may open a door for other’s who may wish to be granted a religious exemption under less severe circumstances. In addition, giving one singular family a religious exemption may pose issues between the state and similar cases, which have been previously decided within the court. In turn, this may cause lawmakers to question where the line may be drawn between those who may be exempted and those who may not be.