First of all, a disclaimer: I am biased. Not because I'm a Democrat, but because I'm a heart transplant cardiologist. So, if there is a conflict between the rule of law and patient needs, I will side with the patients.
I came across this "story" on twitter that Martha Coakley several years ago when was a DA denied a family's request to have their son's heart donated. I thought it was garbage, but confirmed that the gist of the story is true by a reputable medical website, although it could be interpreted in different ways. Keep in mind that this article was written years ago so nobody can argue that is biased due to the present health care reform bill:
http://www.theheart.org/...
"Middlesex District Attorney Martha Coakley blocked the donation of Costin's heart after he was diagnosed clinically brain-dead," writes Sean P Murphy of the Globe, "to preclude any possibility that his assailant's lawyer might contend at the trial that Costin died of a pre-existing heart condition rather than the beating."
Although the move may have made sense as a matter of legal strategy, Murphy notes, some doctors say that a patient was probably denied a heart transplant because of it, and that preserving the heart would not have strengthened the prosecution's case any further "because it was demonstrably healthy, and transplant surgeons would have rejected it if any defects were discovered." The medical evidence, they argue, showed overwhelmingly that Costin died from head trauma and that his heart was fine, and that would have been enough to counter any doubts raised by the defense by questioning the cause of death.
The gist of the matter is that Coakley was worried that taking the heart out and preventing proper examination at autopsy might allow the defendant to argue that a heart problem caused death. But this is frankly bogus. FIrst of all, the fact that the heart was used for transpant indicates everybody felt it was normal. The article linked by theheart.org mentions that the EMT at the scene was worried about a heart attack. But this also doesn't matter as the prosecution can call forth the doctors at the hospital and the transplant surgeon who could say "It was normal. There was no heart attack."
Finally, this was an involuntary manslaughter case. And the FAMILY of the victim wanted to donate.
So what does this tell us about Coakley? That she is evil that the tea partiers want us to believe? No, of course not. It tells me that she is a dull, passionless bureaucrat..exactly what I have thought during this campaign. She is not somebody I am going to give money for.
But I support health care reform. IT is for that reason that I hope she wins. But Brown is the better candidate. We will like Coakley's votes, but not much else. I'm not even sure how badly she wants the job. The Mass Democratic Party should be ashamed that she was nominated. How often will Democrats grab defeat from the near certain jaws of victory?
As I side note, I wonder how often this happens, prosecutors / medical examiners preventing organ transplants in the guise of "preserving evidence." If so, it makes me sad. People die every day waiting for transplants, some of whom have been my patients. The fact that perfectly normal hearts which could give a recipient 20 or 30 years of life are potentially unused is an abomination.