Salon: Pregnant, brain-dead Texas woman kept alive

[Duckus]

This is insane, even for Texas standards.

 

A woman who was 14 weeks pregnant died in Texas. She is brain dead. Her end of life wishes were to never be kept "alive" on life support. Her family doesn't want her to be on life support. Texas law is forcing her to be kept on life support and they are going to attempt to get the baby to term.

Oh, and the state doesn't cover the thousands of dollars per day in medical bills. Those costs are the responsibility of the family.
 

Pregnant, brain-dead Texas woman kept alive

DALLAS (AP) — Marlise Munoz lies in a North Texas hospital, 19 weeks pregnant but with no chance of seeing her child born.

Her husband, Erick Munoz, says a doctor told him she’s brain dead, but John Peter Smith Hospital is refusing to allow him to take her off of life support. The hospital says Texas law prohibits it from following a family directive when a pregnancy is involved, although three experts say the hospital is misreading the law in question.

The case is raising questions about end-of-life care and stands in stark contrast to that of a 13-year-old girl in California whose family is trying to keep her on life support after she was declared brain dead. In that case, the hospital wants to disconnect her from a ventilator, saying the girl is legally dead.

In the Texas case, Munoz said he and his wife both worked as paramedics and have seen life and death up close.

“It’s our decision that we didn’t want to live in that condition,” he said in a phone interview Friday from his wife’s hospital room.

Munoz found his wife unconscious in the early morning hours of Nov. 26. The family says it doesn’t know the exact cause, though a pulmonary embolism is a possibility. Marlise Munoz was 14 weeks pregnant at the time.

....

John Peter Smith Hospital in Fort Worth is pointing to a provision of the Texas Advance Directives Act that reads: “A person may not withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment under this subchapter from a pregnant patient.”

 

 

More here - http://www.salon.com/2014/01/03/pregnant_brain_dead_texas_woman_kept_alive/

[RVAbrendan]

Pro-life, baby!

 

"I. LOVE. LIFE."

[mcsluggo]

to believe that this is an easy case..in any direction... is what would be insane.

 

 

this is the sort of case that annoying philosophy majors like to make-up, just to be annoying.

 

(eg... yo uhave 9 babies on one railroad track with a train rushing towrds it, and 1 baby on on an alternate track that you can switch to.... blablabla....)

[Duckus]

to believe that this is an easy case..in any direction... is what would be insane.

 

 

this is the sort of case that annoying philosophy majors like to make-up, just to be annoying.

 

(eg... yo uhave 9 babies on one railroad track with a train rushing towrds it, and 1 baby on on an alternate track that you can switch to.... blablabla....)

 

The situation is hard because it is an absolute tragedy. Someone lost a mother and wife. As a new dad myself, that is heart breaking and I can't image the pain the family is going through.

 

But - She is dead. Her wishes were to never be kept alive on life support. Her families wishes were never to be kept alive on life support. The fetus is not viable. They have no idea how long she was dead before they found her. They have no idea the health of the fetus.

 

What is really driving me crazy is this idea that this is an abortion issue.

 

This is not an abortion.

 

It is a tragic death and it is sad but the idea that the state is keeping this woman as a incubator for 20+ weeks to give birth via a corpse is terrifying. 

[Elessar78]

Wow. IMO, there's more to pregnancy than just bringing a baby to term. There's a connection between mother and child that goes beyond simple biology—hearing the mother's voice, her movement, endorphins flooding through different emotions that the mother experiences, the foods that the mother eats. I worry that that connection will not be there.

 

But it is very intriguing to see what type of human being will come to be if they can successfully bring this baby to term. 

[Larry]

What is really driving me crazy is this idea that this is an abortion issue.

But it is.

We really, really, really, want to ban abortion.

But, the only way we can successfully impose that wish, is if we pretend that a fertilized egg is a person.

This results in all kinds of illogical positions, like banning contraceptives, criminalizing possession of stem cells, and mandating that Petrie dishes are children.

But, if that's what we have to do, so that we can ban abortion, then, well, . . .

to believe that this is an easy case..in any direction... is what would be insane.

I do agree with you.

This is one of those times where I'm REALLY glad I'm not a judge.

[twa]

Larry ,a 14-19 wk fetus is not a egg

 

If she had no directive signed,and the husband wishes her disconnected, the court is available to settle any dispute over the law.

 

the husbands choice is limited by law,no different than if she was not brain dead(if she is)

 

it definitely sucks, but the mother clearly did not choose to end the child's life.....why should the husband be able to choose now?

[Duckus]

Larry ,a 14-19 wk fetus is not a egg

 

If she had no directive signed,and the husband wishes her disconnected, the court is available to settle any dispute over the law.

 

the husbands choice is limited by law,no different than if she was not brain dead(if she is)

 

it definitely sucks, but the mother clearly did not choose to end the child's life.....why should the husband be able to choose now?

 

In Texas, it actually does't matter if she had a directive signed or not. 

 

The law says you can't remove life-sustaining treatment regardless.

[DaGoonie55]

 

But three experts interviewed by The Associated Press, including two who helped draft the law, said a brain-dead patient’s case wouldn’t be covered by the law.

 

“This patient is neither terminally nor irreversibly ill,” said Dr. Robert Fine, clinical director of the office of clinical ethics and palliative care for Baylor Health Care System. “Under Texas law, this patient is legally dead.”

 

 

Pretty much sums it up.  A court will step in and end this for the father.  I cannot imagine what he is going through.

[twa]

Wow. IMO, there's more to pregnancy than just bringing a baby to term. There's a connection between mother and child that goes beyond simple biology—hearing the mother's voice, her movement, endorphins flooding through different emotions that the mother experiences, the foods that the mother eats. I worry that that connection will not be there.

 

But it is very intriguing to see what type of human being will come to be if they can successfully bring this baby to term. 

 

There are limited cases,but in general there appears no issues with the child after birth

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/pregnant-brain-dead-texas-woman-alive-21416685

 

In Texas, it actually does't matter if she had a directive signed or not. 

 

The law says you can't remove life-sustaining treatment regardless.

 

That is the hospitals claim, of course they can be sued for allowing or not allowing either choice....sucks to be them as well

[Kindred]

Axolotl tank!!! 

[Larry]

BTW,

Granted, all I'm seeing is one quoted sentence from a larger law. But that one sentence sure looks, to me, like it says what the hospital claims.

[The Sisko]

In Texas, it actually does't matter if she had a directive signed or not. 

 

The law says you can't remove life-sustaining treatment regardless.

Which means that the family shouldn't be on the hook for the medical expenses. Let Texas' small gubment foot the cost for this kind of thing whenever someone has an advance directive and Texas law prevents the healthcare provider from pulling the plug. If you really believe in life and in forcing your beliefs about it onto others then you as a taxpayer ought to be willing to pay for it.

[s0crates]

Wow. That is absurd. God save us from the people that love you.

[Bang]

Brain dead people shouldn't be having sex to begin with.

~Bang

[Larry]

Brain dead people shouldn't be having sex to begin with.

~Bang

This is Texas.

[twa]

Which means that the family shouldn't be on the hook for the medical expenses. Let Texas' small gubment foot the cost for this kind of thing whenever someone has an advance directive and Texas law prevents the healthcare provider from pulling the plug. If you really believe in life and in forcing your beliefs about it onto others then you as a taxpayer ought to be willing to pay for it.

 

you mean the medical expenses after the husband decided to remove life support?...if so I agree

the fetus/child then becomes a ward of the state in a perfect world.

 

of course we can then charge him for child support since he never had the legal ability to end the life whether she is alive or dead.

 

the cross men bear 

[Larry]

Actually, am I correct that, if the woman were conscious, right now, and wanted an abortion, she could still have one?

[Kilmer17]

Ugh.

 

What an aweful story and aweful political football.

[Larry]

Ugh.

What an aweful story and aweful political football.

Agreed. It's a tragedy that it's happening at all.

[twa]

Actually, am I correct that, if the woman were conscious, right now, and wanted an abortion, she could still have one?

if it is still 19 weeks yes,but she would need to be mobile if the hospital doesn't provide them w/o medical cause...the fact she is a patient carries responsibilities for the hospital,and the fetus is a patient as well.

the father does not get a proxy vote.(which seems unfair)

 

 

as mentioned,it is complicated

[Renegade7]

I'm at work, but can anyone find another article that confirms the hospital is making the family pay for the medical bills? This is the deal breaker to me.

How can anyone with a straight-face hold someone on life support for 9 months against the family's wishes then make them pay for the medical bills as well? And this is given the baby even survives.

This is wrong, very, very wrong.

[Predicto]

Bad facts make bad law, and these are ridiculous facts.  

 

Ugh.

 

What an aweful story and aweful political football.

 

perfectly put

[s0crates]

to believe that this is an easy case..in any direction... is what would be insane.

this is the sort of case that annoying philosophy majors like to make-up, just to be annoying.

(eg... yo uhave 9 babies on one railroad track with a train rushing towrds it, and 1 baby on on an alternate track that you can switch to.... blablabla....)

Why so disparaging of philosophers? Thinking about difficult questions may make you uncomfortable, but I believe such considerations have merit.

Those so-called trolley car cases are perhaps unduly abstract, but they have real-world relevance. Similar considerations also apply to real-life concerns about things like survival cannibalism and collateral damage.

The case of this poor family in Texas is not just a thought experiment.

[twa]

I'm at work, but can anyone find another article that confirms the hospital is making the family pay for the medical bills? This is the deal breaker to me.

How can anyone with a straight-face hold someone on life support for 9 months against the family's wishes then make them pay for the medical bills as well? And this is given the baby even survives.

This is wrong, very, very wrong.

 

you cannot be forced to pay hospital bills.

 

It will not be 9 months,since they are quite capable of early c-sections and 4 months were already done before her hospitalization.