Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Salon: Pregnant, brain-dead Texas woman kept alive


Duckus

Recommended Posts

 

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.

 

I think you're misunderstanding my question.

Is the hospital paying to keep this lady on life-support or are the bills going to be passed onto the family? Doesn't matter if it's for another day or two, that **** is expensive, and if the father doesn't want to, he shouldn't have to be stuck with this kind of financial burden then have another kid come right after it as a single parent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

   

I think you're misunderstanding my question.

Is the hospital paying to keep this lady on life-support or are the bills going to be passed onto the family? Doesn't matter if it's for another day or two, that **** is expensive, and if the father doesn't want to, he shouldn't have to be stuck with this kind of financial burden then have another kid come right after it as a single parent.

 

It is impossible to answer w/o knowing if he is insured, if insured he was already well past the ded&co-pays so no additional cost to him is likely.

if he was not insured the hospital and govt already were picking up most of the tab.

 

better details would help.

 

kinda related is I don't think men can give up the child at birth w/o still being financially liable for child support.(unlike women)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It is impossible to answer w/o knowing if he is insured, if insured he was already well past the ded&co-pays so no additional cost to him is likely.

if he was not insured the hospital and govt already were picking up most of the tab.

 

better details would help.

 

kinda related is I don't think men can give up the child at birth w/o still being financially liable for child support.(unlike women)

 

That's fair, given I'm asking the question because of a lack of information.

I don't know if its real to say the govt is paying the tab anyway, because depending on the couple's coverage, whatever isn't covered the father will be liable for. It will be medical bill debt if it's not covered and he can't pay it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have read they may go full-term.

Certainly possible if no complications,if so that would be about 5 months from hospitalization.

They will generally do whatever is judged in the patients best interests.

 

Life and death choices certainly get more complicated as our abilities advance.....I hope ya'll never are faced with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This case has been ongoing. She had no Prime Directive and a father has no rights when it comes to abortion. I don't see where the state has much choice but to keep her on the ventilator.

What's Star Trek got to do with it?

Seriously, I assume you're saying she had no WRITTEN end of life directives?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would assume it is standard in every state when treating pregnant women to consider the fetus as a patient in addition to the mother,there certainly exists liability for harming them.

We do not normally allow withdrawing life support to patients that can recover......should this be a exception?

 

If it was his wife that was expected to live we would forbid withdrawing life support in most cases,even if the spouse desires it.

 

If the child is born I hope no one tells them who wanted them dead......the situation sucks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This case has been ongoing.  She had no Prime Directive and a father has no rights when it comes to abortion.  I don't see where the state has much choice but to keep her on the ventilator.

 

No "Prime Directive"???  

 

Then we have to assume that ...... Captain Kirk is the father??

 

 

 

 

edit.... d'oh!   i didn't see Larry's post before i did this :-s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If the child is born I hope no one tells them who wanted them dead......the situation sucks

 

Oh, you mean, like the child's own father?

It's crazy how even in death, this woman has no say over what happens to her body concerning child birth, and since the father doesn't have a say, the state gets to make the choice for both of them based on "what's the right thing to do".

People can't say they don't want the government to intrude in their lives then condone actions by the state like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the child is born I hope no one tells them who wanted them dead......the situation sucks

Your post begs the question. I'm not saying it is necessarily wrong, just that it assumes a certain answer to the question at issue.

The fundamental question is: Does a first trimester fetus constitute a person? Calling this fetus a child or comparing it to an adult assumes the answer to that question is yes. Intelligent and conscientious people may disagree about that.

If the answer to that question is yes, then Texas is obviously in the right, but I think you should give some reason to believe this is the case, otherwise you are merely making an unsubstantiated assertion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your post begs the question. I'm not saying it is necessarily wrong, just that it assumes a certain answer to the question at issue.

The fundamental question is: Does a first trimester fetus constitute a person? Calling this fetus a child or comparing it to an adult assumes the answer to that question is yes. Intelligent and conscientious people may disagree about that.

If the answer to that question is yes, then Texas is obviously in the right, but I think you should give some reason to believe this is the case, otherwise you are merely making an unsubstantiated assertion.

 

It is a second trimester fetus,soon to be 3rd....two weeks from the age kids have been born

 

People certainly disagree on what a person is,and have throughout history.

 

The question is do we end life support to a apparently viable human being at the request of the family.

 

I need a reason to end a life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I was typing a response in this post, when a thought occurred to me, that made me think.

(Yes, sometimes I actually think about these things. Sometimes, even before I post.)

I was going to point out, to twa's comment about withdrawing life support from a patient, that in this case, said "life support" is a person.

When it occurred to me that it's at least arguable that it isn't. In this case.

In this particular case, many of the normal arguments concerning the "person-hood" of the fetus, also apply to the mother.

I think we'd have to agree that a person's right to absolute sovereignty over their body, at least diminishes, at death. Not only does an autopsy not require a person's consent, they have no right to refuse.

Now, I think we can all agree that a universal, blanket, declaration that corpses can be used by society for whatever purposes society wants, cause heck, they're dead, certainly can be used to construct all kinds of abuses.
 

Me and my wife have been trying to conceive, but we can't. We've gut these fertilized eggs, here. I want to implant them into this "fetus life support system", here. Y'all don;t mind, do you?


But I'll certainly say that I can see a valid argument being made, for the "pro life" side, here. In this case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if the poor woman dropped and is brain dead because likely lack of oxygen to the brain. Does anybody know what that does to a fetus that early in development? 

 

I'm not aware of a mothers brain function being required for a fetuses health, the few cases of birth after life support show no issues.

Whether the fetus was oxygen starved would matter.

 

Bang a govt unconcerned with protecting life is in danger of forfeiting authority

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a second trimester fetus,soon to be 3rd....two weeks from the age kids have been born

People certainly disagree on what a person is,and have throughout history.

The question is do we end life support to a apparently viable human being at the request of the family.

I need a reason to end a life.

I'm more comfortable with the term "human being" than "child" or "person," as we are obviously talking about something biologically human when we talk about a fetus, whether or not it is a person with rights. I appreciate that concession. I think it is more accurate.

This is a tough question, for sure. I want to think on it before I say much more, but for now I will say that the will of the mother and family should not be so callously ignored, and the fact that the family will have to endure insurmountable debts on top of an already heartbreaking tragedy is very bothersome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I was typing a response in this post, when a thought occurred to me, that made me think.

(Yes, sometimes I actually think about these things. Sometimes, even before I post.)

I was going to point out, to twa's comment about withdrawing life support from a patient, that in this case, said "life support" is a person.

When it occurred to me that it's at least arguable that it isn't. In this case.

In this particular case, many of the normal arguments concerning the "person-hood" of the fetus, also apply to the mother.

I think we'd have to agree that a person's right to absolute sovereignty over their body, at least diminishes, at death. Not only does an autopsy not require a person's consent, they have no right to refuse.

Now, I think we can all agree that a universal, blanket, declaration that corpses can be used by society for whatever purposes society wants, cause heck, they're dead, certainly can be used to construct all kinds of abuses.

 

Me and my wife have been trying to conceive, but we can't. We've gut these fertilized eggs, here. I want to implant them into this "fetus life support system", here. Y'all don;t mind, do you?

But I'll certainly say that I can see a valid argument being made, for the "pro life" side, here. In this case.

 

Excellent post.   The fundamental cornerstone of the pro-life position is the humanity of the fetus.  The fundamental cornerstone of the pro-choice position is the autonomy of the mother.   The abortion question is incredibly vexing to society because both of these interests are morally powerful and (arguably) equal in significance.  Both sides genuinely believe that they are ethically correct.

 

If the mother is no longer a "person" then that definitely tips the philosophical balance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm more comfortable with the term "human being" than "child" or "person," as we are obviously talking about something biologically human when we talk about a fetus. I appreciate that concession. I think it is more accurate.

This is a tough question, for sure. I want to think on it before I say much more, but for now I will say that the will of the mother and family should not be so callously ignored, and the fact that the family will have to endure insurmountable debts on top of an already heartbreaking tragedy is very bothersome.

 

Do we know the will of the mother that chose to carry the child for months?

I would be reluctant to claim she would wish the life she carries to end because hers is.

 

The father and family are certainly in a bad situation, added debt being the least problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again, a conservative government is interfering in the private lives of its citizens.  Governments are not doctors.  Dead women are not inanimate incubators.

 

 

Pointing out that dead women are about as inanimate as you can get. 

 

Just to continue on my devil's advocacy, here,

 

If said conservatives win, and they succeed in forcing this woman to remain on life support for the next several months, then who, exactly, has been harmed? 

 

(Why do I feel like Clint Eastwood in A Fistful of Dollars?  "The dead can be very useful, at times. . . . If you shoot 'em, it's all right, cause they're already dead.") 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again, a conservative government is interfering in the private lives of its citizens.  Governments are not doctors.  Dead women are not inanimate incubators.

 

you think most Drs would vote to end a viable life that does not threaten another?

 

The womans choice was to carry the child as far as we know.

 

it is odd how things work, I would approve losing a child to save my wifes life....she on the other hand says she would rather die instead.

 

our positions flip when the others life is not at stake.....life sure ain't simple

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The womans choice was to carry the child as far as we know.

The woman's choice was to carry the child WHILE SHE WAS ALIVE.

Her choice was also not to be kept alive artificially, if brain dead.

I'm not aware if she ever expressed an opinion as to what to do, if those wishes conflicted.

But, her next of kin, the person whom society invests with the authority to make such decisions on her behalf, has spoken as to his opinion of what she wanted.

I assert that he knew her wishes better that myself, or you, or the Texas state legislature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assert that he knew her wishes better that myself, or you, or the Texas state legislature.

Could be, then again he may not be thinking clearly.

I need a reason to end a life.....got one?

add

He is not the person authorized by society to decide in this case....unless he can convince a judge.

meanwhile a person is coming

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...