Kindred Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 I'm a little curious why the father doesnt want to give the baby a chance to live. Is it just the cost? Furthermore, it's also possible that these 'end of life' decisions simply havent factored in being pregnant as a reason why life support might want to be maintained. e.g. the mother may not want HER to be left on life support, but she might want her body left on life support if she was pregnant and there was a chance the baby could live and then pull the plug after it's born. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 What I'm a little stuck on is what the husband is going to go through for the next several months. Visiting, feeling baby move, etc. What if, when the baby is surgically removed (as we all know it won't be "born"), he decides he doesn't want her removed from life support? There are psychological forces at work, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 if she is brain dead as claimed life support will likely be removed after the baby is removed.....with or without the husbands OK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 I realize the legal part, just saying it's going to be really hard for him emotionally, for the rest of his life. Will the state be willing to foot the bill for his (and very probably, his child's) psychological treatment, which could last their entire lives? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 I realize the legal part, just saying it's going to be really hard for him emotionally, for the rest of his life. Will the state be willing to foot the bill for his (and very probably, his child's) psychological treatment, which could last their entire lives? Harder than turning off life support to his wife and child? help for a child is always easier to come by than for a adult, the state is not obligated beyond the norm Another WEIRD thread on this board. I am typically pro choice but this is a little out of the ordinary and needs a little more attention than the standard lefty righty arguments. Not sure how you could make this a black.white issue. thankfully it is rare. could you imagine co-joined twins on life support w/one brain dead and that one's husband wanting to withdraw it when separating them is a possibility? the hospital entered the situation being liable for providing the best care for both,that doesn't change with one becoming brain dead. the special exception we extend to women is not shared by the husband or hospital. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimmySmith Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Well, she was 14 weeks pregnant, and hadn't had an abortion YET. I think it's at least a reasonable assumption that she intended to carry the fetus to term. I certainly wouldn't take some unsupported assertion that maybe she would have had an abortion, next week. If you go back and read your post, the placement of "WHILE SHE WAS ALIVE" at the end of the sentence implies a different meaning than placing it after the word "choice", which is where I think you meant to place it. In all threads like this, people are debating legal and ethical theory simultaneously. From a legal standpoint, it appears the state is handling it lawfully. Ethical dilemmas are always the hardest to figure out, especially when they involve the evolution of science. Your analogy about the mother essentially being human life support is very interesting. All mothers are, so she is no different than any other in that respect. She has reproductive rights that no man, including her husband, can infringe upon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 If dead people have rights, then i don't get the complaining when they vote. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 One thing I can say: this situation, like no other I can recall, has us on our giddy-up about our wills. A long-overdue conversation occurred last night...and since neither of us is "fixed", (and there has been the occasional pregnancy in older-aged women), it can't be overlooked, at least until one of us is "fixed", naturally or otherwise. Never in a million years did I think of needing a provision to address an issue such as this. Even if it could be legally usurped somehow, at least what we don't want will be in clear words on paper for all to see what is being usurped. If dead people have rights, then i don't get the complaining when they vote.~BangAnother Bang post worthy of the old "point to sky" smiley...well played, sir! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 making sure your wishes are known and on the proper forms is always advisable. even then it can get complicated quick if life support is started. imagine having minutes or less to choose right after a loved one goes critical unexpectently.....they are dying, pick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 Bump court hearing today, and complications with the fetus could make a difficult situation even more complicated.....or simpler it will be interesting to see who gets to choose http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014/01/24/265447153/life-support-battle-over-pregnant-texas-woman-in-court-friday This week, attorneys for Munoz's husband released a statement describing the fetus as "distinctly abnormal," with heart problems, deformed lower extremities and hydrocephalus, or water on the brain. "Knowing of these abnormalities this early in gestation, the likelihood of having a good outcome for the fetus is definitely decreased," says Dr. Sheila Chhutani, an OB-GYN at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital in Dallas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinInsite Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 "distinctly abnormal," Fetus Another step toward the zombie apocalypse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 Who cares? Once it's born, it's the fathers problem. There's a much more important principle at strake, here. Creating a reality in which the government can regulate reproduction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chew Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 dude...let the baby go man. quality of life sounds pretty crappy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudechain Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 I'm a little curious why the father doesnt want to give the baby a chance to live. Is it just the cost? Furthermore, it's also possible that these 'end of life' decisions simply havent factored in being pregnant as a reason why life support might want to be maintained. e.g. the mother may not want HER to be left on life support, but she might want her body left on life support if she was pregnant and there was a chance the baby could live and then pull the plug after it's born. The child is gestating in a corpse and apparently was deprived of oxygen for quite some time. There could be medical complications for this person's entire life which may be severely shortened any ways. http://www.star-telegram.com/2014/01/22/5506250/fetus-in-munoz-case-is-distinctly.html http://jezebel.com/texas-woman-forced-to-stay-on-life-support-likely-has-n-1508045921 http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/fetus-pregnant-brain-dead-woman-distinctly-abnormal-lawyers-article-1.1588511 http://nation.time.com/2014/01/23/attorneys-brain-dead-womans-fetus-is-distinctly-abnormal/ A very tough decision for a man to make. Here's the affidavit asking the court to require the hospital to cease all treatment. http://content.foxtvmedia.com/kdfw/pdf/1_23_14_Erick%20Munoz%20sworn%20affidavit.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 dude...let the baby go man. quality of life sounds pretty crappy. It certainly does from what they released, but will that be determined by the Drs at the hospital or by the family? or by the judge or by our death panel http://austin.culturemap.com/news/city-life/05-05-12-16-57-texas-medical-futility-act-a-real-life-death-panel/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcsluggo Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 we can all debate this subject in teh abstract...... but i really really really feel for that man. lose your wife, and then have to deal with all of THIS in a courtroom, and under teh publi microscope..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 we can all debate this subject in teh abstract...... but i really really really feel for that man. lose your wife, and then have to deal with all of THIS in a courtroom, and under teh publi microscope..... Yep, and for the rest of the family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kindred Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 The child is gestating in a corpse and apparently was deprived of oxygen for quite some time. There could be medical complications for this person's entire life which may be severely shortened any ways. http://www.star-telegram.com/2014/01/22/5506250/fetus-in-munoz-case-is-distinctly.html http://jezebel.com/texas-woman-forced-to-stay-on-life-support-likely-has-n-1508045921 http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/fetus-pregnant-brain-dead-woman-distinctly-abnormal-lawyers-article-1.1588511 http://nation.time.com/2014/01/23/attorneys-brain-dead-womans-fetus-is-distinctly-abnormal/ A very tough decision for a man to make. Here's the affidavit asking the court to require the hospital to cease all treatment. http://content.foxtvmedia.com/kdfw/pdf/1_23_14_Erick%20Munoz%20sworn%20affidavit.pdf you're arguing with my post from over 2 weeks ago with recently determined medical updates? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 Who cares? Once it's born, it's the fathers problem. There's a much more important principle at strake, here. Creating a reality in which the government can regulate reproduction. They already do Kansas Judge Demands Sperm Donor Pay Child Support Read more at TLR: Kansas Judge Demands Sperm Donor Pay Child Support | The Libertarian Republic http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/kansas-judge-demands-sperm-donor-pay-child-support/#ixzz2rL3nw4W7 Follow us: @LibRepublic on Twitter | LibertarianRepublic on Facebook Shawnee County District Court Judge Mary Mattivi argued that Marotta cannot waive his parental rights because he did not use a licensed physician to perform the insemination. Fol low TLR on Google+ “In this case, quite simply, the parties failed to perform to statutory requirement of the Kansas Parentage Act in not enlisting a licensed physician at some point in the artificial insemination process, and the parties’ self-designation of (Marotta) as a sperm donor is insufficient to relieve (Marotta) of parental right and responsibilities to the child,” Mattivi wrote. Read more at TLR: Kansas Judge Demands Sperm Donor Pay Child Support | The Libertarian Republic http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/kansas-judge-demands-sperm-donor-pay-child-support/#ixzz2rL4AxwQV Follow us: @LibRepublic on Twitter | LibertarianRepublic on Facebook Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudechain Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 you're arguing with my post from over 2 weeks ago with recently determined medical updates? You call that an argument? No, I call it updating a thread with some recent information. But thanks for making an asssumption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kindred Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 You call that an argument? No, I call it updating a thread with some recent information. But thanks for making an asssumption. You quoted me, what else am I supposed to assume. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudechain Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 You quoted me, what else am I supposed to assume. I still don't see how you interpret that as arguing., and the reply was directly related to what you had questioned. You stated "I'm a little curious why the father doesnt want to give the baby a chance to live. Is it just the cost? " So I think links questioning if the baby would even be viable or able to live any type of life are certainly appropriate. But hardly an argument. chill man. it's a freaking message board. But back on the topic, I do feel for the father. He lost his wife and an unborn child. Sadly, I don't think the child's life if they were able to survive would be severely limited and probably very short. This is a very fuzzy line being drawn between mothers rights, the rights of the unborn and the rights of a spouse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thekyle1591 Posted January 25, 2014 Share Posted January 25, 2014 Terri Schiavo 2.0? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 25, 2014 Share Posted January 25, 2014 This is a very fuzzy line being drawn between mothers rights, the rights of the unborn and the rights of a spouse. It is actually a pretty bright line that exists for all patients once on life support. (and a fetus is considered a patient) It cannot be removed if recovery is expected....by anyone it can be removed if deemed medically futile or inhumane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 25, 2014 Share Posted January 25, 2014 judge rules to remove life support http://www.star-telegram.com/2014/01/24/5511776/fetus-in-munoz-case-is-not-viable.html hospital reply: The family went to court earlier today seeking to have that life support be removed after the county hospital declined to do so. Wallace ordered that life support be removed by 5 p.m. Monday. In a statement, the JPS Health Network said it “appreciates the potential impact of the consequences of the order” and would consult with the Tarrant County district’s attorney’s office. Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2014/01/24/5511776/fetus-in-munoz-case-is-not-viable.html#storylink=cpy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.