Quotes from the mother and father of a 33-year-old woman who is 14 weeks pregnant in Texas, where the statutory law bars doctors from withdrawing life support from a pregnant patient.
“If she is dead, I don’t see how she can be a patient, and I don’t see how we can be talking about treatment options for her,” said Thomas W. Mayo, an expert on health care law and bioethics at the Southern Methodist University law school in Dallas....If the ethicists are going to make the "if she is dead" move, why don't they say "if she is dead, I don't see how we can be talking about her rights"? I can't tell how clearly the unfortunate woman made her desire to be allowed to die known. Did she specify that she would not want to be kept alive if an unborn child depended on her body? The family wants to let her go, and it seems that part of the concern is that the woman "might have gone an hour or longer without breathing before her husband woke and discovered her, a situation he believes has seriously impaired the fetus."
Critics of the hospital’s actions also note that the fetus has not reached the point of viability outside the womb and that Ms. Munoz would have a constitutional right to an abortion.
The top-rated comment at the link (to the NYT) is:
Nice, Texas! Make this man have this baby, probably he'll have to give up his job in order to take care of it, and then I imagine you will refuse to help the family in any way financially and call them "takers"..Second highest-rated is:
Did Margaret Atwood write this piece? Is this not some dystopian fiction? A brain dead woman kept alive for a fetus, with medical decision-making preempted by the state.
पोस्ट्स
२८८ टिप्पण्या:
288 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»There are two people. One is dead, one is not. The decision to kill the other is not pro-choice or pro-life?Only to a pro-choicer.
It is relentlessly annoying to hear people who favor abortion rights insist that pro-lifers only speak within the terminology and mindset of pro-abortion interests.
In the case of the Jahi McMath saga, everyone's out there saying "she's dead, her body is nothing but a corpse" -- now this brain-dead woman is somehow *not* a corpse? At least, that's what I read from these comments. If she were a corpse, then keeping her on life support machines to gestate the fetus is no more of an injustice than organ donation. You're using an inanimate object, a dead body, to further a goal.
But -- I think their objections come very much from a fear of having a disabled child on their hands. Don't you?
The law seems pretty clear on this issue. Next, wait for the child custody battle.
Creepy, particularly because she was only 14 weeks along, so it's a looong time the family had and will have to deal with the trauma, day in and day out.
Both options are horrifying.
Being a fatalist I think that the woman's number came up and she died. That, to me, means that the embryo was not intended to live either. It's unfortunate but just because we have the medical capability to prolong "life" does not mean we are God.
It's an ugly situation.
But that second comment is wrong in spirit - the father of that child is unable to legally give up his rights to financially support the child.
As a practical matter, women aren't either, but a woman dropping a kid off at the shelter is probably never tracked down for child support.
-XC
Who has to pay the bills, I wonder?
Ha! I love the Margaret Atwood comment.
It's not a matter of the mother's choice. She has no more right to take a life than anyone else. It's not merely a "fetus", which simply describes a stage of human development. It's a human life from conception to death. The father and mother should have both been prepared for its arrival.
The "top-rated comment" summarizes the pro-abortion/choice position well. A human life from conception to death is a commodity, disposable and interchangeable, without intrinsic value. The mother has a right to terminate it through lethal injection or dismemberment in a back-alley or in a state-sponsored clinic.
The Aztecs would yearn for normalization of sacrificial rites. The Nazis and other left-wing regimes would envy the extraordinary progress of state-sponsored executions.
Incredibly creepy. The father and husband has no rights over what happens to his wife and unborn baby? To be on life support for THAT long is cruel to the family and that unborn child. The body is basically being USED as an incubator.
This is just about the worst thing that could happen to a parent, I think.
I'm with Bob Boyd, too: I wonder who is paying for her hospitalization as a living incubator?
khesanh0802 wrote:
Being a fatalist I think that the woman's number came up and she died. That, to me, means that the embryo was not intended to live either. It's unfortunate but just because we have the medical capability to prolong "life" does not mean we are God.
I hope you're not pro choice. Beucase that argument would be completely at odds with being pro choice.
IF a woman becomes pregrant woudnt' that mean that the embryo was intended to be born? And if we are not to play God then the whole procedure would be outlawed.
Too many unanswered questions to draw any conclusions. Is she brain dead? We don't know because the family is not allowing the hospital to talk. Is the law being applied correctly? We don't know. The family has not taken any legal actions to enforce any rights.
What would this mother think if she could wake up to see that her parents and husband were trying to do something that would kill her child?
What will the baby say about this I he is born and grows up? Oh well, dead men tell no tales.
To be on life support for THAT long is cruel to the family and that unborn child. The body is basically being USED as an incubator.
Every unborn child is on life support for that long, and the mother's body is always used as an incubator. In what way is this cruel to the unborn child?
Sure Jr.
Just like that idea that a woman's body can just shut down that whole thing, when raped, OR it must have been fate that she was raped and impregnated. What century do we live in?!
The father and husband has no rights over what happens to his wife and unborn baby?
No. A man does not nor should not have any rights ovrr a woman's body.
Inga wrote:
To be on life support for THAT long is cruel to the family and that unborn child.
But ending her life and therefore killing the child within her would somehow not be cruel to the child?
Also, how is this different than organ donations after death?
Re-reading the article, I see there's not been an official declaration of her being dead (although it's not clearly stated at all).
How can you treat a dead person?
What would this mother think if she could wake up to see that her parents and husband were trying to do something that would kill her child?
That depends, doesn't it, if she has had these kinds of discussions in the past with her husband/parents. It sounds like they have done so since they talk about her wishes (presumably not to be on life support).
Lots about this story is murky.
If the dad doesn't want the child, why doesn't he just terminate his parental rights? I'm sure there are adoptive couples willing to take over.....
If his wife is actually dead (I'd say her tissue must still be living...otherwise how could the placenta feed the baby?), then why would she care about being an 'incubator?'--it's not like she's in pain.
I do wonder how the lack of motion/talking/etc will affect the baby--- do they talk to the kid? play music?
Might be tough to get remarried in the future. What woman is going to want to marry a man who was ready to dispose of his child as soon as the mother was gone?
I understand that they’re horrified over keeping a brain dead woman on life support and prolonging the grief but it strikes me as odd that not one of them seems to be thinking about trying to protect the life of a new (grand)son/daughter. What happens when this kid is older and reads about what their father and grandparents said when their life was at stake?
Wishes not to be on life support oneself are a world away from wishes to be removed from life support thus killing one's own child.
Inga wrote:
Just like that idea that a woman's body can just shut down that whole thing, when raped, OR it must have been fate that she was raped and impregnated. What century do we live in?!
That was in response to this statement:
"Being a fatalist I think that the woman's number came up and she died. That, to me, means that the embryo was not intended to live either. It's unfortunate but just because we have the medical capability to prolong "life" does not mean we are God."
by the same token if a woman is pregnant and she doesn't die wouldnt that mean that it was meant to live? And the same warning about playing god despite having the capability.
Im just pointing out the logical implication.
I don't understand how people would not want this child to be born.
Have we as a society lost all sense of humanity?
In cases where the husband is so eager to dispose of his wife, I always suspect that he was responsible for the coma in the first place....
And that he's afraid that she may NOT be quite dead yet, and could still wake up and implicate him in her injuries...
Maybe it's unfair... but... this one looks a bit fishy to me...
was this woman on her way to an abortion clinic? Or did she go through the steps to have an abortion? Then why is the assumption to kill the kid and not carry it to term?
Do you have any idea what could've happened to that child without an hour of her mother's oxygen? Do you realize that being on life support isn't the same as a LIVE woman carrying a child? There are drugs that must be given to keep the corpse functioning, even at a minimal capacity. The father has rights here.
Are we truly moving ever closer to "The Handmaid's Tale", or " A Christian Nation"? Makes sense that it would start in Texas.
If the dad doesn't want the child, why doesn't he just terminate his parental rights?
I question whether this could even be done.
Otherwise Men would just terminate their parental rights all the time for Whoopsy Babies. I'm thinking specifically of pro athletes who have multiple baby Moms.
"was this woman on her way to an abortion clinic? Or did she go through the steps to have an abortion? Then why is the assumption to kill the kid and not carry it to term?"
Bingo. Shouldn't the presumption be that she would want everything possible done to save her child?
Inga wrote:
The father and husband has no rights over what happens to his wife and unborn baby? To be on life support for THAT long is cruel to the family and that unborn child. The body is basically being USED as an incubator.
Now you suddenly care about the fathers choice? He would have none if this were a discussion of abortion.
Inga said...
Incredibly creepy. The father and husband has no rights over what happens to his wife and unborn baby?
I thought a court case determined that if a woman wanted to have an abortion, the father didn't have any legal rights to stop her. given your past support of abortion, it strikes me as inconsistent that now you are concerned over the husband and father's rights "over what happens to his wife and unborn child"
Wishes not to be on life support oneself are a world away from wishes to be removed from life support thus killing one's own child.
This strikes me as very true. I wouldn’t want to be on life support either but if my doing so for a few weeks/months would keep a loved one alive – bring on the ventilator and feeding tube.
Inga, they don't know that she was an hour without oxygen. That's just something the father is saying might have happened.
INga wrote:
Do you have any idea what could've happened to that child without an hour of her mother's oxygen? Do you realize that being on life support isn't the same as a LIVE woman carrying a child? There are drugs that must be given to keep the corpse functioning, even at a minimal capacity. The father has rights here.
What if the woman states she wanted to have a kid, and then she goes into a coma. Does the dad have rights then?
It is not "horrifying" to use a dead body with a viable womb to keep a live baby alive, it is humane. That baby will most likely live a full life. There is no shortage of adoptive parents.
Amazing that people can't see past the politics of it to think about the human implications. BTW, I am pro-choice. I accept that abortion is infanticide. Pretending it is not leads to the kinds of horror shows we saw in Philadelphia.
"The father has rights here."
So men do have right's regarding the birth of a baby?
I think you pro-abortion folks better think that one through again.
So, kill the baby AND the mom? Sounds like a win for a human rights community.
Do I like the government getting involved with this? Nope, not really.
But hearing Progressives whining about the government intruding in lives is endlessly amusing.
In the case of the Jahi McMath saga, everyone's out there saying "she's dead, her body is nothing but a corpse" -- now this brain-dead woman is somehow *not* a corpse? At least, that's what I read from these comments. If she were a corpse, then keeping her on life support machines to gestate the fetus is no more of an injustice than organ donation. You're using an inanimate object, a dead body, to further a goal.
Can we, for once, argue apples for apples, not apples for anvils?
We were "racist" for not wanting to force courts to keep Jahi alive. We're, apparently, also racist for not wanting to force courts to kill this woman who has a child.
The father and husband has no rights over what happens to his wife and unborn baby?
Welcome to modern abortion law. As people like you said, the dad had his choice when he shot his semen inside of her.
Are you going back on this now?
The body is basically being USED as an incubator.
Using it as a coffin is preferrable?
MM, you can terminate your parental rights as part of an adoption. The pro athletes you referenced can't do that because the mothers are keeping the children.
Inga wrote:
Do you have any idea what could've happened to that child without an hour of her mother's oxygen? Do you realize that being on life support isn't the same as a LIVE woman carrying a child? There are drugs that must be given to keep the corpse functioning, even at a minimal capacity. The father has rights here.
Are we truly moving ever closer to "The Handmaid's Tale", or " A Christian Nation"? Makes sense that it would start in Texas.
So you're not even saying that the child did suffer the brain damage. The mere fact taht it's not being killed is us moving ever closer to a Handmaids Tale?
Since she is legally dead, can the husband get the life insurance proceeds and other death benefits yet or does he have to wait?
Here's a pickle. What if she has a living will that says to not keep her alive in case of brain death but also has then intent to carry her baby to term?
What then?!?!?
Do you have any idea what could've happened to that child without an hour of her mother's oxygen? Do you realize that being on life support isn't the same as a LIVE woman carrying a child? There are drugs that must be given to keep the corpse functioning, even at a minimal capacity. The father has rights here.
So 'Pro-Choice' means anyone's choice, then.
Freeman said: What would this mother think if she could wake up to see that her parents and husband were trying to do something that would kill her child?
That's my thought as well. As someone who's been pregnant not that long ago, I can't even conceive of a woman, a mother, who presumably wanted the child, not wanting her body used in a way that harms her none but gives my child a fighting chance. The idea that she wouldn't want that is really quite horrifying to me.
I certainly hope that my husband wouldn't think that I would want that. Makes me wonder if I should bring it up, though I would think that I wouldn't need to.
I suspect that Jane is right - they don't want to be saddled by a potentially disabled child. Sick.
I wonder why the state would have no interest in this case, but yet, Obamacare can be rammed down our throats with the government determining what kind of care we can get? I would have opposed Obamacare on the basis of Roe v Wade.
Jr.
Being in a coma is FAR different than being DEAD. The basic functions of a BODY body function in a coma.
The father has rights here.
BWA HA HA HA!
You slay me. Really.
This is one of the most complete switches of perspective I've ever seen.
When men note that law is rather unfair to men in regards to abortion since we cannot walk away from a bad decision, you say that we had our choice when we had sex.
But when it comes to killing a baby and the mom can't say yes...THEN men need rights here.
Tell you what --- I'll side with you the moment it is codified in law that a man can force or prevent an abortion on a woman.
Bill wrote:
o. A man does not nor should not have any rights ovrr a woman's body.
SO then Terri Shiavos husband had no right to end her life, since he dind't have any actual living will with her expressing such a sentiment?
So 'Pro-Choice' means anyone's choice, then.
As long as the choice is killing, apparently.
Most people are not against keeping the body on life support for a little while. Organ donation would not be possible without it. The idea that the plug gets pulled once someone is declared brain dead would make organ donation nearly impossible.
Inga wrote:
Being in a coma is FAR different than being DEAD. The basic functions of a BODY body function in a coma
What if it's a coma that she will never come out of even if she isn't technically dead.
Do you have any idea what could've happened to that child without an hour of her mother's oxygen?
Quite a few bad things. Out of curiosity, has anybody listed the bad things that the child has experienced?
Doctors haven't monitored the baby AT ALL?
Seems a bit unlikely.
Not to be callous, but one key question is "who is paying for all of this?" I can't imagine keeping someone on life support for several months is cheap, and while the family, hospital and state certainly are putting the life and death issue first and foremost, the cost of all this must be weighing on all these parties as well.
When a spouse dies, the right to decide what happens to her BODY is given to the next of kin. This is a DEAD body. Brain death means DEAD. This is disgusting and ghoulish.
Inga wrote:
When a spouse dies, the right of the decision of what happens to her BODY is given to the next of kin. This is a DEAD body. Brain death means DEAD. This is disgusting and ghoulish.
But medicine can keep her functioning despite brain death. At the same time there is a living organism growing in her body THAT SHE MAY HAVE WANTED TO CARRY TO TERM.
Suppose this were a case of siamese twins. One of them dies, the other is alive but in a coma. And doctors can continue to take care of the living one by keeping the dead one on a machine. Should the siamese twin be killed by default?
I still can't comprehend why folks like Inga so desperately want this baby killed.
Culture of death. We've created generations of selfish broken women.
Somebody thinks it is "disgusting and ghoulish" to not kill a child. Wow.
Inga, they don't know that she was an hour without oxygen. That's just something the father is saying might have happened.
To be clear, the father is saying he was told that by doctors.
I find it a little appalling that Dierdre upthread blames the wife's condition to the husband. Is it that easy to cause your wife to have a blood clot in her lung?
This article cries out for followup: Is the wife legally dead (that is, brain dead). Who is paying for treatment?
If the State of Texas is footing the bill for the treatment, and for the support of the child (if brain-damaged by the lack of oxygen that may have occurred), then I say let her remain on life support. Texans passed the bill, let them live with its cost.
Or is this law just one more unfunded mandate from the State to be borne by willing taxpayers?
P.S. Freeman: thanks for the explanation about parental rights. That makes more sense to me. But -- can you actually terminate parental rights before the child is even born? Who would sign off for the wife -- if she's dead? I suspect the case law isn't quite there on this point.
The mother is brain dead, but not dead dead. She has a beating heart and enough of her brain functions such that her body can maintain the pregnancy.
Similarly, the fetus has a beating heart, but the brain has not developed to the point where it can support any type of meaningful consciousness.
Given the equivalency, it's interesting the mother - absent the pregnancy - would receive zero concern.
Writ small: No.
Brain death is death. Legally. And that's what matters for the state, and what isn't clear from the article (whether the mother is dead dead, if you will).
Why are the pro-abortion ghouls demanding that this baby die is makes me sick to my stomach.
There is a difference between pro-choice and pro-death.
Writ Small wrote:
Similarly, the fetus has a beating heart, but the brain has not developed to the point where it can support any type of meaningful consciousness.
Given the equivalency, it's interesting the mother - absent the pregnancy - would receive zero concern
There is some eqivilency except at the end of the day, if the woman is brain dead she's dead. whereas, barring any calamties and given time, the baby will be born.
"Inga said...
The father and husband has no rights over what happens to his wife and unborn baby?"
This being uttered by someone who "100% pro Roe V Wade. Wow.
Then again you are an idiot.
Madison- Sorry-- I didn't read the article to find out what incapacitated her.
I know that, in the Schiavo case, there was some suspicion that the husband had beaten the wife and given her the injuries.
And I'm still suspicious of any man that eager to pull the plug on his wife and unborn child.....
And Inga jumps immediately to the absurd.
I guess we could discuss next the rights of the unborn, do they yet have any? Should a 14 week fetus' "rights" trump those of the parent? What's next, forcing a woman to give birth to a baby, even if it means it will kill her, if she ALIVE of course. Whose rights trump whose? Personhood needs defining .
Brando:
Since the father doesn't want the child, and the mother is incapable of making a choice, it's the state's responsibility to care for him. The child has been orphaned by circumstance (i.e. the mother) and by choice (i.e. the father). The father will continue to be responsible for its welfare, but primary responsibility will shift to the state.
That said, the issue that abortion advocates conveniently hope to ignore is when does a human life acquire value? This cannot be handled like environmentalism, economics, civil rights, etc. with an out-of-sight and out-of-mind resolution and distractions through emotional appeals. This is a defining issue of human life which must be confronted and rationally addressed.
Sorry Inga, you don't get to pretend the unborn child is not a human being in order to score political points.
ut -- can you actually terminate parental rights before the child is even born? Who would sign off for the wife -- if she's dead? I suspect the case law isn't quite there on this point.
I'm not sure whether you can terminate before the birth or not, but I think that you can - or, at least, if you could find a willing family, you could enter into a contract with them stating that you would (for the father).
If the mother is dead, legally, she would have no parental rights so nothing would be done for her. But if she's not legally dead, her interests would have to be protected. Most likely, the court would appoint a guardian ad litem (an attorney to represent her rights and interests). I would assume that that GAL would not object to the child being adopted out, if the husband wanted that and there was no reason to believe that she wouldn't have.
But all that, of course, hinges on people who don't want the baby to die. Who seem to be missing in this case, for some reason.
(No familiarity with TX law, but I've worked as a GAL in my state for cases, well, not like this, but where a person was alive but unable to state his/her wishes and not expected to be able to in the foreseeable future.)
Inga:
A person has a right to self-defense. That is the only circumstance when we have a right to take another human life. It cannot be taken for reason of sex, money, ego, or convenience.
Speaking as a Guardian, I'd say that IF the ward had a DNR, I'd be advocating for its application. That's what the ward wanted, after all.
I know there are a lot of people in this thread saying "But..but...but...baby...mother!" -- but unless the DNR specifically says Ignore this if I'm pregnant, you're not doing your job as a Guardian if you're not pushing for your ward's wishes when they cannot. (One more thing in this case that we don't know: What does the DNR -- if she has one -- actually say!)
Happily for me, my ward is 68 or so now, so this uncomfortable choice will never be thrown in my lap.
I think an interesting question could be: Can the state appoint a Guardian for the unborn child? I hope not.
The father and husband has no rights over what happens to his wife and unborn baby?
He has never had any rights about what happens to his unborn baby.
And the fact that it is an unborn baby, means that it would be homicide for the hospital to allow his wife to die.
@MadisonMan
I see in rereading that the woman is in a publicly funded hospital, so I assume the family isn't being billed for the extended life support.
Suppose this woman was alive, but had been declared unable to consent to medical treatment for whatever reason. Suppose further that a doctor recommended an abortion due to medical problems with the fetus. Would the husband or the parents be able to consent she have an abortion?
Where's Wendy Davis when you need her?
Any way we can get a posse up here and stomp the two of them to death?
That'd be great on the teevee, too.
Here Comes Honey Brain-Dead.
The cases in Texas and California are linked in a most tragic way. It is the State taking away the right of the family/spouse/parent to make life and death decisions for those that they love. Those who think these states are right...be careful what you wish for. There is no rule that says it may not be you or someone you live being divested of their human rights because the State says you are no longer human but a vessel or an inanimate object.
http://usa2mom.wordpress.com/2014/01/08/texas-and-california-different-sides-same-coin/
The State thinking itself better qualified to make decisions than private citizens. Where does it think it derives that authority from?
When you build it, they will use it. Consequences.
Homicide of a 14 week old baby? Does a 14 week old baby have Personhood rights? Since when? The nervous system hasn't been completely formed at this point. When do we become a person, a what point? If you're no a person, how can you be the victim of a homicide?
Not yet Gahrie.
I should say 14 week old UNBORN baby.
Shit, just put the lady on Obamacare.
Problem solved.
Inga said If you're no a person, how can you be the victim of a homicide?
Many if not most states have consider the murder of a pregnant woman to be double homicide.
Also, you've stated on many occasions that you would support abortion only up to a certain point before 14 weeks (I want to say that you've said 8 and 12 before, but I'm not sure).
Suppose further that a doctor recommended an abortion due to medical problems with the fetus. Would the husband or the parents be able to consent she have an abortion?
I think in that case a Guardian would be appointed.
Of the three people you list, I'd say the husband should have the most say, but I don't know Texas law (IANAL) to be able to answer your question.
If I were appointed Guardian, I would consider the husband's view, and his interpretation of the wife's view. If there were corroborating evidence, it would lend credence to the husband.
But as for what I'd actually decide, I don't know, not until I'm actually put in that position of making the decision.
My inclination would be to follow the Doctor's recommendation, if it aligned with what I thought to be the wife's wishes.
Inga:
You really are a ghoul you know?
You ar passionately arguing in favor of the deliberate killing of a baby. (a term you first used)
Why oh why would you and the Left pick this battle to fight?
Because you are ghouls.
Yes Lyssa, but it's UNETHICAL to USE this DEAD woman's body as an incubator. She WAS human, it's disgusting and disrespectful, especially in light of her wishes.
The cases in Texas and California are linked in a most tragic way. It is the State taking away the right of the family/spouse/parent to make life and death decisions for those that they love.
Yep, just like laws against spousal and child abuse.
Better yet, have the unborn bag o' cells run as a Republican in Chicago.
Never hear from it again.
I wish we could get a clearer picture of exactly what happened in the initial situation. If someone had collapsed and "died" over an hour before reaching medical help, why in the world would they have been hooked up to a ventilator in the first place?
The whole thing is very murky and it probably does have to do with the question of disability for the father, which I guess is normal for some people.
And that he's afraid that she may NOT be quite dead yet, and could still wake up and implicate him in her injuries...
Maybe it's unfair... but... this one looks a bit fishy to me...
Let's go with unfair.
Suppose further that a doctor recommended an abortion due to medical problems with the fetus. Would the husband or the parents be able to consent she have an abortion?
Yeah, that's the other murky thing about the article. They say the hospital is only monitoring heartbeat for the baby? What a crock. By 20 weeks, they should have a pretty clear idea if the baby has any problems. Ultrasounds are not tricky at these stages of pregnancy.
"unless the DNR specifically says Ignore this if I'm pregnant, you're not doing your job as a Guardian if you're not pushing for your ward's wishes when they cannot. "
I don't agree with this at all. I think pregnancy is a total game changer. I could see having a DNR, and before this I would have assumed that they wouldn't apply it if it would also kill one of my children. I think the assumption should go the other way. Unless it specifically says applicable even if it will kill my child, I don't think advocating for DNR that kills the patient's child is being a good guardian.
The article says that the husband hasn't signed the forms that would be needed for the hospital to discuss his wife's condition publicly.
I think his claim that doctors told him that she's brain dead, and told him that she may have had a prolonged oxygen deprivation, should be taken with a grain of salt. Especially since it appears the statute would likely not apply if she was actually brain dead.
Yes Lyssa, but it's UNETHICAL to USE this DEAD woman's body as an incubator. She WAS human, it's disgusting and disrespectful, especially in light of her wishes.
Unethical based on what standard? You have a very strange idea of ethics when they involve killing a child. If she's dead and not human, it's not harming her, is it? We don't know her wishes, but most mothers, scratch that, humans, want their child to survive.
Killing a child who could live is what is unethical, disgusting, and disrespectful, as well as inhumane and downright horrifying.
I say do a PET scan on the baby's brain.
If it's gay, it lives.
The law being what it is the child will likely be born.
Hopefully it will be a normal, healthy baby the family will love and be glad to have.
Wow, Inga, you really believe that a fetus is not a person? Your problem is that that is just a belief, and it is not as widely shared as you seem to think.
Inga you keep saying she is dead, but we actually don't know that.
In the case of Jahi, she was actually brain dead, and all reports indicate she is rapidly deteriorating, in keeping with the fact that she is brain dead. From what I've read, it would be difficult to keep a dead body "alive" to gestate a baby (all sorts of chemical and hormonal things that requires brain function). It would seem more likely that the woman in Texas is in a coma or a vegetative state, correct?
Freeman Hunt said...
I think pregnancy is a total game changer.
This seems right to me. Unless you know the DNR was intended to cover a pregnancy the overwhelming likelihood is that it was never considered. So I think a responsible guardian would take the best estimate of the mother's wishes.
The same would be true of someone who signed a DNR, but the very day it was needed a cure for old age was discovered. DNRs are signed presuming a certain set of circumstances. If they turn out to be untrue the DNR becomes suspect.
Tim, the fetus is whatever the left says it is at the moment it says it.
Whatever is useful at that time, that's what it is.
And what's useful can change from moment to moment.
Don't be looking for a consistent theory or set of stalwart principles.
Expect ruthless expediency.
Just think What Would Hillary Say?
Then you've got their answer.
The right to abortion does not depend on defining a fetus as "less than human" or a "non person." somehow, as grown-ups not blinded by political fury know.
"All she is is a host for a fetus... I get angry with the state. "
The fetus is your grandchild, you miserable sack of shit.
JulieC,
Yes I hope that the facts would be clarified, as to whether she is truly brain dead or not. If she is in a coma, she is still alive, the situation then changes drastically.
tim: "The right to abortion does not depend on defining a fetus as "less than human" or a "non person."
But it's pretty to think so.
It assuages the soul.
Or whatever that thing is that nags at them at night.
Except Bam and Hillary.
That shit don't bother them none.
"All she is is a host for a fetus... I get angry with the state. "
The fetus is your grandchild, you miserable sack of shit.
Why do I believe that Inga would be for retroactive abortion within the first month after birth?
It just lays there, its not a person yet.
"Why do I believe that Inga would be for retroactive abortion within the first month after birth?
It just lays there, its not a person yet."
1/8/14, 4:34 PM
Why? Because you're an idiot, that's why.
"All she is is a host for a fetus... "
Ha ha ha.
Fetus as parasite.
Abortion as Ivermectin.
In the lifecycle of a parasite, where does a two-year-old girl fit in?
Do we know that the doctors are on the other side from the family? Maybe they want the lawsuit attacking the statute so they can get back to practicing medicine as they see fit. I think all they are saying is we must follow this law. Someone asked why the woman is on a ventilator. Maybe it's to set up the attack on what is thought to be a bad statute.
If wanting a baby to live means I am an idiot, I don't want to be however smart Inga thinks she is.
I actually knew a woman who went into a coma while pregnant. They kept her on life support just until her baby was born. I don't think she was only 14 weeks when she had to be life-supported, but this was also 20 years ago.
Everybody thought it was beautiful and sad, not ghoulish at all. Just a tremendously sad circumstance that resulted in a healthy baby.
The feminist argument for this law is: we need to dissuade men from beating women to death in order to abort a child they don't want.
Althouse- like "The Life of David Gale?"
People are still equating COMA with BRAIN DEATH. It's not the same thing folks.
That would be pretty unethical of the doctors, though.
Easier to just report the baby was dead, in the way they give too much morphine to the terminally I'll.
Elise wrote: "There is no rule that says it may not be you or someone you live being divested of their human rights because the State says you are no longer human but a vessel or an inanimate object."
She is dead! She IS an inanimate object! Do you think she cares about her rights?
Remember when there were noble efforts by doctors to "save the baby" under similar circumstances?
Now we get stupidity and illogic from the pro-aborts who, unlike our hostess, simply cannot admit that a fetus is a human life deserving protection.
I'm using the word coma, Inga, but I don't know my acquaintance's actual status. She formally died as soon as the baby was born.
Who cares if it's a bad statute?
Shit, Obamacare is far worse, but good Dread Pirate Roberts made it all better.
Geez, Althouse, get modern.
Now we just redefine the laws as we go along. Just right "The [INSERT GOVT OFFICIAL HERE] shall.." and everything is perfect for ad hoc legal stuff, so we can make decisions as needed.
It's tons easier that way.
Don't be such a square.
Many people that young get a put on a ventilator IMMEDIATLY in an emergent situation. Rightfully so, the tests to determine the extent of the brain damage can NOT be done first, if the person isn breathing.
I agree with Freeman Hunt and Marshall: if someone signed a DNR and then later got pregnant before becoming incapacitated, absent clear evidence that they intended the DNR to cover the eventuality of a pregnancy, the pregnancy should normally be seen as a game changer.
It’s sort of like people who write a will leaving everything to their two children but have a third child and die before they can change their will. Or leave everything to their spouse who they divorce but don’t change their will after they remarry. In cases like that, the law usually presumes (absent clear intent to the contrary) that you intended to include your third child or change your beneficiary to your new spouse rather than the one you divorced. The same logic that we use in deciding where you wanted your stuff to go after you die would seem to carry over when deciding whether you want your unborn child to live.
In the lifecycle of a parasite, where does a two-year-old girl fit in?
Isn't anything one day and older a parasite? A burden. Food stamps. Socialism, etc. 16 TRILLION IN DEBT.
Maybee, I seriously doubt she was brain dead, she probably was in a coma. Especially considering it was 20 years ago.
Do we know that the doctors are on the other side from the family? Maybe they want the lawsuit attacking the statute so they can get back to practicing medicine as they see fit. I think all they are saying is we must follow this law. Someone asked why the woman is on a ventilator. Maybe it's to set up the attack on what is thought to be a bad statute.
This scenario actually makes a lot of sense. Create a nice test case to tug at the heart strings of Wendy Davis supporters.
The other thought I had was that initially the husband told the drs and paramedics the wife was pregnant and wanted her to be hooked up to monitor baby, but changed his mind after he realized he couldn't do take backs.
Exactly, garage.
At-will abortion, whenever.
And Maybee, she probably died as a result of having fluids and nutrition removed after the baby was born.
One can't look at that picture in the article of the family and think that the mother would want her unborn baby to die.
That was not to say (4:48) that Althouse is pro-life, only that she acknowledges that abortion takes a life.
Sorry if I created a mis impression.
I am patiently waiting for Inga to define "personhood".
It is a sure bet that whatever qualities she comes up with for her definition of personhood will be those qualities that just happen to be ones that she herself possesses.
Isn't that interesting.
Possibly, Inga. I just know she was only being supported to keep the baby alive until birth.
Morally , not so different.
Pogo, my condolences on your brain death.
That's a matter of opinion Maybee, but physiologically, it's a HUGE differennce.
Ann @4:38...I'm scratching my head.
The physicians feel burdened by this statute...why? Are there scores of pregnant brain dead women taking up space in the wards?
They want to get back to practicing medicine so they deliberately create this firestorm?
Seems there could be an argument that it's very much like being a organ donor. You allow your body parts to preserve another's life.
Inga wrote:
I guess we could discuss next the rights of the unborn, do they yet have any? Should a 14 week fetus' "rights" trump those of the parent? What's next, forcing a woman to give birth to a baby, even if it means it will kill her, if she ALIVE of course. Whose rights trump whose? Personhood needs defining .
What rights does she have if she's dead?
Defining Personhood might be the same as what defines a human being in life and death, brain activity. The same criteria could be used.
Read carefully jr.
I said IF SHE IS ALIVE.
Inga- isn't 14 weeks past the time you think abortion should be legal?
So you think a 14 week old fetus has the right to live. Think of this one on life support.
My first thought is that this a new low for grandparenting.
There is a lot of missing information, but my gut reaction is the same as other commenters who find it unsettling that the family members aren't rejoicing over the possibility of a child/grandchild surviving the ordeal.
Also- at 14 I wonder if there really is that much risk of impaired development of the fetus. At nascent stage, might the nervous system be less sensitive to O2 deprivation?
Praying for the baby to survive and be healthy...although in these cases I'm sickened by the thought of a child later learning what his/her parents or grandparents tried to do.
The physicians feel burdened by this statute...why? Are there scores of pregnant brain dead women taking up space in the wards?
No. They are just ideologues.
No body deliberatly created this firestorm. That would be incredibly unethical. It's one of those scenarios that happen now because of modern medicine and technology. I think women of childbearing age will need to clarify their wishes as to what happens if they die when pregnant.
There are scores of physician "ethicists" hoping to make their careers of this case.
Man, just think of all the free chicken dinners and lecture fees you'd get with your boffo talk on famous Marlise Munoz case and how you created the "ethical framework" to allow that fetus to get stomped to death.
Bloody boots look great on your ethics résumé, I tell ya.
Once during a lengthy blog discussion about abortion with a pro choices, the other person said that if at any time it became technologically possible for a baby to be gestated outside the body, she would have to then admit that the fetus should have right to life. I was skeptical that she meant it because I could imagine the pro choices talking about the mental burden of forcing a woman to give up a child to someone else.
This case isn't quite that, but it comes very close, and my cynicism seems to have been borne out.
Inga if she never expressed a will to abort then the default position should be to carry it to term.
I think Jane the actuary probably has it right. They fear a severely disabled baby.. I understand having that fear.
I do have to wonder, if medical advance directives don't force women to clarify these issues, why not? Did no one foresee this possibility?
I've been following this story for weeks, since it first came out. Please note: the woman was at 14 weeks when she suffered the trauma. The fetus is now at more than 20 weeks gestation. The doctors have been monitoring the baby's development and vitals every day, and have said that everything is perfectly normal at this point. At 23 weeks (roughly 2.5 weeks from now), they will be able to do more tests to see what the brain development is like, to test the possibility of some kind of damage due to potential oxygen deprivation. Since no one knows for sure if there was any oxygen deprivation at all, and since every daily test indicates a healthy pregnancy (and since the woman herself has already had one healthy, normal pregnancy, resulting in the couple's first child), there is nothing to indicate any problem with the developing baby at this time.
I think Jane the actuary probably has it right. They fear a severely disabled baby.. I understand having that fear.
1/8/14, 5:16 PM
That's how it seems to me too, and I'm sure that fear is difficult to face while also struggling to care for another very young child, and deal with the trauma and grief. Still, it will be a beautiful thing if they will put aside the fear for the sake of the child.
Pregnant woman kept alive against family's wishes in Texas
Linda Carroll NBC News contributor
Dec. 24, 2013 at 3:56 PM ET
The last time Erick Munoz saw his pregnant wife conscious, she had gotten up before 2 a.m. to give their son a bottle.
http://t.nbcnews.com/health/pregnant-woman-kept-alive-against-familys-wishes-texas-2D11792149
"Erick and Marlise Munoz hold their son Mateo.
Marlise Munoz had been clear about her wishes never to be hooked up to life-support machines if she were fatally injured. But when the unthinkable happened to the 33-year-old mom, doctors told her family that they could not respect her wishes. Because she was 14 weeks pregnant, they would have to follow a Texas statute making it illegal to disconnect life support from a pregnant woman.
“The doctors told us that even if a pregnant woman has a DNR or a living will, the law supersedes that,” Munoz’s mom, Lynne Machado, told NBC News. “So any pregnant woman must be kept alive with life support because of the fetus. We had never heard of this and we wanted to get the information out there. No family should have to go through this. It’s been pure hell.”
Although doctors have been sympathetic to the family’s plight, they feel they have no other choice.
“We follow the state law on this," said J.R. Labbe, vice president of communication and community affairs for JPS Health Network. "We cannot withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment from a pregnant patient."
According to a 2012 report by the Center for Women’s Policy Studies, 31 states have laws that allow hospitals to keep women alive against their wishes if they are pregnant.
"What is quite stunning about these statutes for women is that they don't even take into account a woman's pain," said Lynn Paltrow, executive director of the National Advocates for Pregnant Women. "A woman could be in excruciating pain and near death's door and they still would force her to suffer.
"These are extraordinary laws creating separate unequal status for pregnant women in which they lose control of medical decision making, the right to bodily integrity and right to be free of excruciating pain.""
Inga, this article did nothing to further the story. It was basically the NYT's article all over again.
If the woman never wanted to be hooked up to a life support machine, why was she hooked up in the first place?
The article makes it clear, the illegality comes with disconnecting life support.
That quote from the woman talking about pain is rich and a Squirrel! quote if I ever saw one.
SO, even if you have a living will stating that if you die pregnant, the state supercedes the living will. I wonder how this sits with libertarians? Small government advocates?
Lynn Paltrow should understand that Ms. Munoz is brain dead and thus incapable of feeling pain rather than put out an emotional-based talking point.
"SO, even if you have a living will stating that if you die pregnant, the state supercedes the living will. I wonder how this sits with libertarians? Small government advocates?"
Not a libertarian. And I am perfectly content with government protecting the rights of an innocent person to live.
Inga said...
Yes Lyssa, but it's UNETHICAL to USE this DEAD woman's body as an incubator. She WAS human, it's disgusting and disrespectful, especially in light of her wishes.
1/8/14, 4:07 PM
As Inga's talking points get progressively weaker... and the smack down continues.
Just to throw in my two cents in if the mother is truly brain dead as has been argued judging from what in the story then the fetus should also be brain dead if it was deprived of oxygen that long. Since the doctors have not been allowed to speak we don't know the full extent of the mother's condition or the baby's condition. If the baby was deprived of oxygen that long presumably it's brain is fully dead as well and shouldn't be furthering in it's development. Presumably that can be scanned soon enough to see if indeed there is a viable child.
As Jane and others have said up thread if the mother is dead she has no rights and indeed is no more than an organ donor albeit a whole body donor rather than a specific organ donor. The father never had the right to have the child aborted. So effectively at this point if the fetus/unborn child is alive he has no rights to determine whether the pregnancy continues or not. The State of Texas has taken custody of the unborn child until such time as the child is born. The State of Texas always had that right if needed to protect the life of a child. And that appears to be what the state is doing.
As to whether the pregnancy should continue should be dependent on more facts being disclosed such as the brain status of the fetus. If its going to be born an anencephalic child then perhaps then when and if that is determined then in essence the child is also dead in which case pull the plug on both. The sticky part is when the amount of brain damage the child has suffered is determined. And so far no one knows that or if known that hasn't been disclosed. Lets wait for the facts to be disclosed before making sweeping arguments about whether or not the baby is viable.
Inga- the woman had a living will that is being superseded because of this law.
There is reason to believe she may have (probably would have, given that she knew she was pregnant and had not sought an abortion) WANTED the DNR orders to be ignored under this circumstance.
I have pointed out, it seems odd that advanced directives don't address this, but it seems they must not.
I think one has to err on the side of life.
I mean, if you don't like how the baby turns out, you can always kill it up until age five, according to some of you libtard ghouls.
I'm wondering if she actually has a living will. It would surprise me that she would (being so young and all). If she doesn't, going on the word of the husband and parents?
I can see how a Hospital, even in the interfering state of Texas, might have qualms.
Make that: even outside the interfering state of Texas (or the other states that have similar laws)
I googled the National Advocates for Pregnant Women to see what they are all about.
They appear to have never seen an abortion they didn't like.
"Inga said...
SO, even if you have a living will stating that if you die pregnant, the state supercedes the living will. I wonder how this sits with libertarians? Small government advocates?"
Seriously, you don't understand that the law is there to protect the other life...the fetuses? No small government advocate would question the states role in protecting life.
You are truly an idiot. It's not enough that you have your moronic views, you then have to have defend them with more idiocy.
Madisonman- I googled and learned that she and her husband were both paramedics and their experiences was what led to discussions about end of life wishes. I realize now I didn't parse the wording closely enough to know whether or not there was actually a legal document.
Inga said...
SO, even if you have a living will stating that if you die pregnant, the state supercedes the living will. I wonder how this sits with libertarians? Small government advocates?
We think it a small price to pay for the chance that some small number of people will realize the dangers of granting the State power over virtually everything.
If accurate, this is an interesting twist:
Patients can indicate their future wishes about medical treatment, in the event that they are unable to communicate them, through forms called advance directives. But in Texas, under the Health and Safety Code, such a form includes the provision "I understand that under Texas law this Directive has no effect if I have been diagnosed as pregnant."
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/23/health/pregnant-life-support-texas/
That article also states she was unconscious at that time (12/23), not brain dead.
I understand that under Texas law this Directive has no effect if I have been diagnosed as pregnant.
Why the need for the 'diagnosed as' in there, I wonder.
What's the difference between being pregnant and being diagnosed as pregnant?
Perhaps such uneasiness is a sign that many on the Left are ready to take another look at the abortion issue. In the hope of contributing toward a new perspective, I offer the following points:
First, it is out of character for the Left to neglect the weak and helpless. The traditional mark of the Left has been its protection of the underdog, the weak, and the poor. The unborn child is the most helpless form of humanity, even more in need of protection than the poor tenant farmer or the mental patient or the boat people on the high seas. The basic instinct of the Left is to aid those who cannot aid themselves -- and that instinct is absolutely sound. It is what keeps the human proposition going.
Mary Meehan writing in The Progressive.
Read the whole thing.
No small government advocate would question the states role in protecting life.
That's obviously not the case.
C Stanley, and even if her advanced directives stated she chose not to be kept alive even WHEN pregnant, the state law supercedes it. How can this be right? Especially in very early pregnancy? A corpse kept on life support to keep a fetus alive whose brain hasn't even developed yet?
What defines life?
To me is easy. The mother is dead. The baby has a chance to live. Why wouldn't we give the baby that chance? Wouldn't a Mom likely want to give the baby that chance?
But it is a good illustration of how complicated the world is related to life decisions, related to but beyond abortions.
I understand that under Texas law this Directive has no effect if I have been diagnosed as pregnant.
The plot thickens. I'm almost convinced now this is a test case with the husband and parents playing the case of floored observers. If they were both paramedics, they had to know about that little line.
What defines life?
Apparently the convenience of the mother.
"What defines life?"
I've heard many pro-choice women say: "If you want it, it's a baby. If you don't, it isn't."
If that's the case, then this must be a baby, because she and her husband obviously wanted it.
Birches if you would've READ the article snippet I posted you would've read exactly what you now say makes the "plot thicken".
In the case of death, life is defined by brain activity, it has YET to be defined in a fetus.
Jason:
That's another issue which needs to be addressed. This is in the same vein as embryonic and fetal stem cell experimentation. At what point does a human life lose value and become eligible to have its parts recycled for experimentation or to support another life?
As for the mother's body, she is legally dead (i.e. irreversibly unconscious). She, with her husband, conceived a human life, which continues its evolution. It is indeed ghoulish to trivialize this innocent human life, which poses no mortal threat to its mother, and possesses no tangible means to defend its life.
That said, humanity is long overdue to have this conversation. Reducing this fundamental issue to "reproductive rights" or "women's rights" is unsatisfactory. Setting arbitrary dates of viability is unsatisfactory. Trivializing a human life is unsatisfactory.
Inga:
The evolution of human life from conception is not analogous to human life after death. The issues relevant to human life are not equivalent at the beginning and end of life. Murder is an artificial act to circumvent a natural life cycle. Abortion is murder of a wholly innocent human life when it has no means of self-defense.
n.n.- we'll said, 6:25 and 6:29.
Can LPN's dispense medical advice?
Inga it's quite different to have a hospital tell you after the fact that the living will is superceded. It's quite another to have it written on the form.
YOu can't be ignorant of the law if it tells you about it when you're making the living will.
"n.n.- we'll said, 6:25 and 6:29."
1/8/14, 6:32 PM
Yes CStanley, I agree. Civility helps him get his point across far better than the ones who don't have any argument that doesn't include insults.
Inga-" How can this be right? "
How can it not be right, for the state to presume that the pregnant woman (the only one who can choose to abort) would have wanted the pregnancy to continue? To not have this law would enable husbands and parents of pregnant women to decide to terminate pregnancies, which is not permissible by law, anywhere in the US.
Sorry for being late to the party.
What's the harm? What's the harm in letting the baby go to term? Who's being hurt here by letting the baby go to term? The "dad" (major sarc alert)? The alleged grandparents? Both can abandon any and all rights. I can guarantee that someone will step up to replace them.
What's the harm?
CStanley, so the state has more say over a dead woman's pregnancy than the family? In the event of a pregnant dead woman, the custody of the child is IMMEDIATLY transferred to to the state? Not a small government concept.
Hilarious to hear Inga argue that the state should have no power in this case, yet should dictate our medical treatment in every other.
I know, I know... It's complicated... Well. It really is complicated.
garage mahal said...
No small government advocate would question the states role in protecting life.
That's obviously not the case.
How's that?
We'll Inga, first off I'm not certain I believe she is brain dead...have been piecing together all of the different accounts and it sure seems like the main sources that describe her that way may have jumped the shark. And one data point I did verify is that the family was pushing to have life support removed before she was brain dead.
That was badly worded- I mean that the family members were pushing for discontinuation of life support at a time when no one was saying that she was brain dead. Between Dec 23 (the CNN article I cited) and now, I am not clear on whether or not her status has changed.
garage mahal said...
"No small government advocate would question the states role in protecting life. "
That's obviously not the case.
Reminiscent of Humpty Dumpty, for Tea Partiers the phrase 'small government' means just what they choose it to mean — neither more nor less.
@Inga: Isn't 14 weeks well beyond the 8 week threshold for brain activity you suggested: link?
CStanley, if she ISN'T brain dead, as said I earlier, it changes the situation significantly.
Inga, as other have mentioned, brain activity occurs before 18 weeks. Brain activity occurs at 12 weeks. And you've also states that you would ban abortions after the first trimester.
That's also 12 weeks in the first trimester.
So, do you really want to go talking about Margaret Atwood and creepiness and the rights of the mother if you yourself have said you'd restrict abortions earlier than 18 weeks?
How's that?
Because questioning the state's role in protecting life is the reason for being if you're a conservative, right? "16 TRILLION IN DEBT!"
"Did Margaret Atwood write this piece? Is this not some dystopian fiction? A brain dead woman kept alive for a fetus, with medical decision-making preempted by the state."
They are so far gone down the rabbit hole they can't acknowledge that the fetus is a living thing.
And she's not being kept alive, the baby is being kept alive. I would think if the mother wanted to keep the baby in the first place that this would be the least that she'd want.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा