Family of dead, pregnant woman is suing Texas for using her body as an incubator.

[pnwmom]

Last edited Sat Jan 11, 2014, 09:41 PM - Edit history (2)

http://www.kfoxtv.com/news/features/top-stories/stories/pregnant-lifesupport-case-hospital-v-family-3090.shtml#.UtHxPHmQdlI

On Tuesday afternoon, in the rural community about 30 minutes outside downtown Fort Worth where they live, Ernest Machado and his wife took care of Mateo while the boys father was at work in Crowley, a nearby town. As he held Mateo in his arms, Machado recalled touching his daughters skin as she lay in the hospital. She felt more like a mannequin, Machado said. That makes it very hard for me to go up and visit. I dont want to remember her as a rubber figure.


http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/01/11/family-of-pregnant-brain-dead-woman-will-sue-texas-hospital-keeping-her-on-life-support/

Relatives of a brain-dead, pregnant woman are suing the Texas hospital that is keeping her alive against the family’s wishes. Think Progress reported that Marlise Machado Muñoz’s family is preparing a suit to challenge the Texas law that John Peter Smith Hospital is using as a basis for keeping her on life support in spite of the fact that she has no hope of recovery.

“We do plan on filing some litigation, and it will be filed soon,” said the family’s attorney Heather King to the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram.

King and her partner at the family law firm Koons Fuller, Jessica Janicek, declined to reveal their strategy for fighting the law that is keeping Muñoz on a ventilator while the baby inside her gestates.


Muñoz, 33, was 14 weeks pregnant when she collapsed on Nov. 26 with what doctors believe was a pulmonary embolism — a blockage in the main artery that carries blood from the lungs to the rest of the body. Doctors at Smith Hospital declared the woman dead, but hospital officials have refused to allow her husband Erick Muñoz or other family members to take her off life support.

SNIP

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. I am disgusted at the hospital's action.

They have no business interfering in her life.

[alarimer]

20. I thought it was state law

They may not have a choice.

In any case, it is wrong.

On edit:

I guess to challenge the law, they need to sue the hospital. I don't know who they would sue otherwise.

[pnwmom]

116. A number of prominent ethicists say that they are misinterpreting the state law.

That the state law would apply to women in comas or a vegetative state -- but not to dead women.

[MattBaggins]

238. Just what I was thinking

If the family went in the room and pulled the plugs themselves, what crime has been committed?

[Maraya1969]

277. Interesting point. eom

[Maraya1969]

278. How in the heck is a fetus growing normally in her?

[nomorenomore08]

305. It's not, but the *idea* of a baby is the important thing. We're not dealing with sane people here -

extreme anti-choice types, that is.

[bettyellen]

2. Incubator is right. So sad to hear this is how we treat women in this day and age.

[freshwest]

3. The family needs to get ready for the Death Threats that will come from the Pro-LIfers. n/t

[DevonRex]

5. They've already had them. I think

that's why they're going ahead with the suit. Why not? All they did at first was tell the public what happens when there's a DNR on a pregnant woman in TX. It is ignored.

Even when the fetus is not viable and has been damaged by the attempts to revive the mother, not to mention the accident itself.

[freshwest]

13. Okay, so they have gotten the death threats already... This is sick. I'm wondering how the child

will be if born... The father doesn't think it will be healthy since the blood flow was stopped too long and the baby deprived of oxygen.




Off topic, but I hope all is well in your family after that accident last year.

[DevonRex]

18. I hope it isn't born. The effects

of all the trauma would be horrific. He's an EMT so he's aware of all that. It's got to be killing him inside.

We still have a long road ahead of us as far as recovery. But it could have been so much worse.

[LisaL]

29. Nobody knows if fetus has sustained any damage until tests are run on it.

There have been a number of cases in which brain dead women produced normally developing infants.

[DevonRex]

38. The fetus went through everything the mother went through.

The event, the oxygen starvation to the brain, the shock treatments to revive her, and finally, all the drugs. Powerful drugs.

That fetus weighed apx 4-5 oz at the time. You tell me it sustained no harm from all that.

[LisaL]

43. So why did other brain dead women manage to produce normally developing children?

Do tell.

[DevonRex]

56. Perhaps they died of head trauma & babies were 8 mos

gestation. Every medical case is different. But lack of oxygen to the brain, long enough to produce brain death in the mother, plus shock treatments to revive the mother, plus strong anticoagulant treatment for the mother does NOT bode at all well for a normal baby.

It doesn't even bode well for a birth.

[LisaL]

77. No.

Some had brain aneurisms/strokes.
Several cases were at 15-16 weeks gestation.
Were able to produce normally developing infants.
The fetus could be damaged. But it's far from clear that it was.

[DevonRex]

80. Links.

[LisaL]

90. Here is what appears to be a most recent case.

Brain dead woman was able to produce an apparently healthy infant. She had a stroke at 15 weeks gestation.

"According to the news report, the woman suffered a stroke when she was 15 weeks pregnant and has been on life support as doctors declared her brain dead. The baby was delivered by cesarean section this summer at 27 weeks, weighing three pounds and 1.8 ounces."

http://www.hngn.com/articles/17333/20131114/brain-dead-hungarian-woman-gives-birth-to-healthy-premature-baby.htm

[riderinthestorm]

107. There's no indication that woman suffered a lack of oxygen that Marlise had

And your own article says how rare it is for a healthy child to result - only THREE cases have ever been recorded on the planet according to your own article!

[LisaL]

108. More than 3, despite what the article said.

And what do you think stroke does to a brain?

[uppityperson]

117. You use and article as proof yet say the article is wrong. And that is ethical?

You can't claim an article as a valid source while at the same time saying the article was wrong?

A stroke is when decreased blood flow harms or kills part of all of the brain. Notice "all or part". Some strokes are more severe, some less. Some recoverable from, some not.

[LisaL]

144. Story about brain dead pregnant woman is quoted from associated press.

As for her stroke, it was enough to kill her brain. So hers was pretty serious, don't you think?

[uppityperson]

149. The article says 3, you claim it is credible, yet is wrong "More than 3, despite what the article...

"More than 3, despite what the article said."

So, is the article credible, with only 3, or wrong, in which case it is credible?

[LisaL]

159. Again, this article just quotes associated press on a brain dead pregnant woman.

Go to the actual associated press story and read it.

[uppityperson]

161. "More than 3, despite what the article said." So, is the article credible or wrong?

[pnwmom]

132. The stroke cut her oxygen off, but not for an HOUR. The amount of time

in the Munoz case is the key factor. There is no precedent anywhere for a normal fetus to be the result of this situation.

[pnwmom]

130. There is a critical difference that you're ignoring. This woman didn't stop breathing for an hour

before she was discovered and put on the ventilator. Her fetus wasn't oxygen deprived for that length of time, either.

Why do you keep posting about her when you know that?

[LisaL]

147. It's the first time I posted this link.

So I have no clue why you claim that I keep posting about her.
Also I don't see any info on how long her brain was deprived of oxygen.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

227. There's a big difference that cannot be ignored.

The Hungarian mother was in the hospital while she was still alive.

"In the first two days we struggled to save the mother's life and it was proven... that circulation and functions stopped," said Dr. Bela Fulesdi, president of the University of Debrecen Medical and Health Science Centre, according to a Daily Mail report. "On the second day when [other] examinations were carried out, we found the baby was alive and kicking well in its mother's body."

The baby was never without oxygen.

I tend to believe the story might be bogus because of this statement; The mother's organs including her heart, liver, kidneys and pancreas were donated to four recipients two days after her baby's birth.Generally, people are kept on life support for one or two days after being declared brain-dead before organs are donated.

From what I understand, organs have to be removed within the first few days, otherwise they are no good.

Maybe the woman had brain stem activity and was not brain dead. Maybe the family wanted her kept on support till the baby was viable.

[LisaL]

228. She was kept on life support much longer than two days after she was declared brain dead.

She was at 15 weeks gestation when declared brain dead. Every article I've seen says she was brain dead, so that means no brain stem activity.
She (or rather her body) was able to carry the fetus to viability to 27 weeks gestation.
So obviously organs don't have to be removed withint two days of someone being declared brain dead.
I've seen other cases where organs were removed from people declared brain dead and kept on life support for a while. I am sure they are in best shape if removed quickly, but it appears if the body is on life support, they might still be in good enough shape even after a long time.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

234. The Texas woman was found dead.

She may have been without oxygen for over an hour.

I was so careful when I was pregnant to eat right, exercise, take no meds etc. I would be devastated to think my body could be without oxygen for over an hour while pregnant. Although I would be dead, I'd want to be laid to rest with my poor little baby.

Please read this (if you haven't already) about the condition of another dead body. How could organs still be good for transplant or a fetus healthy???

http://www.scribd.com/doc/196756012/Children-s-Hospital-Oakland-Supplemental-Declaration-of-Dr-Heidi-Flori

[LisaL]

235. She wasn't found dead.

Articles I've seen say she was passed out or unconscious.
I was just reading about a Japanse woman who was brain dead for over five months on life support.
Family wanted to keep her on life support. Finally they decided to withdraw life support. Heart stopped, and hospital still took the organs for donation.
So organs can last a long time on life support.

[OregonBlue]

293. Lisal I don't understand what you're saying. Are you arguing that it's okay to ignore the

woman's and the family's wishes and use the woman as an incubator?

[KitSileya]

297. Well, she's refused to answer us others when we've asked those questions,

so I guess we can only assume that she thinks it's a-ok to completely ignore the woman's own stated wishes about her own body. A lot of us know completely well that this is yet another baby step on the way to get rid of abortion, to remove the self-determination of women, and make fetuses persons, but others don't worry about that, apparently.

[uppityperson]

301. I always thought they were male, from what they write and support.

[KitSileya]

303. That was my bad assumption -

I did refer to them as 'they' in my earlier posts, but my brain made the assumption based on the screen name. I do recognize that that was wrong of me.

Their gender doesn't really matter - they are advocating against the self-determination of women. Skinner himself has said that anti-choice views are welcome as long as they are stated politely, but personally, I wish everyone who is arguing against the wishes of Ms. Munoz to be drafted for mandatory organ donations. Only those that don't outright kill, of course, but since they seem fine with the government using Ms. Munoz's body to keep the fetus alive, why shouldn't they have to give a kidney, a piece of liver to save the lives of others?

[uppityperson]

307. Yup. They are careful to never answer a direct question but indeed, do advocate non-self determinati

determination. I am not impressed by them.

[KitSileya]

309. Not impressed? I am disgusted.

And yes, they refuse absolutely to answer any questions asked of them.

[LisaL]

316. Since I don't know you, I frankly couldn't care less how you feel about me.

[LisaL]

315. I am pro-choice.

But this woman can't make her wishes known since she isn't alive in what we consider to be alive.
While she did say she didn't want to be on life support, it doesn't prove anything since she was not pregnant while she said it. From everything I gather, this was a wanted pregnancy.
I am not sure why family wishes have to be considered in a case like this, considering the law does allow to turn off life support even if family is against it (like the McMath case).
Why is it o'key to disregard what family wants if they want to keep their brain dead relative on life support, but not the other way around?

[OregonBlue]

333. Why won't you answer the question. Are you okay with the State using this woman as an incubator?

Because, that's exactly what she is. She has no brain function. She has no chance of recovery. The baby is very probably brain damaged. The family does not want this to continue. So, you are not pro-choice. You believe that the State should be able to dictate how this woman's dead body is used. How totally disgusting.

[pnwmom]

123. Most of those other rare cases were in a vegetative state, not brain dead.

And it makes a huge difference that this happened in the 14th week of pregnancy. A corpse hooked up to machines might be able to sustain life for a few weeks, but not for months. And the damage to the fetus from the drugs, etc., will be worse for the youngest fetuses.

Why should the state be able to prevent this family -- who are in complete agreement as to the mother's wishes -- from allowing the fetus to die, when the state may NOT prevent a healthy woman from having an abortion?

This law is just one more way to chip at women's choice, by asserting some sort of fetal right to life that doesn't exist otherwise.

[alphafemale]

138. Women ARE NOT just an INCUBATOR.

Despite what some...even on DU think.

[drmeow]

236. Thank you!

The state of the fetus is irrelevant!

[ann---]

103. However

This woman was deprived of oxygen for over an hour before she was taken to the hospital. That, and the medications they gave her, have most likely SEVERELY damaged the fetus - if it is still alive. It is a grisly situation and I blame the hospital for following such a macabre law. Considering the circumstances, the hospital could have "let her go" and no one would have reported it.

[LisaL]

106. Fetus is alive.

Hospital would have no problems with turning off ventillator if it wasn't.

[MH1]

115. Suppose fetus is born quasi-"normal" but requires constant care for rest of its life.

Possibly a long life, if the physical disabilities aren't too profound.

Who provides the care? Who pays for it?

By forcing this non-choice on the family, you have now brought a being into the world that will experience untold suffering.

Why?

[LisaL]

163. Are you for real?

How in the world am I forcing any choice on this family?
Do you think I personally am keeping this woman on life support, or what?

[uppityperson]

166. Did you vote for those who put this law in place?

[LisaL]

224. Seriously? What do you think?

I couldn't have even if I wanted to, considering how long ago that law was passed.

[pnwmom]

133. No, all we know is that the fetus has a heartbeat, like the mother. The mother has a heartbeat

and she's dead. The same is probably true of the fetus.

The hospital has NOT said the fetus is alive. They are following HIPPA law, and not releasing any information. You are not delegated to speak on their behalf, as to what they would or wouldn't do.

[pnwmom]

148. Having a heartbeat isn't equivalent to being alive. You don't speak for the hospital.

All they have said is that they think the law requires this -- and many other medical professionals disagree.

[LisaL]

158. If the fetus wasn't alive the hospital wouldn't have to keep the mother's body on life support.

TX does not require brain dead people to be kept on life support. In fact it's the opposite.

[DevonRex]

175. 1. A fetus is not a person. 2. they have no clue if the fetus' brain works. nt

[ann---]

312. "Alive" does not mean able to

survive the birth or won't be born with severe disabilities since the mother was deprived of oxygen for over an hour.

[pnwmom]

119. Any cases where the mother's skin was already starting to feel "rubbery" six weeks before

any baby could possibly be delivered? That is how the woman's own father described his daughter, and he's sickened by it.

How can a healthy baby be delivered from a decaying corpse?

[LisaL]

165. I have no clue how, but it has happened in a number of cases.

[uppityperson]

167. Link to a baby being delivered from a decaying corpse? And not the one you say is credible but wrong

[LisaL]

183. What in the world are you talking about?

Brain dead body attached to a ventillator is not a "decaying corpse."

[uppityperson]

185. "I have no clue how, but it has happened in a number of cases."

In reply to "How can a healthy baby be delivered from a decaying corpse?" YOU said you had no clue how, but it has happened in a number of cases.

So, link to those "number of cases"?

[LisaL]

190. Brain dead woman on life support are not "decaying corpses."

You made a claim that brain dead person on a ventillator is a decying corpse, not me. And now want me to prove something that I never said.

[uppityperson]

192. No, I did not make that claim. Another swing and a miss. I quoted you so you did say that. Whoosh!

In reply to "How can a healthy baby be delivered from a decaying corpse?" you wrote
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024315992#post165

I have no clue how, but it has happened in a number of cases.

Direct quote of what you wrote.

And no, I never claimed a " brain dead person on a ventillator is a decying corpse". Someone else did. I'd use correct spelling as well as never say that.

[w8liftinglady]

329. Have you ever cared for a brain dead individual on a ventillator? I have.

They require vasopressors to maintain a blood pressure compatible with life. These are usually Norepinephrine and vasopressin.

http://www.drugs.com/sfx/norepinephrine-side-effects.html

http://www.drugs.com/sfx/vasopressin-side-effects.html

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s001340101014

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa0907118


Being vasoconstrictors,one of the places blood flow is constricted is blood flow to the fetus.

[volstork]

65. "death threats…from Pro-Lifers"

Too bad those "pro-lifers" don't realize what an enormous disconnect that represents.

[dixiegrrrrl]

4. This, and another case like it, made news this week.

apparently there is a law against allowing the mother to "die" if she is pregnant,
doctors are stating they are forced to follow the law.
A law which clearly tells us the value of a woman versus the value of a fetus.

and who is going to pay the bill for that lengthy hospitalization?

[pnwmom]

134. And who, if a baby were somehow produced with massive damage, would pay for its care? n/t

[Arcanetrance]

6. I know this is a weird question and I ask it cause I'm not always the smartest person in the world

Is a baby basically born to someone who's dead going to even be able to survive itself or will it be damaged and die itself. I mean this seems really creepy and sick

[TwilightGardener]

8. The fetus must still be developing, that's easy to check. But they won't know

Last edited Sat Jan 11, 2014, 06:53 PM - Edit history (1)

how much it suffered (if it did) from the mother's lack of oxygen and the subsequent stresses upon her body from all the medical support she's received.

[freshwest]

12. They're judging by heartbeat, last I heard. But the heart can be beating and the brain dead. There

were a lot of babies brought to term in South Texa and Mexico on both sides of the border that had nothing but the brain stem and it was blamed on the pollution from manufacturing along the border. Unlikely in this case.

But both of the parents were medical professsionals, IIRC, and the father felt he knows enough to say No. The child was planned pregnancy. If they lose in court and they probably will, and the child is born healthy, the Pro-Lifers will call it a victory.

The state crossing the line into such intimate matters is the work of those who want a theocracy. it's very dangerous, as we've seen how it works out in other countries. And here in the USA, if one looks back far enough in history.

[TwilightGardener]

15. It's horrific. It should be up to the family. The state should not have the power

to keep this woman going as an incubator against the family's will. She is a PERSON, in her own right, and not a vessel--regardless of a dependent fetus inside her.

[freshwest]

17. I agree... But the state regards the fetus as a Person with all due rights until born. If the GOP

gets a Senate majority, Rand Paul has his national personhood bill ready to go along with his national right to work bill as well. This is happening.

[shaayecanaan]

63. "She" is not a person

The lady in question was certified as brain dead some time ago. What remains is merely a viable corpse. She is no more sentient (and quite possibly less) than the fetus that is currently inside her.

I don't know that you can frame the issue in terms of rights. The feminist movement has argued for so long that men have essentially no rights in terms of reproduction that I don't think they can argue any differently here. And the woman is already dead. In pragmatic terms, I think that the likelihood that the baby suffered brain damage and is still early term should mean that it should be terminated.

The family themselves have been quite reluctant to enter into the fray of abortion politics and I can see why.

[TwilightGardener]

94. No, she is a person. There's no such thing as a "viable corpse".

Her cellular metabolism continues, she's not in organ failure, her heart is still beating, despite her lack of brain waves. She may be doomed, but doomed doesn't equal corpse. No reason to dehumanize her.

[pnwmom]

140. She is dead, TwlightGardener. Brain-dead is still dead. Her heart is only beating

because of the machine that she's on, and her body has already started to decay. Her father says that her skin texture has already become rubbery, and he's sickened by it.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/09/ethicists-criticize-treatment-brain-dead-patients/4394173/

The California child, McMath, was pronounced brain-dead by the coroner's office, after suffering rare complications from a Dec. 9 tonsillectomy. Unlike patients in a vegetative state, who have some brain activity, people declared brain-dead are no longer alive, says Laurence McCullough, a professor at the Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. The term "brain death" simply refers to the method of determining death, he says.

By moving the lungs up and down, a ventilator can "give the appearance of life," Caplan says. That also can stimulate a heart beat. Once the machines are disconnected, however, breathing and circulation stop.

[TwilightGardener]

146. I do draw a distinction between brain death and actual death (heart stops, all cells die).

Other people may stick to legal definitions, but for my purposes, brain death is a part of the dying process, not total biological death itself. Her organs, for now, are still functioning--how much longer is hard to say. The cells are alive. I went into this in detail on the other brain death threads, so I don't want to revisit it here--it's not really important, just that I take exception at calling people "bodies" and "corpses" or "remains" until their hearts finally stop and they go cold. That's all that is.

[pnwmom]

150. Her father says her skin is already feeling rubbery. Isn't that dead enough for you?

The process of decay has already begun.

The machine is what is keeping her heart beating, but it's not keeping her body ALIVE. It's just simulating life.

[TwilightGardener]

157. The ventilator doesn't make a heart beat. It forces oxygen into the lungs, but the heart

itself is not a simple mechanical pump. It's complex, living tissue with self-generated electrical impulses and responsive to hormone and nervous system control. There are such things as heart-lung machines and ventricular pumps and pacemakers, but that's not what's going on here. The fact that her skin is rubbery may be related to poor tissue perfusion, or some complication of her condition, but I would hesitate to call that decay (necrosis).

[Ilsa]

193. Poor Tissue Perfusion. Sounds like a reasonable

Conclusion could be drawn about perfusion through the placenta. I wonder if an amniocentesis coukd determine if the placenta is still alive.

I would require JPS hospital and the state of texas to agree to pay all of her medical bills and those of the fetus if it survives with disabilities. If they refuse, maybe the man could make a case for moving her to a more progressive and knowledgable state.

[MattBaggins]

279. Medically that is incorrect

The pump is what allows her heart to keep beating. The heart will beat until it runs out of oxygen.

She is a corpse being animated artificially by technology.

[TwilightGardener]

281. She's ventilator-dependent because she has no respiratory drive.

Of course her heart (and everything else in her body) is dependent on that--but the poster I'm replying to was obviously confused as to what ventilators actually do. I'm not really sure what you're getting at. No, she is not a corpse, because her organs still function, she's still able to carry out metabolic processes. She's still alive, in a biological sense, but she's dying.

[MattBaggins]

286. I would disagree on the term of corpse.

She is in fact a corpse.

[TwilightGardener]

287. OK. That's your call.

[uppityperson]

151. I agree, calling them corpses or remains is not needed. They are a body, but still a person deservin

deserving of being called that.

[shaayecanaan]

176. You see dead people?

I don't think you can be a person if you are dead. At least a fetus isnt dead, although it isnt necessarily alive either.

Whether a fetus or a corpse "deserves" to be called a person is a subjective judgment that is probably best avoided.

[uppityperson]

178. Yes, I have worked with a lot of people who have died, who were dying. Some on mechanical support

some not.

Either way, treating even a dead person as a person is respectful and imo they deserve to be treated respectfully. (I know, the next reply will be "but what about really bad people&quot .

[shaayecanaan]

182. Some would say the same for fetuses...

Most hospitals treat aborted or miscarried fetuses (at least those recognisably human) with some degree of reverence, in some circumstances in the same way that they would treat other human remains. Does that make a fetus a person?

Even pro-abortion commentators deplored the purported display of aborted fetuses as public art:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yale_student_abortion_art_controversy

[uppityperson]

187. Congratulations for not giving me the "what about evil people" line but instead going for fetuses

[Auntie Bush]

217. I remember when Kennedy died the media refered to him as a corpse and that

really, really upset me...so much I still remember. I don't even like dead people referred to as the body. Why can't they still use their name? Or refer to him as the late Kennedy. I could never refer to anyone I love as the corpse.

[shaayecanaan]

171. Then life begins at conception

you cant have it both ways.

[TwilightGardener]

174. OK.

[bettyellen]

120. in terms of rights, the DNR should be respected, PERIOD.

[shaayecanaan]

172. What if they needed to preserve the corpse...

for a few more hours, in order to harvest her organs to save someone's life?

Should the "rights" of corpses outweigh the interests of living people?

[bettyellen]

181. what if your question had ANYTHING to do with this situation?

[pnwmom]

139. You can frame it in terms of the husband's right. He has the legal right to control

the disposition of his wife's corpse. And he is supported by his dead wife's parents in this. They're the only ones who should be able to make the decision.

[shaayecanaan]

179. Not really...

if you've ever heard a family bickering with the coroner you'd know that the right of a family to a corpse doesnt count for much. If there is such a right it is one that is heavily curtailed by statute.

[pnwmom]

188. It is a legal right with the exception of when an autopsy must be performed.

And, in the case of Texas and similar states, when the body is required as an incubator.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Burial+Rights

For the purpose of burial, however, the corpse of a human being is considered to be property or quasi-property, the rights to which are held by the surviving spouse or next of kin.

SNIP

At times, the need to perform an autopsy or postmortem examination gives the local Coroner a superior right to possess the corpse until such an examination is performed. The general rule is that such examinations should be performed with discretion and not routinely. Some state statutes regulate the times when an autopsy may be performed, which may require the procurement of a court order and written permission of a designated person, usually the one with property rights in the corpse.

[pnwmom]

113. It isn't. The earliest possible date at which this fetus would be termed viable is at 24 weeks.

The woman died at 14 weeks and is now at 20 weeks.

We don't even know that it's potentially viable now, since the machines that are keeping the mother's heart beating might also be responsible for the fetus's heartbeat. I haven't read anything anywhere talking about signs the fetus is growing, much less growing normally.

[TwilightGardener]

118. Yikes, I assumed she was much further along. I guess the state's plan is to wait

until 32-36 weeks and then do a c-section? That is a long, long time. By viable, though, I meant has a heartbeat, is developing normally, not necessarily able to be delivered successfully, so my bad on choice of wording.

[uppityperson]

125. fetal viability the ability of a fetus to survive outside the uterus with artificial aid. Not devel

Not developing normally or be delivered successfully, but IF is successfully delivered, it can survive with aid. Aid meaning IV's and feeding tubes, incubator, Neonatal ICU care, etc.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viability

Legal definitions[edit]
United States[edit]

The United States Supreme Court stated in Roe v. Wade (1973) that viability (i.e., the "interim point at which the fetus becomes ... potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid"[6]) "is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."[6] The 28-week definition became part of the "trimester framework" marking the point at which the "compelling state interest" (under the doctrine of strict scrutiny) in preserving potential life became possibly controlling, permitting states to freely regulate and even ban abortion after the 28th week.[6] The subsequent Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) modified the "trimester framework," permitting the states to regulate abortion in ways not posing an "undue burden" on the right of the mother to an abortion at any point before viability; on account of technological developments between 1973 and 1992, viability itself was legally dissociated from the hard line of 28 weeks, leaving the point at which "undue burdens" were permissible variable depending on the technology of the time and the judgment of the state legislatures.

Forty-one states now have laws restricting post-viability abortions. Some allow doctors to decide for themselves if the fetus is viable. Some require doctors to perform tests to prove a fetus is pre-viable and require multiple doctors to certify the findings. Eleven states have banned the procedure called intact dilation and extraction (IDE)--also known as partial-birth abortion—in the belief that this procedure is used mainly post-viability.[7]

[TwilightGardener]

128. Yes, I know that. I was imprecise in my language--corrected it.

[uppityperson]

129. No worries, it shows that legal and medical terms and how we use them in daily life all can

radically differ. Even how 2 people use a word can radically differ.

[pnwmom]

143. They plan to test her in February at 22 or 24 weeks and then decide what to do.

I think they might be planning to deliver her much earlier than 32 weeks. There's no way the dead body would last that long, no matter what they did to it.

[LisaL]

164. The record time for a brain dead pregnant woman being on life support is 107 days.

This particular woman has been on life support for six weeks already. In another six, seven weeks fetus could have a very good chance of survival, if she can last that long (which still will be less than record time).

[kestrel91316]

194. Machines are not keeping her heart beating. They are keeping her lungs breathing, and since the

heart has been beating all along, it circulates oxygenated blood just fine. Well, relatively speaking.

But that dead brain is an issue. She doesn't have any pituitary hormone production now, obviously, so heaven knows what effect that has on that poor fetus.

[pnwmom]

195. If her brain stem is dead, then her heart isn't beating either -- not on its own.

Her heart wasn't beating when she was found, and they believe she stopped breathing an hour or longer before then. The ventilator is what is making her heart beat now, but it would stop if they took her off of it.

On top of everything else, her body has already started to decay. Her father says that her skin texture has already become rubbery, and he's sickened by it.

http://www.kfoxtv.com/news/features/top-stories/stories/pregnant-lifesupport-case-hospital-v-family-3090.shtml#.UtHxPHmQdlI

On Tuesday afternoon, in the rural community about 30 minutes outside downtown Fort Worth where they live, Ernest Machado and his wife took care of Mateo while the boys father was at work in Crowley, a nearby town. As he held Mateo in his arms, Machado recalled touching his daughters skin as she lay in the hospital. She felt more like a mannequin, Machado said. That makes it very hard for me to go up and visit. I dont want to remember her as a rubber figure.


http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/09/ethicists-criticize-treatment-brain-dead-patients/4394173/

The California child, McMath, was pronounced brain-dead by the coroner's office, after suffering rare complications from a Dec. 9 tonsillectomy. Unlike patients in a vegetative state, who have some brain activity, people declared brain-dead are no longer alive, says Laurence McCullough, a professor at the Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. The term "brain death" simply refers to the method of determining death, he says.

By moving the lungs up and down, a ventilator can "give the appearance of life," Caplan says. That also can stimulate a heart beat. Once the machines are disconnected, however, breathing and circulation stop.

[kestrel91316]

202. False false false false false.

The heart beats completely independently of the brain. When I euthanize my patients, their heart doesn't stop beating until about 5 minutes after the last breath, when the blood no longer contains sufficient oxygen to keep it going.

The electrical activity of the heart that causes the muscle to beat comes from within the heart itself, in a specific location. If that malfunctions, some people wind up needing a pacemaker. Nothing to do with the brain.

The vagus nerve does have involvement in the heart RATE, and every time you breathe the vagus is compressed, which causes the heart rate to briefly rise, and when you exhale the nerve is not compressed so it does its thing to slow the heart rate down again. But the brain does not cause the heart to beat.

Yes, I do know what I am talking about, and I certainly know more about this than crappy journalists and crappy hospital spokespersons.

[pnwmom]

203. The heart does not beat independently of the brain STEM. The brain STEM controls automatic

body functions like the heart.

[uppityperson]

206. Yes, it will beat independently. Briefly. If you stop the vent, O2 levels will drop and the heart

will stop. So they are interacting, but the vent does not "make" the heart beat.

[pnwmom]

210. "Briefly" is the key word. As in minutes. The heart could not continue

to work with a dead brain without the mechanical support.

[uppityperson]

213. Yup, briefly, until the oxygen level drops and the heart nerves die. The brain stem does control

the heart rate, how fast it beats.

But indeed, a heart will not live long without oxygen, and if a body is not breathing, the mechanical breathing stopped, O2 will drop and the heart nerves will die, the heart will stop.

I guess the easiest way to think of it is oxygenation by the vent allows the heart to continue beating rather than causes beating.

[pnwmom]

214. Okay, that makes sense.

"I guess the easiest way to think of it is oxygenation by the vent allows the heart to continue beating rather than causes beating."

[kestrel91316]

207. False again. The heartbeats are generated entirely by the sinoatrial node.

You are completely wrong in this and obviously know nothing about the electrical conduction system of the heart.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_conduction_system_of_the_heart

Please read, and then stop posting complete nonsense about this which is misleading people.

[pnwmom]

209. The fact that the heart can be made to beat while on mechanical breathing support

doesn't make a person alive. If the brain is dead, including the brain stem, the person is dead. Period.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/09/ethicists-criticize-treatment-brain-dead-patients/4394173/

Unlike patients in a vegetative state, who have some brain activity, people declared brain-dead are no longer alive, says Laurence McCullough, a professor at the Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. The term "brain death" simply refers to the method of determining death, he says.

SNIP

According to the Uniform Determination of Death Act, adopted by most states, death is defined as "irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions" or "irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem."

[kestrel91316]

212. I know that. Jesus. I am NOT arguing that a brain dead person is alive.

I'm trying to get it through your head that the brain is not what makes the heart beat. The brain stem has a role in heart RATE via the vagus nerve, which is part of the autonomic nervous system. But it does not, and never has, had a role in originating heartbeats. Those come ONLY from the sinoatrial node in the heart muscle itself.

Here's what the brain stem does: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainstem

[pnwmom]

215. I was using the term "make" loosely. But the fact remains that a functioning brain stem

is necessary for a functioning heart, in the absence of mechanical support. When the brain is dead, the person is dead, even if the heart continues to beat for a few minutes.

[MattBaggins]

282. Yes it does beat independently

The nerves coming from the brain can speed up and slow down the heart but it wil lbeat without them.

However, the other posters are wrong when they say the ventilator isn't responsible. Yes it is. it is supplying the oxygen that allows the heart to work.

[pnwmom]

283. But you're not saying the heart can beat without either a brain stem

or a ventilator, are you? For more than a couple minutes?

[MattBaggins]

285. Yes it will beat until the oxygen and energy stores

in the cardiac tissues run out.

[pnwmom]

292. But that time is measured in minutes, not hours -- and certainly not months.

This woman has already been on the ventilator for six weeks.

[uppityperson]

204. The vent oxygenates the blood. It doesn't make the heart beat. But once the vent is stopped, the

heart will also stop because oxygen levels drop.

So yes, the vent is keeping the heart beating, but it is not "making" the heart beat. The electrical pathways in the heart make the heart contract.

Once O2 drops, those nerves stop and the heart stops.

[kestrel91316]

208. Thank you. Correct. When oxygen levels drop too far, the cells in the sinoatrial node

in the heart die and no further heartbeats happen.

The brain does not make the heart beat. Breathing does not make the heart beat. THE HEART MAKES ITSELF BEAT.

[uppityperson]

211. It can be confusing because while it may not make the heart beat, stopping it then causes the heart

to stop. AND the brainstem controls the heart rate, how fast it beats.

[LisaL]

223. Doctors can provide whatever hormones the body needs.

If that's what concerns you.
There have been other cases of brain dead women producing children, so I am assuming by now doctors got the protocol down of how to keep the body going.

[uppityperson]

232. Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha. OK, now I understand, you are just joking around! And we took you

seriously. So sorry about that.

"There have been other cases of brain dead women producing children, so I am assuming by now doctors got the protocol down of how to keep the body going. "

Goodness, you should write for The Onion. GREAT satire!

[LisaL]

239. WTF is so funny?

If goal is to keep the body in the best shape possible, doctors can do whatever is necessary.
Educate yourself.

"There are increased reports in the medical literature of brain death during pregnancy. In these rare cases, the decision was either to consider discontinuing homeostatic support and mechanical ventilation with an understanding that the fetus then will also die, or to continue full support in an attempt to prolong pregnancy for the purpose of maintaining the fetus alive until maturity. We report the first case in the United Arab Emirates and in literature of somatic support that extended up to 110 days with the successful delivery of a viable fetus. A 35-year-old woman suffered intracranial hemorrhage during the 16(th) week of pregnancy that lead to brain death despite maximal surgical and medical management. Upon confirmation of this diagnosis, the patient received full ventilatory and homeostatic support required to prolong gestation and improve the survival prognosis of her fetus. The status of the patient was discussed in a multidisciplinary approach and with the full involvement of her family. Somatic support continued until the patient was 32 of weeks gestation. Obstetric complications of the patient were frequently assessed and managed. Lower segment cesarean section (LSCS) was then performed. A preterm male in breech presentation was delivered with an average weight of 750 gm, and an Apgar score of 6, 7, and 9 at 1, 5, and 10 minutes, respectively. Prolonging somatic support in a pregnant woman with brain death to allow fetal survival resulted in a successful outcome in terms of saving the life of the fetus. The results are consistent with previous published case reports in the literature on the appropriateness and safety of such a strategy that involved an intensive multidisciplinary approach. Despite being a tragedy, maternal death can represent an opportunity to save the life of the fetus and for organ donation. Consensus future recommendations that can guide the management of similar conditions may also be adapted, especially with the growing medical experience in this context."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24404463

[uppityperson]

243. You are. Is it ethical to do this against the wishes of the woman and the family?

"There have been other cases of brain dead women producing children, so I am assuming by now doctors got the protocol down of how to keep the body going. "

A few cases, scattered around the world and you assume these doctors "got the protocol down".

[LisaL]

248. The woman's body lasted six weeks already.

So I am guessing they know what they are doing.
As for being ethical or not, presumably that's open to debate.

[MattBaggins]

280. No the lungs are keeping the heart going

They supply the oxygen that allows the funny channels in the pace maker cells to keep working.

Take that oxygen away and the whole system crashes.

[enlightenment]

121. The fetus is not viable

In medical terms, viable means capable of surviving outside the womb. It was not viable at the point the mother died and it is not viable now.

The fetus has a heartbeat, because the mothers' body is being kept artificially alive. If they stopped that, the fetus would no longer function. It is not a separate entity from the mother and won't be for weeks, if ever.

[TwilightGardener]

124. No, I'm going to correct that, I used the wrong word.

[enlightenment]

127. Thanks.

This discussion seems to require careful wording, lest the wrong conclusion be drawn.

[hfojvt]

10. only her brain is dead

her body can be kept artificially alive. As such, if the baby goes to term, or very near to term, it should be born relatively healthy.

I think it is awesome. She died tragically young, but thanks to modern medicine, HER child can still live! Why wouldn't any parent WANT that?

Okay, maybe they already have six kids or three kids or something. Dude should have gotten a vasectomy then and she never would have gotten pregnant and would probably still be alive.

[uppityperson]

14. I thought this was sarcasm until I read your other post. Good grief.

[U4ikLefty]

19. pretty disturbing to see on DU

sick and waaaay too common

[uppityperson]

24. It is "awesome" to have a state over ride the parent's wishes. As for the rest, what the fuck

No, the fetus may not be "relatively healthy" which is why the father says let them finish dying.

What parent wouldn't want to continue a pregnancy? Many for many reasons.

They shouldn't have had sex, or should've used contraception to avoid getting pregnant and she'd still be alive? Hindsight is 20-20, eh?

So many judgments in one post. Incredible. You really did it this time.

[LisaL]

25. It's not clear at this point if the fetus will ever be viable.

In about two weeks hospital plans to test it.
In about four weeks it will have about 50 % chance of survival on its own.
My understanding this pregnancy was wanted. They have one child.

[bettyellen]

40. wow, such ignorance and disrespect toward women's autonomy is sad to see at DU

you seem to think once someone gets pregnant the state should decide the outcome- seriously?!?!

[riderinthestorm]

49. This woman had a living will and health directive about this

Last edited Sat Jan 11, 2014, 06:24 PM - Edit history (1)

So there's the disregard for HER explicit wishes as well as the family.

Texas is now forcing even dead people to be incubators against their will.

Its pretty sick.

[LisaL]

59. No she didn't.

Listening to interviews with the family it's all was in conversations they had with her.
She didn't leave written directions.

[uppityperson]

66. These articles indicate otherwise. If someone does, the state can ignore it. Is that ethical?

http://globalnews.ca/news/1073863/experts-weight-in-should-texas-allow-a-pregnant-brain-dead-woman-to-die/

Despite her “living will” and against the wishes of her husband Erick and her family, Munoz’s body continues to be been maintained by mechanical support.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/08/pregnant-living-will-_n_4562964.html

Marlise Munoz, a 33-year-old Texas woman, was left brain-dead after she collapsed in November and her family planned to honor her living will and have her removed from life support, according to a recent New York Times story. Today she remains kept alive by machines in the hospital because when she collapsed she was 14 weeks pregnant — not far enough along to have prevented her from getting an abortion under different circumstances, but putting her in a category where doctors must keep her alive until they decide whether she might be able to carry the fetus to term. Texas is one of a dozen states where any stage of pregnancy automatically invalidates advance directives, including living wills.

[LisaL]

70. I am going by what her family members said.

What they said they is that they had conversations with her and thus knew what she wanted. I have not seen any of the family members claiming she had anything in writing.

[uppityperson]

75. Is. It. Ethical. To. Ignore. Family. Wishes?

I am going by what the family members said as reported by news media. You must know them personally?

[DevonRex]

84. Give me a fucking credible link that says

her family said she didn't have a living will.

[ann---]

109. She was an EMT as is her husband

He said they talked about it A LOT because of what they see in their work. It only has to be verbal and she said it to her husband and her mother. Google is your friend if you want a link.

[uppityperson]

111. Her brother died last year, prompting them to talk more about it.

[riderinthestorm]

96. Here's another link that says she had a living will.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/08/pregnant-living-will-_n_4562964.html

Marlise Munoz, a 33-year-old Texas woman, was left brain-dead after she collapsed in November and her family planned to honor her living will and have her removed from life support, according to a recent New York Times story.

[LisaL]

156. Read the actual freaking story in New York Times.

It doesn't say anything about living will.

[riderinthestorm]

177. It doesn't mention it at all so that means she didn't have one?

Umm that's a pretty big leap especially as there are other credible reports that she did.

[LisaL]

186. Does New York Times article say the woman had a living will?

No, despite what is being claimed here.

[pnwmom]

145. No, the body is a corpse. It isn't being kept artificially alive. It has only been given

the appearance of being alive, through the mechanically-caused rise and fall of its lungs.

This isn't like the cases of women in a coma or a vegetative state -- she's dead. Her father said her skin is already becoming rubbery. Decay has already started.


http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/09/ethicists-criticize-treatment-brain-dead-patients/4394173/

The California child, McMath, was pronounced brain-dead by the coroner's office, after suffering rare complications from a Dec. 9 tonsillectomy. Unlike patients in a vegetative state, who have some brain activity, people declared brain-dead are no longer alive, says Laurence McCullough, a professor at the Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. The term "brain death" simply refers to the method of determining death, he says.

By moving the lungs up and down, a ventilator can "give the appearance of life," Caplan says. That also can stimulate a heart beat. Once the machines are disconnected, however, breathing and circulation stop.

[LisaL]

220. The difference between coma, vegetative state and brain death is "some brain activity."

But in terms of what the person can do, there is really not that much difference.
We just decided that we need family's permission to disconnect someone in a coma/vegetative state from life support, whereas we don't need that for someone who is brain dead. There might be a chance of recovery from coma/vegetative state (sometimes very small) but no chance from correctly diagnosed brain death.
But you do understand the body isn't actually decaying like that of a corpse, don't you? As long as the heart is beating (because of ventillator) and blood is circulating, the body isn't decaying like that of a corpse.

[pnwmom]

222. No, I don't. The father has reported that her skin feels like that of a mannequin,

not like that of a human. He doesn't want to remember her body feeling like rubber. So maybe we can agree -- if she's not decaying, then they're turning her into a mummy with moving lungs. But if she's brain-dead, if she has no brain-stem activity, then she's DEAD. And they're using a mother's dead body to incubate a fetus for months.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

233. Have a gander at this...

This is about another brain dead body, but it disputes your assertion about decomposing.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/196756012/Children-s-Hospital-Oakland-Supplemental-Declaration-of-Dr-Heidi-Flori

[LisaL]

237. I read it already.

The body isn't decomposing. It's deteriorating.
And frankly there was no effort to keep it in the best shape possible because the hospital waned to pull the plug (as they are supposed to by law).
But it might have been in better shape if maximal effort was made to keep it in better shape. Here is a good article.
"Today, with ventilators, blood-pressure augmentation and hormones, the body of a brain-dead person could, in theory, be kept functioning for a long time, perhaps indefinitely, Greene-Chandos said. But with time, Greene-Chandos added, the body of a brain-dead person becomes increasingly difficult to maintain, and the tissue is at high risk for infection."

- See more at: http://www.livescience.com/42301-brain-death-body-alive.html#sthash.sTm6rG6C.dpuf
http://www.livescience.com/42301-brain-death-body-alive.html

[Boudica the Lyoness]

247. And you have no idea how revolting this is do you?

Why the hell should nurse and doctors pump nutrients, hormones etc into a dead body? The hospital wanted to pull the plug because the doctors declared her dead and the coroner issued a death certificate. Nurse/doctors etc found it demoralizing working on a dead body. Did you read the part where they said the body was malodorous and it was pooping its guts out?

I find it hard to believe that people think all dead bodies should be kept in the best shape possible till the ultra religious and ignorant family comes to terms with the death, in their own sweet time. Or they pumping air into them so they can try to harvest a very damaged baby from the corpse.

What a nasty unhealthy world this would be if you had your way. There would be corpses piling up, taking valuable equipment and medical professionals time, while they attracted flies and necrophiliacs. What for? Just to make religious nutcases happy or some republicans dream of having a brain dead woman give birth.

Revolting!

[LisaL]

259. I never said I think all dead bodies should be kept in best shape possible.

But her family obviously did. And court allowed them to do so.
So if you have a problem take it up with the court that let them do it.

[Beaverhausen]

16. It's my understanding that the fetus is too young to test

But the mother went without oxygen for a long period which could mean the fetus did and will have some damage too

[LisaL]

23. The hospital can test the fetus in about 2 weeks.

Until then nobody knows what kind of damage it sustained.

[MattBaggins]

284. Do you feel that makes it OK to violate her body and wishes

[pnwmom]

135. There is almost no chance that a fetus that was oxygen deprived at 14 weeks for an hour

and then subjected to all the measures that happened to the mother to get her heart beating again, would be anything but massively damaged from the experience.

[LisaL]

160. How much are you willing to bet on it?

[uppityperson]

162. The father is willing to let it die if it is still alive.

[DevonRex]

170. Ever heard of CEREBRAL PALSY? Lack of oxygen

to the brain is the main cause. Next is prematurity. If this baby is born it will be premature. That body is going to decay.

"Much remains unknown about the disorder's causes, but evidence supports theories that infections, birth injuries, and poor oxygen supply to the brain before, during, and immediately after birth result are common factors. Premature infants are particularly vulnerable. Severe illness (such as meningitis) during the first years of life, physical trauma, and severe dehydration can cause brain injury and result in CP."
http://www.webmd.com/brain/understanding-cerebral-palsy-basic-information

[pnwmom]

191. It is not up to me to bet. Only the family should be able to make this decision.

But if she were my child, I would agree with her parents, no matter how much I might want a grandchild. This woman's body and that of the fetus are being turned into a science experiment, and that's wrong.

[LisaL]

226. How is it an experiment since it has been done before?

It's not unprecedented. I personally would want to know the state of the fetus before deciding on what do do with it. In a few weeks that could be done.

[pnwmom]

229. Of course it’s an experiment. The fact that it isn’t entirely without precedent

doesn’t change the fact that there is no standard protocol for this. I haven’t seen even a single case where the circumstances are similar (certainly not the 15 week case you previously cited). The doctors who are doing this are making a major mistake if they haven’t submitted this to their Institutional Review Board for approval as a medical experiment.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/10/ethics-brain-dead_n_4577116.html

But in fact, “brain death” is no different than any other sort of death: A brain-dead person is no longer alive. The term simply describes how the death was determined, said Laurence McCullough, a professor at the Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston.

SNIP

If she is brain-dead, then “you have a pregnancy in a cadaver,” McCullough said. “Then the law no longer applies.” If Munoz is dead, and the hospital wishes to continue ventilation to save her fetus, that is considered a medical experiment, and should undergo careful consideration by a committee of experts, McCullough said.

“In desperate cases, you respond with very careful thought and deliberation,” said McCullough, who chairs the fetal therapy board at Texas Children’s Hospital.

Given that Munoz suffered a loss of oxygen to her brain because of the clot, the fetus may also have suffered grievous harm, as well, Caplan said. “You probably have a fetus who is terribly devastated,” Caplan said. “I do think the family’s wishes should be honored.”

[LisaL]

231. Certainly different?

How long was woman in Hungary without oxygen? Certainly long enough for her brain to die.
How long was the woman in TX without oxygen? Potentially up to an hour?
Up to an hour could be 10 minutes, for instance. They don't even know for sure why the woman in TX ended up brain dead. They are only guessing it could have been an embolism.
So how is it certainly different? The only difference for sure is one extra week of gestation for woman in Hungary when she was declared brain dead.

[pnwmom]

244. The medical team of the Texas woman said that they thought it was an hour OR MORE.

Not "up to an hour." Not ten minutes.

There is no indication that the woman in Hungary went long without treatment.

But this is beside the point. If they did that in Hungary with a patient, that was an experiment. Doing it with this Texas woman is ALSO an experiment. There is no standard protocol for these patients. The doctors are just winging it, based on a handful of reported cases around the world.

[LisaL]

246. As far as I know medical team said nothing. They aren't allowed to talk because of privacy laws.

[pnwmom]

252. But the father and his in-laws aren't bound by privacy laws,

and that's what they say the medical team told them. The husband also knows when he found her. Do you think they're all lying?

Do you think the father is lying when he says his daughter's skin is hard now, like a mannequin, and that he doesn't want to remember her feeling rubbery?

[LisaL]

254. The family seem like nice sincere people.

I don't think they are lying at all. But the husband didn't give persmission for the hospital to talk about his wife's condition. So medical team hasn't said anything as far as I know.

[pnwmom]

258. The medical team is talking to the husband, and he is telling the press what they said.

So you either believe him or you don't.

[LisaL]

261. Here is the father saying "they" (I presume the medical team) doesn't know how long the

baby was without oxygen or nutrients. So perhaps you understand as to why I might be confused at your claims that it was for an hour and medical team said so.

"Know what else is particularly tough? It is unclear how long Marlise was out before her husband found her. The Times reports that Marlise's unborn baby is now in its 20th week of development.

“They don't know how long the baby was without nutrients and oxygen,” Erick Munoz told a Dallas-area TV station, “but I'm aware what challenges I might face ahead.”"
http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/columnists/maria_anglin/article/Life-support-case-matters-to-all-Texans-5128702.php

[pnwmom]

263. They don't know exactly how long she was without oxygen. But the hospital told the family

that it was well over an hour, and that she was brain-dead.

Would you believe the parents? Or are they lying or deluded?

http://www.wrcbtv.com/story/24299353/pregnant-woman-kept-alive-against-familys-wishes-in-texas

The last time Erick Munoz saw his pregnant wife conscious, she had gotten up before 2 a.m. to give their son a bottle.

SNIP

When Machado and her husband arrived at the emergency room they found doctors and nurses hovering over their daughter, assessing her condition.

"They did a CAT scan and an EEG and there was no brain activity," Machado said. "She was clinically declared brain dead. The doctors said she had been without oxygen for well over an hour."

The family expected at that point that doctors would disconnect life-support and that they would say their goodbyes to Marlise.

[LisaL]

295. I see these statements as inconsistent.

Either medical team doesn't know how long the mother was without oxygen, or she was without oxygen for more than an hour?
If fetus was without oxygen for more than an hour, how could it possibly still be alive?

[uppityperson]

311. Same way as the woman, artificially.

[LisaL]

314. If she is brain dead, then she isn't considered alive.

If fetus wasn't alive they could have unplugged her at any time.

[uppityperson]

317. Backing up, how do they know the fetus is "alive"? And you still miss the BIG issue

Is it ethical to go against the person on mechanical support's wishes and family's wishes to have them removed from the mechanical support? Is. It. Ethical?

Your answer is.....?

[pnwmom]

321. They could have but they haven't, for reasons of their own.

This is why they're being opposed by professors of medical ethics at more than one university.

[pnwmom]

320. They're not inconsistent. The husband says they didn't know, and it was true

that they couldn't specify exactly how long it was. But they also told the family that it was more than an hour.

We don't KNOW that the fetus is still alive. Only that there is a heartbeat. The mother has a heartbeat, too, and she's not alive.

[MattBaggins]

288. You would want to know

That is not your right or call to make. The family makes that decision and no one has the right to forcibly animate her corpse against her and her family's wishes.

[LisaL]

294. If that was so, one would think she would have been unplugged already.

[KitSileya]

298. You seem to deny the basis of this story in every post you make -

her family wants to "unplug her" but they aren't allowed to, and that is what their suit is about. Even if she has a living will, even had she stated on television moments before her aneurysm that she didn't want to be kept alive by machines if this happened to her, it wouldn't matter. Texas law states that a woman's own wishes don't matter if she is pregnant. Her family is fighting to get her wishes heard, her publicly stated wishes, and you are arguing that they don't matter.

[uppityperson]

310. THAT is the problem. Even if she did, they would not allow it. Her family wants to stop the machines

Even if they had signed, notarized, multiples of legal papers stating she wanted it, still she would be denied that.

Texas law states that a woman's own wishes don't matter if she is pregnant.

Texas law states that a family's wishes don't matter if she is pregnant.

That is the issue.

[hfojvt]

7. I am kinda surprised at the husband and the parents

Why are they so anxious to keep their child or grandchild from being born? Not that the hospital or the law should stand in their way, but I personally find that to be odd. Is that what Marlise would have wanted?

[Humanist_Activist]

11. Who are you to ask that type of question?

Even the phrasing of the first question sounds like anti-woman, anti-choice bullshit.

There are many reasons to pull the plug, the primary one being it is unethical to keep a body alive with no hope of recovery. Second, the status of the fetus is largely unknown, it was possibly deprived of oxygen for a length of time, and the stresses of being on life support for the woman's body can further damage it. There's the need for closure for the family as well, along with the, and I hate mentioning this, expense that goes into supporting the body for several months.

There's also the fact that her body may not be able to last for the entire term of the pregnancy.

[LisaL]

22. It's unethical to keep body alive with no hope of recovery even when this body is pregnant?

What if the family wanted the child to be born?
I've seen people in the same situation insisting hospital saves the fetus.
That's unethical to you?

[uppityperson]

26. It's unethical to do this against the family's wishes. Is it that difficult of a concept to understa

understand?

[LisaL]

27. Is it unethical to turn the ventillator off if the family insisted it should be on?

Or does it only go one way?
Hospitals are allowed to turn ventillators off brain dead persons against wishes of the family.
Is that unethical?

[uppityperson]

28. It depends on if the person is totally dead or only part way dead. I am not comfortable turning

off vents if family wishes it to stay on.

If you mean that girl, I am fine letting the family keep her on the vent. Eventually total death will happen for her and I wish them peace. When I first started nursing, there was a woman who'd been killed by botulism, was pregnant, family wanted her kept alive 'til baby was viable. I had no problems with that. So yes, it would be unethical to go against the family's wishes.

What's your opinion on both ways?

[LisaL]

30. Brain death is considered totally dead.

The only reason heart is beating is because of a ventillator.
Our laws decided that there is no point of keeping brain dead persons on ventillator.
Unless these persons are pregnant (in some states).
Either way, wishes of the family are not considered.

[uppityperson]

31. "totally dead" is not a legal concept, hence can have different meanings. IMO, family wishes

need to be considered.

"There's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead. Mostly dead is slightly alive. With all dead, well, with all dead there's usually only one thing you can do."

Again, what is your opinion, both ways?

[LisaL]

36. Those seem to be your own definitions.

Laws consider brain dead persons to be legally dead.

[uppityperson]

39. Yes, those are my definitions, obviously. You still didn't answer what's your opinion, ethically?

If the family wants someone removed from life support?
If the family wants someone kept on life support?

Ethically, should the family's wishes be taken into consideration? Not legally, but ethically.

[uppityperson]

68. Did you miss this? Waiting for you to answer about ethics, your opinion and maybe you missed it

You still didn't answer what's your opinion, ethically?

If the family wants someone removed from life support?
If the family wants someone kept on life support?

[KitSileya]

72. Good luck on getting any answers from that corner. nt

[MattBaggins]

289. No that is not unethical

If a person has been declared dead it is ethical to turn the machines off.

[w8liftinglady]

328. I have been a nurse to a few of those patients.

Most hospitals run it through the legal circus before they remove a patient from life supportagainst family wishes.

The internal organs tend to degrade, especially if they were hypoxic for a while. The lungs are repeated full of blood/pus/fluid due to cpr and no respiratory effort.The kidneys stop functioning,causing a buildup of poinons in the blood stream.Infections will recur in the body's bloodstream...spreading to the fetus... as will the drugs that are given to the corpse to keep her organs functioning. The fetus will experience torture before he/she ultimately dies as well. I have seen too many pregnant women on life support in my career.I would not want it for any of my children. There ARE worse things than death.

[riderinthestorm]

334. ^^^ This^^^ I wish LisaL would respond to this. Thanks for weighing in w8liftinglady nt

[Judi Lynn]

33. Withdrawing this post! I addressed it to the wrong person, am so embarrassed. n/t

[uppityperson]

34. Did you reply to the right person as I fully support the family? It is unethical to keep

her on the vent when the family wishes them to not.

[Judi Lynn]

52. Oh, jeez. I misfired! Very, VERY sorry about that!

I had been reading your comments, and forgot to simply address my post to the one to whom you were addressing!

I wanted to mention to you, the following, from the article:

Smith Hospital’s main attorney on the case is anti-choice crusader Neal Adams, who led a campaign to forbid hospital personnel from performing abortions for any reason in 1988. He sits on the advisory board of Euless, Texas’ Northeast Tarrant Right-to-Life Educational Association.

The Star-Telegram spoke to Art Caplan, director of medical ethics at NYU Langone Medical Center in New York, who said, “I think the Texas law cannot apply to the dead. I think the hospital is wrong to insist that it does.”

Please forgive my bungling with that post.

I believe you are far, FAR, FAR brighter, and there's no question about that!

[uppityperson]

57. No problem, they are something. that makes sense, about their anti-abortion stance.

It is just wrong.

[KitSileya]

42. She had a DNR and a living will that is being willfully disregarded simply because she was pregnant.

For pregnant women, their will does not matter. A pregnant woman has no say in what happens to her body after she is dead. That is what is happening here. If her living will had said to keep her body alive in any way possible until the fetus can be delivered, then that is what should be done. But hers doesn't say that. It says that she doesn't want to be kept on life support if she is brain dead. But her wishes about her own body is considered irrelevant by the Texan law.

How would you feel if the hospital had started harvesting organs that wouldn't kill your loved one, such as corneas, pieces of their liver, a kidney, even if they had a living will that stated they did not want to donate their organs? That is what the Texan law does - it expropriates your body to keep a fetus, not even a proper person, alive. Oh, and in addition - you get to pay the bill for the organ harvesting.

[LisaL]

48. No. She didn't have anything in writing.

She did however tell her husband and family she didn't want to be on life support. But from interviews with the family there was no written will.

[uppityperson]

54. A living will is not a regular will, but advance directives. Educate yourself here..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advance_health_care_directive

An advance health care directive, also known as living will, personal directive, advance directive, or advance decision, is a set of written instructions that a person gives that specify what actions should be taken for their health, if they are no longer able to make decisions due to illness or incapacity.

A living will is one form of advance directive, leaving instructions for treatment. Another form is a specific type of power of attorney or health care proxy, in which the person authorizes someone (an agent) to make decisions on their behalf when they are incapacitated. People are often encouraged to complete both documents to provide comprehensive guidance regarding their care.[1] Examples of combination documents include the Five Wishes and MyDirectives advance directives in the United States.[2]

[LisaL]

60. Did you miss the part about "written instructions?"

[uppityperson]

71. According to some news reports, she did. Are you ok with ignoring family wishes, IF it was written?

http://globalnews.ca/news/1073863/experts-weight-in-should-texas-allow-a-pregnant-brain-dead-woman-to-die/

Despite her “living will” and against the wishes of her husband Erick and her family, Munoz’s body continues to be been maintained by mechanical support.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/08/pregnant-living-will-_n_4562964.html

Marlise Munoz, a 33-year-old Texas woman, was left brain-dead after she collapsed in November and her family planned to honor her living will and have her removed from life support, according to a recent New York Times story. Today she remains kept alive by machines in the hospital because when she collapsed she was 14 weeks pregnant — not far enough along to have prevented her from getting an abortion under different circumstances, but putting her in a category where doctors must keep her alive until they decide whether she might be able to carry the fetus to term. Texas is one of a dozen states where any stage of pregnancy automatically invalidates advance directives, including living wills.

[KitSileya]

58. If so, I am mistaken, but it wouldn't have mattered.

Her pregnancy would have automatically invalidated her living will in 12 states in the US. That both her husband and her parents have stated that she told them she didn't want to be on life support should be enough.

[LisaL]

61. That's correct.

Even if she had it in writting, it would not matter in TX.

[KitSileya]

62. You still haven't answered my question.

Are you fine with being forced to donate parts of your body to keep others alive?

[uppityperson]

78. Is that ethical, in your opinion? To ignore that if in writing?

[DevonRex]

73. SHE HAD A LIVING WILL. HOSPITAL HAS DNR. nt

[LisaL]

79. Please post a credible link to this claim.

Here is what her husband said. While they discussed this, they never got around to it.

"The two had planned to sign a do not resuscitate order but never got around to it, Munoz said."

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/texas-man-pregnant-wife-life-support-article-1.1556345#ixzz2q7vbukod

[uppityperson]

81. Here are 2 links.

http://globalnews.ca/news/1073863/experts-weight-in-should-texas-allow-a-pregnant-brain-dead-woman-to-die/

Despite her “living will” and against the wishes of her husband Erick and her family, Munoz’s body continues to be been maintained by mechanical support.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/08/pregnant-living-will-_n_4562964.html

Marlise Munoz, a 33-year-old Texas woman, was left brain-dead after she collapsed in November and her family planned to honor her living will and have her removed from life support, according to a recent New York Times story. Today she remains kept alive by machines in the hospital because when she collapsed she was 14 weeks pregnant — not far enough along to have prevented her from getting an abortion under different circumstances, but putting her in a category where doctors must keep her alive until they decide whether she might be able to carry the fetus to term. Texas is one of a dozen states where any stage of pregnancy automatically invalidates advance directives, including living wills.

[LisaL]

86. Don't you think her husband knows if she had a written will?

He says she didn't. So I don't find these claims made by journalists credible.

[uppityperson]

88. Since news media says she did, why do you keep saying she didn't? Credible link for your statement?

[LisaL]

97. I am going by what her family members said.

News media claiming things without any back up isn't credible to me.

[uppityperson]

99. No, you are going by what NYDaily News reports, I am going by what NY Times reports.

[LisaL]

153. New York Times report does not say anything about her having a living will.

You should read the actual article in New York Times, not what Huffington post claims it says.

[uppityperson]

155. Is it ethical to force life support on someone who has said, whose family says, no?

[LisaL]

249. Is it ethical to turn off life support if family wants it on?

[uppityperson]

250. Do you ever directly answer a question?

[KitSileya]

260. It doesn't seem like it.

For all the questions posed in this thread towards her, they've answered nary a one. Makes for a very weird 'discussion'.

[DevonRex]

82. Look upthread. Others already did.

[LisaL]

83. Her own husband's word is that they discussed it but never got around to it.

He has no reason to lie about it.

[uppityperson]

85. credible link to that. I gave you links showing otherwise.

[LisaL]

87. I already posted a directo quote from the husband that they never got around to it.

[uppityperson]

89. If you did, you should have no problem posting it now. Link?

[LisaL]

93. I alredy posted it.

How many times am I supposed to post the same link?
Read post #79.

[uppityperson]

98. Excuse me for not keeping up with your edits. Is. It. Ethical?

So NYTimes says she did, NY Daily news says she didn't. I believe NYT over NYDN any day.

[Judi Lynn]

55. Is there anything which kept you from noting the family itself is suing to take her off

the respirator? Did that escape your attention? That's the subject of the article.

[Humanist_Activist]

110. I meant medically unethical, generally...

To go against the family's wishes, unless doing so is not in a patient's best interests, or the patient has a DNR or other instructions.

The legislature of any government should have no say in this type of decision.

[Gravitycollapse]

35. It's a fetus, not a child. Even at this point it likely lacks...

The nervous system structure to experience even the most basic responses to stimuli. It's a collection of cells with a very immature pump attached. Nothing more.

[LisaL]

37. What are you talking about?

It's at 20 weeks. There have been cases in which premature babies survived when being born at 21-22 weeks.

[KitSileya]

45. She was 14 weeks pregnant when she died. NT

[LisaL]

46. She is now at 20 weeks gestation.

So in a very short time fetus will have an ability to survive on its own.
Assuming of course it's brain is not damaged.

[KitSileya]

51. So, her wishes don't matter, huh?

If they had taken her off the vent when her living will - her wish - stated, this would have been moot. A 14-week fetus can't survive outside the womb. But you are just fine with others using a pregnant woman's body for their own purposes - deliberately disregarding the woman's own wishes, and that of her family. SO I ask you again, when can we start harvesting the organs of your loved ones, or yourself? You seem fine with using a person's body to keep others alive, so I assume you are fine with government-mandated kidney donations, etc.

[LisaL]

64. Per our laws, family wishes aren't considered in cases of brain dead persons.

Hospitals don't have to consider family's wishes when they turn brain dead (non pregnant) persons off ventillators.

[KitSileya]

69. What about living wills?

Do you agree that hospitals should be able to disregard living wills, like they can now if the patient is pregnant?

[Gravitycollapse]

242. You sound like a pretty big fan of such laws.

[LisaL]

251. Judging by McMath threads, most on here don't have a problem with turning life support off

even if family demands it be left on. No?

[Gravitycollapse]

253. I'm not talking about anyone else but you. You a pretty big fan of laws...

that prevent family from discontinuing life support when the victim expressed in the past that she was DNR and did not want to sustain physical life on life support machines, correct? Or am I simply mistaken?

[uppityperson]

255. My poll says otherwise. You have never answered, will you? I doubt it. Want to vote?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024316937

[MattBaggins]

291. You should be a bit clearer with the choices in that poll

[MattBaggins]

290. It is not "life support"

It is artificial corpse animation.

Se is dead so there is no such thing as life support.

[Gravitycollapse]

126. Cases as in a couple out of millions of births.

Even today with medical technology, a 20 week pregnancy needs another 4 weeks to reach viability. At 20 weeks there is almost zero chance of survival. Primarily because the fetus is extremely underdeveloped. Pain doesn't even become a factor until, at the earliest, 19 weeks.

My previous statements stand. 20 weeks is still early development. Certainly not remotely close to true viability.

It is not a person. Not at all.

[Gormy Cuss]

74. I'm not surprised that the hospital's lead attorney is a well known right-to-lifer. n/t

[ann---]

104. Being without oxygen for over an hour

killed the mother and made her brain dead. The family is well aware of the horrible health problems this baby will face and suffer with IF it survives.

[MH1]

122. HIgh probability that the fetus is damaged and will suffer.

Also, if born the child starts out life motherless.

Not the kind of birth anyone would consider optimal, to say the least.

Let the family heal, damn it, then if after some time the man remarries, he can have a normal life and possibly have a healthy child with a healthy mother. That probably IS what this woman would have wanted, based on what we know of her wishes.

I personally find it "odd" that anyone would not be able to see this.

If what happened to the mother was unlikely to harm the baby, it might be a different calculation. But that is not the case here.

[pnwmom]

142. They are trying to respect the well-known and strong wishes of the mother AND

they are educated enough to know that any baby born that was without oxygen for an hour or more at 14 weeks gestation will be massively damaged.

By the way, it wouldn't have mattered under Texas law if this woman had put her wishes in writing or even on a videotape. The law supersedes the known wishes of the patient or the family.

[ecstatic]

184. If the baby is born severely disabled, who pays? Is

the father mentally and emotionally prepared to care for a disabled child as a single father, not just for the typical 18 years, but possibly until he or the child dies (and moving on to a new wife would be almost impossible). These are important questions, as it's hard enough raising fully healthy kids as a single parent.

Others have suggested that the state could take custody if the baby survived, but that's obviously not an option the family feels comfortable with either. Forced adoption is just as bad as forced birth.

[Nay]

331. Of course the poor father will be stuck with a disabled child -- you don't

expect TEXAS to pay for people's babies now, do you??? Why, that would be sucking on govt tit, and would make dad a TAKER.

Never mind that Tex-ass forced him into it. He shoulda just not had sex, or something.

[kestrel91316]

196. I don't think their willingness to accept fate or God's will (whatever you call it)

is the least bit odd. I think keeping a corpse breathing to see if it can grow a baby is what's "odd".

[LittleBlue]

9. That law needs to be done away with

I feel bad for the family, the woman and also the hospital doctors. The doctors probably don't want to keep her alive, but do so out of fear of being charged with a crime, or retaliation by fundie hospital management.

The state of Texas anti-choicers are responsible for this.

[Judi Lynn]

21. Gruesome, ghoulish, it's a nightmare. What a ghastly beginning for a fetus.

How horrifying it would be for any person finally capable of consciousness when it learns it was delivered from a woman who was brain dead already, and couldn't "be" there herself, that almost all of its time in the womb was within a body being kept waiting from what would have been total shutdown long before.

Can't imagine a more sorrowful, and horrific way to start a life.

Discovering there's a team of psychotic, completely unhinged pro-"lifers" waiting to whoop it up when it is born will never be considered an auspicious beginning.

[SunSeeker]

32. The Fundies see all women as incubators. nt

[kestrel91316]

197. And they'd prefer that we all be brain dead from the get go.

That way we'd never object to our domestic/reproductive enslavement.

[SunSeeker]

201. Of course. That's why they want us uneducated. nt

[benld74]

41. Who is going to foot the hospital costs assciated with doing this

The family the mother?
The 'person' who was 'born' because of this?
The state, who's law allowed this to occur?

[LisaL]

44. That's a good question.

I am guessing the insurance of the woman will have to pay.

[kestrel91316]

198. Because she's dead, I anticipate her insurance company declining to pay squat after her date of deat

[LisaL]

221. We don't even know if she was actually diagnosed as brain dead.

Hospital hasn't said what her actual diagnosis is.

[DevonRex]

76. The hospital is defying her living will and DNR.

They are claiming the state is making them do it. Seems to me the buck stops there.

[KitSileya]

92. In 12 states, including Texas, a living will is set aside by law if the patient is pregnant.

Which is pretty horrible. I agree that they shouldn't be allowed to deny treatment to a pregnant woman, which is the origin of these laws, but then I think no one should be denied treatment, period. That a woman's own stated will can be disregarded just because she is pregnant is very repugnant to me. I've repeatedly asked the cheerleader for the ghoulish brigade if they would accept government-mandated organ donations, but so far no answers.

[DevonRex]

101. I am aghast at Colorado law.

We are only one step removed from the TX atrocity.

[KitSileya]

114. It is such a horrific prospect.

Any woman of fertile age is just one step away from having her body used as a piece of medical equipment. It doesn't matter what your stated wishes are, doesn't matter if you make a living will, if you have been to a doctor and had your pregnancy confirmed. That can happen as early as 6 weeks gestation, and then your body literally isn't yours to control. And what the ghoulish brigade doesn't want to acknowledge, is that it's such a slippery slope from not getting to decide what happens to your body after you die, to not getting to decide what happens to your body when you're alive, as long as you are pregnant. Already there's a case of a woman who was jailed in a rehab clinic because she told her doctor she had stopped taking her suboxone because she was afraid of what it would do to the fetus.

[alphafemale]

274. If there was justice? The religious wackos would pay.

And even if they do manage to scrounge that mass of cells out of her in some imitation of life.

The idea that it will have any resemblance to a human life is not really plausible.

But the religious wackos will also not allow nature to take its course there. They will gork that child's corpse. Even if it will never be capable of seeing, or hearing. If it is incapable of knowing it is alive.

That does not matter to religious wackos.

Can we pretend?

Can we hook it to a machine and make its chest go up and down?

That's LIFE!

[blkmusclmachine]

47. Terri Schiavo, Part III

Gross.

[LisaL]

50. Schiavo was not brain dead.

Neither was she pregnant.

[pnwmom]

152. No,not at all. The parents and husband are in complete agreement.

And Terri wasn't a corpse.

[kestrel91316]

199. Correct - thought she did pull off a pretty good imitation.

[karynnj]

53. Intensely sad story

This seems to be a suit entered to challenge the law rather than change the course for this woman. Enough time has gone by that the baby is getting close to when it may become viable. (It is hard to see the case coming to trial quicker than that eventuality.

As time goes by, either there will be a baby or - after all these weeks - it will be obvious that the fetus is not viable. In the last case, the law kept the family from getting cloture on the death of this young woman and the lose of her child. On the other hand, if a baby with enormous health challenges is the outcome of this effort, what legally, morally and ethically is the responsibility of this young father? There is also a potentially normal baby resulting from this - who will learn of all that happened here.

In fact, could the outcome in terms of the baby affect whether this case goes forward? Given that the woman is by every account dead, would anyone against keeping the woman alive to give the baby a chance change their mind? If the baby is seriously impacted, should the state - which had a role by demanding extraordinary measures - have a financial responsibility for the baby?

[LisaL]

67. My understanding if testing shows fetus isn't vialbe hospital can turn off the ventillator.

Although I am not sure on it.

[karynnj]

100. That would make complete sense as there is then no argument that the baby

gets "all the rights" between the mom, who is dead and the baby.

I really can't imagine the hell the family has been in since November.

[pnwmom]

219. I think the family should have been able to unhook her from the very beginning,

Last edited Sun Jan 12, 2014, 08:40 AM - Edit history (1)

- just as the woman herself could have had an abortion, if she had wanted to.

This is all about taking choice away from women, little by little.

No, I won't change my mind even if a healthy baby were miraculously to be born. (And of course we all know that a baby's Apgar score at birth doesn't mean they won't develop serious problems down the road.)

Yes, I think if a baby is born the hospital and the state should be responsible for all of its medical care, both during the pregnancy and afterwards.

[karynnj]

266. I hadn't connected it to abortion, but at 14 weeks the mother could

-as you say - have had an abortion with no questions asked. Here, clearly her husband was the most likely to know what she would want. I really can't imagine the pain all of this is causing him.

[pnwmom]

267. This is why the right is fighting so hard on these cases, even though they're so rare.

They want to establish the idea of fetal rights to support their fight against abortion.

[Gothmog]

91. This is really sad

The family should have to undergo this ordeal

[riderinthestorm]

102. And what happens if the child is born and is disabled?

Erick Munoz has already got a full plate with a toddler at home. He's said he's not equipped to handle a disabled child.

But what's he going to do? Give it up? Ugh. The pressure on him will be unbearable.

Whose responsible for that child's costs if he is disabled? It should be the state since they've forced this child into the world against the father's (and mother's) will.

But I doubt they'll pay for that.

Just awful all around.

[ann---]

105. Texas Repub lawmakers don't care

one bit for any baby after it's born, as long as it's never aborted. Sick people that they are.

[HockeyMom]

136. Having worked with developmentally disabled adults

ranging in age from 30s to 60s, I can tell you that people didn't want to adopt them back in those days. No, they weren't simple Downs, but severely disabled physically and mentally. They became wards of the state. Will couples adopt them today when with medical science they can have their own healthy child? Sad, but true.

[DevonRex]

173. Cerebral palsy at a minimum.

Lack of oxygen for an hour plus prematurity. They can't keep that body going long enough for full term. Those are the 2 leading causes of CP. An hour without O2 was enough to kill the mother's adult brain. We know what it did to the brain of a 4-5 oz fetus (at the time).

[me b zola]

112. Failure to thrive

Another potential devastating effect on the unborn fetus is that it is literally being kept alive by an incubator with no human contact or interaction, something we know is devastating to infants. Fetuses normally become familiar with the sounds of their mothers heartbeat, their scent, and the sound of their voices while still inutero. Newborns can identify their own mothers breast over a strangers lactating breast as well as their voice.

As feminists we use understand that the dead woman is being used as an incubator, but that truth is more literal~and devastating~than I think many realize. To be without human contact is devastating to a newborn, imagine what is happening to this fetuses brain even if it were to escape severe damage from the oxygen deprivation & drugs administered to the mother while unsuccessfully attempting to save her life.

When will we stop treating women as incubators, as baby factories? Allow this family to grieve and bury the mother.

[DevonRex]

131. Growing a 4 oz baby inside a dead woman for months

until it can be cut out of her body is just creepy. Never hearing the mother's voice or laugh or feeling her move or dance. Just hospital sounds. Beeps and footsteps. Rolling the body over to change the linen.

[me b zola]

137. Outright ghoulish

And your description is exactly what has been going through my mind, nothing but hospital sounds. Just when I thought that I could not hold anti-choicers in a lower opinion, this.

I am sad beyond belief for this entire family, and fearful of the results to the fetus/newborn if Texas is successful in denying this woman and her fetus the dignity of death.

[warrant46]

180. Another Science Experiment propagated by a Religious Nut Job State Government

[LisaL]

225. Would it be creepy if her family wanted to have it done?

In some cases families actually want it done.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

241. Yes it would be creepy

It is creepy, no matter for who's sick pleasure it's done. It's creepy.

[LisaL]

245. Well I guess the relatives of these women didn't think so. And neither do I.

There were positive outcomes, including normal infants and organs used to save someone's life. I guess that doesn't matter to you.

[rebecca_herman]

262. I do have to wonder about that

I am 33 weeks pregnant. The baby definitely has different activity patterns based on mine. She likes to sleep when I'm walking around. She moves a LOT when I am in the car and when I'm trying to sleep at night (ha). And also when I eat or drink. I would think that is part of normal development. I wonder if it would have any effect on the baby if it somehow is born healthy.

[DevonRex]

296. Something else...

I thought about emotions, like when you're happy and your endorphins are higher in your brain. Your baby has to get some stimulation from the endorphins. I found a study that's really interesting. It shows that "the environmental experience of a pregnant mother will influence the production of naturally occurring chemicals that control fetal brain development."

http://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/briefs/science_briefs/The Environment and Experiences of Pregnant Mothers Affect Fetal Brain Development (2008)
"This study shows that “normal” behavior during pregnancy is an important element in influencing the rates and patterns of fetal brain development. These findings have significant implications ensuring sound, healthy experiences for women during pregnancy."

I mean, just wow. That is as definitive as it gets.

[BlueCaliDem]

141. This is like a HORROR story/movie. Only, it's real. I can't believe the hospital would go against

the wishes of the woman's family, and use her body as a baby-incubator. I'm deeply appalled. I hope they file that lawsuit, and I hope they destroy that hospital and their - undoubtedly - religious fanatics for executives.

[Lost_Count]

154. Really? Is it a good thing thing that a hospital could potentially be removed from the community?

Cutting off health care to thousands of people?

I can understand wishing a policy change but total destruction?

Think things through...

[kestrel91316]

200. No, but all the persons running the hospital need to be removed and sued/prosecuted/

tarred and feathered.

Let the local community seize the hospital and run it. All hospitals should be owned by the people anyway, and not by people interested in profits.

[Lost_Count]

216. All those local people with their medical degrees lying around...

[BlueCaliDem]

257. Methinks the Newbie doth protest too much.

Not even a month as a member here and already kicking at shins. Real clever there, Lost_Count.

[Lost_Count]

269. You should write a FAQ...

... explaining the proper timing and rituals that one must observe before being allowed to have an opinion in this magical wonderland called "the internet."



How long is one required to stare in awe in the radiance of the brilliant insight around here before taking part with something other than "Right sir.. Good one sir"?

[Orrex]

271. I look forward to your years of harmonious contributions to DU.

You'll fit right in, I can see it.

[BlueCaliDem]

275. An all or nothing approach is *bound* to make you popular here, LC.

Kicking against shins and picking unnecessary fights as you're prone to do, won't.

Here's one FACT: People posting here assume you've been brought up well and have learned common courtesy as part of your upbringing. Now make your Mama proud.

[BlueCaliDem]

256. Are you being purposely obtuse?

Reread what I wrote:

I hope they file that lawsuit, and I hope they destroy that hospital

I used the word "that" for a reason. Now try and figure out why.

[Lost_Count]

270. Well...

Oh... after they "destroy that hospital" maybe you think another one will magically pop up in its place?

The point stands... emotional anger would attempt to remove a source of health care for a whole segment of the local populace over a simple policy decision that could be modified for the future..

[BlueCaliDem]

276. Well...

It's clear you still need to figure out what the meaning of "that" is in my post.

Others don't seem to have a problem, but I guess you need more time.

[MrMickeysMom]

168. How about we make the state of Texas sponsor the upbringing of the unborn baby?

This would change a few a few things, wouldn't it?

The hospital did not write the law, Texas did… I see this to be the solution, while I am totally disgusted over the hospital's acquiesce to this incubation model!

[pnwmom]

169. I think they're both responsible. A number of legal experts have said that the

hospital is misinterpreting the law -- but the way the state wrote it leaves it open to misinterpretation.

[MrMickeysMom]

189. That's probably not by coincidence...

The law is not iron clad direct in it's interpretation, is it?

So, this makes the perfect recipe for (most) hospitals to cover their ass as much as possible by doing exactly what they are doing.

[lunasun]

205. That is a sicko way to treat someone after declared dead( and their family wishes )

[OwnedByCats]

218. I know that if it was my daughter

I would probably want the baby to live, so that I could have a living piece of her. However, that would be selfish of me unless I knew my daughter's wish would have been the same. If she would have wanted me to keep the baby alive by keeping her on life support, then I would with no hesitation unless I was told the baby was going to have significant problems from birth defects. If I didn't know how she would have felt, it would be a quandary for sure.

However, this family's wish is to let her and her unborn child go. In that case, I don't think the family should be forced to keep her going, especially considering she was only 14 weeks along at the time she became brain dead. I honestly think it should be up to individual families, even if I personally would choose otherwise, if indeed I decided to keep her alive despite not knowing what her wishes would have been.

[Hekate]

230. This. Is. Obscene.

The actions by the state of Texas and the hospital are obscene on so many levels I cannot begin to enumerate them.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

240. I don't blame them. I would slap a lawsuit on their ass so fast their heads would spin.

[Sirveri]

264. this story is an amazing addition to the abortion debate.

Is the mother a person if she's dead? Do the rights of a fetus trump the rights of a corpse? Who pays for it all?

Anti-choicers consider the fetus to be a person, and have personhood rights, so they logically would say the state has a duty to protect, and in this case they're not enslaving the mother, because the mother isn't really there anymore, she's dead.

As a pro-choicer, I reject the argument that the state has a duty to protect, because the fetus is not a person. However, the mother is also not a person, meaning that the choice in my view boils down to who should we act in the interests of, the family and the DNR, or the fetus. That's a hard question to answer, I'm personally leaning for letting the hospital keep the fetus alive, but it's a difficult call. While the family obviously has strong feelings, what's the hurry, why not just wait another six weeks? Yes, it's against her wishes, but she's dead, so she really won't notice or care what anyone does. So that leaves the family, but if they're not on the hook financially, then what real damages are they caused? Emotional, how do we quantify feelings? Should we quantify feelings? I could see fiscal damages if they get billed for this, but I think that should be picked up by the state if the father does not desire to attempt to save the fetus. So that eliminates fiscal damages. Does the fetus have any level of rights to development (I wouldn't say that right trumps the mothers rights to control of her body, but that's not at issue here since she's dead)?

It's really a fascinating angle to the debate, thanks for sharing.

[pnwmom]

265. The mother was a paramedic who had strongly made her wishes known to her parents and husband.

Shouldn't all their wishes trump the state? And the father will still be on the hook for the bill of this child's lifetime care, unless a court says otherwise. If there is no malpractice involved, what law would say that the hospital or state would be responsible for lifetime care of a severely disabled child?

And even if the state would agree to institutionalize the child, for free, should this family have to live with the knowledge that a child related to them was out there, suffering, because the state insisted a fetus with virtually no chance at a normal life had to be kept alive at all costs?

Even the Catholic Church, with its fervent anti-abortion beliefs, allows a non-viable fetus to die along with a mother. This hospital's position is extreme, and extremely harmful.

[Sirveri]

300. yeah, she was out for an hour without O2...

That's really the only thing swaying me against. But then I think, even rapists and murderers get defense attorney's, does the state owe a duty to the fetus since nobody else is on its side. Obviously not in my state of CA, because we don't think the fetus is a person. But in Texas and according to the pro-lifers, they do. How much ethical relativism am I willing to engage in. I think the real dividing line here is financial, why should the husband have to pay for something that the state forced on him. Then again, why should I have to pay taxes to support the Iraq war. Goes both ways. I totally get your points, they're completely valid and well reasoned arguments. But I guess that's the problem with this particular case is where we put the tipping point. I always wondered what would happen if we got synthetic wombs and everyone who desired to abort could instead transfer to that system, but then who would be financially liable for the children produced under such a system. I guess because they're tangentially related that's why I find this particular story so fascinating.

[KitSileya]

306. You are arguing that the fetus is a person with all the rights of a citizen.

"But then I think, even rapists and murderers get defense attorney's, does the state owe a duty to the fetus since nobody else is on its side."

That is what you are saying. Well, then, you are also arguing for mandatory organ donation. You are arguing for jailing women if they endanger the fetus, say by ingesting the wrong things, or by doing reckless stunts. A woman sky-diving after she finds out she is pregnant should be charged with reckless endangerment of a child, right? The line is certainly not financial, it is whether the woman's right to her own body should be denied her if she is pregnant, whether the fetus' rights supersede her own. The pro-lifers think the fetus is more important than the woman. That is where the battle lines are drawn.

[Sirveri]

322. I am not saying that, I am playing Devil's advocate and engaging in moral relatavism.

My personal view is that the woman's right to bodily integrity over rides any right of the fetus to reach mature development.

However, I'm trying to also see both sides, and see if there is some sort of compromise that can be reached. With fundamentalists, such a thing is not possible. But I also do not believe that all people on the anti-choice side are fundamentalists on that subject.

[KitSileya]

327. I guess playing devil's advocate with real persons just doesn't appeal to me.

I don't think that everyone on the anti.choice side are fundamentalists, but in this case, even the Catholic Church would have been ok with unhooking Ms. Muñoz from the ventilator 6 weeks ago, and letting her family have closure. There is no compromise to be had with people who think that fetuses are persons with the same rights as born persons, because during pregnancy, there's just enough rights for one person, and if you give some to the fetus, you are necessarily taking them away from the woman.

[pnwmom]

318. The state owes no duty to a non-viable fetus because it has no existence independent of its mother.

It doesn't until it's viable. That's long established law.

[Sirveri]

323. I agree, if non viable, however...

The anti-choice folks obviously do not. And the basic implications of this case force us to ask, what if it was viable? This case is highly interesting to me because it takes my primary reason for being pro-choice and tosses it clear out the window. Namely that the woman's right to bodily integrity trumps that of a fetus to develop. In this case however, the woman really doesn't exist anymore, so who wins now. Obviously in this case nobody wins, but in the future they may develop artificial wombs, which would force me to re-evaluate my stance. This case is a precursor, and I'm trying to figure out where I stand on the subject. I also rank 'rights', on some level everyone has the right to do everything, however when two people meet their rights conflict and one set may trump the other. For instance I have the right to punch at nothing, but the right to not be punched outweighs my right to throw punches. So now I'm trying to figure out where to place it on the scale. You've given me some interesting things to think about on how to place them, for that I thank you.

The other issue is if we can please both sides, is there a balance point? Are all anti-choice activists 'fundamentalists' on this subject, or are their moderate voices in that movement that would listen to reason on the subject? If we could find a middle ground, would it be worth it to put the abortion debate to bed once and for all?

[pnwmom]

324. There's another legal right you're forgetting.

The legal right of the spouse to control the disposition of the remains. Legally, he owns the body, and only a coroner could interfere with this right, if an autopsy was required. Now these new laws add some sort of fetal rights, the point of which is to undermine the basis for abortion.

I don't think society has any right to control of a woman's body or that of a fetus. Period.

[Sirveri]

325. Well yes, but where do I rank them?

Also, why wouldn't society have any right to control a woman's body. They exert certain levels of control over ALL of our bodies. I can not enlist someone to assist me in ending my own life. If I break the law they will take control over my ability to freely move and lock me away in a jail cell, sometimes for something as innocuous as possession of a plant they don't like. So obviously there is some level of control that the state does and should have. The question is what level that is and what level of rights the fetus has or should have.

Should a fetus have the right to development free from exposure to dangerous chemicals, be they industrial pollutants or narcotics? Morally I think they should, is this goal achievable legally, and can it be done without interfering in the right of the mother to live her life? Is there an acceptable balance point? I would agree with your issue of not desiring to see erosion due to the anti-choice movement typically using it to further erode the ability of women to control their bodies. I guess that's the real problem here, the anti-choice zealots destroy the ability to really discuss the merits and philosophical issues on the abortion debate due to their fundamentalist approach to the subject. Such an approach serves to polarize both sides and paralyze destruction.

Given my new shift in perception of the issue I'm forced to agree that the state should not have this ability, simply to prevent erosion of the legitimate and proper pro-choice position. It does sadden me that we have reached such a polarized position, but that is testament to the destructive nature of the religious right, and the real reason they are such a large threat to democracy.

[pnwmom]

332. The SCOTUS position on abortion was that women had the choice because of the right

to privacy. I think the family, to whom the custody of the body passes after death, should have the same right to privacy.

[Sirveri]

335. While I like the right to privacy established by the 14th, I prefer the 13th amendment defense.

I first read this defense as put out by NWU. Basically it stipulates that growing a human being is work, and nobody can be forced to work against their will due to the 13th amendment. This defense has not been tested in court to my knowledge, however I like it and find it logically sound. I consider it a stronger defense than that of the 14th.

[PeaceNikki]

272. This is all part of a sinister agenda to dehumanize women.

Forcing women against their will to sit through medically unnecessary ultrasounds or state-mandated lectures full of misinformation in order to dissuade them from terminating an unintended pregnancy is common. And initiatives granting fertilized eggs constitutional rights will once again be on the ballot in Colorado, despite resounding defeats in prior elections. The way the state of Texas is treating Marlise Munoz is typical of the way the anti-choice movement treats women who become pregnant. Every restriction they push reinforces the idea that the state now has a substantial interest in preventing a woman from deciding what is best for herself and her family. Every obstacle, every ban, sends a powerful message to women that they are not in charge of their own bodies.

Lynn Paltrow at National Advocates for Pregnant Women has been tracking these laws for years and advocating for women to be full citizens in the eyes of the law. In 2010, she wrote a piece for The Huffington Post exposing the move towards “personhood” as part of this sinister agenda. She points out that recognizing the humanity of others has never before come at a cost to an entire class of people. When women were recognized as equal citizens under the Constitution, this did not come at a cost to men. She states that “efforts to legally disconnect fetuses and to grant them entirely independent constitutional status would not merely add a new group to the constitutional population: it would effectively denaturalize pregnant women, removing from them their status as constitutional persons.”

Marlise Munoz knew exactly what she wanted to happen to her if a tragedy like the one she suffered befell her, and she had the wisdom to share that information with those closest to her. All her family wants is to honor her wishes. We are fortunate enough to live in a country that values freedom and privacy—it is part of who we are as Americans. But a law that forces complete strangers to desecrate the dying wish of our loved ones shows us how far we have strayed from those very cherished values.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/177873/no-longer-human#

[pnwmom]

273. She is dead, so they're not even keeping her alive. It's not possible to keep her alive.

They're just postponing her internment, so her body can be used for their ends -- which have nothing to do with her well being, or that of the fetus or family. They're all just being used for political purposes.

[WillowTree]

299. She's not dead according to the article, which clearly says.......

.......that the hospital is "keeping her alive against the family's wishes".

Just sayin'.

[KitSileya]

302. She is brain dead. Her heart is kept beating because she is getting oxygen from the ventilator

So you can argue that she is alive because her heart is beating, but she has no brain activity (i.e., she's not in a vegetative state, she is brain dead) and if she were taken off the ventilator, which she stated explicitly to her husband and her parents that she would want if she ended up brain dead, she would die pretty quickly. She would have died pretty quickly 6 weeks ago if she weren't pregnant.

Both her and her husband are EMCs, they had discussed this scenario. She didn't want to be kept alive by machines if she were brain dead. They also discussed it with her parents when her brother died. They know what she wanted. However, Texan law says that what a woman wants is irrelevant if she is pregnant. Her wishes, her living wills, her DNRs, all that is put aside if she is pregnant. Because they feel that a fetus is more important than a woman's self-determination and decisions about what happens to her body.

[WillowTree]

304. I understand that. But then, for the sake of accuracy.......

.......the title of this thread should be "Family of brain dead, pregnant woman is suing .......". Otherwise the thread title is contradicted by the opening post. It can't be both ways.

[KitSileya]

308. Her family considers her dead.

They expected the doctors to call it 6 weeks ago. Their views are what count, I think. This is a case where the choice whether to fight on or whether to give up is made by the living will of the patient, their DNRs, their families. Some families wish to fight to the very last, others don't . The wishes of the patient and the family is what should decide the course of the case, and in this case, she should have been buried 5 weeks ago. Because that is what SHE wanted. So, those of us who argue for the wishes of Ms. Munoz and her family, will call her dead, because that is what she wanted.

[WillowTree]

313. But according to the article, the hospital is "keeping her alive". It is what it is.

Look, I don't have a dog in this fight. The hospital is apparently doing what they believe is required by the law and the family believes that this woman would not want to be kept this way. I honestly don't feel that I have a right to an opinion on this one way or the other on this one. Not my place, not my business. Don't know what position I would take if it was one of my own.

But the headline of the thread is still in conflict with the body of the initial post. That was my point and I'll stick with it if it's all the same to you. Or even if it isn't, for that matter.

[w8liftinglady]

330. This might help you understand

http://www.tc.umn.edu/~parkx032/CY-DEADD.html

It is not an easy thing for doctors,either.

[pnwmom]

319. The reporter misspoke. The machines are giving her the semblance of life,

as one of the ethicists who have spoken on this explained. They can make her lungs move up and down, and keep oxygen in her system for the sake of the fetus. But the parents of the woman say the doctors ran tests and told them she was dead.

[Hekate]

326. I hope those two lawyers are outstandingly good, and fight this all the way

That poor family can't even be alone with their grief, much less have a memorial service for their loved one.

No, no, the State of Texas, **guided by Gawd's Will as laid out explicitly and in detail in The Bible**, has decided a dead woman needs to be an incubator for a fetus that was maybe 3 inches long and weighed a few ounces when she died.

The longer this goes on, the more it feels like some of the creepier science fiction I read when I was a kid.


**for the irony-impaired, that was

[rebecca_herman]

336. probably too late to change the outcome in this case

By the time a court can decide, either the fetus will have died on its own or been born. But hopefully it will prevent another family from having to go through this in the future.