The Cruelest Pregnancy

[n2doc]

WHAT would Marlise Munoz have made of all of this?

We’ll never know. She can no longer form words. Can no longer form thoughts. It’s arguable that we shouldn’t even be referring to a “she,” to a “her,” because if she’s brain-dead, as her family has consistently said, then she meets the legal criteria for death in all 50 states, and what’s been tethered to machines in a hospital in Fort Worth for the last seven weeks isn’t exactly a mother. It’s an artificially maintained ecosystem, an incubator for a fetus that has somehow been given precedence over all other concerns: the pain of Marlise’s husband and parents; their wishes to put an end to this; their best guess about what her desires would have been; her transformation, without any possibility of her consent, into a mere vessel.

“A host,” her father, Ernest Machado, called her in an interview with Manny Fernandez of The Times. He used equally chilling language to describe her stillness and the rubbery feel of her skin, saying that she reminded him of “a mannequin.”

Is her fate really what we mean when we speak of “valuing life” or “the sanctity of life,” to summon two phrases tossed around too quickly and simplistically? It seems to me that several lives are being devalued in the process, and that while there are no happy outcomes here, there’s also no sense or dignity on the chilling road that this Texas hospital is taking us down.

more

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/19/opinion/sunday/bruni-the-cruelest-pregnancy.html

[RC]

1. Without a working brain to control the various various functions and hormones in the 'host',

what kind of damage is this doing to the developing fetus?

[Igel]

11. It's a confused mess.

1. We anthropomorphize the dead. It's silly.

Take my brother. His wife died. He followed through with her wishes to donate a large amount of money to her--not his--church. He thought it silly when she indicated her wish. He renovated parts of the house to her specifications--replaced the jacuzzi, expanded the laundry room utility closed, redid some window. He hated the jacuzzi and wanted it gone when they bought the house; he liked the bedroom closet space and didn't have much use for more laundry space; and he was okay with the window. Not only did he do all the things he personally disliked, he even stressed--"Would she like this color tile on the jacuzzi? What about how I did the closet? And the drapes, did I do it the way she wanted?"

It kept him busy; that was good. But as his grief diminished he got to thinking, "Why did I do all those things?" He argued against them while she was alive; and with her death yielded the floor to somebody who would never use the renovated spaces, never opine about them. And he stressed as to whether she'd have liked them. In a few years he'll find most of his actions silly, and donating half of their savings to a church foolish. Did I mention he's an atheist?

So the husband is anthropomorphizing the dead. Living wills aren't living; they have to be updated with events. This woman's wasn't updated. We don't know what she'd have wanted; just what she did want a while back. There's no dignity for the dead; we treat the dead the way we do for the sake of the living. We can't believe that the dead don't suffer and aren't somehow present with their own opinions and desires.

2. But that brings us to a bigger point. The husband is thinking emotionally and is grounded in the present. He's said that if the child is born then he'll think of his pain whenever he sees the kid. This make the pain of the present permanent and discounts that he'll feel more for the kid in the future. Strong emotions make us too temporally bound for good thinking. In 4 years if the kid's born alive he'll remember mostly good things about his wife, the pain of her death will be diminished, and love for his kid will displace the pain.

It's possible that if the kid is cognitively or physically impaired that won't be the case. But that's another issue--seeing such children as "defective" and not worthy of love. There is a strain of utilitarianism in us--better to destroy such fetuses than let the kids be born and be unhappy and a drain on the family. I'll leave that judgment to the parents.

3. Some of the argumentation among the peanuts in the peanut gallery is irrelevant. So many argue that what Texas wants is wrong. They'd argue that if Texas did anything that they didn't already think was good, and consider it a personal victory if Texas did what they wanted. It's not principle; it's personal and all about power and ego.

Others don't want the fetus to survive or efforts that imply it's alive. It's certainly not dead. But if it's "alive" then the idea it's "a life" and would be killed by abortion is a problem. That argument and their interest in winning that argument on the social stage is what's front and center--neither the woman, nor the fetus, nor the husband. It also assumes some rather nebulous and poorly thought-out definitions of what "life" and "alive" means. It's still about power and not kids or life.

4. The remaining question, apart from who has property rights over the corpse, is whether the fetus is viable or if this is a giant waste of time that will result in no human life.

For that, see the following and the links in the text:

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-brain-dead-mother-fetus-survival-munoz-20140114,0,1320584.story#axzz2qR0FjCve

[niyad]

18. please cite the link to information about erick saying those things about a potential child, because

they are not in the linked article, nor in the link in the text.

[Barack_America]

2. Don't forget "her" toddler son.

I can't imagine how confusing and painful this must be for him. But, you see, he has already been born and is no longer of any interest to pro-lifers.

[raven mad]

12. That is, Barack America, until he's old enough to go to war for their corporations.

Then they care - and make sure he's put into boot camp with the fundiest of DI's available.

This is the sickest thing I've ever heard. I swear, if it were me, I have friends, a spouse, and family enough to make SURE those machines were unplugged, legally or not. (Yes, I have a living will and am an organ donor.)

That poor little boy - this will follow him all his life, unless the family can basically reinvent themselves a la witness protection. Otherwise, can't you see the scrolling commentary on Fux "News"? "TWENTY YEARS LATER HIS BRAIN-DEAD MOTHER STILL HAUNTS HIM". Or some such shit. New York Post, et al. Enquirer. Star.

And the pols on the right will use him and use him and use him until they use him up.

[niyad]

24. why is "her" in quotation marks?

[niyad]

3. and what is not discussed here is that the state is not picking up the tab for this mandated horror.

nor will it be picking up the tab if the fetus is actually delivered, and requires extraordinary care.

[raven mad]

13. I hope the family has an exceptional consortium of

personal-injury attorneys.

And I hope they pick me for the jury. I'd fly down early and establish residency in that garbage pit if I could do so.

[Nay]

4. This is the logical result of fetus worship. Fetus, fetus, fetus. When you

are born you can die in a ditch and they don't give a shit.

[Drew Richards]

5. I still dont get the hospitals logic nor will I ever. If shes a patient he should be allowed to

Transfer her to another hospital.

[niyad]

16. it isn't the hospital. apparently texas has a law that the existence of a fetus trumps everything.

living wills do not apply, personal choices do not apply. the STATE mandates that the vessel be kept functioning for the sacred fetus. of course, the state won't foot the bill for its decision, won't pay to keep the vessel functioning, and most assuredly will not pay for whatever care is required should there be an actual birth, regardless of what defects there might be.

so, it does not matter which hospital, the vessel is, essentially, a ward of the state.

[Drew Richards]

20. I think im going to be sick

[niyad]

23. you are not the only one!

[Fumesucker]

21. And we have posters on the DU who argue that Texas is libertarian

It's hilarious that anyone can think that Texas is anything other than good old boy authoritarian.

[niyad]

22. great goddess, I must have missed that bit of insanity.

[Arkansas Granny]

6. This is "pro-life" gone toxic.

All that can be hoped for now is that when the fetus is delivered, it does not have any neurological or physical damages resulting from the cruel acts forced by the state law. My heart goes out to this family and their prolonged period of grief.

[handmade34]

7. ...

from the article..

“It’s quite complex...That’s one word for it. Cruel is another."

it is NOT complex!! it IS cruel!! ...another example of anti-choice behavior that threatens us all and makes me livid!!

[broiles]

8. We just sent some money to the family's lawyer.

Heather King with Koons and Fuller.

[bettyellen]

10. Good on you- thanks for sharing that info!

[WillyT]

9. Why Does The Name Terri Schiavo Keep Popping Into My Brain ???

fuck...

[raven mad]

14. She, poor girl, was the start.

Let's hope this one will be the absolute END.

[niyad]

17. speaking of terri, there is the terrible case of jahi mcmath, whose family was apparently being

advised by the terri schiavo foundation, most specifically terri's brother, brian schindler (who does not believe there is such a thing as brain death).

[pnwmom]

19. Two major differences, however.

The family of the Texas woman is completely united on this -- husband and parents all want her body taken off the machines. Terri's family was divided.

Also, the Texas woman is brain dead -- i.e., dead.

Terri was in a vegetative state -- i.e., there could be an argument for keeping her on life support. Not so with a dead body.

[Solly Mack]

15. K&R