Texas law didn’t anticipate Muñoz case, drafters say

[meegbear]

An attorney who helped rewrite the state law being used to keep a pregnant Haltom City woman on life support said lawmakers never discussed it being applied to a brain-dead person.

Thomas Mayo, an associate law professor at Southern Methodist University who helped draft the latest version of the advance directive section of the Texas Health and Safety Code in 1999, said that he does not recall discussing that aspect of the law.

“It never would have occurred to us that anything in the statute applied to anyone who was dead,” Mayo said in an interview. “The statute was meant for making treatment decisions for patients with terminal or irreversible conditions.”

Debate about the law will be at the heart of a court hearing today when the family of Marlise Muñoz asks state District Judge R.H. Wallace to force John Peter Smith Hospital to remove her from life support that would also end the life of the fetus.

Marlise Muñoz, 33, has been hospitalized since just before Thanksgiving after she was stricken by a pulmonary embolism when she was 14 weeks pregnant. The family immediately asked that life support be removed.

The county-owned hospital, however, would not allow the family to do so, quoting a portion of Texas law that requires a pregnant women be kept on life support until there is a viable fetus, usually at 24 to 26 weeks. On Monday, Marlise Muñoz entered her 22nd week of pregnancy.

This week, attorneys for the Muñoz family released a statement saying that medical records indicate that the fetus is “distinctly abnormal,” with lower extremities deformed, and suffers from a number of other serious health conditions including water on the brain and heart problems.

<snip>

http://www.star-telegram.com/2014/01/23/5509944/texas-law-didnt-anticipate-dead.html#my-headlines-default?rh=1

This whole situation is a horrible trajedy

[pnwmom]

1. It isn't just a tragedy. It's near-criminal behavior on the hospital's part.

Desecration of the body is a crime.

[meegbear]

8. +1

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. Likely not a viable fetus

suffers from a number of other serious health conditions including water on the brain and heart problems.

The state of Texas is not just wrong, but wrong headed.

[riderinthestorm]

3. You are a dumbshit Mr Mayo.

So you'd force terminally ill women to be incubators against their will too?! And this is better than forcing dead women to be incubators?

[liberalhistorian]

4. I call bullshit on that and I think those responsible

for drafting the law know what the sentiment regarding this case is and are just covering their asses. How could they NOT have anticipated this exact scenario, especially if there were law professors involved? CYA mode, period.

My heart breaks for that poor woman, her husband, family and children. I have no doubt that she did make it clear previously to her family that she wouldn't want to be kept in this kind of condition and the whole thing is nothing but a giant tragic travesty all the way around. The only good thing about it is that it will perhaps serve as the catalyst to abolish or at least revise that horrid law.

A very cynical friend said the other day that she thinks it's possible that the hospital is doing this for their own profit and not out of any desire to save a fetus or strictly follow a law. If that's so (and I'd like to think that, while I'm realistic and not naïve, I'm not quite THAT cynical, but hospitals have been known lately to do some really horrid things in the name of profit and are considered one of the worst creditors in terms of their aggressive pursuit of debts and debtors, even those who have nothing), and I really hope it isn't, then I hope that the family not only prevails in their desire to remove life support but that the hospital is denied their profits (the family doesn't have to pay for the "care" given during the time of the dispute) and even ordered to pay the family's legal bills.

[arely staircase]

5. This is horrifying nt

[Iggo]

6. Fuckers.

[antigop]

7. who's paying for all of this? If it's a "county-owned" hospital, I assume the county taxpayers

are paying for it?

Does the family have insurance?

If so, I don't think an insurance company will pay for coverage for someoone who is legally dead.

[hamsterjill]

9. The taxpayers...at least for some of it.

Since the Tarrant County District Attorney's office has chosen to defend the hospital.

This case is so horrifying that it's almost unimaginable. The wishes of the family should be carried out in a private and dignified way. This should NOT have become a media event. Shame on those who are trying to use this poor woman's death to further their own mis-placed morality.

[antigop]

10. but who's paying the hospital bills? tia. nt

[hamsterjill]

12. That's a really good question, of course.

I would imagine that, at this point, the hospital is simply incurring the charges with the thought of collecting later. But IMHO, "collecting" will involve another whole slew of legal challenges. The family should not (and I don't think they can) be held accountable for services rendered against their express wishes. The hospital will most likely, ultimately, have a nonpaid account - in essence leaving the taxpayers holding the bag.

Plus, the whole legal argument of "was she dead" will come into play. How can someone continue to be billed for medical care for a body that is no longer alive, etc.

One thing that has occurred to me is this - has anyone asked the question as to whether any of her organs would be viable for transplant at this date and time? [Im betting the answer to that question would be "no" because of the deprivation of oxygen at the time she first became ill.] If not, how can her body be deemed "viable" to sustain a fetus? Just an argument that I thought about.

Make no mistake - my opinion is that the family's wishes should be followed to the letter. It's disgusting that someone else is forcing their morality onto this family at a time when the family should be allowed to grieve a loss in the way that they feel appropriate.

[joeybee12]

11. Another dumb phucking shithead lawyer writing bad laws...

...without thinking them through...SUCH a surprise.

[Brigid]

13. This points up another problem . . .

In both TX and other states: State legislators writing laws about issues they know thing about. They probably did not consult with OB/GYNs when they wrote this law. Said OB/GYNs surely could have warned them about this possibility.