Munoz said in a WFAA News report that four years ago, when Marlise's brother was killed in an accident, she told him that she would never want to be on life support — something they had discussed many times since.(I didn't quote it, but the article says she was 14 weeks along at the time of 'death', and is now 18 weeks.)
. . .
A month later, against his requests, she is still on a ventilator. Not only does Munoz want to honor his wife's wishes, but also he believes that the fetus she is carrying has been seriously harmed. "I don't know how long she was there prior to me finding her," he said. Munoz, who could not be reached for comment, wrote on WFAA's Facebook page, "All I know is that she was without oxygen long enough for her to have massive brain swelling. I unfortunately know what that type of damage could do to a child during crucial developmental time." Doctors say it's likely that Munoz's wife suffered a pulmonary embolism, and no longer has brain activity.
. . .
When Munoz first arrived at the hospital, he discovered that, according to Texas law, life-sustaining procedures may not be withheld or withdrawn from a pregnant woman, — even if she has an advance health care directive (also called a living will) stipulating that she does not want to be kept alive on a machine.
. . .
But according to the Center for Women Policy Studies, as of 2012, Texas and 11 other states have automatically invalidated pregnant women's advance directives to refrain from using extraordinary measures to keep them alive, and others have slightly less restrictive but similar laws.
Remember my "small town justice with a sniper rifle" quote from the Steubenville horribleness thread? Yeah, I found a new target: the invisable dot between the lawmaker's eyes.
inb4 I don't even have a sniper rifle, I'm just venting on the internet.Remember my "small town justice with a sniper rifle" quote from the Steubenville horribleness thread? Yeah, I found a new target: the invisable dot between the lawmaker's eyes.
inb4 secret service
FUCK THESE PEOPLE! TEXAS' LAW MUST CHANGE! GRAAAHHHH!
The story says it was unclear if the woman had a DNR order or not. In any event I think saving one life even if going against a person's wishes is better than losing two lives.
The story says it was unclear if the woman had a DNR order or not. In any event I think saving one life even if going against a person's wishes is better than losing two lives.
The story says it was unclear if the woman had a DNR order or not. In any event I think saving one life even if going against a person's wishes is better than losing two lives.I might buy that argument if she didn't have a spouse. Oh wait, no I wouldn't because last I checked they won't harvest your organs unless they have crystal clear consent. She is dead. Using her uterus without her (or her spouse's) explicit consent is just as wrong. Turn the machines off and call it a sad and tragic day.
The story says it was unclear if the woman had a DNR order or not. In any event I think saving one life even if going against a person's wishes is better than losing two lives.
The question is, would the life of the fetus, if it were to survive, be worth living? Being starved of oxygen for even a relatively short period can cause significant damage.
So what do you think about mandatory organ donation in the event of your death? That when you die, your body becomes the property of the state to dissect and distribute as best meets the needs of everyone else, regardless of you or your family's wishes.
I might buy that argument if she didn't have a spouse. Oh wait, no I wouldn't because last I checked they won't harvest your organs unless they have crystal clear consent. She is dead. Using her uterus without her (or her spouse's) explicit consent is just as wrong. Turn the machines off and call it a sad and tragic day.
Tell me, is the state going to pay for this potentially handicapped and very expensive child it so desperately wants or are they expecting the spouse to foot the bill even though he gets no say in the matter? A suddenly and tragically single father who already has a young child to look after. Awesome plan, lets consign three people to what is liable to be pretty shitty lives for some bullshit twisting of the word morality rather than let a husband and father do what he thinks is best in order to overcome this and get on with his life.
The difference is that organ donation is permanent, this situation is not. That is where I see the distinction.
The difference is that organ donation does not involve leaving someone in a half-dead, heavily brain-damaged state yet possibly still conscious, for months, against their stated will.
That's inhuman. Pure and simple. Every person responsible for this law deserve nothing less than to be asphyxiated until they go into an unrecoverable coma, and then hooked up on life support the the rest of their miserable lives.
stuffThat's just beautiful. I really don't know which of you points to tear apart first.
Now I would be fine with the father being able to give up his rights to the child and any responsibility for it.That's real big of you. Five months from now when you don't have any further use for her you can give her back to her family for disposal and everything will be like it never happened.
If it becomes apparent the fetus will not have any quality of life that changes the situation. However I don't see the expense of treating a potentially handicapped child a reasons to end it. The only reason I support abortion rights in the first place is because of a women's right to choose. In this case that is out the window because the women is essentially dead.
The difference is that organ donation is permanent, this situation is not. That is where I see the distinction.
That's real big of you. Five months from now when you don't have any further use for her you can give her back to her family for disposal and everything will be like it never happened.
So it changes things but it's not enough to end it.
FOR YOU. That's nice, thank-you for your opinion on the matter. Unless you have a legal tie to this woman what you want means precisely jack shit. If you want to be a cynical smart ass about it, one could say she made her decision -- she's dead. That's pretty definitive. It's other people making the decision not to let her go. On top of that her husband is the legal decision maker here in every medical circumstance except for this.
So it's okay to borrow an organ for a while.
And so at the end of the day it literally comes down to she's carrying a fetus and that's a special situation that gets to essentially circumvent any law or right that exists for everyone else. To that I say bullshit.That's real big of you. Five months from now when you don't have any further use for her you can give her back to her family for disposal and everything will be like it never happened.
I'm giving my views on this from a social standpoint, just as you are.
Nothing will make it as if it never happened. The husbands decision to give up the child or not is his, I simply do not think he gets the say of if it will be born or not. That is unless other circumstances arise.So it changes things but it's not enough to end it.
FOR YOU. That's nice, thank-you for your opinion on the matter. Unless you have a legal tie to this woman what you want means precisely jack shit. If you want to be a cynical smart ass about it, one could say she made her decision -- she's dead. That's pretty definitive. It's other people making the decision not to let her go. On top of that her husband is the legal decision maker here in every medical circumstance except for this.
Allowing her to die with the fetus would be the change depending on what is found out about the development of the fetus.
As for my opinion, well it means just as much as anyone else in this thread. It matters in the context the laws. Plus we are in a discussion forums so expressing opinion on topics is pretty much what we are here for.QuoteSo it's okay to borrow an organ for a while.
In this narrow context yes, anything outside of it, most likely not.
And so at the end of the day it literally comes down to she's carrying a fetus and that's a special situation that gets to essentially circumvent any law or right that exists for everyone else. To that I say bullshit.
The story states that Marlise has no brain activity, so she is not still conscious. If there was brain activity, if there was a chance she was suffering the situation would be different.
Bullshit is a hell of an argument.
And so at the end of the day it literally comes down to she's carrying a fetus and that's a special situation that gets to essentially circumvent any law or right that exists for everyone else. To that I say bullshit.
Bullshit is a hell of an argument.
Yes, I thing the right for the fetus to live and develop trumps just about everything else except her right to her body. In this situation she, her consciousness, is gone. So next in line is the fetus which needs her body to live.
Dude might as well just pack a suitcase and diaper bag, strap his first born in the car seat and leave the country ASAP...
No problem with that. Here in Belgium everybody is organ donor by default, unless you asked and carry a statement that you don't want your organs been taken away.The story says it was unclear if the woman had a DNR order or not. In any event I think saving one life even if going against a person's wishes is better than losing two lives.
So what do you think about mandatory organ donation in the event of your death? That when you die, your body becomes the property of the state to dissect and distribute as best meets the needs of everyone else, regardless of you or your family's wishes.
He's going to get stuck with the hospital bill, very likely, too.Can the husband be accountable for this bill? If it is imposed upon him by a judge, against his will?
*eats more popcorn*JERRY, JERRY, JERRY!
Ironbite-this is getting fun!
You don't know the United States Medical Industry.
You don't know the United States Medical Industry.
^ What he said.
There's a reason that medical tourism is a growing industry in the United States, and that reason is our current healthcare system is set up to wring out as much money as possible from the patient for quality of care that is lower than most other industrialized nations- unless you are lucky enough to get into one of the really nice research hospitals.
Medical bills are the #1 cause of bankruptcy in the US (60% of all bankruptcies, last I read). Insurance companies can refuse to cover certain treatments*, can demand you try different medications before name-brand (some generics aren't formulated the same, and for some conditions this is a huge problem), and they don't have to give an explanation for dropping you**.
Long story short, driewerf, if this continues the husband will be legally obligated to pay for the same expensive, ongoing treatments he has been trying to end.
*I'm not entirely sure if the ACA changes this.
** I think the ACA changes this.
Somehow I missed the part that mentioned she no longer has any brain activity. Guess I saw the beginning of the sentence: "Doctors say it's likely..." and didn't record the rest of the sentence, because lol weasel words.
It doesn't matter, really. You claim the situation would be different if there was no brain activity. It wouldn't, not in the eyes of this monstrous law. A comatose women would have no more control over her own life. Nor would a partially or fully conscious one, for that matter. No difference. I don't know if you're also okay with that, I don't think so, but you certainly never spoke against the law itself, either.
You don't seem to have any ethical problem with treating female corpses as incubators against their wishes. I can tolerate that on some level, since I myself am totally in line with the idea of making available the organs of anyone who won't need them anymore and didn't explicitly opt out of donation. You don't think that people have a right to choose what should or shouldn't be done with their bodies after they stop being people, yet seem very hung up about respecting fantasies of post-mortem bodily integrity. I think pretty much the opposite, that rejection of organ donation is based on stupid superstition, while using someone's body as a living machine after their cerebral death is a chillingly dehumanizing act towards the person that was.
But that stuff is about personal feelings and doesn't really matter. The most salient difference is that I still want to allow people who have a different opinion than mine to see their wishes respected, even though it may prevent actual lives from being saved ; while you're willing to shit on someone's choice about their own body in order to save something that has no past or present (and in this case, probably no future) as a sentient being. Why are you even pro-choice, again?
The problem is, that she, herself, specifically and legally requested a DNR order.
Her rights are being posthumously violated because of a clump of cells in her body.
Please consider that.
We don't know for sure if the clump of cells is growing into a person or a vegetable.
She expressed her desires before she ended up becoming a vegetable. Should we not honor that?
If you're arguing that her fetus has legal rights, then you are arguing from a pro-life perspective, not a pro-choice one.
Just because a law exists doesn't make it morally correct.
The problem is, that she, herself, specifically and legally requested a DNR order.
Her rights are being posthumously violated because of a clump of cells in her body.
Please consider that.
It's not clear that she had a DNR order or that such order would normally include a situation such as this.
That clump of cells is developing into a person. That should be considered as well.
Since we're merrily tossing gas around I'll add my two cents worth: fetal viability is a B.S. line to draw since medical technology is making that number smaller and smaller. Eventually it will get to conception point (hell, we can actually start them in a petrie dish and keep them going for a while, it's the in between point we're still working on) and then we have an excuse to ban abortion for everyone even if is grossly expensive experimental medical and technological intervention pulling it off.
It's not clear that she had a DNR order or that such order would normally include a situation such as this.
If you're arguing that her fetus has legal rights, then you are arguing from a pro-life perspective, not a pro-choice one.
Just because a law exists doesn't make it morally correct.
Cestlefun... Doesn't ring a bell. May have been before I joined, or during my quite long hiatus shortly after I first joined.
Cestlefun... Doesn't ring a bell. May have been before I joined, or during my quite long hiatus shortly after I first joined.
From what I remember, he was an authoritarian asshole who claimed law was the absolute basis of morality. When he went and had a fit, he got a temporary vacation, but decided to side-step that vacation because he has the thinking capacity of a protozoa, and got sent to Ban Town on a permanent basis.
It might've been permanent the first time, always take my recollections with a grain of salt as my memory's notoriously unreliable.
Celestfun went beyond the line in such a way that he was really begging for a ban. And Nappy did so. the issue was he got permaed before he got temped. But then he came back, dodging the ban and welp, that's that.
Ironbite-dude thought he was in the right in all things and as we saw, he wasn't.
Celestfun went beyond the line in such a way that he was really begging for a ban. And Nappy did so. the issue was he got permaed before he got temped. But then he came back, dodging the ban and welp, that's that.
Ironbite-dude thought he was in the right in all things and as we saw, he wasn't.
But it wasn't Nappy that banned him... it was another mod. And while the mods were discussing whether a perma-ban was appropriate for his actions, he came back and was banned for violation of the 2nd account rule (by, IIRC, Oriet).
My feeling is that he shouldn't have been banned (the 1st time), but nothing was really lost. So, what-evs.
Okay, so... about that pregnant woman with the DNR? *Hopes to guide the wobbly locomotive out of the badlands*
These kinds of topic deviations never seem to end well, do they?
Celestfun went beyond the line in such a way that he was really begging for a ban. And Nappy did so. the issue was he got permaed before he got temped. But then he came back, dodging the ban and welp, that's that.
Ironbite-dude thought he was in the right in all things and as we saw, he wasn't.
But it wasn't Nappy that banned him... it was another mod. And while the mods were discussing whether a perma-ban was appropriate for his actions, he came back and was banned for violation of the 2nd account rule (by, IIRC, Oriet).
My feeling is that he shouldn't have been banned (the 1st time), but nothing was really lost. So, what-evs.
I checked the thread in the lox box. It was Nappy on a power trip.
Ironbite-then again Celest didn't do anything to endear himself to the rest of the board.
Semi relevant a family won the right to keep their brain dead daughter on life support according to an independent neurologist. To be fair the hospital that declared her brain dead in the first place was brain dead (they fucked up and killed her via tonsillectomy how do you fuck that up
It's actually the other way around. The hospital is the one not disclosing what happened until the family signs away the right to sue. At least that's what I read.
Ironbite-it's slimy all the way around.
It's actually the other way around. The hospital is the one not disclosing what happened until the family signs away the right to sue. At least that's what I read.
Ironbite-it's slimy all the way around.
Well she is probably brain dead but the fact the hospital won't keep her on the ventilator and they need to move her tells me how scummy the place it
Well she is probably brain dead but the fact the hospital won't keep her on the ventilator and they need to move her tells me how scummy the place it
The girl is brain dead. That's a fact. The family asked for a second opinion and was told that multiple times by multiple doctors. A hospital spokesperson said they don't want to keep her on the ventilator because of this. They don't want their doctors performing procedures on a girl who is dead.
People who automatically call the hospital scummy in this case are pissing me off. If they fucked up the procedure and deserve to be sued, then please, sue them for it. I feel awful for the family that has to deal with this. But the girl is not coming back, and it's not fair to keep using resources on her like this. There are people donating money to the family to help keep the girl on a ventilator. What is the point of that? All you're doing is prolonging the inevitable. I understand that the mom is having an incredibly difficult time dealing with this, but she has to eventually accept that the girl is gone. I know that's not easy, trust me. Still, there is no miracle that's going to eventually happen, no matter how much money you put into it. Why not use your money to help someone who is living?
There is my answer they screwed up but won't disclose why unless the family agrees to not sue for malpractice
(https://31.media.tumblr.com/a7e24f70abfc9e3772f7feb1878e2552/tumblr_mtlis7cIsu1r4cmw8o1_r2_500.jpg)
Hospital spokeswoman J.R. Labbe said she isn't permitted to confirm that Marlise Munoz had been declared brain-dead, only that she was pregnant and hospitalized in serious condition.
"We are following the law of the state of Texas," Labbe said. "This is not a difficult decision for us. We are following the law."
But three experts interviewed by The Associated Press, including two who helped draft the law, said a brain-dead patient's case wouldn't be covered by the law.
"This patient is neither terminally nor irreversibly ill," said Dr. Robert Fine, clinical director of the office of clinical ethics and palliative care for Baylor Health Care System. "Under Texas law, this patient is legally dead."
Tom Mayo, a Southern Methodist University law professor, said the hospital would lose absolute immunity from a civil or criminal case if it granted the request, but noted that "most medical decisions" are made without immunity.
Too bad it won't get through the thick skulls of the people it needs to though.
"According to the medical records we have been provided, the fetus is distinctly abnormal," the attorneys said. "Even at this early stage, the lower extremities are deformed to the extent that the gender cannot be determined."
The attorneys said the fetus also has fluid building up inside the skull and possibly has a heart problem.
"Quite sadly, this information is not surprising due to the fact that the fetus, after being deprived of oxygen for an indeterminate length of time, is gestating within a dead and deteriorating body, as a horrified family looks on in absolute anguish, distress and sadness," the attorneys said.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!
Abortion is bad, but allowing a deformed fetus to be doomed to a life of certainly constant pain if it ever survives is perfectly fine.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! indeed.
most of the time thedrs. don't know jack, most abnormal babies natually abort within the first 3 months of a pregnancy. since it surivied this long, why not give it a chance? i thought u all were so against abortion. it's been known for a long time the infants forming in the womb can completely regenerate body parts even skulls while in utero, if it's still alive leave it alone! u r the monstrocities we need to pull the plut on!
i don't know if this means any thing to any one I had my little girl in oct of last year the drs told me that she had short legs that there is going to be something wrong with her and when I had her everything went wrong they had to take her and I told the drs to do any and everything to save my little Emma Lorraine and make shore she was going to be ok and then worrie about me and thank god I woke up three days latter off of life support and my baby was just fine not saying that this baby will be ok but you will never know if you don't give it a changes and yes I would take the baby I have a son that has a lot wrong with him yes it is hard work but if the baby was with out air for 45mins he or she would have been gone when they got to the er and the baby was still alive so I think the baby need to have the chance to live and if not God will take the baby home with the mommy but that is just how I fell sorry I know no will see my point and I am sorry if I am wrong but if they turn it off the poor little baby will kick and fight to try to live and there wont be any saving the baby then and I think that is killing a baby
I'm to old to adopt but I had a disabled brother who was loved and cared for and also have a handicapped niece who is loved and lives at home. You don't throw away babies who are born handicapped. There are plenty of people who would take them. I have read, and one just recently, where couples only adopt handicap children. There are still some people who have hearts and love within. Some of you need to search for your own. These children can bring a lot of love in their own way.
Literally, i would adopt it. Call your bullshit if you want. That baby needs to feel love, bc obviously its dad could care less and so does half the people commenting. Heartless. One day karma will come.back to bite you. Lets hope none of you ever have a disabled baby dear God we'll hear.about it being dumped in a dumpster bc you obviously think deformed retarded babies are trash. Im surprise your mamas kept you..
Quotei don't know if this means any thing to any one I had my little girl in oct of last year the drs told me that she had short legs that there is going to be something wrong with her and when I had her everything went wrong they had to take her and I told the drs to do any and everything to save my little Emma Lorraine and make shore she was going to be ok and then worrie about me and thank god I woke up three days latter off of life support and my baby was just fine not saying that this baby will be ok but you will never know if you don't give it a changes and yes I would take the baby I have a son that has a lot wrong with him yes it is hard work but if the baby was with out air for 45mins he or she would have been gone when they got to the er and the baby was still alive so I think the baby need to have the chance to live and if not God will take the baby home with the mommy but that is just how I fell sorry I know no will see my point and I am sorry if I am wrong but if they turn it off the poor little baby will kick and fight to try to live and there wont be any saving the baby then and I think that is killing a baby
The article makes it sound like this woman was like Lazarus - dead so long his body had started to stink in his tomb. Obviously, she was not deprived of oxygen all that long. Even with a ventilator, there is no way to bring back a stone cold corpse whose vital organs have died. Also, the baby would have died and been miscarried long ago. I think this whole business about it being horribly deformed is a lie told only to get sympathy for killing it. Possibly the husband is disgusted that the child is growing in the belly of his dead wife. Fine. Let him give it up for adoption at birth.
So, the story appeared on Yahoo! news, and there was this comment:QuoteThe article makes it sound like this woman was like Lazarus - dead so long his body had started to stink in his tomb. Obviously, she was not deprived of oxygen all that long. Even with a ventilator, there is no way to bring back a stone cold corpse whose vital organs have died. Also, the baby would have died and been miscarried long ago. I think this whole business about it being horribly deformed is a lie told only to get sympathy for killing it. Possibly the husband is disgusted that the child is growing in the belly of his dead wife. Fine. Let him give it up for adoption at birth.
Pro-lifer's view is so black and white that they absolutely refuse to believe the fetus could be horribly deformed because it doesn't match up with their limited medical knowledge. Also, nice how they try to imply the husband is some kind of monster for daring to be disgusted at the thought of using his dead wife's body as an incubator.
This is horse crap. What man or woman wants to kill a baby on top of losing a significant other!? Who wants to lose their wife and murder their baby? Who wouldnt want to give their unborn child a chance? This guy who has no heart! Thats who! Just not content with his wife dying. had to kill their child. probably killed his wife too. Is there no one that will protect a child?
The hospital said in a statement that it "appreciates the potential impact of the consequences of the order on all parties involved" and was deciding whether to appeal.
" its role was not to make nor contest law but to follow it," Sad story and yet it sets a precedent for perverse things to come. This husband killed his own baby with the support of healthcare workers,courts and thousands of other people.So the people out there who support this court decision that says it decides who lives and who is not worthy to be alive...you must now expect that you too (and your loved ones) will also be subject to this immorality.Many of you have just welcomed the beginning of future death panels with thunderous applause. Shame on you.
A brain-dead, pregnant Texas woman's body was removed from life support Sunday, as the hospital keeping her on machines against her family's wishes acceded to a judge's ruling that it was misapplying state law.
Marlise Munoz's body soon will be buried by her husband and parents, after John Peter Smith Hospital in Fort Worth announced it would not fight Judge R.H. Wallace Jr.'s Friday order to pronounce her dead and return her body to her family. The 23-week-old fetus she was carrying will not be born
A pregnant woman who lapsed into a brain-dead state late last year was removed from life support on Sunday after a Texas hospital complied with a judge's order to disconnect her from the machines keeping her alive.
Marlise Munoz stopped receiving life-sustaining treatment at around 11:30 a.m local time (1:30 p.m. ET) and her body was released to her husband Erick, a statement from the family attorneys said Sunday. The fetus, which was at 23 weeks' gestation, was not delivered.
Aware that he would never get to meet her, the husband of a pregnant, brain-dead woman nonetheless named their unborn child before his wife was taken off life support Sunday.
Nicole was the name chosen by Erick Munoz for the 23-week-old fetus that would have been his second child with wife Marlise, he told the Associated Press. Their first child, Mateo, is 15-months-old.
The removal of a brain-dead, pregnant Texas woman from life support has four influential Republicans running for lieutenant governor agreeing again, this time that a judge erred and they'd tighten state law so it doesn't happen in the future.
The derps will be all over the fact he named the fetus. People have traditionally named miscarriage fetuses when they bury them, so it is nothing unusual, but the dickweeds will howl that Munoz "knows" that he "just murdered" his "little girl".
I really wish the media had never reported this.
The derps will be all over the fact he named the fetus. People have traditionally named miscarriage fetuses when they bury them, so it is nothing unusual, but the dickweeds will howl that Munoz "knows" that he "just murdered" his "little girl".
I really wish the media had never reported this.