Texas orders pregnant woman with a DNR order to be kept on life support

[ironbite]

Well these brain dead idiots turned out ok so...

[m52nickerson]

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.

[RavynousHunter]

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.

[Patches]

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.

[Canadian Mojo]

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.

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.

[clockworkgirl21]

I would be okay with this if the fetus was further along and they just kept her alive long enough to do a C-section. It would be worth it to save the life of a human being. But this fetus isn't viable, wouldn't be for quite awhile, and besides that, likely suffered some major trauma. I say let them both go.

[m52nickerson]

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.

If it becomes apparent that the fetus once born will have no quality of life that would change things. 

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.

The difference is that organ donation is permanent, this situation is not.  That is where I see the distinction.

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.

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.

Now I would be fine with the father being able to give up his rights to the child and any responsibility for it.

[kefkaownsall]

First of all most cases the husband is the one who makes the final call

[Murdin]

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.

[m52nickerson]

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.

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.

[Canadian Mojo]

stuff

That's just beautiful. I really don't know which of you points to tear apart first.

Meh, I guess I'll just start here:

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.

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.

The difference is that organ donation is permanent, this situation is not.  That is where I see the distinction.

So it's okay to borrow an organ for a while. How long before before someone realizes that skin grows back, as do blood and bone marrow, and hey, look at the convenient uterus just waiting to help out those poor infertile couples?

[m52nickerson]

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.

So it's okay to borrow an organ for a while.

In this narrow context yes, anything outside of it, most likely not.

[Canadian Mojo]

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.

So 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.

[m52nickerson]

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. 

[Murdin]

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.

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?

Bullshit is a hell of an argument.

So is "my opinion is just as valid as yours because moral relativism".