TX - pregnant wife unresponsive on life support, husband hopes to fulfill her wishes

[faw720]

Here's the thing. I absolutely agree with everything you posted, with the exception of the bolded.

And here's why. The woman has the right to say what happens to her body and her uterus. But with regards to her uterus, it is her right alone. Since Marlise does not have a written directive (yeah, yeah, regardless of the current law in TX. To me, that's a whole other issue that doesn't apply in this case.), no one gets to make that choice for her.

What kind of precedent do we set if we allow anyone, other than the pregnant woman, to choose to terminate her pregnancy?

I actually don't know the answer to that question. Thank God I am way past childbearing age!

Actually I've already stated on previous posts that this case should be a wake-up call for all women of childbearing ages. They need to leave a notarized, VERY specific directions as to what they would want done in case of coma, irreversible coma, brain death, etc. and at what specific stages of pregnancy they would expect certain protocols to be observed ie weeks 1-24, weeks 24- to 40. I know it is hard for young people to consider such possibilities, but none of us, even the young, know exactly WHAT is going to happen to us WHEN. This case is the perfect example. None of us has any idea what kind of life we have ahead of us, but we should be prepared for anything if we have specific wishes. Whatever state we live in may or may not honor our wishes, but at least we can make sure that our wishes are known.

I know I am so proud of my niece & her husband for having left directives for the custody & care of their 3 young children should tragedy occur. Not a lot of young people look that far into the future & make legal provisions. It's really important for young people to realize that they may or may not have long lives.

My heart just hurts for the Munoz family!!

 

[hambirg]

This is the issue - the state of Texas is making that choice for her. How is that okay?

I believe the law at play here was intended to keep pregnant women from electing to forego medical treatment that would save their own lives, thereby endangering the lives of their unborn children - such as chemotherapy or dialysis. The law was not meant to force legally dead women from hosting a fetus for an undetermined period of time.

See, I don't think Texas is making that choice for her. She did not make that choice while she was alive and she didn't spell out what her choice would be in this situation. The state of Texas cannot assume what her choice would be. In the absence of her choice to terminate her pregnancy, they have an obligation to NOT do that. Her choice was simply left unchosen.

It's not unlike someone turning in a blank voter ballot. If they don't choose, there is no choice made. Their family can't argue that their vote should count a certain way because that's what they would have chosen if they had marked their ballot.

I actually don't know the answer to that question. Thank God I am way past childbearing age!

Actually I've already stated on previous posts that this case should be a wake-up call for all women of childbearing ages. They need to leave a notarized, VERY specific directions as to what they would want done in case of coma, irreversible coma, brain death, etc. and at what specific stages of pregnancy they would expect certain protocols to be observed ie weeks 1-24, weeks 24- to 40. I know it is hard for young people to consider such possibilities, but none of us, even the young, know exactly WHAT is going to happen to us WHEN. This case is the perfect example. None of us has any idea what kind of life we have ahead of us, but we should be prepared for anything if we have specific wishes. Whatever state we live in may or may not honor our wishes, but at least we can make sure that our wishes are known.

I know I am so proud of my niece & her husband for having left directives for the custody & care of their 3 young children should tragedy occur. Not a lot of young people look that far into the future & make legal provisions. It's really important for young people to realize that they may or may not have long lives.

My heart just hurts for the Munoz family!!

I agree. I have said before, if she had left a written directive spelling out her wishes, I would thoroughly support the challenging of Texas law. BUT. . .she didn't. And this is not the first family to have a loved one die unexpectedly without spelling out their wishes. Unfortunately it's a shoulda, woulda, coulda situation.

ETA- And I in NO WAY want to open that can of worms where other people get to start choosing if a pregnant woman has an abortion.

 

[K_Z]

"Pregnant and Dead in Texas: A Bad Law, Badly Interpreted"

Not only does the Texas law not apply, it is almost certainly unconstitutional.

The definition of pregnancy in the Texas law and the dozen others like it does not distinguish between being a day pregnant and being 8 1/2 months pregnant. Treating all instances of pregnancy as voiding a woman's right not to be treated is far too broad an intrusion on her autonomy, privacy and liberty.

And there is no guarantee that Munoz's fetus is either viable or healthy. Going without oxygen for a prolonged period not only gravely damaged Munoz but also may well have done great harm to her fetus. The Texas law, even when applied correctly, affords no choice in the face of uncertainty and doubt about the health of the fetus, which reasonable people might have.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/comm...upport-20140116,0,3476520.story#axzz2qWsL1eRx

A very excellent (IMO) op ed by renowned bioethics expert Arthur Caplan.

 

[Fairy1]

See, I don't think Texas is making that choice for her. She did not make that choice while she was alive and she didn't spell out what her choice would be in this situation. The state of Texas cannot assume what her choice would be. In the absence of her choice to terminate her pregnancy, they have an obligation to NOT do that. Her choice was simply left unchosen.

It's not unlike someone turning in a blank voter ballot. If they don't choose, there is no choice made. Their family can't argue that their vote should count a certain way because that's what they would have chosen if they had marked their ballot.



I agree. I have said before, if she had left a written directive spelling out her wishes, I would thoroughly support the challenging of Texas law. BUT. . .she didn't. And this is not the first family to have a loved one die unexpectedly without spelling out their wishes. Unfortunately it's a shoulda, woulda, coulda situation.

ETA- And I in NO WAY want to open that can of worms where other people get to start choosing if a pregnant woman has an abortion.

Well, let's break this down a bit. She was 33 years old, married and in her child bearing years. They have one child and another on the way. This is normal for a woman in these circumstances. IIRC, she was also an EMT. So, I can safely assume she knew exactly what her wishes were when she stated them to her husband and family.

I'm not sure why her directive should have specified under what circumstances her wishes should be honored. Why shouldn't they be interpreted to apply to her circumstances when she actually passed?

 

[ceecee30]

Surely they wouldn't be continuing the pregnancy without knowing what condition the baby may be in, obviously there would be somethings they would have to play wait and see on but most of the tests should show if the baby seems ok or not. What a tragic situation

 

[hambirg]

"Pregnant and Dead in Texas: A Bad Law, Badly Interpreted"




http://www.latimes.com/opinion/comm...upport-20140116,0,3476520.story#axzz2qWsL1eRx

A very excellent (IMO) op ed by renowned bioethics expert Arthur Caplan.

He claims she had a advance directive. She did not.

 

[Fairy1]

He claims she had a advance directive. She did not.

She did not have a WRITTEN advance directive. At 33, why would she?

 

[hambirg]

Well, let's break this down a bit. She was 33 years old, married and in her child bearing years. They have one child and another on the way. This is normal for a woman in these circumstances. IIRC, she was also an EMT. So, I can safely assume she knew exactly what her wishes were when she stated them to her husband and family.

I'm not sure why her directive should have specified under what circumstances her wishes should be honored. Why shouldn't they be interpreted to apply to her circumstances when she actually passed?

There is no directive. An advance directive is a written document. Absent that, her husband having power of attorney, does not grant him the right to an abortion. Only a pregnant woman has that right.

ETA- here is the applicable law regarding power of attoreny, which is what her husband has. . .

Code Section Health & Safety Code §166.151, et seq.
Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care Specific Powers, Life-Prolonging Acts

Decisions regarding consent to health care, treatment, service, or procedure to maintain, diagnose, or treat individual's physical or mental condition. Agent may not consent to voluntary in-patient mental health services, convulsive treatment, psychosurgery, abortion, or neglect of principal through omission of care primarily intended to provide for comfort of principal - See more at: http://statelaws.findlaw.com/texas-...er-of-attorney-laws.html#sthash.zqEuzuDN.dpuf

The law is very clear. The only person that has a right to an abortion is the pregnant woman.

 

[Fairy1]

There is no directive. An advance directive is a written document. Absent that, her husband having power of attorney, does not grant him the right to an abortion. Only a pregnant woman has that right.

There is a verbal directive. We don't know whether there is any power of attorney at play here. And FOR THE LAST TIME - this isn't about abortion!!!

 

[hambirg]

She did not have a WRITTEN advance directive. At 33, why would she?

Because she did not wish to be kept on life support even if she was pregnant, might be a good start. An advance directive is by definition a written legal document. She did not have one.

 

[hambirg]

There is a verbal directive. We don't know whether there is any power of attorney at play here. And FOR THE LAST TIME - this isn't about abortion!!!

There is no such thing as a legal verbal directive. And it is about abortion because the only reason she is being kept on life support is because no one can choose to terminate her pregnancy but her.

 

[KateB]

National Catholic Register
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/pregnant-womans-brain-dead-diagnosis-renews-abortion-debate/

FORT WORTH, Texas — A hospital room in the city of Fort Worth, Texas, has become the newest focal point in the national abortion debate.

Comments are interesting.

 

[Fairy1]

There is no such thing as a legal verbal directive. And it is about abortion because the only reason she is being kept on life support is because no one can choose to terminate her pregnancy but her.

BBM - this, quite simply, is just not true.

Can you provide the written legislation that refers, specifically, to "abortion" as pertains to this case?

 

[hambirg]

BBM - this, quite simply, is just not true.

Can you provide the written legislation that refers, specifically, to "abortion" as pertains to this case?

Advance directives usually fall under two categories.

The first being some type of written legal document, often called a living will, advance medical directive, etc.

The second is assigning someone else to make certain medical decisions for you. It's usually called a power of attorney or medical power of attorney. You can verbally tell this person your wishes, that is true. However, power of attorney is limited. Abortion is one thing that is specifically excluded. Because NO one can choose for a woman whether she terminates her pregnancy or not.

This link spells it out as to the case in Texas. . .http://www.dads.state.tx.us/news_info/publications/handbooks/advancedirectives.html

I already posted up thread the Texas statute that deals with medical power of attorney exclusions.

As to legal decisions that pertain to this case, this is straight from the Roe v Wade . . .

3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term. Pp. 147-164.

This is from Planned Parenthood v. Danforth. . .

4. The spousal consent provision in § 3(3), which does not comport with the standards enunciated in Roe v. Wade, supra, at 164-165, is unconstitutional, since the State cannot "delegate to a spouse a veto power which the tate itself is absolutely and totally prohibited from exercising during the first trimester of pregnancy."

Basically, it was saying that a law that requires a woman to get her husband's consent to have an abortion is unconstitutional, because the state does not possess that right to choose, so therefore cannot assign that right to the husband.

The right to terminate a pregnancy was deemed a woman's right. It can't be assigned to someone else, neither the state, the spouse/father nor the physicians.

Without a legal written directive like a living will, NO ONE can choose to terminate a woman's pregnancy.



ETA- If you were asking whether turning off life support for Marlise would constitute an abortion, this is the Texas law defining "abortion."

Sec. 171.002. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
(1) "Abortion" means the use of any means to terminate the pregnancy of a female known by the attending physician to be pregnant with the intention that the termination of the pregnancy by those means will, with reasonable likelihood, cause the death of the fetus.

 

[Gardenlady]

I will be the absolute first to shout from the rooftops that the only person who should make the decision for abortion is the woman herself. She is the one that owns her body. The father has no say, as it is not his body that must carry the fetus and birth it. Not her parents either, even if she is a minor. Her body, her choice, period.

That said, we are not talking an abortion here - we are talking about end of life and the right to make one's own decisions regarding being kept alive artificially. The fetus is incidental to this. The primary question is - did this woman make known that she would not want to be kept alive in this situation? We have testimony from not just her husband, but her parents as well, that she would not want this. That a fetus is present is incidental to this very fundamental question - would this particular woman have wanted to be kept hooked up to machines this way? Her family says no, and that she made it known to them. We cannot assume that the woman is too stupid to have taken into consideration a possible pregnancy - that's condescending, and inserts our own personal biases into her reasoning.

The fetus is not a person with the same rights as the mother, like it or not. I know the anti-abortion folks will hate this analogy, but oh well: would we keep a dead woman hooked up to machines say, to let a tumor or cyst continue to grow?

 

[Donjeta]

I find it very hard to make an automatic assumption that a pregnant woman who apparently desired the pregnancy and wanted the child would agree that her fetus is incidental and could be compared to a cyst or tumor. I would prefer to see it in writing.

 

[Gardenlady]

I find it very hard to make an automatic assumption that a pregnant woman who apparently desired the pregnancy and wanted the child would agree that her fetus is incidental and could be compared to a cyst or tumor. I would prefer to see it in writing.

I don't assume she felt that way. That's my own analogy.

But we don't need to assume at all what her wishes were. We have the testimony of her husband and parents as to what her wishes were - that she would not want to be kept alive this way.

We accept testimony about things like this all the time. Why suddenly is this different? Wy are we treating women differently, simply because they have a uterus that might have an embryo or fetus in it?

 

[Gardenlady]

And one last question - why the need to see it in writing? Do folks think that not only her husband, but her parents as well, are all conspiring to go against her wishes? Wy would they all do this?

And this is disregarding the fact that even if it were in writing, it wouldn't matter. The state of Texas thinks it knows better about what to do with women's bodies at the end of their lives if they're pregnant.

 

[dh109977]

Are they doing tests on this baby? I hope this baby is gonna be ok and goes on to live with a family that loves it. At first I was worried about the baby and it not being wanted by the family. Now I see it as the best thing in the world. Poor child no one wanted. So sad. I can't believe this is the world I live in.

 

[faw720]

When is someone dead? Some thoughts on medical ethics.


http://www.wfaa.com/news/health/Whe...case-challenges-medical-ethics-240377831.html