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

[dh109977]

It's not difficult at all. I understand it perfectly well.
I agree that state is using a body of what considered to be legally dead woman to host a fetus. But after a very short time, once the fetus is delivered, they can turn off life support. Considering that life of a fetus is at stake here, is that too much to ask to wait another six weeks before life support is turned off so fetus can get a chance at life? I just don't understand what is the rush? The woman herself is not suffering since she is brain dead and thus assumed not able to feel pain.

The thanks button isn't enough. I just don't understand why nobody wants to give this poor child a chance. Miracles can happen. Or sadly this baby can not make it. But nobody can predict the future.

 

[Fairy1]

It's not difficult at all. I understand it perfectly well.
I agree that state is using a body of what considered to be legally dead woman to host a fetus. But after a very short time, once the fetus is delivered, they can turn off life support. Considering that life of a fetus is at stake here, is that too much to ask to wait another six weeks before life support is turned off so fetus can get a chance at life? I just don't understand what is the rush? The woman herself is not suffering since she is brain dead and thus assumed not able to feel pain.

We have no idea whether the fetus is even viable. And while its mother may not be suffering, her family is. She was a living, breathing human who was important to those who loved her. IMO, it's beyond disrespectful to use her body as an experiment when she made her wishes clear beforehand.

 

[Karmady]

I don't know why it's so difficult for everyone to understand that even if Marlise had made her position clear, IN WRITING, it simply would not matter in the state of Texas. That is the issue here. And her own mother is trying to carry out the wishes of her own child. HER baby.

It's so easy to vilify the husband, isn't it? So easy to reduce the discussion to abortion. But that really isn't what's at stake here. The state is basically using the body of a dead woman to host a fetus. IMO, it's unbelievably disrespectful and disgusting.

As I understand it, Marlise made her position clear regarding her own self. Not her unborn child. Maybe I'm wrong about that, and I'm sure I'll be corrected if I am. But I don't think it's completely wrong or insane to consider whether a mother who wouldn't want life support for herself, might still want life support for her unborn child absent a clear expression of that specific intent. As I said above, I would want that for my unborn baby, but never would have considered providing for it in my own personal end of life instructions. jmo

 

[Fairy1]

As I understand it, Marlise made her position clear regarding her own self. Not her unborn child. Maybe I'm wrong about that, and I'm sure I'll be corrected if I am. But I don't think it's completely wrong or insane to consider whether a mother who wouldn't want life support for herself, might still want life support for her unborn child absent a clear expression of that specific intent. As I said above, I would want that for my unborn baby, but never would have considered providing for it in my own personal end of life instructions. jmo

Once again - IT DOES NOT MATTER! Had Marlise specifically said - IN WRITING - she wouldn't want to be on life support - even if she were pregnant - the state of Texas does not care. That is the issue here.

 

[EmmaliLucia]

It's not difficult at all. I understand it perfectly well.
I agree that state is using a body of what considered to be legally dead woman to host a fetus. But after a very short time, once the fetus is delivered, they can turn off life support. Considering that life of a fetus is at stake here, is that too much to ask to wait another six weeks before life support is turned off so fetus can get a chance at life? I just don't understand what is the rush? The woman herself is not suffering since she is brain dead and thus assumed not able to feel pain.

Maybe at over $1000 a day to keep someone on life support you would decide to be a guinea pig.

I highly doubt the state of Texas is going to pay for the medical bills, neither is the hospital, and you know that the hospital bills are going to be murderous.

The husband is an EMT, they aren't known for making a ton of money and medical insurance will fight them tooth and nail seeing as how she's dead.

 

[hambirg]

I pray this baby is ok. But if the baby has severe damage to the brain or any part of the body that is gonna effect the quality of life this child will have given it can be saved. What will happen? Since the baby will be past the legal abortion age. Will turning off the life support be an option. I don't know how that is viewed since it technically isn't an abortion.

I have always made it clear to my family, friends that I don't want to be kept alive by artificial means. I haven't put it in writing because I am wierd and it freaks me out. But I am an organ donor as well so if I can't be saved and someone else can well then do it.

I did however tell my children's father that if anything was to happen to me when I was pregnant do whatever needed to be done to save my child. Of course that wasn't in writing either. So I understand that father's point but at the same time I think the Mother might have a different opinion had she known this was gonna happen when she was pregnant. But I don't know her and I am going on my personal choices.

BBM. . .the physicians will only be able to suspend life support if it can be determined that the fetus is dead. If the opinion is that the fetus might be viable, than the state has a dominant interest in the potential life of the child over the health of the mother. The law is clear, physicains alone, do not get to choose to terminate a pregnancy because they think the prognosis is not good. In this case, the pregnant woman is DEAD. There is NO choice there. . between mother's health and interest in the potential life. So even of this baby is severely brain damaged, the doctors do not have the choice to choose an abortion for Marlise. She did not make her choice known. Power of attorney is limited. . .abortion is not a choice that the father can make.

People want to make this about politics. It's not. The precedents are already there. The Supreme Court has already made their opinions' known based upon the law. There is no gray area as to how a judge must rule in this case. Sorry. It's the truth.

1. A woman's right to privacy supersedes that of the fetus during the first trimester and the woman may choose to have an abortion.

2. Past the first trimester, the State has a legitimate interest in the pregnant woman's health AND the potential life of the fetus. In this case, The woman is DEAD. . .absolutely, completely DEAD. She has no rights to personhood. The state has NO obligation to her health anymore. Their only obligation is to the potential life of her fetus.

3. The physicians have the same obligation. Regardless of the fetuses chances, or potential disabilities, their only concern is the potential life. A severely, profoundly retarded person has the same "rights" as any one else. Btw, I use the term "retarded" because it is still the legal term. .. and I personally believe, as someone that has worked with this population for 20+ years, that there should be no shame in the word "retarded." If you are offended by that word, than I suggest you may have to look inward as to why.

4. A woman's right to privacy, and her right to an abortion, is not absolute. But it is her right, within those guidelines and the states interest, alone.

5. A right to privacy is not transferable. A woman't right to an abortion, as clearly defined by the Supreme Court, cannot be assigned. Marlise's husband has no say in terminating her pregnancy. She did not leave a written advance medical directive. She merely left him power of attorney. Power of attorney is limited. They may not make decisions about a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy. Btw. . power of attorney may also not dictate about having a feeding tube inserted. I think we all understand why that is important is another case here. If we want to argue that power of attorney is absolute, well than look no further than Jahi's case. Her mother would have been able to REQUIRE that the physicians at OCH insert a feeding tube to her deceased daughter.

The biggest problem I see here, is that people that are arguing one way, because of their emotions, are not thoroughly understanding the ramifications of what they are arguing. Play what you are saying out in ALL possible scenarios. I think you would change your mind.

 

[K_Z]

It's not difficult at all. I understand it perfectly well.
I agree that state is using a body of what considered to be legally dead woman to host a fetus. But after a very short time, once the fetus is delivered, they can turn off life support. Considering that life of a fetus is at stake here, is that too much to ask to wait another six weeks before life support is turned off so fetus can get a chance at life? I just don't understand what is the rush? The woman herself is not suffering since she is brain dead and thus assumed not able to feel pain.

BBM. So, moral relativism is dependent on whether or not the woman's body is able to feel pain??

I'm an anesthesia professional. Anesthesia can be used to render anyone insensitive to any bodily sensations. Even judicial execution. Or murder.

So basing whether or not something is right or wrong on whether or not "a person" is capable of feeling pain or discomfort doesn't really make any logical sense to me.

The state of Texas (my error, it was Ohio) just put a man to death this week with a ridiculous protocol that a veterinarian wouldn't use to euthanize a beloved pet dog or cat. A first year anesthesia student could devise a better execution protocol to use. But that's ok? Because he's a heinous murderer?

The issue at hand is the gross abuse of state power to remove medical and end of life decision making from its private citizens. Of pregnant females, in particular.

Edited to add, my mistake. It was Ohio that used the ridiculous execution protocol this week. Not Texas.

 

[Karmady]

BBM. . .the physicians will only be able to suspend life support if it can be determined that the fetus is dead. If the opinion is that the fetus might be viable, than the state has a dominant interest in the potential life of the child over the health of the mother. The law is clear, physicains alone, do not get to choose to terminate a pregnancy because they think the prognosis is not good. In this case, the pregnant woman is DEAD. There is NO choice there. . between mother's health and interest in the potential life. So even of this baby is severely brain damaged, the doctors do not have the choice to choose an abortion for Marlise. She did not make her choice known. Power of attorney is limited. . .abortion is not a choice that the father can make.

People want to make this about politics. It's not. The precedents are already there. The Supreme Court has already made their opinions' known based upon the law. There is no gray area as to how a judge must rule in this case. Sorry. It's the truth.

1. A woman's right to privacy supersedes that of the fetus during the first trimester and the woman may choose to have an abortion.

2. Past the first trimester, the State has a legitimate interest in the pregnant woman's health AND the potential life of the fetus. In this case, The woman is DEAD. . .absolutely, completely DEAD. She has no rights to personhood. The state has NO obligation to her health anymore. Their only obligation is to the potential life of her fetus.

3. The physicians have the same obligation. Regardless of the fetuses chances, or potential disabilities, their only concern is the potential life. A severely, profoundly retarded person has the same "rights" as any one else. Btw, I use the term "retarded" because it is still the legal term. .. and I personally believe, as someone that has worked with this population for 20+ years, that there should be no shame in the word "retarded." If you are offended by that word, than I suggest you may have to look inward as to why.

4. A woman's right to privacy, and her right to an abortion, is not absolute. But it is her right, within those guidelines and the states interest, alone.

5. A right to privacy is not transferable. A woman't right to an abortion, as clearly defined by the Supreme Court, cannot be assigned. Marlise's husband has no say in terminating her pregnancy. She did not leave a written advance medical directive. She merely left him power of attorney. Power of attorney is limited. They may not make decisions about a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy. Btw. . power of attorney may also not dictate about having a feeding tube inserted. I think we all understand why that is important is another case here. If we want to argue that power of attorney is absolute, well than look no further than Jahi's case. Her mother would have been able to REQUIRE that the physicians at OCH insert a feeding tube to her deceased daughter.

The biggest problem I see here, is that people that are arguing one way, because of their emotions, are not thoroughly understanding the ramifications of what they are arguing. Play what you are saying out in ALL possible scenarios. I think you would change your mind.

This analysis seems legally correct to me...like it or don't. jmo

 

[Fairy1]

BBM. . .the physicians will only be able to suspend life support if it can be determined that the fetus is dead. If the opinion is that the fetus might be viable, than the state has a dominant interest in the potential life of the child over the health of the mother. The law is clear, physicains alone, do not get to choose to terminate a pregnancy because they think the prognosis is not good. In this case, the pregnant woman is DEAD. There is NO choice there. . between mother's health and interest in the potential life. So even of this baby is severely brain damaged, the doctors do not have the choice to choose an abortion for Marlise. She did not make her choice known. Power of attorney is limited. . .abortion is not a choice that the father can make.

People want to make this about politics. It's not. The precedents are already there. The Supreme Court has already made their opinions' known based upon the law. There is no gray area as to how a judge must rule in this case. Sorry. It's the truth.

1. A woman's right to privacy supersedes that of the fetus during the first trimester and the woman may choose to have an abortion.

2. Past the first trimester, the State has a legitimate interest in the pregnant woman's health AND the potential life of the fetus. In this case, The woman is DEAD. . .absolutely, completely DEAD. She has no rights to personhood. The state has NO obligation to her health anymore. Their only obligation is to the potential life of her fetus.

3. The physicians have the same obligation. Regardless of the fetuses chances, or potential disabilities, their only concern is the potential life. A severely, profoundly retarded person has the same "rights" as any one else. Btw, I use the term "retarded" because it is still the legal term. .. and I personally believe, as someone that has worked with this population for 20+ years, that there should be no shame in the word "retarded." If you are offended by that word, than I suggest you may have to look inward as to why.

4. A woman's right to privacy, and her right to an abortion, is not absolute. But it is her right, within those guidelines and the states interest, alone.

5. A right to privacy is not transferable. A woman't right to an abortion, as clearly defined by the Supreme Court, cannot be assigned. Marlise's husband has no say in terminating her pregnancy. She did not leave a written advance medical directive. She merely left him power of attorney. Power of attorney is limited. They may not make decisions about a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy. Btw. . power of attorney may also not dictate about having a feeding tube inserted. I think we all understand why that is important is another case here. If we want to argue that power of attorney is absolute, well than look no further than Jahi's case. Her mother would have been able to REQUIRE that the physicians at OCH insert a feeding tube to her deceased daughter.

The biggest problem I see here, is that people that are arguing one way, because of their emotions, are not thoroughly understanding the ramifications of what they are arguing. Play what you are saying out in ALL possible scenarios. I think you would change your mind.

Now that the lawsuit has been filed by the family, we can be 100% sure it's about politics. And Marlise has not only been reduced to a uterus, but now a political pawn as well.

 

[jjenny]

We have no idea whether the fetus is even viable. And while its mother may not be suffering, her family is. She was a living, breathing human who was important to those who loved her. IMO, it's beyond disrespectful to use her body as an experiment when she made her wishes clear beforehand.

Her wishes for this particular situation are far from clear. While she told her family she wouldn't want to be on life support, she didn't say she wouldn't want to be on life support even if she were pregnant. She didn't leave any of these wishes in writing. So we actually don't know that she would not want to be on life support for a short period of time if she were pregnant.

 

[jjenny]

As I understand it, Marlise made her position clear regarding her own self. Not her unborn child. Maybe I'm wrong about that, and I'm sure I'll be corrected if I am. But I don't think it's completely wrong or insane to consider whether a mother who wouldn't want life support for herself, might still want life support for her unborn child absent a clear expression of that specific intent. As I said above, I would want that for my unborn baby, but never would have considered providing for it in my own personal end of life instructions. jmo

I agree with you completely. Marlise didn't say she wouldn't want to be on life support even if she were pregnant. So we don't actually know what her wishes are for the particular situation she is in.
I am not sure why some people here call it an experiment. It's been done a number of times before, with successful delivery of a normal infant in at least some of the cases. As we don't know anything about condition of the fetus, I at least have to consider this as a possibility.

 

[Fairy1]

Oh Lord - I give up! Is there no understanding of what this case is actually about???

It doesn't matter what Marlise wanted - whether she spelled it out specifically in writing or not. She does not matter.

Why doesn't that bother anyone?

 

[jjenny]

Oh Lord - I give up! Is there no understanding of what this case is actually about???

It doesn't matter what Marlise wanted - whether she spelled it out specifically in writing or not. She does not matter.

Why doesn't that bother anyone?

???
She is legally dead.
One can not come back from the dead.
If you are upset about laws in the state of TX, one way to change them would be to elect different politicians. That's not likely to happen in TX, is it?

 

[Fairy1]

???
She is legally dead.
One can not come back from the dead.

No. But she was here. She was a human being who had a life and people who loved and cared about her. She is dead, but the state of Texas can still use her as a broodmare.

 

[hambirg]

BBM. So, moral relativism is dependent on whether or not the woman's body is able to feel pain??

I'm an anesthesia professional. Anesthesia can be used to render anyone insensitive to any bodily sensations. Even judicial execution. Or murder.

So basing whether or not something is right or wrong on whether or not "a person" is capable of feeling pain or discomfort doesn't really make any logical sense to me.

The state of Texas (my error, it was Ohio) just put a man to death this week with a ridiculous protocol that a veterinarian wouldn't use to euthanize a beloved pet dog or cat. A first year anesthesia student could devise a better execution protocol to use. But that's ok? Because he's a heinous murderer?

The issue at hand is the gross abuse of state power to remove medical and end of life decision making from its private citizens. Of pregnant females, in particular.

Edited to add, my mistake. It was Ohio that used the ridiculous execution protocol this week. Not Texas.

You do understand that a woman's right to an abortion during the first trimester is based partially on the argument that the fetus may not have the ability to feel pain , correct?

So, in arguing that the ability to feel pain or not is irrelevant, you are arguing against a woman's right to choose an abortion at a point in time where the fetus may not have the ability to feel pain. Is that what you are saying? That whether or not something feels pain should not be relevant? If it is, than a woman may not have a right to choose at all.

 

[jjenny]

No. But she was here. She was a human being who had a life and people who loved and cared about her. She is dead, but the state of Texas can still use her as a broodmare.

I am sorry. This was a child she wanted. So while you view it as her being used as a broodmare, it can be viewed otherwise as allowing the child she did want to have a shot at life.

 

[Fairy1]

I am sorry. This was a child she wanted. So while you view it as her being used as a broodmare, it can be viewed otherwise as allowing the child she did want to have a shot at life.

Yes, a child to whom she would have been a mother. That's not going to happen. And, FYI, I don't view Marlise as a broodmare, but the state of Texas sure does.

 

[Fairy1]

You do understand that a woman's right to an abortion during the first trimester is based partially on the argument that the fetus may not have the ability to feel pain , correct?

So, in arguing that the ability to feel pain or not is irrelevant, you are arguing against a woman's right to choose an abortion at a point in time where the fetus may not have the ability to feel pain. Is that what you are saying? That whether or not something feels pain should not be relevant? If it is, than a woman may not have a right to choose at all.

And do you understand that this case has not one thing to do with abortion?

 

[K_Z]

Oh Lord - I give up! Is there no understanding of what this case is actually about???

It doesn't matter what Marlise wanted - whether she spelled it out specifically in writing or not. She does not matter.

Why doesn't that bother anyone?

The dominant argument appears to be that it is okay for the state to remove rights that you had when you were living from you, as long as you're dead. And female. And pregnant. Basically, the argument, as I understand it, is that the state of TX believes private citizens are incapable of thoughtful and prudent decision making at the end of life, so they have to help them out and make decisions for them.

The state of Texas is willing to intentionally force dead citizens to become experiments to very likely produce profoundly damaged future citizens, balanced with the outrageous fantasy that cardiac arrest has no effect on a developing fetus.

Apparently, legislators in Texas are incapable of understanding basic maternofetal physiology, IMO. Or, they have another agenda. Which one?

 

[jjenny]

Yes, a child to whom she would have been a mother. That's not going to happen. And, FYI, I don't view Marlise as a broodmare, but the state of Texas sure does.

You are making it sounds as if state of TX goes around impregnanting brain dead women. She was already pregnant when she collapsed.