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

[jjenny]

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 produce very likely 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?

You are making it sound as if dead people should have the same rights as the alive ones. What rights do dead people normally have?

 

[Karmady]

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.

she was fine with her husband raising her other child in the event something happened to her. So no reason to believe (previously at least) that she wouldn't have wanted him to raise this one, as well. jmo

 

[hambirg]

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.

She's DEAD! I don't know how else to make that more clear. She is D-E-A-D!!! Her rights, the "rights" of any DEAD person DO NOT supersede the rights of a potential life. In fact, a DEAD person has NO rights. We, as civilized human beings, recognize certain things about the deceased out of respect for the dead. BUT they do not possess RIGHTS!

Lord help us if "dead grandma" had the right to bare arms or the right to freedom of speech!

 

[Fairy1]

You are making it sound as if dead people should have the same rights as the alive ones. What rights do dead people normally have?

And you are making it sound as if people that haven't even been born yet are entitled to the same rights as the living.

 

[Karmady]

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 produce very likely 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?

Do you think she considered this eventuality when exercising her right as a living person to be removed from "life" support? That's where I think the real issue lies, and where, unfortunately, Marlise and this family found themselves in uncharted territory legal-wise. jmo

 

[Fairy1]

She's DEAD! I don't know how else to make that more clear. She is D-E-A-D!!! Her rights, the "rights" of any DEAD person DO NOT supersede the rights of a potential life. In fact, a DEAD person has NO rights. We, as civilized human beings, recognize certain things about the deceased out of respect for the dead. BUT they do not possess RIGHTS!

Lord help us if "dead grandma" had the right to bare arms or the right to freedom of speech!

Yes, Marlise is dead. Her family should be allowed to bury her and mourn her death. Instead, they are being forced to see her body being kept "alive" by machines until the state of Texas allows her to pass with dignity.

 

[hambirg]

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

Sorry, you are so wrong. If Marlise was not pregnant would she still be on life support? Can you provide me with ONE legal example of a state arguing that a DEAD woman should remain on life support. .. just because? :waiting:

This case has EVERYTHING to do with abortion.

 

[Fairy1]

Do you think she considered this eventuality when exercising her right as a living person to be removed from "life" support? That's where I think the real issue lies, and where, unfortunately, Marlise and this family found themselves in uncharted territory legal-wise. jmo

Actually, that is not where the real issue lies.

And yes, I do believe she considered all circumstances when she made her wishes known to her family. Not that the state of TX gives a rats a$$.

 

[Fairy1]

Sorry, you are so wrong. If Marlise was not pregnant would she still be on life support? Can you provide me with ONE legal example of a state arguing that a DEAD woman should remain on life support. .. just because? :waiting:

This case has EVERYTHING to do with abortion.

No, it doesn't.

 

[jjenny]

Yes, Marlise is dead. Her family should be allowed to bury her and mourn her death. Instead, they are being forced to see her body being kept "alive" by machines until the state of Texas allows her to pass with dignity.

It's the fetus that is being kept "alive."
She is dead. Are you arguing that the fact that she is pregnant should just be ignored?

 

[Fairy1]

It's the fetus that is being kept "alive."
She is dead. Are you arguing that the fact that she is pregnant should just be ignored?

I am arguing that Marlise's wishes should NOT be ignored.

 

[K_Z]

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.

I'm saying this case has absolutely nothing to do with elective abortion. Nothing at all. Unless someone has a militant or radical pro life political or personal agenda.

I was responding to a poster who argued that the dead woman's inability to feel pain somehow makes all this "okay" and "right".

 

[hambirg]

And you are making it sound as if people that haven't even been born yet are entitled to the same rights as the living.

Marlise is not living. She's DEAD. And yes, the Supreme Court has determined that "born" is not the definition of life. They expressly said they will not rule on when life begins. . .no one can agree on it, so they will not even go there. They did say that the woman's health is more important during the first trimester, but after that, as the pregnancy continues, the life of the unborn fetus becomes more compelling. .and increasingly so as the pregnancy continues.

A pregnant woman can not shoot her unborn child in the head as she's in labor and it's crowning. Don't even ask how I know that. . .there was a case. It's not near as black and white as some people seem to believe.

 

[jjenny]

I am arguing that Marlise's wishes should NOT be ignored.

So here we go again. I don't know what her wishes are for the particular situation she is in.
I don't think her family knows it either. I watched interview with her mother. Marlise did talk about not wanting to be on life support. Bue she didn't talk about not wanting to be on life support even if she were pregnant.

 

[Fairy1]

Marlise is not living. She's DEAD. And yes, the Supreme Court has determined that "born" is not the definition of life. They expressly said they will not rule on when life begins. . .no one can agree on it, so they will not even go there. They did say that the woman's health is more important during the first trimester, but after that, as the pregnancy continues, the life of the unborn fetus becomes more compelling. .and increasingly so as the pregnancy continues.

A pregnant woman can not shoot her unborn child in the head as she's in labor and it's crowning. Don't even ask how I know that. . .there was a case. It's not near as black and white as some people seem to believe.

What's happening here is not based on a Supreme Court ruling. It's a Texas state law.

 

[Karmady]

Actually, that is not where the real issue lies.

And yes, I do believe she considered all circumstances when she made her wishes known to her family. Not that the state of TX gives a rats a$$.

Okay, so please frame the real issue as you see it and discuss why you think she considered all of the circumstances -- including being brain dead while pregnant- when she made her wishes known to her family. Actually, I thought she did have something in writing. So it's even more vague than I had initially believed, sounds like.

 

[K_Z]

You are making it sound as if dead people should have the same rights as the alive ones. What rights do dead people normally have?

She had rights when she was alive. She expressed her wishes. Her husband has rights that the state of Texas has usurped.

The state of Texas has decided they have the right to mandate fetal experiments. Using the body of a dead citizen. That's profoundly disturbing to me.

 

[Fairy1]

So here we go again. I don't know what her wishes are for the particular situation she is in.
I don't think her family knows it either. I watched interview with her mother. Marlise did talk about not wanting to be on life support. Bue she didn't talk about not wanting to be on life support even if she were pregnant.

I've said this before, Marlise was 33-years-old, married and in her child-bearing years. If she said she didn't want to be on life support, I assume she meant, ever. Unless she said "when I'm old...." And that's not what the family is saying.

Marlise's family is being vilified because it's assumed they don't want to have this baby. We don't know anything about that. We do know they're doing their best to fulfill the wishes of the woman they knew and loved. I'm not going to be pregnant again in this lifetime, but I sure do want to know my family can carry out my wishes when I leave this earth - whatever the circumstances of my death.

 

[kaRN]

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

Re BBM- Because she's a Paramedic and knows better than to assume she'd die peacefully in her sleep of old age. :blushing:

 

[jjenny]

I've said this before, Marlise was 33-years-old, married and in her child-bearing years. If she said she didn't want to be on life support, I assume she meant, ever. Unless she said "when I'm old...." And that's not what the family is saying.

Marlise's family is being vilified because it's assumed they don't want to have this baby. We don't know anything about that. We do know they're doing their best to fulfill the wishes of the woman they knew and loved. I'm not going to be pregnant again in this lifetime, but I sure do want to know my family can carry out my wishes when I leave this earth - whatever the circumstances of my death.

One can assume whatever one wishes to assume. It doesn't sound to me that she ever addressed not wanting to be on life support even if she were pregnant.
So while we can assume, we don't know what her wishes are.