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

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

hambirg said:
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!
Click to expand...

WTF is this supposed to mean? Why mock grandma for not having sleeves? Why not grandpa? Is it that you think the undead should only be allowed to carry concealed weapons? On the other hand if you really did mean to be concerned about the aesthetics of a corpse, maybe grandma had great biceps from picking up and carrying those grandchildren around, or keeping the garden going, or going to the gym, or rowing in the dragonboat races, or surfing. As an undead woman with good muscle tone, perhaps dead grandma would have more right to bare arms than dead grandpa, or dead dad.

About the freedom of speech issue: These female corpses are grotesque versions of Shabti, silently serving the will of the powerful until they crumble to dust. Stripped of any voice (at least zombies can vocalise), these female corpses can't even beg for mercy.

Oh they're dead all right. Sorta. Maybe more kinda pregnanty undead. An undead shabti woman has no right to being treated with dignity, no right to having her last wishes carried out since she's only a convenient uterus with no vocal mechanism to complain about pain or express her fear about how the artificial substances being pumped through her body may be causing mutations to the developing fetus in her uterus--because, after all, she's dead. And really, why should anyone care about how the state government is demanding that female corpses be treated or that the state government is prolonging the grief of families? After all, it's death, but only for a woman. So really, why should anyone care?

But why stop there? Will the standard operating procedure now be to test every woman who dies with a uterus intact to be sure she's not carrying what may or may not be an embryo? Will the government pay for this or will they force the grieving family to pay some sort of womb tax so they will be allowed to grieve and bury their female dead? Or will the corpses of women who are potential incubators be automatically given to state approved Dr. Frankensteins so embryos can be implanted in their wombs? Disposable mothers, as it were. That would allow even more experimentation since no mother would exist to fight to protect her child. And this way, there is no father to interfere either. The potential for abuse and corruption by is huge.

So the stage seems to be set in Texas, that you're female, you aren't allowed to die until the state says you can. And this whole Big Brother scenario is being put in place by a party that claims to want to do away with Big Government interference with a family. Disgusting.

Oh, btw, who's footing the bills for all of this? State ordered = state bucks? Family on the hook for huge hospital bills? If the fetus makes it to viability who pays for it then? Who pays for all the bills for the physical care it would need? Who pays for the frequent medical checkups that will be needed to determine how badly damaged the resulting child has been by the drugs pumped through its body? Who pays for the psychological counselling the child will need? Like what 21 years of medical bills?
 
K_Z said:
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.
Click to expand...

See, this is mistaken. Her husband has "power of attorney." That does not mean that he gets to make any choices whatsoever in her name. Power of attorney is a LIMITED power. There are things that someone with power of attorney can not choose. Abortion is one of those things. . .as is deciding whether a feeding tube is inserted. . .that is solely left up the the physicians. These issues have already been decided. There is NO question what things her husband has authority over and what he doesn't.

Wishing something to be true, is not the same as it being true. Her husband, a man, has no 14th Amendment right to an abortion. The courts have already decided AND opined that someone cannot terminate a pregnancy through power of attorney.

People that think Marlise should be taken off life support will have to come up with a different argument. THIS one has already been decided. And it fails. He has NO right to terminate her pregnancy through power of attorney or otherwise. It is not a "right" he possesses.
 
Fairy1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thank you for again trying to clarify this, Fairy. I also posted the definition of abortion so that people would realize that word has no place in the discussion here.
Also, when we are pregnant and want our babies to be saved at any cost, that's usually under the impression that they are healthy, not most assuredly oxygen deprived, as this child was.
 
wendiesan said:
WTF is this supposed to mean? Why mock grandma for not having sleeves? Why not grandpa? Is it that you think the undead should only be allowed to carry concealed weapons? On the other hand if you really did mean to be concerned about the aesthetics of a corpse, maybe grandma had great biceps from picking up and carrying those grandchildren around, or keeping the garden going, or going to the gym, or rowing in the dragonboat races, or surfing. As an undead woman with good muscle tone, perhaps dead grandma would have more right to bare arms than dead grandpa, or dead dad.

About the freedom of speech issue: These female corpses are grotesque versions of Shabti, silently serving the will of the powerful until they crumble to dust. Stripped of any voice (at least zombies can vocalise), these female corpses can't even beg for mercy.

Oh they're dead all right. Sorta. Maybe more kinda pregnanty undead. An undead shabti woman has no right to being treated with dignity, no right to having her last wishes carried out since she's only a convenient uterus with no vocal mechanism to complain about pain or express her fear about how the artificial substances being pumped through her body may be causing mutations to the developing fetus in her uterus--because, after all, she's dead. And really, why should anyone care about how the state government is demanding that female corpses be treated or that the state government is prolonging the grief of families? After all, it's death, but only for a woman. So really, why should anyone care?

But why stop there? Will the standard operating procedure now be to test every woman who dies with a uterus intact to be sure she's not carrying what may or may not be an embryo? Will the government pay for this or will they force the grieving family to pay some sort of womb tax so they will be allowed to grieve and bury their female dead? Or will the corpses of women who are potential incubators be automatically given to state approved Dr. Frankensteins so embryos can be implanted in their wombs? Disposable mothers, as it were. That would allow even more experimentation since no mother would exist to fight to protect her child. And this way, there is no father to interfere either. The potential for abuse and corruption by is huge.

So the stage seems to be set in Texas, that you're female, you aren't allowed to die until the state says you can. And this whole Big Brother scenario is being put in place by a party that claims to want to do away with Big Government interference with a family. Disgusting.

Oh, btw, who's footing the bills for all of this? State ordered = state bucks? Family on the hook for huge hospital bills? If the fetus makes it to viability who pays for it then? Who pays for all the bills for the physical care it would need? Who pays for the frequent medical checkups that will be needed to determine how badly damaged the resulting child has been by the drugs pumped through its body? Who pays for the psychological counselling the child will need? Like what 21 years of medical bills?
Click to expand...

The only part of this I will even address as sound is the Big Brother part. Supreme Court rulings apply to the entire country. Big Brother or not, this is not new. Are you somehow under any impression that the government does not have the authority to make decisions and rules that affect all of our lives? And if so, where are you living and can I join you?
 
Fairy1 said:
The logic, as it applies to the circumstances in this particular case. I do understand the actual words, though. Thanks.
Click to expand...

The logic has to do with law and precedent. . .not emotions.
 
Seems to be quite a bit of government coverage for health care for pregnant women and their unborn child in the SCHIP program. I'd guess that if the family insurance does not cover the extreme expenses, and it exceeds the hospital's budget for charity care, a case might could be made to provide SCHIP to the unborn child, for those concerned of the financial burdens.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/05/5/gr050503.html
 
Look, this is a heated topic. For those of you that are arguing that Munoz has "rights" to determine what happens to Marlise's reproductive organs, do you even understand what you are arguing?

IF he has those rights, than all fathers/husbands have the same rights. A woman would not be able to have an abortion without consent of the father. . and in some cases that would not be the husband, but because the husband is the assumed father under the law, she would need his consent as well. And heaven forbid, the case of women who aren't sure who the father is. Without consent they would not be able to choose an abortion!

Thank gawd, the Supreme Court has already ruled that as unconstitutional. A man does NOT have the right to choose an abortion, whether is be through direct consent or power of attorney. Period.
 
And those that say it's not an elective abortion issue I think technically are correct. But terminating a living fetus does not have any other word/label except abortion, whether elective or spontaneous, does it?
 
I guess the argument here really is whether brain dead person on life support is considered a patient. Fetus is at 21 weeks, will be considered viable at 24 weeks. If brain dead person is not considered a patient, what about the fetus? This family doesn't want life support to continue, but it's not always the case. Some families want life support to continue in order to get the fetus to viability. I know of a number of cases where families were very willing to keep the brain dead mother on life support in order to save the fetus. But if brain dead person isn't a patient, presumably that means hospital can remove life support without consulting the family (like McMath case, where hospital didn't need permission to remove her from life support since she was ruled brain dead).
So it's kind of a mess as far as the law is concerned.

"Muñoz’s lawsuit says the hospital is misconstruing the law. JPS doctors would not be removing life-sustaining treatment, the suit says. “Marlise cannot possibly be a ‘pregnant patient’ — Marlise is dead,” the lawsuit states."

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2014/01/17/5494963/munoz-case-against-jps-moved-to.html#storylink=cpy
http://www.star-telegram.com/2014/01/17/5494963/munoz-case-against-jps-moved-to.html
 
http://www.freep.com/article/20140109/NEWS07/301090061/pregnant-daughter-life-support

This article states the fetus is tested daily and has a normal heart range, it doesn't state what tests are carried out but it does state the baby has a normal heart range, that in itself is a miracle, shouldn't this fetus have a chance at life still too?

When the doctors talk viability at 24 weeks it's due to this being the "earliest" doctors will want to pull out the baby and for the baby to have a chance at a normal life, still with a premature babies there is complications however these are obstacles that are able to be overcome or that you will adjust too.

I've had a long hard think about this (south australian law, so I no way relevance to laws in Texas) would not call my fetus viable until 19 weeks, so if it had been me in mrs munoz's shoes both me and my baby would be dead... Seems a bit unfair if my baby still had a heart beat...

I'm neither pro life or pro choice, I just think this baby is showing signs of life let him or her fight for it...
 
Fairy1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Absolutely!! As a Texas resident, I can absolutely state that it is ALL political.

Texas currently has a governor & a legislature that is Pro Life in the extreme. Whether or not they are actually Pro Life by their own beliefs is questionable. There's a very good possibility that at least some of them assume a Pro Life stance because it will get them more votes. For a lot of politicians it all about the almighty vote. To the best of my knowledge there are currently no lawmakers in Texas who are medical professionals. Therefore they are incapable of making educated decisions on medical issues.

As I have stated before I am neither extremely Pro Choice or Pro Life. I believe it should be left up to the individual to decide dependent upon their specific situation. I don't believe that a Pro Life person should be FORCED to terminate a pregnancy nor do I believe a Pro Choice person should be FORCED to continue to a pregnancy.

Each person is responsible for their own choices they make in life. I really get extremely upset with the government, a group of people, or an individual who tells me how I MUST conduct my life. If I make a sinful choice, I am the one who will eventually pay the price. Matter of fact, this case has me so outraged & upset that I really need to take a break from following this forum. However, I will continue to post links to the latest developments. Since I live in Fort Worth I will likely see or hear updates as they happen.
 
hambirg said:
Look, this is a heated topic. For those of you that are arguing that Munoz has "rights" to determine what happens to Marlise's reproductive organs, do you even understand what you are arguing?

IF he has those rights, than all fathers/husbands have the same rights. A woman would not be able to have an abortion without consent of the father. . and in some cases that would not be the husband, but because the husband is the assumed father under the law, she would need his consent as well. And heaven forbid, the case of women who aren't sure who the father is. Without consent they would not be able to choose an abortion!

Thank gawd, the Supreme Court has already ruled that as unconstitutional. A man does NOT have the right to choose an abortion, whether is be through direct consent or power of attorney. Period.
Click to expand...


Omg could you imagine poor rape victims who would need their rapists permission to abort a baby resulting from a rape. Oh my.
 
jjenny said:
I guess the argument here really is whether brain dead person on life support is considered a patient. Fetus is at 21 weeks, will be considered viable at 24 weeks. If brain dead person is not considered a patient, what about the fetus? This family doesn't want life support to continue, but it's not always the case. Some families want life support to continue in order to get the fetus to viability. I know of a number of cases where families were very willing to keep the brain dead mother on life support in order to save the fetus. But if brain dead person isn't a patient, presumably that means hospital can remove life support without consulting the family (like McMath case, where hospital didn't need permission to remove her from life support since she was ruled brain dead).
So it's kind of a mess as far as the law is concerned.

"Muñoz’s lawsuit says the hospital is misconstruing the law. JPS doctors would not be removing life-sustaining treatment, the suit says. “Marlise cannot possibly be a ‘pregnant patient’ — Marlise is dead,” the lawsuit states."

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2014/01/17/5494963/munoz-case-against-jps-moved-to.html#storylink=cpy
http://www.star-telegram.com/2014/01/17/5494963/munoz-case-against-jps-moved-to.html
Click to expand...

I think that if that's the law the hospital is saying requires them to do what they are doing, they should and will lose since the mother is no longer a patient. Imo, the issue is whether the state can de facto terminate a pregnancy where the mother is dead but the baby can possibly be kept alive. Or whether that is, in fact, the termination of a "pregnancy." On an individual rights basis, imo, the question is whether, if the mother's wishes wrt to the baby are unknown or are consistent with wanting to sustain the baby, must or can the hospital assume that she would have wanted her body to be removed from mechanical support and act accordingly.

Now that it's in court, I wonder whether the hospital will stick to the pregnanat patient statute or will change its tack to address the broader issues. jmo
 
Several MSM articles stated hosp has done certain med tests on fetus.
I believe some of that info has originated w husband interviews w media.

IIRC pre-petition http://www.freep.com/article/20140109/NEWS07/301090061/pregnant-daughter-life-support
"Tests are done daily on the fetus, and results show a normal heartbeat."

Who disclosed this info to the media pre-filing?
Hospital official?
Doctor? Nurse? Other med prof?
Hospital's atty?
An unnamed source close to the hosp?
If so, was disclosure a HIPAA violation when made?

Does anyone recall or have link to pre-filing article, quoting hosp or rep, w info specific to woman pt or fetus,
as opposed to a gen stmt like 'we follow state law' or 'we provide the best care for our pts'?

Or perhaps the disclosure came from husband's petition?
Husband or wife's parents interview w media?
Link to pdf of husband's petition?
ETA: http://media.nbcbayarea.com/documents/munoz+vs+jps.pdf
which does not ref fetus' heartbeat or other fetal tests.

Seems if the 'normal heartbeat' disclosure came from hosp, it was not in hosp' court-filed doc
(which would be a HIPAA exception?).

"On Friday, the Tarrant County Hospital District, which operates JPS, filed a one-sentence response to the lawsuit,
saying it “generally denies” all its arguments.'
http://www.star-telegram.com/2014/01/17/5494963/munoz-case-against-jps-moved-to.html#storylink=cpy

Thx in adv. :seeya:
 
These are the medical professionals in the Texas legislature for those interested in lobbying to get TX state laws changed and join the five states that honor a pregnant woman's written end of life directives.

I left the veterinarians, paramedic and pharmacist as well, assuming some higher science education. I initialized their last name, just in case it needed to be. Full name & list of all occupations at links.

http://www.texasalmanac.com/topics/government/texas-senate
State Senate — 83rd Legislature*(2013) District, Member, Party-Residence, Occupation (19 Republicans, 12 Democrats)
2. Robert F. D., R-Greenville; family physician.
5.Charles S., R-Georgetown; surgeon.
25. Donna C., R-New Braunfels; physician.
26. Leticia V., D-San Antonio; pharmacist.

http://www.texasalmanac.com/topics/government/texas-house-representatives
District, Member, Party-Residence, Occupation ( 95 Republicans, 55 Democrats) 2013

24. Greg B., R-Friendswood; neurosurgeon, businessman.
28. John Z., R-Richmond; physician.
39. Armando (Mando) M., D-Weslaco; firefighter, paramedic.
48. Donna H., D-Austin; nursing, public health.
54. Jimmie Don A., R-Killeen; veterinarian, rancher.
56. Charles (Doc) A., R-Waco; veterinarian.
59. J.D. S., R-Gatesville; physician.
71. Susan L. K., R-Abilene; surgical nurse.
91. Stephanie K., R-Fort Worth; nurse, health-care consultant.
 
KateB said:
These are the medical professionals in the Texas legislature for those interested in lobbying to get TX state laws changed and join the five states that honor a pregnant woman's written end of life directives.

I left the veterinarians, paramedic and pharmacist as well, assuming some higher science education. I initialized their last name, just in case it needed to be. Full name & list of all occupations at links.

http://www.texasalmanac.com/topics/government/texas-senate
State Senate — 83rd Legislature*(2013) District, Member, Party-Residence, Occupation (19 Republicans, 12 Democrats)
2. Robert F. D., R-Greenville; family physician.
5.Charles S., R-Georgetown; surgeon.
25. Donna C., R-New Braunfels; physician.
26. Leticia V., D-San Antonio; pharmacist.

http://www.texasalmanac.com/topics/government/texas-house-representatives
District, Member, Party-Residence, Occupation ( 95 Republicans, 55 Democrats) 2013

24. Greg B., R-Friendswood; neurosurgeon, businessman.
28. John Z., R-Richmond; physician.
39. Armando (Mando) M., D-Weslaco; firefighter, paramedic.
48. Donna H., D-Austin; nursing, public health.
54. Jimmie Don A., R-Killeen; veterinarian, rancher.
56. Charles (Doc) A., R-Waco; veterinarian.
59. J.D. S., R-Gatesville; physician.
71. Susan L. K., R-Abilene; surgical nurse.
91. Stephanie K., R-Fort Worth; nurse, health-care consultant.
Click to expand...

Thank you VERY MUCH! I had no idea any of them were medical professionals. Wonder if any of the Republicans can be persuaded to listen to reason?

I swore I wasn't going to look at this thread again every day, but here I am. This entire situation is so very disturbing.

While I'm here I want to say one other thing. I've noticed that several people have said that they would want everything possible done to bring their fetus to term if they were in this exact situation. I respect your decision & would be appalled if the law required you to be withdrawn from life support against your wishes. For me, the problem is the law dictating the personal beliefs & rights of ANY individual.
 
faw720 said:
Thank you VERY MUCH! I had no idea any of them were medical professionals. Wonder if any of the Republicans can be persuaded to listen to reason?

I swore I wasn't going to look at this thread again every day, but here I am. This entire situation is so very disturbing.

While I'm here I want to say one other thing. I've noticed that several people have said that they would want everything possible done to bring their fetus to term if they were in this exact situation. I respect your decision & would be appalled if the law required you to be withdrawn from life support against your wishes. For me, the problem is the law dictating the personal beliefs & rights of ANY individual.
Click to expand...

I didn't know there were that many either. When you mentioned it earlier in the thread, I knew of one only. Dr. Donna C (representing the Pro-Life party) was very much in the press during Wendy D's (representing the Pro-Choice party) marathon Senate filibuster on women's reproductive rights at the end of the session last year.
I enjoy your commentary in this thread. It helps me. We're learning together.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 167 more.
Total: 1,784 (members: 168, guests: 1,616)

Online statistics

Members online
168
Guests online
1,616
Total visitors
1,784
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
606,701
Messages
18,208,975
Members
233,939
Latest member
CAC6968
Back
Top