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

[oh_gal]

You were making speculations that we already know are simply not plausible in this specific case, and then accusing others of not understanding what you were saying and splitting hairs. So pardon me for calling out devil's advocacy that is no longer really valid.

Just to be clear: I didn't "accuse"; I asked. Please go back and re-read my post(s), if you need further clarification.

 

[jjenny]

Looking at Table 1 at the link it seems that none of the fetuses under 15 weeks gestational age at the time of maternal BD survived. Even with the study being so small it seems that the younger the gestational age at the time of maternal BD the less chance of survival for the fetus.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3002294/

From the article:
In general, we recommend that there be no clear lower limit to the gestational age which would restrict the physician's efforts to support the brain-dead mother and her fetus.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3002294/[/QUOTE]

 

[BeginnersLuck]

And as we study these cases, outcomes are likely to get better. That's how we learn on how to improve treatments.
So I certainly don't agree with Mr. Munoz's laywer said something to the effect that many pregnant women die, and their fetuses die with them. And this is how it should be.
What if we said, well, many people with heart failure die. This is how it should be.
For some reason we try to treat heart disease and don't just accept this is what nature wants. A lot of people would be dead if we just accepted that's what nature wants.

The nature of this is experimental though. There are only a few cases to study and many, many variables that can affect the outcome of the fetus. The amount of oxygen a fetus receives, in a brain dead body over a prolonged period of time is one factor IMO, that would have a strong impact on the fetus. As the body deteriorates, the oxygen supply to the fetus will also deteriorate. (med professionals, correct me if I'm wrong) It takes a great deal of careful management of the body to see that the fetus receives what it necessary because of the brain lacks the ability to produce the chemicals that maintain other organs. Is the fetus receiving nutrients? As the body further decays with time, the likelihood of the fetus receiving what is necessary to survive decreases.

They can study fetus development in brain dead bodies if the family agrees to this. They can ask families to donate bodies to science to study this further. They cannot force families to endure the agonizing pain that the Munoz family went through. They cannot say we are going to conduct a scientific experiment and you are going to pay for it financially for the rest of your life.

There is a right way and a wrong way of conducting scientific research.

 

[jjenny]

The nature of this is experimental though. There are only a few cases to study and many, many variables that can affect the outcome of the fetus. The amount of oxygen a fetus receives, in a brain dead body over a prolonged period of time is one factor IMO, that would have a strong impact on the fetus. As the body deteriorates, the oxygen supply to the fetus will also deteriorate. (med professionals, correct me if I'm wrong) It takes a great deal of careful management of the body to see that the fetus receives what it necessary because of the brain lacks the ability to produce the chemicals that maintain other organs. Is the fetus receiving nutrients? As the body further decays with time, the likelihood of the fetus receiving what is necessary to survive decreases.

They can study fetus development in brain dead bodies if the family agrees to this. They can ask families to donate bodies to science to study this further. They cannot force families to endure the agonizing pain that the Munoz family went through. They cannot say we are going to conduct a scientific experiment and you are going to pay for it financially for the rest of your life.

There is a right way and a wrong way of conducting scientific research.

I realize perfectly well Mr. Munoz didn't want his wife kept on life support. And his fetus is very abnormal, so there seems to be little point in proceeding with the pregnancy at this time.
But not everybody is going to feel the same way he does. And some fetuses will be able to develop normally.
But the law doesn't consider wishes of the family, or condition of the fetus.
All that apparently matters is whether the mother is legally dead.

 

[Elainera]

On another topic, I have seen posts hoping there will be no protests from right to lifers. I hope the family is protecfted from more grief. However, there are people who feel strongly that disconnectinbg life support here is murder to the unborn child. This is America.They have a right to their beliefs and to civilly protest. Thus far, I have seen no evidence, despite asking, that any such protestors have acted cruelly, rudely, or in a threatening manner to this family. They truly belive a little baby is being murdered. Imagine how horrified and saddened they feel right now. I think our world would be a better place if everyone tried to put themselves in the shoes of the other and tried to imagine how they feel and why and not simply brush them off as stupid and wrong.

snipped for focus

The Thanks button wasn't enough Gitana! You are truly a wise and caring person. Thank you!

 

[BeginnersLuck]

Most recent update 1/25, 2:40pm CST


http://www.star-telegram.com/2014/01/25/5512786/hospital-told-to-take-pregnant.html

The Star Telegram is reporting that hospital executives were conferring Saturday (today) with DA to determine their next step.

JMO, that doesn't sound good.

BTW, this link DOES work. After my morning problems with links people probably won't think I'm trustworthy.

That article clearly illustrates that the actions taken with Mrs. Munoz's body are due to a political agenda. What the hospital should be discussing at this point is damage control.

People can't go around breaking laws, just because of their own beliefs.

 

[BeginnersLuck]

Looking at Table 1 at the link it seems that none of the fetuses under 15 weeks gestational age at the time of maternal BD survived. Even with the study being so small it seems that the younger the gestational age at the time of maternal BD the less chance of survival for the fetus.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3002294/

The young gestational age, combined with the length of time after BD that the body acts as a incubator, seems to be a huge factor.

That's why in the chart, it is recommended if the fetus is at a viable stage outside of the womb when BD occurs, delivery should proceed.

 

[Donjeta]

And as we study these cases, outcomes are likely to get better. That's how we learn on how to improve treatments.
So I certainly don't agree with Mr. Munoz's laywer said something to the effect that many pregnant women die, and their fetuses die with them. And this is how it should be.
What if we said, well, many people with heart failure die. This is how it should be.
For some reason we try to treat heart disease and don't just accept this is what nature wants. A lot of people would be dead if we just accepted that's what nature wants.

I can certainly see both sides here.

If I think about it emotionally, as a mother, if it was me pregnant and brain dead, I would want the hospital to do anything humanly possible to save my baby if there is a chance that my baby could make it into some kind of meaningful existence. When it succeeds I'm sure that it is hard for anyone to look at the surviving infants and say that saving them was wrong. And I think many mothers who chose to became a living incubator for a very much desired child would not mind too much being used as brain dead incubators if they could see the child laughing and playing, growing, being loved and giving love in return. Even their families might see the pain of watching the loved one deteriorate as worth it if they could expect a baby in the end, a baby that was part of their beloved deceased woman.

But as it's still a very difficult and uncertain process, many families whose doctors tried the same went through an incredibly difficult time visiting the lost loved one and seeing a machine breathing for her, seeing her change into a dead stranger, and in the end they got nothing for the pain, just weeks or months of uncertainty and a very small body to bury eventually. Is it right to force them to go through with it?

I think a categorical law that says that all pregnant women must or must not be kept on life support in order to try to save the baby can't be the way to go, as the circumstances and the chances of succeeding and the family attitudes vary greatly and one size does not fit all.

Nature is not a good argument as there are many things happening in the nature that are not good and desirable and vice versa imo. Many of us wouldn't be here now discussing this if nature had been allowed to take its course without medical interference. It's a logical fallacy to equate natural with goodness. If keeping brain dead women on life support is unethical, it is not because it's unnatural.

Appeal to nature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[SophieRose]

Here is one of the early cases of a brain dead mother in the USA. It happened in 1986 in California and the b-d mother carried the baby for 7.5 weeks to 32.5 weeks. The baby was much further along, but there were the same questions in those early days, and back then unwed father's had no rights to the infant.

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20094313,00.html

By Monday, Edna Henderson had changed her mind. She asked a social services counselor at Santa Clara Kaiser, to which Odette was now transferred, to inform Poole that she wanted her daughter taken off life support. Poole says the counselor told him, "I want you to understand that she has every right to pull the plug." The counselor's bosses were not so sure. Kaiser hospital doctors and administrators debated the case. Who had the right to decide the fate of Odette's body and the baby within her? Did the rights of the legal kin take precedence over those of the unwed father? Did the baby, still in its second trimester, have rights as a person, and if so, were those rights subordinate to the wishes of Mrs. Henderson? The hospital called in as a consultant Dr. John Golenski, a Jesuit priest who specialized in medical ethics.

Derrick, meanwhile, was taking action. Fearing that a decision to cut off the life support system was imminent (though hospital officials say this was not the case), Derrick contacted the local Right to Life chapter and enlisted the services of attorney Mark Swendsen. The lawyer applied to the Santa Clara County Superior Court, where Judge John Flaherty agreed that the unborn baby could not be denied its civil rights. In what ethicist Golenski called a "remarkable" decision, Flaherty granted a temporary restraining order against Kaiser. Also remarkable, Flaherty referred to the fetus as "Baby Poole," after the unwed father. On June 25 Mrs. Henderson agreed to keep Odette's body functioning; she also gave custody of the baby to Poole.

 

[Karmady]

That article clearly illustrates that the actions taken with Mrs. Munoz's body are due to a political agenda. What the hospital should be discussing at this point is damage control.

People can't go around breaking laws, just because of their own beliefs.

By the DA or by the Hospital?

First, I don't think meeting with the DA necessarily means anything. I'm sure they've got plenty to discuss whatever they plan to do.

Second, since it's a County Hospital and they're being represented by the State, basically, I'm not sure how much say the Hospital has regarding how to proceed. I didn't realize until someone posted it recently that this wasn't a private hospital with private counsel like the McMath situation.

 

[gitana1]

That article clearly illustrates that the actions taken with Mrs. Munoz's body are due to a political agenda. What the hospital should be discussing at this point is damage control.

People can't go around breaking laws, just because of their own beliefs.

Sure they can. Rosa Parks broke the law when she refused to sit at the back of the bus. Various government officials have broken the law when they granted marriage licenses to same sex couples. My grandparents broke various laws institued by the Nazis in occupied Holland.

The people who forced Marlise Munoz' body to remain attached to life support may feel they are engaged in a moral act of civil disobedience necessary to save life. Such people feel they are engaged in just as important s life or death srruggle as my grandparents did.

P.S. I am typing on a tablet so forgive my typos.

 

[jjenny]

Here is one of the early cases of a brain dead mother in the USA. It happened in 1986 in California and the b-d mother carried the baby for 7.5 weeks to 32.5 weeks. The baby was much further along, but there were the same questions in those early days, and back then unwed father's had no rights to the infant.

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20094313,00.html

I found some further updates on that case. But per Mr. Munoz's lawyer, apparently when the mother dies, the fetus dies, and this is how it should be.

"Today Michele is a healthy, talkative and teething toddler with a proud father who has no doubt that he made the right choice."

http://articles.latimes.com/1987-08-16/news/mn-1709_1_brain-tumor

 

[SophieRose]

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2012/04/family_celebrate_twins_birth_a.html

Wonder how these twins are doing born in Michigan in 2012. Her organs were donated.

Bolden was declared brain dead at Spectrum Health days later, on March 6 — the same date an obituary lists as the date of her death.

But as family learned she was gone, they were hit with other news that brought on a wave of strongly conflicting emotions: Bolden’s twins appeared to be just fine.

She carried them for nearly a month, while on life support, until their birth by cesarean section April 5.

Though the boys remain in the hospital — after being born premature at 25 weeks — family now say they are thanking God that a part of Christine Bolden will live on.

 

[faw720]

IMO, the extreme right to life people certainly have the rights to their own beliefs, but who gives them the authority to force their opinions on others. You never see the pro choice telling the right to life people that they absolutely must have an abortion. The pro choice don't kidnap a woman & force her to have an abortion. And this isn't even an abortion issue! it's a matter of God, for whatever reason, deciding Marlise should die & at 14 weeks, & under normal circumstances, the baby also. If she had been further into the pregnancy it would have been an entirely different situation. No one seems to care if the fetus/baby is suffering because it is residing in a brain dead woman. JMO, no one seems to be concerned about the fetus/baby except they demand to see it born. How cruel & calloused is it possible to be? What about the trauma being forced on the family? No one seems to care! Who the heck has the right to force another human to adhere to the beliefs of others? You may say the law, but laws have been known to be barbaric & unreasonable. Personally, I don't believe in the death penalty, but Texas executes people with a gusto.

 

[BeginnersLuck]

Sure they can. Rosa Parks broke the law when she refused to sit at the back of the bus. Various government officials have broken the law when they granted marriage licenses to same sex couples. My grandparents broke various laws institued by the Nazis in occupied Holland.

The people who forced Marlise Munoz' body to remain attached to life support may feel they are engaged in a moral act of civil disobedience necessary to save life. Such people feel they are engaged in just as important s life or death srruggle as my grandparents did.

P.S. I am typing on a tablet so forgive my typos.

There are some with some very odd and harmful beliefs out there.....that's what I was referring to. (not talking about anything to do with this these situations)

The hospital has no right to cause the family more pain and suffering by their actions. They have no right to subject the fetus/baby to pain and suffering. The hospital has no right to jeopardize the well being of the father and surviving son by putting them in financial ruin because there is a one in a million chance there would be a good outcome with their experiment.
What they did caused harm unlike the situations that you mentioned.

Like I said before, if they want to conduct a scientific experiment there are proper ways to go about it and this wasn't the right or legal way.

 

[walkingdeadgirl]

Yes, the fetus would have passed naturally but so would someone who needs a heart transplant. I am not sure why nature intened for this fetus to die as opposed to people with all kind of problems that we fix through medical intervention. Should we stop treating everybody because that is what nature wants?

Because the mother is brain dead. A heart transplant is medical intervention to save someone's life. You can't cure dead. This woman is dead. If she had never been hooked up to machines like some Frankenstein experiment, the fetus would have died when she died. You said it yourself..."all kinds of problems that we fix". This isn't one of those cases.

 

[ceecee30]

I can certainly see both sides here.



If I think about it emotionally, as a mother, if it was me pregnant and brain dead, I would want the hospital to do anything humanly possible to save my baby if there is a chance that my baby could make it into some kind of meaningful existence. When it succeeds I'm sure that it is hard for anyone to look at the surviving infants and say that saving them was wrong. And I think many mothers who chose to became a living incubator for a very much desired child would not mind too much being used as brain dead incubators if they could see the child laughing and playing, growing, being loved and giving love in return. Even their families might see the pain of watching the loved one deteriorate as worth it if they could expect a baby in the end, a baby that was part of their beloved deceased woman.



But as it's still a very difficult and uncertain process, many families whose doctors tried the same went through an incredibly difficult time visiting the lost loved one and seeing a machine breathing for her, seeing her change into a dead stranger, and in the end they got nothing for the pain, just weeks or months of uncertainty and a very small body to bury eventually. Is it right to force them to go through with it?



I think a categorical law that says that all pregnant women must or must not be kept on life support in order to try to save the baby can't be the way to go, as the circumstances and the chances of succeeding and the family attitudes vary greatly and one size does not fit all.

Respectfully snipped...

I could not agree more with all of this, especially the last paragraph.

A case by case basis after every test possible to see how the fetus is developing and also taking into consideration how the family feels.

The family should always have a say...

 

[walkingdeadgirl]

Nothing to do with "soul occupation." The fetus is still within its Mother. They both should be allowed to pass without medical intervention, at this point.

They are together and they are loved. Not sure what the unicorn reference is about, but to each his own.

Well, yes it does have to do with it. If someone believes a person's soul moves on when they die (brain death) then the mother is gone already and the thing that is left is her empty husk. If someone believes a soul moves on at the death of the body, even if brain death has occurred, then the mother is still there.

I like to think every good place has unicorns.

 

[Donjeta]

IMO, the extreme right to life people certainly have the rights to their own beliefs, but who gives them the authority to force their opinions on others. You never see the pro choice telling the right to life people that they absolutely must have an abortion. The pro choice don't kidnap a woman & force her to have an abortion. And this isn't even an abortion issue! it's a matter of God, for whatever reason, deciding Marlise should die & at 14 weeks, & under normal circumstances, the baby also. If she had been further into the pregnancy it would have been an entirely different situation. No one seems to care if the fetus/baby is suffering because it is residing in a brain dead woman. JMO, no one seems to be concerned about the fetus/baby except they demand to see it born. How cruel & calloused is it possible to be? What about the trauma being forced on the family? No one seems to care! Who the heck has the right to force another human to adhere to the beliefs of others? You may say the law, but laws have been known to be barbaric & unreasonable. Personally, I don't believe in the death penalty, but Texas executes people with a gusto.

It is also a belief that everyone doesn't share that deaths are a consequence of God's decisions, but life support mechanisms don't always succeed so I think that if God wants someone dead He can probably achieve that despite man made machines.

 

[Wolfie]

They can study fetus development in brain dead bodies if the family agrees to this. They can ask families to donate bodies to science to study this further. They cannot force families to endure the agonizing pain that the Munoz family went through. They cannot say we are going to conduct a scientific experiment and you are going to pay for it financially for the rest of your life.

There is a right way and a wrong way of conducting scientific research.

This.

You don't do experimental procedures on somebody who doesn't consent, or in this case, somebody whose family doesn't consent.