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

[K_Z]

IOn 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.

Respectfully snipped for focus.

I'm one of the posters who hopes there are no protests at the hospital. I thought I had made the distinction clear, but I guess I should have said it better. I fully support the pro life protestors/ demonstrators to protest and demonstrate as much as they wish, but there has to be clear limits placed on where that occurs, IMO.

I strongly believe that protests and demonstrations should NOT take place on the grounds of a hospital, or clinic. I think it is inappropriate, no matter what the group is protesting or demonstrating for, or against. Hospitals and clinics are for health care, and most are private property. It is an unreasonable and unfair disturbance for protestors to demonstrate ON hospital property. It's difficult for patients, staff, and family members of patients, who should have some rights to clear and unobstructed entry, and peace and quiet, etc. It is a terrible emotional and physical imposition on others trying to do their jobs, for protest groups to demonstrate on hospital grounds. It is a distraction that could have negative effects on staff, and the patients they care for. I strongly, strongly believe that protests and demonstrations should never take place on hospital grounds (or clinic grounds), and there should be a wide buffer area as to what is a public space near hospitals and clinics, and appropriate for protest gathering.

Now, the local government should designate some public space, maybe a public area around government buildings, or a public park, or other gathering spot as a "demonstration area", and I'm just fine with that. Provided that the group is peaceful, lawful, and respects the rights of others. I just strongly believe that no group should be able to interfere with the free movement, and the rights of staff, patients, and family members of sick people in hospitals.

The Jahi McMath family-coordinated hospital grounds protests disgusted me. As I watched that situation unfold, those protests became the initial turning point, IMO, for where public sympathy for the grieving and distraught family turned to confusion, then disgust, and anger. The family actually recruited the public to harass and stalk hospital administrators, and posted their personal schedules, personal contact numbers, etc on social media. The family coordinated marches and protests on private grounds. I still cannot believe that was allowed to happen. It is an example of the extreme, IMO, deference, tolerance, and patience that the CHO hospital has demonstrated toward the Mc Math family. The hospital let this happen on private property, and then the family had the gall to complain about "odd" people flooding the lobbies and waiting rooms, and bothering them. Wow.

And yes, it is true, but unsettling to admit that some groups who demonstrate and protest regularly do have very unstable members, and the realistic potential for violence DOES exist. That is basic "threat analysis" and essential intelligence-- what is the history of "this" group? How worried should we be about this group?

There have been extremist pro life groups who have been grim examples of groups with unstable members, who have engaged in horrific, premeditated violence in the name of their cause. Bombing health clinics. Shooting a doctor as he sat in church. Extremist protestors mean that there is a REALISTIC necessity for increased security, in "soft target" areas, to protect the public, and the vulnerable (patients). Hospitals and clinics are soft targets. That is always, always worrisome. IMO.

I'm sure my military background , and my role as a health care professional, colors my perspectives in this area, and makes me more wary and alert than some other folks. FWIW.

I want to add more, lol!

As an example, our family travels by air frequently. I have discussed with my husband and family about what I would do if I found myself in a situation where I observed "worrisome" behavior from others around me. Airports, for example-- if I observe certain behaviors in other passengers, or demonstrators, I will collect our children and as quickly and unobtrusively as possible, remove us from that situation. Even if it means we miss our flight, or are stranded. People working in hospitals, and patients, and family members of sick patients, are "captive" and vulnerable to whatever is going on there on the grounds. In most circumstances, they cannot leave, or stop visiting, or extricate themselves from the situation. It is most unsafe, and unfair, for them to be held captive to the agenda of ANY group.

 

[faw720]

Two different states and two completely different cases.

My Mom was on life support for 10 days before the hospital allowed us to take her off - as per her own wishes. She was 66 years old and the hospital fought us tooth and nail to keep her on life support. They drug their feet on running the tests that would confirm that she was brain dead, though we all knew she was.

Why? $$$

I have a friend who had the same problem with her 90+ year old mom,(obviously not pregnant) who had legal written directives. BTW, this was also in Texas although I'm sure it could happen in other states as well.

I think the Munoz case is a wake-up call for anyone with specific end of life wishes. First of all, our wishes should be in a legal document (not that it would have done Marlise any good), but at least no one would be able to argue about what she wanted. Secondly, we should discuss our end of life wishes with our doctor & determine what his/her beliefs are. We also need to ask the doctor which hospitals in our area would honor legally prepared directives. If the doctor's beliefs do not concur with our own, it's time to find another doctor.

I feel very strongly that any individual's end of life directives should be respected.

 

[jjenny]

Individual directives should be respected? But if directives are to be kept on life support for as long as possible, nobody is going to listen.

 

[faw720]

The latest on this case from the Dallas Morning News.



http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metr...oz-case-fetal-viability-could-be-relevant.ece

 

[faw720]

Individual directives should be respected? But if directives are to be kept on life support for as long as possible, nobody is going to listen.

JMO, It appears to me that a lot directives are ignored.

 

[jjenny]

The latest on this case from the Dallas Morning News.



http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metr...oz-case-fetal-viability-could-be-relevant.ece

I guess we will find out tomorrow whether the hospital appeals. The clock is ticking. If hospital appeals, they could easily run the clock, fetus might become viable, and the game changes. I am pretty sure if fetus becomes vialbe, it has to be considered before life support is turned off.
But I think the hospital can be on the hook for a lot of money if they appeal, the fetus is born, but requires a lot of care.

 

[faw720]

I have a question & because I am NOT a member of the medical profession, I have no idea what would happen in the following situation.

Let's say the case goes to the appeal courts. Of course they can keep the case running out the clock hoping the fetus becomes viable. BUT, what happens if Marlise's dead body shuts down completely of it's own accord before the fetus is viable? What would the hospital do then.........deliver a fetus who is not viable? I'm not at all clear just how long a dead body can be maintained by machines.

 

[jjenny]

I have a question & because I am NOT a member of the medical profession, I have no idea what would happen in the following situation.

Let's say the case goes to the appeal courts. Of course they can keep the case running out the clock hoping the fetus becomes viable. BUT, what happens if Marlise's dead body shuts down completely of it's own accord before the fetus is viable? What would the hospital do then.........deliver a fetus who is not viable? I'm not at all clear just how long a dead body can be maintained by machines.

If her heart stops before fetus becomes viable, even if hospital removes it by c-section, fetus will die (since it hasn't become viable).

 

[Softail]

Jobin Panicker ‏@jobinpnews 1m
Family tells me that yesterday they had a chance to say goodbye to #MarliseMunoz at hospital.

https://twitter.com/jobinpnews

 

[faw720]

If her heart stops before fetus becomes viable, even if hospital removes it by c-section, fetus will die (since it hasn't become viable).

Yes, but would the hospital try to force the fetus to viability even though any such efforts would be in vain? They could hook it up to machines & tubes just like they did Marlise.

I really wonder if medical ethics & common sense have taken a long 'vacation' when it comes to this issue.

 

[faw720]

Jobin Panicker ‏@jobinpnews 1m
Family tells me that yesterday they had a chance to say goodbye to #MarliseMunoz at hospital.

https://twitter.com/jobinpnews

My question is, how did they KNOW with any certainty that they were saying their final goodbyes?

 

[Softail]

My question is, how did they KNOW with any certainty that they were saying their final goodbyes?

Perhaps the hospital has indicated that they won't appeal? :dunno:

 

[DeeMarie]

The latest on this case from the Dallas Morning News.



http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metr...oz-case-fetal-viability-could-be-relevant.ece

"John Peter Smith Hospital spokeswoman J.R. Labbe said in an email Saturday that the county-funded hospital is still consulting with the Tarrant County district attorney’s office. Discussions are ongoing, she said."

Oh no I thought this nightmare was over with! Please give Marlise Muñoz back to her family and let her rest in peace!

 

[jjenny]

Yes, but would the hospital try to force the fetus to viability even though any such efforts would be in vain? They could hook it up to machines & tubes just like they did Marlise.

I really wonder if medical ethics & common sense have taken a long 'vacation' when it comes to this issue.

Viable means able to survive outside the uterus.
If it's not viable, it will not be able to survive.
If the fetus is premature, they can do the same thing they do with other premature infants. It can be put on its own ventillator. I am not sure if they will need father's consent for that.

 

[Softail]

Marlise Munoz's life support removal order mulled by hospital

Executives from a Texas hospital conferred with the county district attorney's office Saturday to determine their next step, after a judge ordered the hospital to remove a pregnant, brain-dead woman from life support.

Officials from John Peter Smith Hospital and the Tarrant County district attorney's office, which is representing the county-owned hospital, met to discuss Judge R. H. Wallace Jr.'s order regarding Marlise Munoz, hospital spokeswoman J.R. Labbe said. She declined to say whether a possible appeal was being discussed, but said an announcement wouldn't come Saturday.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/marlise-munoz-s-life-support-removal-order-mulled-by-hospital-1.2511425

 

[Wendy101]

Good call Judge..

 

[craftybatchy]

I am in complete support of Mr. Munoz's wishes in this matter.

Attempting to bring a very early 2 nd tri fetus to viability inside a corpse has little to do with the 'right to life' movement. If anything, it speaks to a Hospital Administration having a serious case of institutional grandiosity and a couple of lawyers with an axe to grind against the pro-choice camp.

I suspect that somewhere in this ethical and medical disaster is a physician or two wanting to see just how far the envelope (in this case, the uterus) can be pushed. Case in point - JPS FW, TX is first and foremost a teaching hospital with an active research faculty.

http://www.jpshealthnet.org/For-Medical-Professionals/Obstetrics-and-Gynecology.aspx

 

[K_Z]

I have a friend who had the same problem with her 90+ year old mom,(obviously not pregnant) who had legal written directives. BTW, this was also in Texas although I'm sure it could happen in other states as well.

I think the Munoz case is a wake-up call for anyone with specific end of life wishes. First of all, our wishes should be in a legal document (not that it would have done Marlise any good), but at least no one would be able to argue about what she wanted. Secondly, we should discuss our end of life wishes with our doctor & determine what his/her beliefs are. We also need to ask the doctor which hospitals in our area would honor legally prepared directives. If the doctor's beliefs do not concur with our own, it's time to find another doctor.

I feel very strongly that any individual's end of life directives should be respected.

BBM. Agreed! Except.......it isn't that simple, unfortunately.

I agree, we should all do our due diligence, as ,uch as possible, when we choose our health care providers. But more and more, patients are less able to “control” who that person is, or will be, when a medical situation occurs, electively or urgently. And with the new “Obamacare” consequences, choice will become more and more limited in some rural geographic areas. We already have geographic mandatory service areas carved out, and some insurers pulling out of some areas, leaving very limited choice of providers.

It’s really sad for me to think we may actually have to come to a place in health care where individual providers may have to “disclose” their political and religious beliefs to their community and patients, just a politicians do now. Merely discussing with your provider what their end of life, or religious/ moral/ ethical/ political views are is really not enough. What about emergencies? On call situations? Lack of other available providers to switch to, if the one in front of you doesn’t share your beliefs?

Reference my post earlier in the thread (I’ll find it and add it in to this post) about women who thoroughly discussed their choice of having a tubal ligation following the birth of their child, cleared this with their insurance provider (Medicaid, in most all of these circumstances I have been involved in) and then were faced with a different doc on call who does not agree with ANY woman having a tubal, at the very time when they are being prepped for a semi-urgent (not life threatening) c-section. That is a vulnerable woman who made her wishes known well in advance, her insurance company agreed, she had informed consent, and simply because a “pro life” doc is on call, she is forced to have another hospitalization at another time, with more cost to her and the insurance company, and more risk from another more complicated surgical procedure, another anesthetic, and the loss of time from work (for most women, very low paying jobs, who have, multiple children, and are single parents). This is obviously not an end of life situation, but a clear example of patients held hostage to the religious/ ethical/ moral beliefs of the ONLY provider available. That in itself is unethical, IMO, especially when this provider's beliefs are at odds with 99.99999% of practicing providers in that specialty.

No patient should be held hostage to the religious and political beliefs of their doctor or health care provider—that is absurd in the extreme. But it does happen. And many time the ones held captive to the beliefs of the doctor or provider are vulnerable themselves, by educational inequality, intellectual inequality, socioeconomic status, personality, sickness, stress, debilitation, altered level of consciousness. It is an inherently unequal power position—sick people seeking health care, and the “powerful” and knowledgable healthcare providers. The last thing patients should have to be worried about when faced with important health care decisions, is “what are the religious beliefs, political affiliation, and moral and ethical persuasions of this provider, and will my wishes be honored?” It’s very sad and disturbing that we have come to this.

I’m picturing something like a political score card being posted in waiting rooms and local newspapers, like those who are running for office. Do we make all health care providers fill out a detailed religious/ethical/ political position questionnaire, and make the results public? Dr. XYZ, followed by letters indicating their religious affiliation, political party, and whether they will follow end of life directives, and whether they are pro choice or pro life, etc. Imagine how ridiculous that would be? Should we have all health care providers wear color coded stickers on their name tags, so everyone knows at a glance without asking what their political and religious positions are? Where does it end?

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - With pregnant wife unresponsive on life support, husband hopes to fulfill her wishes

 

[K_Z]

I am in complete support of Mr. Munoz's wishes in this matter.

Attempting to bring a very early 2 nd tri fetus to viability inside a corpse has little to do with the 'right to life' movement. If anything, it speaks to a Hospital Administration having a serious case of institutional grandiosity and a couple of lawyers with an axe to grind against the pro-choice camp.

I suspect that somewhere in this ethical and medical disaster is a physician or two wanting to see just how far the envelope (in this case, the uterus) can be pushed. Case in point - JPS FW, TX is first and foremost a teaching hospital with an active research faculty.

http://www.jpshealthnet.org/For-Medical-Professionals/Obstetrics-and-Gynecology.aspx

BBM. Which make it even more disturbing that these people in this situation actively avoided the scientific and ethical oversight and consensus models of the scientific method-- no ethics committee involvement, no investigational review board approval, no research protocols, no informed consent, etc.

Obscene in the extreme, for a research hospital to engage in this method of unapproved "care". Really, really disturbing. IMO. Opportunistic and politically motivated experimentation, IMO.

 

[faw720]

Perhaps the hospital has indicated that they won't appeal? :dunno:

Makes me wonder?