The entire case was about whether state law mandates it or not. The Court found that it didn't, but that doesn't make it a "hospital error." The statute didn't define patient and didn't refer to the UDDA. jmo
TX - pregnant wife unresponsive on life support, husband hopes to fulfill her wishes
- Thread starter Softail
- Start date
New Posts
-
-
NC NC - Brandon McDonald, 35, truck found wrecked, Bladen Co, 25 Mar 2021 *reward*
- Latest: imstilla.grandma
The entire case was about whether state law mandates it or not. The Court found that it didn't, but that doesn't make it a "hospital error." The statute didn't define patient and didn't refer to the UDDA. jmo
SophieRose
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2011
- Messages
- 2,924
- Reaction score
- 3,100
Actually there was a Florida teenage girl declared brain dead back in 1994 and she received Medicaid.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...7IcAAAAIBAJ&sjid=WnwEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5724,6628293
hambirg
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2011
- Messages
- 3,380
- Reaction score
- 22
Well, I guess that means the Munoz's insurance should cover it then. Idk. . that was medicaid though. Hmmm. . .
Fairy1
VOTE!!!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2008
- Messages
- 10,277
- Reaction score
- 3,417
Are you implying that Marlise's family and insurance company are responsible for the hospital forcing her to be on life support for two months - against their wishes and hers?
It may not be considered "hospital error" but it most certainly was hospital attorney error. The failure here cannot be attributed to Marlise's family.
SophieRose
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2011
- Messages
- 2,924
- Reaction score
- 3,100
I don't know about that, though, all insurance has gotten tighter since 1994. Just saying it had happened.
BeginnersLuck
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2012
- Messages
- 4,003
- Reaction score
- 54
The hospital understands UDDA and they are aware that when brain death is determined, that date is noted in the chart as the date of death. If she's dead she is no longer a patient. For the criteria to apply of not withdrawing life support from a brain dead patient then that would need to be written into the brain death law.
It's a no brainer as far as I'm concerned. Someone clearly overstepped their bounds.
When did the law go into affect where life support cannot be withdrawn from pregnant patients? I want the hospital to prove that they gave every female a pregnancy test either before withdrawal of life support or death support since that law came into effect. If this wasn't a practice for them to do so, then someone IMO, made that decision to do this with Mrs. Munoz because of their beliefs instead of following the law.
It very well may have been the hospital attorney and maybe a select few others that went above the law with Mrs. Munoz and her family. It needs to be investigated.
Linked story is from 20 yrs ago, 1994.
Seems braindead patients would have been relatively rare then?
Perhaps Medicaid regs did not consider brain death as equivalent to death in 1994, so would pay for services to the braindead?
If so, perhaps Medicaid regs re braindeath have changed and now would not provide payment for services to the braindead?
From my quick search for FL legislative history, I could not tell when FL enacted UDDA.
JM2cts. :seeya:
Slightly O/t at the moment, but from links below....
http://www.braindeath.org/clinical.htm procedures re BD testing
http://www.braindeath.org/confirm.htm a list of confirmatory tests
JM2cts.
"General Considerations and Prerequisites:
Brain death examination is usually performed by neurologists or neurosurgeons and is a direct consequence of their involvement in the care of patients with an acute brain injury. Unavailability of these specialists in the neurosciences, however, still allows clinical determination of brain death by a medical or surgical intensivist, anesthesiologist, or a pediatrician. There is a general consensus that transplant surgeons should not be involved in the clinical diagnosis or indications for confirmatory tests. It is equally obvious that physicians who diagnose brain death should have experience in order to reduce errors or the neglect of key elements of the neurologic examination."
Brain death examination is usually performed by neurologists or neurosurgeons and is a direct consequence of their involvement in the care of patients with an acute brain injury. Unavailability of these specialists in the neurosciences, however, still allows clinical determination of brain death by a medical or surgical intensivist, anesthesiologist, or a pediatrician. There is a general consensus that transplant surgeons should not be involved in the clinical diagnosis or indications for confirmatory tests. It is equally obvious that physicians who diagnose brain death should have experience in order to reduce errors or the neglect of key elements of the neurologic examination."
http://www.braindeath.org/clinical.htm procedures re BD testing
http://www.braindeath.org/confirm.htm a list of confirmatory tests
JM2cts.
IMO, the following links contain some good information on Judge Wallace.
It appears that he has had a very distinguished career & he is also active in the Tarrant Co. Republican party. The second link is especially informative on his distinguished career.
JMO, the law must have been crystal clear with absolutely no 'wiggle room' or Judge Wallace would not have ruled as he did. His ruling probably went against both his personal & political beliefs. His decision will likely cause him to lose friends & political allies. Texas Republicans are pro life in the extreme.
Again, JMO, he probably consulted with other highly placed legal experts, possibly even the Texas Supreme Court, before making his decision.
http://tcgop.org/gov-perry-appoints-wallace-as-judge-of-the-96th-district-court/
http://www.zoominfo.com/p/R.H.-Wallace/6234413
Quote: Fairy1" I do believe if there was any possibility this fetus could have come to term or viability without "severe disabilities," the judge would have found a way to allow the disgusting travesty to continue. I think we all know the fetus was not in "perfect shape."
Just curious to your opinion, If the baby had been in perfect shape would you still feel that to continue her life would have been a disgusting travesty?
On the flip side of this, I think if the family had wanted to continue, there would be many on their side and some would not think this was disgusting to do so. IMO
Just curious to your opinion, If the baby had been in perfect shape would you still feel that to continue her life would have been a disgusting travesty?
On the flip side of this, I think if the family had wanted to continue, there would be many on their side and some would not think this was disgusting to do so. IMO
BeginnersLuck
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2012
- Messages
- 4,003
- Reaction score
- 54
I think if a family or mother (considering she had advanced directives) wants to continue with all the measures that are necessary to try and produce a viable fetus, they should be informed on the entire process. It would be a physicians responsibility to educate the family on what will happen and what the odds are, just like in any other medical state. If hospitals disagree with the family in this situation, then they can address it in court just like in the McMath case.
I don't think it's appropriate to ask a poster about what they "feel". This isn't a abortion debate.
This case is based on laws that were applied inappropriately and as a result it caused harm.
What they did with Mrs. Munoz body and the fetus is experimental. They had no right by law or any other criteria to do so. If they try and force this into some kind of law, then the experimental nature/outcome of long term vent support needs to be addressed.
The fact that the law didn't define the term "patient" was the problem. Same when a material term is undefined in a contract.
snipped from the link:
Although some statutes appear simple and straightforward at first glance, you may find, upon further examination, that the terms of the statute do not directly address your legal issue. Statutory terms may be ambiguous because the enacting legislature did not consider the exact factual situation that you are analyzing when the statute was being drafted and debated. Additionally changing circumstances might require that an old statute be applied to new issues that the enacting legislature did not expect or could not have foreseen.5
There are several tools that can help you to determine the meaning of an ambiguous statute, or to choose between multiple plausible interpretations of the same statute.
* * *
Statutory Definitions
Many statutes contain a definitions section that sets forth and defines the key terms used in the statute. You might find these definitions either in the section of the statute you are analyzing, or more likely, in one of the first sections of the act. Sometimes these specific terms are codified as definitions for a chapter or title of the relevant statute, meaning that they are intended to apply to the entire chapter or title (unless otherwise specified). These definitions are important because they suggest that Congress intended for a term to have a specific meaning that might differ in important ways from its common usage.
http://www.law.georgetown.edu/acade...ing-center/upload/statutoryinterpretation.pdf
One of the legislators who drafted the Texas law admitted that it had never occurred to them that it would be applied to a "dead" patient. He stated that this scenario had just not ever occurred to them. He as much as admitted that the law as written was flawed.
Sorry if I offended you by asking another poster a question about what they think. There are posts on WS about people think, not always backed up buy facts or links. I guess because she stated her thoughts I assumed it was ok, again my apologies and I am sure she will be glad you answered for her.
Yes. This sentence from the link I posted just above says pretty much exactly that:
"Statutory terms may be ambiguous because the enacting legislature did not consider the exact factual situation that you are analyzing when the statute was being drafted and debated."
BeginnersLuck
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2012
- Messages
- 4,003
- Reaction score
- 54
I wasn't offended, nor did I answer for her. I just expressed my opinion about pressuring someone about their beliefs.
I would like to see the thread remain on topic so the legal aspects of this can continue to be discussed, along with how this situation has affected the Munoz family.
I would like to learn from what the family has to say in the future.
"One of the legislators who drafted the Texas law admitted that
it had never occurred to them that it would be applied to a "dead" patient.
He stated that this scenario had just not ever occurred to them.
He as much as admitted that the law as written was flawed. ...
.... helped draft the latest version of the advance directive section of the Texas Health and Safety Code in 1999,
said that he does not recall discussing that aspect of the law."
BBM SBM
http://www.star-telegram.com/2014/01/23/5509944/texas-law-didnt-anticipate-dead.html#
Respectfully it appears the professor spoke based on only his personal memory about events from ~15 years ago?
Do TX legislative archives such as committee minutes, floor debate summaries,
other written materials recorded then, support his Jan 2014 stmt?
Poss that committee minutes, floor debate summaries, etc, reflect that
leg'rs did consider whether this would apply to braindead patient. Maybe not.
Aside from his participation as a legislator in 1990s, what is his current
personal, political, or business agenda?
May not matter.Just wondering.
it had never occurred to them that it would be applied to a "dead" patient.
He stated that this scenario had just not ever occurred to them.
He as much as admitted that the law as written was flawed. ...
.... helped draft the latest version of the advance directive section of the Texas Health and Safety Code in 1999,
said that he does not recall discussing that aspect of the law."
BBM SBM
http://www.star-telegram.com/2014/01/23/5509944/texas-law-didnt-anticipate-dead.html#
Respectfully it appears the professor spoke based on only his personal memory about events from ~15 years ago?
Do TX legislative archives such as committee minutes, floor debate summaries,
other written materials recorded then, support his Jan 2014 stmt?
Poss that committee minutes, floor debate summaries, etc, reflect that
leg'rs did consider whether this would apply to braindead patient. Maybe not.
Aside from his participation as a legislator in 1990s, what is his current
personal, political, or business agenda?
May not matter.Just wondering.
Hi BL and everyone...BL I am just jumping off your post as it seems to be one of the more neutral and non heated posts and your posts always seem to be really well thought out as well as most everyones here. I usually just read and not respond much but sometimes I just can't seem to be able to do that so I just wanted to put my 2cts/MHO here. And this is just my opinion and not trying to start an argument but it is my honest belief that when our time is up and God calls us home He really does know what is best...He knows what the future holds whereas we as humans do not. This is not to say that He will not grant or answer our prayers when asking anything be it be the life of a brain dead mother or the life of an unborn fetus/baby but will all need to be careful what we ask for because He does allow for our will/prayers to be done and NOT His will. When this happens we need to be willing to accept the responsibilty for what comes next..It may well be a very abnormal fetus/baby be that in the form of pyhsical deformities (which I think most of us would be able to handle) but what if the form of abnormality comes in the form of severe pain, inability to swallow, eat, ect. That I for one could not handle but that is just me. I just don't think that my God who created and loves each one of us beyond any love that we can imagine wants this for any of us but He will allow it to happen when we insist upon our own will and not listen to Him.. As I stated this is all JMOHO and my belief and everyone is entitled to agree or disagree to each others opinon.
I could go on but I am not trying to start an argument or force my opinon on anyone but just wanted to state MO..I am a very slow typer and do not respond often so that may be the case here but know that I am reading everyones viewpoint. One other thing I truly believe God has given all of us the ability to learn and it is MO that all the advances we have made in all things whether it be life and death matters or the weather has come from Him but we all need to know when to step back from doing what we want and just Let God!!! JMO
sweets
BeginnersLuck
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2012
- Messages
- 4,003
- Reaction score
- 54
Thank you for such a beautiful, well worded post!