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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
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.

It is so easy for all of us to decide how everyone else should conduct their own lives. With total sincerity I hope that none of us is ever confronted with the problems forced upon the Munoz family. They were only trying to comply with Marlise's wishes & JMO, she had been extremely explicit & they felt an obligation to do as she had requested. How would any of us feel if one of our spouse's or relative's wishes were totally ignored. I think most of us would suffer terrible pain, I know I would. This whole thing does not even have to be about a pregnant woman. What if you had a male relative who expressed that he wanted no medical experiments performed on his body? Then some doctor or attorney pops up & says, "Oh, but this is such an unusual case, we must conduct experiments". My mother suffered from dementia for years, but in one of her lucid moments she asked me to not have an autopsy performed unless one was absolutely required. If it had been my decision alone, I would probably have had an autopsy performed in order for the doctors learn more about a brain with dementia. As it turned out, no autopsy was required because she had an attended death. And because I loved her deeply, I honored her request.

Personally, I would like to donate my body to medical science. However, I have some relatives who are violently opposed. I keep trying to convince them & I'm not sure whether or not I'm making any progress. At this point, I'm not sure what will happen.

I just hope that no one here has their end of life requests ignored whatever their wishes might be.
 
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.

So what happens when another family in TX wants to continue life-support on a pregnant brain-dead mother?
 
Here's a 1989 California case where the parents of the teenage brain-dead mother wanted life support disconnected.

http://articles.latimes.com/1989-05-12/news/mn-3070_1_fetus-san-bernardino-county-premature-baby

A brain-dead teen-ager sustained by life-support systems since March because of a thorny legal dispute over the fetus she was carrying delivered the baby by Cesarean section Thursday.

snip

The Riveras, who are divorced, initially had requested that their comatose daughter be allowed to die. Hospital officials refused, and the medical center's director won a court-ordered guardianship of Tanya over her parents' objections.

In court filings, San Bernardino County officials sought to block termination of life sustaining care for the girl, citing rights of her fetus. They argued in court documents that termination of care for Tanya "would be tantamount to aborting the fetus."

The county attorneys argued that Tanya's wishes were unknown, the fetus had a heartbeat and the law governing such cases is unclear.

Hospital officials said they were reluctant to disconnect life-support systems because they were unsure of their legal liability.
 
So what happens when another family in TX wants to continue life-support on a pregnant brain-dead mother?

If it's an instance where the hospital disagrees with the family wishes to continue support for fetal development, then the family would go to court and try to obtain a TRO.
 
Because if you let "this" baby go with mommy, you have to let "that" baby go with mommy. Regardless if the baby is 7 mos, perfect, wanted, etc., etc. Right now the law in tx is if the mother is brain dead and pregnant, life support can be terminated shortly. Nothing else needs to be considered, including the father's/family's wishes, the viability of the fetus, whether it's healthy or not, and so on.

I personally think you are reading to much into this case and how other cases will follow. The law does not cover pregnant brain dead woman under any laws but the law does not state if brain dead she can not stay hooked up to machines. The family would be the ones to make that call or fight in court ( though I doubt that would happen since that means money for the hospital) as to keep her hooked up, not the hospital or the government. I have enough faith in humanity especially when it comes to your own family to say if the baby can survive and live somewhat of a "normal" life the family would chose to keep her on life support.
 
Wonder when they will start a new thread, this one is getting long.
 
So what happens when another family in TX wants to continue life-support on a pregnant brain-dead mother?

Could the approp fam member could bring a judicial action (petition for TRO, temp injunction)
for the hosp not to disconnect?
Like Jahi McMath's mother in CA in Dec 2014?

ETA: Beginner's Luck beat me to it --- if the hosp disagreed w fam's position. Thx BL.

Just pondering. :seeya:
 
I personally think you are reading to much into this case and how other cases will follow. The law does not cover pregnant brain dead woman under any laws but the law does not state if brain dead she can not stay hooked up to machines. The family would be the ones to make that call or fight in court ( though I doubt that would happen since that means money for the hospital) as to keep her hooked up, not the hospital or the government. I have enough faith in humanity especially when it comes to your own family to say if the baby can survive and live somewhat of a "normal" life the family would chose to keep her on life support.

But where is the money for the hospital going to come from? If the woman is brain dead, insurance will likely refuse to pay.
 
If it's an instance where the hospital disagrees with the family wishes to continue support for fetal development, then the family would go to court and try to obtain a TRO.

Assuming they got enough time to do all that. McMaths were given more time than usual before life support was turned off, allowing them to get a lawyer.
It's usually a short time before hospital can turn off life support. Which does not sound good enough for me.
 
Assuming they got enough time to do all that. McMaths were given more time than usual before life support was turned off, allowing them to get a lawyer.
It's usually a short time before hospital can turn off life support. Which does not sound good enough for me.

People can always write their state senator if they would like to see laws changed.
 
Here's a 1989 California case where the parents of the teenage brain-dead mother wanted life support disconnected.

http://articles.latimes.com/1989-05-12/news/mn-3070_1_fetus-san-bernardino-county-premature-baby
BBM

1989 linked article uses two diff terms: brain dead andcomatose. Which was she?
"The Riveras, ...., initially had requested that their comatose daughter be allowed to die. ..."

Does a braindead (person?) experience uterine contractions?
"A San Bernardino Superior Court judge was scheduled to hear arguments in the case Monday. But on Wednesday morning, Tanya began experiencing uterine contractions. Medication stopped the contractions temporarily, but they resumed late Wednesday night."

Was the 15 y/o in fact braindead, comatose, or something else (per/veg state)? This was 25 yrs [edit to delete 15] yr ago.
Even today, some MSM seems to use the terms interchangably. May have been an unintended usage error.

JM2cts.
 
Assuming they got enough time to do all that. McMaths were given more time than usual before life support was turned off, allowing them to get a lawyer.
It's usually a short time before hospital can turn off life support. Which does not sound good enough for me.

This is interesting to me. My 66-year-old Mother was on life support and it took us 10 days to convince the hospital to let us take her off. Once they discovered she had double insurance, they were all for keeping her on life support - indefinitely.

Obviously, she wasn't pregnant - and neither was Jahi. We didn't need a lawyer or a written advance directive. IDK why the hospital, eventually, let us follow my Mother's wishes. But I sure am glad they did. There was never any question, for us, what to do. That didn't make it easy, but easier.
 
BBM

1989 linked article uses two diff terms: brain dead andcomatose. Which was she?
"The Riveras, ...., initially had requested that their comatose daughter be allowed to die. ..."

Does a braindead (person?) experience uterine contractions?
"A San Bernardino Superior Court judge was scheduled to hear arguments in the case Monday. But on Wednesday morning, Tanya began experiencing uterine contractions. Medication stopped the contractions temporarily, but they resumed late Wednesday night."

Was the 15 y/o in fact braindead, comatose, or something else (per/veg state)? This was 15 yr ago.
Even today, some MSM seems to use the terms interchangably. May have been an unintended usage error.

JM2cts.

All articles say the teenager was declared brain-dead on March 15, 1989. The infant girl was born on May 11, 1989. Mother died on May 12, 1989 after support turned off. Baby girl, named after mother died May 13, 1989, two days after birth.
 
All articles say the teenager was declared brain-dead on March 15, 1989. The infant girl was born on May 11, 1989. Mother died on May 12, 1989 after support turned off. Baby girl, named after mother died May 13, 1989, two days after birth.

That article mentions another case, where parents of the brain dead woman wanted life support disconnected. Father of the fetus went to court and got a court order preventing disconnection of life support. That case resulted in a normally developing infant that didn't die.

"Henderson's family had decided to have her disconnected from the life- support system in early June, but Poole rushed into court to block the action, saying he wanted her kept alive long enough for the fetus to develop. At the time, doctors said the fetus had only a 10 percent chance of surviving."

http://articles.philly.com/1986-07-...-henderson-michele-odette-poole-derrick-poole
 
That article mentions another case, where parents of the brain dead woman wanted life support disconnected. Father of the fetus went to court and got a court order preventing disconnection of life support. That case resulted in a normally developing infant that didn't die.

"Henderson's family had decided to have her disconnected from the life- support system in early June, but Poole rushed into court to block the action, saying he wanted her kept alive long enough for the fetus to develop. At the time, doctors said the fetus had only a 10 percent chance of surviving."

http://articles.philly.com/1986-07-...-henderson-michele-odette-poole-derrick-poole

The fetus in this case was 33 weeks. Big difference as compared to 14 weeks, IMO.
 
BBM

1989 linked article uses two diff terms: brain dead andcomatose. Which was she?
"The Riveras, ...., initially had requested that their comatose daughter be allowed to die. ..."

Does a braindead (person?) experience uterine contractions?
"A San Bernardino Superior Court judge was scheduled to hear arguments in the case Monday. But on Wednesday morning, Tanya began experiencing uterine contractions. Medication stopped the contractions temporarily, but they resumed late Wednesday night."

Was the 15 y/o in fact braindead, comatose, or something else (per/veg state)? This was 15 yr ago.
Even today, some MSM seems to use the terms interchangably. May have been an unintended usage error.

JM2cts.

BBM.
Not 15 years ago. 1989 was 25 years ago. That's a long time ago, medically speaking.
 
BBM.
Not 15 years ago. 1989 was 25 years ago. That's a long time ago, medically speaking.

KZ
Thx for correcting (gotta go edit my post).
It was not bad math on my part.:facepalm:
Number-keys on my laptop move around on their own. :banghead: :floorlaugh::tantrum:

Yes, 25 yrs is a long time medically speaking.
 
The fetus in this case was 33 weeks. Big difference as compared to 14 weeks, IMO.

Mother was kept on life support until 33 weeks gestation. She was kept on life support for almost 2 months after being declared brain dead.
 
Ok - 26 weeks when her mother died.

And that was 25 years ago. Medical science advanced a lot since then. There have been several recent cases in which fetus was gestated from 15 weeks to delivery. And yet our laws say brain dead is legally dead and apparently these fetuses have no protection whatsoever if hospital just wants to disconnect the mother. Hospital doesn't even need permission from family to do it. Mr. Munoz didn't want his wife to remain on life support, but many people would want to in this situation, judging by other cases. Yet there is no protection from the law.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
123
Guests online
2,720
Total visitors
2,843

Forum statistics

Threads
602,541
Messages
18,142,215
Members
231,432
Latest member
Elkravetsky
Back
Top