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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

jjenny said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes - and 25 years ago, could the first responders have brought Marlise "back to life?" Such as it was.
 
Fairy1 said:
Yes - and 25 years ago, could the first responders have brought Marlise "back to life?" Such as it was.
Click to expand...

She was never brought back to life since she ended up brain dead. We couldn't fix the dead brian then and we can't do it now.
 
jjenny said:
She was never brought back to life since she ended up brain dead. We couldn't fix the dead brian then and we can't do it now.
Click to expand...

Correct. Maybe we should just let people go when they have no pulse and are blue. Is that God's call or not?
 
Here's one from 2006 in Arizona. Mother brain-dead for six weeks before delivering baby at 30 weeks.

http://www.azcentral.com/specials/special42/articles/0925birth0925.html

He looked over at his wife, just 10 feet away. He was frozen, wanting to go to his wife, wanting to stay with the baby.

But in minutes, the choice was made for him. With the baby stable, she was carried to her mother. For a few minutes, the two lie side by side. Aaron bent down and squeezed his eyes shut, kissing his wife, then the baby, then Veronica again.

It was the last time mother and child would be together alive. Nurses took the baby to the neonatal unit, and Veronica was taken back to her hospital room.

During the next few hours, Aaron moved between the two areas of the hospital, welcoming his daughter and preparing to tell his wife goodbye.

He decided to wait to remove the life support until this morning. He doesn't want baby Veronica to share a birthday with the death of her mother.
Click to expand...
 
al66pine said:
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.
Click to expand...

2010 article on management of a brain-dead pregnant mother, previously posted here.
http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1741-7015-8-74.pdf

After 24 weeks of gestation, glucocorticoids should be administered for fetal lung maturation and prophylaxis of fetal respiratory distress syndrome
[38,39]. To prevent preterm uterine contractions, in particular in the early weeks of gestation when no fetal lung maturation is yet provided, tocolytic interventions may be needed.
Click to expand...
 
jjenny said:
But where is the money for the hospital going to come from? If the woman is brain dead, insurance will likely refuse to pay.
Click to expand...

This case has brought attention to the expense of hospital care, specifically the enormous costs of the care necessary to maintain a brain-dead pregnant woman for the length of time needed to bring her fetus to viability.

My thoughts are that where there is a great enough demand for a particular kind of insurance that the insurance industry will provide that kind of insurance. If a pregnant woman has decided that she would want her brain dead body kept in a functioning state for some time, then she could take out an insurance policy which would cover the costs of her care should that happen to her.

Estimates of the JPS bill to EM start at $300,000. Jahi Mcmath's care has been estimated to cost at least $7,500 per day. I'm assuming that a woman who makes the decision to be kept on medical support in this situation would not want to bankrupt her family for following her wishes. Therefore, she would need some means of establishing financial aid for her family to cover extraordinary medical expenses not covered by a standard Health Care Insurance package.

Perhaps someone with an understanding of the insurance industry would want to comment on the likelihood of this kind of insurance becoming available.

On a semi-related topic, I just want to say that there are no guarantees that every conception will result in a healthy live birth. No matter how wanted a baby may be, for many and varied reasons miscarriages and ectopic pregnancies happen. Babies can die within minutes of being born. Babies can die when the woman carrying them dies.
 
SophieRose said:
Here's one from 2006 in Arizona. Mother brain-dead for six weeks before delivering baby at 30 weeks.

http://www.azcentral.com/specials/special42/articles/0925birth0925.html
Click to expand...

That mother had breast cancer but decided to not undergo treatment so the baby could be saved.
So she basically guaranted her own death to save her baby.
But per some people when she went brain dead that should have been the end of it. Because after all it's so expensive to keep a brain dead person on life support.

"Yuma, Ariz., Sep 28, 2006 / 12:00 am (CNA).- A Yuma family is welcoming a new baby girl this week after a two month journey that included a battle with cancer and the death of the child’s mother. Veronica Destiny Celis was born September 24th after her mother chose to forgo chemotherapy and offer her own life for that of the child."

http://m.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=7719
 
This was such a sad case in my opinion. It has probably worked out best for the baby because the father clearly did not want this child. Even before, he knew something was wrong with the baby, he wanted life support removed. Just my opinion.
 
Fairy1 said:
Correct. Maybe we should just let people go when they have no pulse and are blue. Is that God's call or not?
Click to expand...

Speaking of God............for anyone who believes in God, I think this is an appropriate scripture that applies, in some instances, to this case.

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-7-1_7-5/

If you are a non-believer, no need to take the time to read.

It is not my intention to offend anyone. Peace to all.
 
I think it's unfair to make assumptions about the father or Mrs. Munoz family. How many people have really ever heard of BD pregnant women, being ventilated for prolonged time periods? In a state of trauma, shock and grief, I think most would initially think that if the mother is gone so is the fetus. Mrs. Munoz mother and husband were educated enough, to understand that Mrs. Munoz was gone and question why they were trying to revive her, when she coded for a second time.

Once it was relayed to Marlise's family, that the hospital was not going to remove support due to her pregnancy, I think it was rather shocking because it is basically a "unheard of" practice. Given she was only 14 weeks, the thought of going against the wishes of the mother and family and the length of time her body would be kept like that, combined with high likelihood of damage done to the fetus when Mrs. Munoz died, they may have thought the hospital was crazy and this was unheard of.

Had the baby been at or near full gestation and the fetus after testing was not showing any signs of damage, IMO, I think families and physicians would agree to attempt delivery of the baby before support is removed.

Mrs. Munoz, was not anywhere near full term when this happened and there would be no need for the family to comment on circumstances in any different scenario besides the one that they endured.
 
I think I would feel differently if the she had stated that she didn't want life support EVEN if she was pregnant. I know most would not think of this kind of thing when they are pregnant because it is quite rare. I know initially, even with a written statement, in the beginning, it would not have mattered to the hospital anyway without the court order.

I still find it hard to imagine that she would be dead for almost an hour and still be able to be revived, and then be revived again in the hospital. Also I find it odd that the baby was so deformed that they could not determine the sex, but the day the husband got the court order it was determined that the baby was probably female. I wonder how many days it was in between "could not determine the sex" to "probably a female".
 
jjenny said:
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.
Click to expand...

You keep saying that but it's just seriously not the case. There has not been one recorded case of a brain dead pregnant mother whose family wants the baby, but the hospital pulled the plug or threatened to do so. Not. One. And that's because if the family determines that the pregnancy should continue and the child be given a chance to be born, it is no longer a case of futile life support.

Further, even if the totally improbable happened, and some crazy hospital stated they were going to disconnect support against the family's wishes and terminate the pregnancy, the public outcry would be so incredible, and it would be seriously easy for the family to go to court and get an injunction.

This is just not a reasonable concern, in my legal opinion. We do not live in communist China or Nazi Germany where the authorities can force people to have abortions. In our country, as we can all easily see, it is not the right to carry a baby that is threatened. It's the right not to.
 
jjenny said:
But where is the money for the hospital going to come from? If the woman is brain dead, insurance will likely refuse to pay.
Click to expand...

That would be something to take up with the insurance company not state laws. If the insurance company does not want to start covering the baby at that point then the family would have to pay out of pocket. Of course that would suck but you do what you have to do for your kids.
 
gitana1 said:
You keep saying that but it's just seriously not the case. There has not been one recorded case of a brain dead pregnant mother whose family wants the baby, but the hospital pulled the plug or threatened to do so. Not. One. And that's because if the family determines that the pregnancy should continue and the child be given a chance to be born, it is no longer a case of futile life support.

Further, even if the totally improbable happened, and some crazy hospital stated they were going to disconnect support against the family's wishes and terminate the pregnancy, the public outcry would be so incredible, and it would be seriously easy for the family to go to court and get an injunction.

This is just not a reasonable concern, in my legal opinion. We do not live in communist China or Nazi Germany where the authorities can force people to have abortions. In our country, as we can all easily see, it is not the right to carry a baby that is threatened. It's the right not to.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but at least one teaching physician at a well-respected US University has considered the issue worthy of discussion. I'm guessing he's not the only one.

http://bioethicsdiscussion.blogspot.com/2011/02/should-dead-pregnant-womans-body-be.html
 
Ladylub said:
That would be something to take up with the insurance company not state laws. If the insurance company does not want to start covering the baby at that point then the family would have to pay out of pocket. Of course that would suck but you do what you have to do for your kids.
Click to expand...

And what if the family doesn't have insurance or can't even come close to affording the treatment?

eta: I think the vast majority of people would fall into at least the latter category. Probably at least 90% if not more.
 
Elley Mae said:
o/t
This is in London, England but I thought it could happen here as well. jmo idk
http://www.independent.co.uk/incomi...an-section-on-mentally-ill-woman-9101048.html
High Court judge gives permission for forced caesarean section on mentally ill woman
Click to expand...

From linked article:
"....woman, who was 32 weeks pregnant and is diabetic, was unable to make a rational decision over how to give birth.
The judge said a decision "compelling" a caesarean section was "draconian",
but concluded that the woman lacked the mental capacity to regulate her diabetic medicine and monitor her own intake of food and water...
The court heard that the woman was thought to be suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and had attempted suicide.
The woman's husband also has mental health difficulties and had initially opposed a caesarean section
but had changed his mind and agreed to the surgery." BBM SBM

Several weeks past viability?
32 y/o woman lacked mental capacity for self care, and ParaSchizo?

Very interesting, but different from M. Munoz.
JM2cts & I may be wrong. :seeya:

Healing thoughts to patients, fam & friends of all.
 
http://texasfreethoughtjournal.net/article/religion-corrupts-advance-directives-and-medical-care


Maintaining neomorts for whatever purpose – in this case, to bring a fetus to term or near-term – is immensely more complicated than the news articles have suggested, raising ethical, moral, legal, financial, religious, medical, personal, familial, and public policy questions that have no simple answers in spite of our desires to make them simple. Without question, to use a body as a neomort would require the advance consent of the person whose body is used in this way and/or the consent of the next of kin. But this is not the case with the body of Marlise Munoz.
Click to expand...

But it is the Roman Catholic Church that has been most responsible for assuring that the Texas Legislature passes laws that follow its church doctrine, rather than medical science. The last major revision of the Directive to Physicians law in Texas was lobbied heavily by the church. In fact, nothing could be passed through the Legislature without the church’s blessing. When public policy is made on the basis of church doctrine, rather than science and reasoning, tragedies such as the one inflicting great grief on the Munoz family will persist.

A recent example of the danger of basing public policy on church doctrine is found in the way a Catholic hospital treated (or failed to treat) a pregnant woman in medical distress. In December 2010, Tamesha Means was rushed to the only hospital in her county in Michigan – a Catholic hospital – when her water broke after 18 weeks of pregnancy. Because of directives written by the United States Conference of Bishops, the hospital sent her home, though she was in excruciating pain and was at risk of serious harm to her health. This happened a second time.
Click to expand...

Tamesha Means case along with links to other cases under the article

https://www.aclu.org/reproductive-f...s-v-united-states-conference-catholic-bishops

Religion needs to stay out of law, science and medicine and stick within their own profession. MOO
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 162 more.
Total: 2,080 (members: 163, guests: 1,917)

Online statistics

Members online
163
Guests online
1,917
Total visitors
2,080
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
600,190
Messages
18,105,152
Members
230,991
Latest member
lyle.person1
Back
Top