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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

The man does not have a say as a man, or her husband - the choice was hers, which she made known to him. It could easily have been expressed to a sister, a female partner, her father, anyone. It isnt ceding her choice to her husband (which I am totally against - her body, her choice, and Until men are the ones who have to carry the fetus and deliver it, they get no choice), it is him/her mother/father/whoever seeing that HER expressed wishes are carried out.

The state should get zero say in that. And how much are you willing to bet that those same male lawmakers who enacted this crazy law would be the same lawmakers who would vote to absolutely NOT fund the care and upbringing of the child? :furious:
 
This situation is not about elective termination of a pregnancy, IMO.

It's about "wrongful life", removal of the rights of a once living woman who expressed her wishes, and removal of the rights of the surviving spouse to allow his wife's body, along with her not even remotely viable fetus (at 14 weeks) to not remain on organ support (she is dead-- so it is not a right to die case, IMO).

The state of Texas is forcing a dead woman's body (not a living patient) to continue to gestate an early second trimester fetus, who was not even close to viable, who sustained a one hour plus duration of cardiac arrest and hypoxia from a ventilation/ perfusion mismatch in the mother from her massive pulmonary embolism. That is staggering to any health care professional. Just staggering.

It is also about opportunistic, politically motivated fetal experimentation, unregulated, and unconsented. IMO.

Because of the "compulsory ventilation and support" situation imposed on this woman's body (erroneously, IMO, as she ceased to be a "patient" the instant she was declared brain dead), I think this could well be a very clear cut case of "wrongful life" if the fetus is delivered alive, as well as a bunch of other civil claims, IMO.

I don't think the fetus is doing well at all, or we would have heard "something" about how "well" it is doing, by now. JMO.

Wrongful life - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wrongful birth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://www.texasmonthly.com/content/wrongful-life

http://carneades.pomona.edu/2009-Law/nts-0506.shtml
 
Gardenlady said:
The man does not have a say as a man, or her husband - the choice was hers, which she made known to him. It could easily have been expressed to a sister, a female partner, her father, anyone. It isnt ceding her choice to her husband (which I am totally against - her body, her choice, and Until men are the ones who have to carry the fetus and deliver it, they get no choice), it is him/her mother/father/whoever seeing that HER expressed wishes are carried out.

The state should get zero say in that. And how much are you willing to bet that those same male lawmakers who enacted this crazy law would be the same lawmakers who would vote to absolutely NOT fund the care and upbringing of the child? :furious:
Click to expand...

I would agree, but if it's not in writing, how do we know that? I would feel completely different if she had a written directive specifically addressing this situation. But that's not the case here. That is a whole other issue that doesn't apply in this case. The law can not assume what her intentions were without them being directly expressed. Her husband cannot send in a proxy vote. He's not entitled to that right.

It's like if your great aunt Getrude told you her intentions were to leave you her entire estate, but she died without a will. You just can't go to the state and say, "Well, she wanted to leave me everything." They would laugh you out of the state.
 
K_Z said:
This situation is not about elective termination of a pregnancy, IMO.

It's about "wrongful life", removal of the rights of a once living woman who expressed her wishes, and removal of the rights of the surviving spouse to allow his wife's body, along with her not even remotely viable fetus (at 14 weeks) to not remain on organ support (she is dead-- so it is not a right to die case, IMO).

The state of Texas is forcing a dead woman's body (not a living patient) to continue to gestate an early second trimester fetus, who was not even close to viable, who sustained a one hour plus duration of cardiac arrest and hypoxia from a ventilation/ perfusion mismatch in the mother from her massive pulmonary embolism. That is staggering to any health care professional. Just staggering.

It is also about opportunistic, politically motivated fetal experimentation, unregulated, and unconsented. IMO.

Because of the "compulsory ventilation and support" situation imposed on this woman's body (erroneously, IMO, as she ceased to be a "patient" the instant she was declared brain dead), I think this could well be a very clear cut case of "wrongful life" if the fetus is delivered alive, as well as a bunch of other civil claims, IMO.

I don't think the fetus is doing well at all, or we would have heard "something" about how "well" it is doing, by now. JMO.

Wrongful life - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wrongful birth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://www.texasmonthly.com/content/wrongful-life

http://carneades.pomona.edu/2009-Law/nts-0506.shtml
Click to expand...

I understand what you are getting at, but wrongful life? Really?

This mother is not able to choose to have an abortion. She is deceased. Wrongful life does not apply here. The mother somehow passing up the opportunity to choose to have an abortion because some misinformation is not even remotely possible in this case.
 
It's not just her husbands word, her own parents have both said she told them she wouldn't want to be kept on life support. But it's not even a question of her not having put her wishes in writing, even if she had, Texas law would disregard it because she's pregnant. And no one has ever suggested she have an abortion. From Merriam-Webster: abor·tion noun \ə-ˈbȯr-shən\
: a medical procedure used to end a pregnancy and cause the death of the fetus

Full Definition of ABORTION

1
: the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: as
a : spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation — compare miscarriage
b : induced expulsion of a human fetus
c : expulsion of a fetus by a domestic animal often due to infection at any time before completion of pregnancy — compare contagious abortion
2
: monstrosity
3
: arrest of development (as of a part or process) resulting in imperfection; also : a result of such arrest
Thank you for the links, K-Z. I hope that if the outcome of this tragedy is compounded by a gravely handicapped child, the father can possibly sue using the "wrongful life" action.
This article has some heartbreaking photos of this beautiful family. I hope that they're able to change this barbaric law. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tal-refusing-turn-life-support-baby-born.html
 
Gardenlady said:
.

And how much are you willing to bet that those same male lawmakers who enacted this crazy law would be the same lawmakers who would vote to absolutely NOT fund the care and upbringing of the child? :furious:
Click to expand...

You've got that right!!!!!! Since I am a Texan, I feel I have the right to say that some of our lawmakers are the biggest nut jobs in the world. :tantrum:
 
While I understand them keeping her on a ventilator til the baby reaches a viable point.

What would happen if they turned the ventilator off? Would the baby suffocate? Then if this baby survives is the family gonna take care of it? What is gonna happen if a miracle happens and the baby has no health issues. One day he/she will become a teenager. What if that child googles her mom and sees that her family wanted to turn off life support. Oh my I don't know this is such a sad case no matter how you look at it.
 
faw720 said:
You've got that right!!!!!! Since I am a Texan, I feel I have the right to say that some of our lawmakers are the biggest nut jobs in the world. :tantrum:
Click to expand...

It's ok, we all have nutjob lawmakers of one sort or another...just maybe like everything else in Texas you have bigger ones there? :giggle:

(I spent a year in Texas, and loved the people there, politics aside, btw!) :)
 
spamelope said:
It's not just her husbands word, her own parents have both said she told them she wouldn't want to be kept on life support. But it's not even a question of her not having put her wishes in writing, even if she had, Texas law would disregard it because she's pregnant.
Click to expand...

RSBM~

This is the worst of it, right here. Even if she'd put it in writing, her wishes, her decision, means nothing, because the law specifically supersedes it.

So you have adult women, making an adult choice, for their own bodies - but the state says "nope, we don't care what you want, we are making the decision for you because you have a uterus". It's unbelievably scary, and just so demeaning, to assume that women are unable to have the foresight to take a possible pregnancy into consideration, and make decisions for themselves!
 
K_Z said:
This situation is not about elective termination of a pregnancy, IMO.

It's about "wrongful life", removal of the rights of a once living woman who expressed her wishes, and removal of the rights of the surviving spouse to allow his wife's body, along with her not even remotely viable fetus (at 14 weeks) to not remain on organ support (she is dead-- so it is not a right to die case, IMO).

The state of Texas is forcing a dead woman's body (not a living patient) to continue to gestate an early second trimester fetus, who was not even close to viable, who sustained a one hour plus duration of cardiac arrest and hypoxia from a ventilation/ perfusion mismatch in the mother from her massive pulmonary embolism. That is staggering to any health care professional. Just staggering.

It is also about opportunistic, politically motivated fetal experimentation, unregulated, and unconsented. IMO.

Because of the "compulsory ventilation and support" situation imposed on this woman's body (erroneously, IMO, as she ceased to be a "patient" the instant she was declared brain dead), I think this could well be a very clear cut case of "wrongful life" if the fetus is delivered alive, as well as a bunch of other civil claims, IMO.

I don't think the fetus is doing well at all, or we would have heard "something" about how "well" it is doing, by now. JMO.

Wrongful life - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wrongful birth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://www.texasmonthly.com/content/wrongful-life

http://carneades.pomona.edu/2009-Law/nts-0506.shtml
Click to expand...

I would like to encourage everyone to take the time to read these links. There is some very good information.

The Texas Monthly article is especially informative on what can happen when a fetus is delivered extremely early. (20 ish weeks) It clearly shows that doctors don't just wave a magic wand & suddenly have a "happily-ever-after baby" on their hands. If certain medical measures are taken just to sustain life, the fetus can suffer excruciating pain & in addition have severe permanent disabilities. In the case sited, the parents are lovingly caring for this child but what happens to the child if the parents should die? Why on earth would anyone want a child to suffer?
 
Gardenlady said:
RSBM~

This is the worst of it, right here. Even if she'd put it in writing, her wishes, her decision, means nothing, because the law specifically supersedes it.

So you have adult women, making an adult choice, for their own bodies - but the state says "nope, we don't care what you want, we are making the decision for you because you have a uterus". It's unbelievably scary, and just so demeaning, to assume that women are unable to have the foresight to take a possible pregnancy into consideration, and make decisions for themselves!
Click to expand...

I do agree with this. I think if a woman leaves a written directive, specifically addressing the "if she is pregnant" issue (I imagine it would have to have some wording addressing first trimester, etc) that her wishes should be granted. BUT that's not the case here. There is no written directive. The state can't assume her wishes no matter how many people tell them what they think they were.

MOO
 
faw720 said:
Here is a link to a similar situation, in Texas no less. In this instance we have a 25 week pregnant woman with the flu. Doctors told the husband they had to either take the baby by C-section or risk loosing both mother & child. The husband authorized the C-section & a baby was delivered that only lived 5 days.

http://www.wfaa.com/news/health/flu...ling-Influenza-Loses-her-Child-240002331.html

Why the difference???????????
Click to expand...

faw
Although in a medically induced coma for a couple weeks, the hospitalized preg woman was not brain dead and nowhere near brain death.
From link: Doctors put her in a medically-induced coma the week before Christmas.

And thanks, faw, for your link to news of Munoz fam lawsuit vs hosp.
 
Husband of brain-dead, pregnant woman suing to remove life support

By Janet Shamlian and Tracy Connor

The husband of a brain-dead, pregnant woman filed suit Tuesday to force a Texas hospital to remove her from life support.

Marlise Munoz, 33, was 14 weeks pregnant when she collapsed in her home in November from what doctors believe was a pulmonary embolism.

Her husband, Erick Munoz, says doctors have described her as brain-dead and his wife was clear that she would not want to be kept alive in those circumstances...

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...t-woman-suing-to-remove-life-support#comments
 
Elley Mae said:
Husband of pregnant, brain-dead woman sues to have her removed from life support in Fort Worth

http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/...removed-from-life-support-in-fort-worth.html/

http://www.scribd.com/doc/199649449/Erick-Munoz-Sues-JPS
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting the link with the court document attached. The following is speculation by me. I am assuming it was filed in Family District Court since Family Law is the specialty of the attorneys hired by Erick.

If my assumption is correct there are 7 Family Law Judges 3 of whom are female. There 8 Associate Family Law Judges, 7 or whom are female.

I noticed on the document it does not state which District this was filed in. If anyone learns which district, please let me know. I can then let go to the Tarrant Co. website & let everyone know the name of the judge hearing this case. IMO a female judge will be more sympathetic than a male judge. I may be wrong, but the male species in Texas are really into telling women how to handle their reproductive decisions.

We also need to be mindful that no judge wants their rulings overturned on appeal. That is also a consideration in this case.
 
hambirg said:
I do agree with this. I think if a woman leaves a written directive, specifically addressing the "if she is pregnant" issue (I imagine it would have to have some wording addressing first trimester, etc) that her wishes should be granted. BUT that's not the case here. There is no written directive. The state can't assume her wishes no matter how many people tell them what they think they were.

MOO
Click to expand...

Wondering if religious beliefs would have any relevance in this case? There was a case in 1996 where a woman who had been in a coma for 10 years became pregnant after a sexual assault. Her parents chose to continue the pregnancy. The victim had been a practicing Catholic, so her choice would seem obvious to follow the church's teachings on the subject.

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/01/25/nyregion/woman-29-still-in-10-year-coma-is-pregnant-by-a-rapist.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

More info from article about the rapist being denied parole.
Kathy had been in a chronic vegetative state since a car accident in 1985 when she was 19. Her pregnancy was discovered in late 1995, and she gave birth prematurely to a son in March 1996. She died a year later, never having regained consciousness.
Doctors said it was the first time a woman in her condition become pregnant and given birth.
Click to expand...

http://www.apnewsarchive.com/2004/N-Y-Man-Who-Raped-Woman-Is-Denied-Parole/id-def5f64087d161ada7d6a51c3a32d2e1

The baby was adopted by her grandmother.
The comatose woman, whose identity was never revealed but became known publicly as "Kathy," gave birth to a son. Kathy later died and her grandmother adopted the boy.
Click to expand...
http://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/local/2013/12/04/convicted-rapist-john-horace-back-in-jail-/3871953/
 
kincaid said:
Wondering if religious beliefs would have any relevance in this case? There was a case in 1996 where a woman who had been in a coma for 10 years became pregnant after a sexual assault. Her parents chose to continue the pregnancy. The victim had been a practicing Catholic, so her choice would seem obvious to follow the church's teachings on the subject.

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/01/25/n...egnant-by-a-rapist.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

More info from article about the rapist being denied parole.


http://www.apnewsarchive.com/2004/N...ed-Parole/id-def5f64087d161ada7d6a51c3a32d2e1

The baby was adopted by her grandmother.
http://www.democratandchronicle.com...ted-rapist-john-horace-back-in-jail-/3871953/
Click to expand...

I'm sure religious beliefs are relevant in this case. Not only are Catholics opposed to anything that would cease a pregnancy but some Evangelical Christians as well. Some other protestant religions would allow for common sense in a case this extreme. I'm not talking wholesale abortion or termination, only a pregnancy that is completely hopeless with a dead mother being used as a guinea pig.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 168 more.
Total: 2,229 (members: 169, guests: 2,060)

Online statistics

Members online
169
Guests online
2,060
Total visitors
2,229
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
599,484
Messages
18,095,846
Members
230,862
Latest member
jusslikeme
Back
Top