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

[jjenny]

The bottom line in this case is that it never mattered what Marlise may or may not have wanted. That's what bothers me. That a woman who was alive and productive and loved was reduced to nothing more than an incubator. That should matter to all women, no matter we are in the stages of life. She didn't matter to them.

She matters to me.

It would not have mattered if she wanted to remain on life support either.
I am not sure why someone wishes to remain on life support should be ignored, but to not remain honored.

 

[Fairy1]

It would not have mattered if she wanted to remain on life support either.
I am not sure why someone wishes to remain on life support should be ignored, but to not remain honored.

It wouldn't have mattered with regard to the viability of the fetus, no. But that's not really here nor there in this case. Marlise was clinically dead when life support was administered. That should have been the end of it.

 

[Donjeta]

Yes. You're absolutely right. You have cited to cases that prove it is not only possible, it has been done. I'm acknowledging that and the fact that because there have only been three cases similar to Munoz's case, medical ethicists believe part of what should be asked in such cases is, apparently on an individual basis, is it possible at all?



Me either. I am so glad they got a no nonsense judge who was not afraid to make a sensible, compassionate decision for everyone concerned.

I'm a little late to this discussion but I think it's probably "more possible" to maintain a healthy fetus in a brain dead mother for months if the brain death was caused by a primary brain process and the mother was attached to all sorts of equipment before there was prolonged systemic hypoxia such as that caused by Ms. Munoz's pulmonary insult. If there was, say, brain swelling as a consequence of TBI but the mother was already being treated in a hospital at the time the victim's fetus would probably fare better than someone who had a cardiac arrest and then it took some time for the help to arrive.

No link to back it up, it just makes sense to me. There are very few cases of brain dead women hosting an infant on life support to begin with, and then even fewer, if any, cases of brain dead women in MM's condition that would be in any way comparable as to the circumstances. So imo the statistics wouldn't be able to tell us much about the odds of succeeding in each individual case. It'd have to be up to the best educated guesses of the doctors who know the mothers and their circumstances and take into account that most hospitals probably have very little experience doing this sort of thing and could be doing something wrong.

 

[K_Z]

The bottom line in this case is that it never mattered what Marlise may or may not have wanted. That's what bothers me. That a woman who was alive and productive and loved was reduced to nothing more than an incubator. That should matter to all women, no matter where we are in the stages of life. She didn't matter to them.

She matters to me.

I strongly agree. This whole situation has been very depersonalizing, and disrespectful to the woman, and the TX citizen, that was Marlise Munoz. She only "mattered" insofar as she had an occupied uterus. I cannot imagine how painful, disrespectful, and filled with anguish this entire process has been for her family, friends, and loved ones.

I hope the order is not challenged, and her family is allowed to gather and pay their final loving respects as her earthly body finishes its journey.

And I do hope that there is litigation to hold the hospital responsible for what they have wrongfully done. Hopefully, this situation will set a precedent that others will heed, so this doesn't happen again.

 

[Karmady]

The way the law is, no. Hospital doesn't have to honor a directive of someone who wants to remain on life support after brain death.
Brain dead is legally dead. Fetus that is not yet viable is considered then dead as well. Even if it's perfectly normally developing and could become viable in a short time.
I don't think that makes for a very good law.

I don't think the law that the judge ruled on addresses the situation. I need to go to sleep, but I'll try to articulate what I mean better tomorrow.

 

[jjenny]

I don't think the law that the judge ruled on addresses the situation. I need to go to sleep, but I'll try to articulate what I mean better tomorrow.

I believe the judge ruled correctly based on what the law is. Brain dead woman is legally dead (pregnant or not). Therefore she is not a pateint and should not be on life support.
How would that work out for someone who wanted to remain on life support?
Hospital has the right to turn off life support without permission from the family, or what brain dead person wanted.
Brain dead but pregnant woman is still legally dead. Therefore hospital has a right to turn off her life support even if she wanted to remain on life support.
That's just what the law is.

 

[CHERIE.T]

It wouldn't have mattered with regard to the viability of the fetus, no. But that's not really here nor there in this case. Marlise was clinically dead when life support was administered. That should have been the end of it.

Really? Not here nor there with this case?

Hummmm

 

[NevadaMom]

I don't think the law that the judge ruled on addresses the situation. I need to go to sleep, but I'll try to articulate what I mean better tomorrow.

I think I might get what you are saying...

It's been mentioned that the hospital misinterpreted the law. If that is the case - intentional or not on their part - it needs to be addressed and verbiage changed so it's not ambiguous.

Is the choice of disconnecting the pregnant woman going to be left up to the family?

If a deceased woman is not a patient how will such care be billed if the family chooses to keep her on support?

Could the fetus be considered the patient? (I'm not even sure that's an actual possibility, but stranger things have happened)

If the fetus can be considered the patient, then there's a potential loophole for the hospital to use to do this again under the guise of the rights of the fetus ..

In saying that Erick Muñoz was in the right, it opened up another can of worms that the judge declined to address from what I gather.

 

[NevadaMom]

I believe the judge ruled correctly based on what the law is. Brain dead woman is legally dead (pregnant or not). Therefore she is not a pateint and should not be on life support.
How would that work out for someone who wanted to remain on life support?
Hospital has the right to turn off life support without permission from the family, or what brain dead person wanted.
Brain dead but pregnant woman is still legally dead. Therefore hospital has a right to turn off her life support even if she wanted to remain on life support.
That's just what the law is.

BBM.

The hospital *didn't* want to turn off support though because they felt that honoring the fetus over the deceased person was what the law stated they were to do.

 

[jjenny]

BBM.

The hospital *didn't* want to turn off support though because they felt that honoring the fetus over the deceased person was what the law stated they were to do.

And the judge told them they were wrong. She is dead, so that law didn't apply to her.

 

[jjenny]

I think I might get what you are saying...

It's been mentioned that the hospital misinterpreted the law. If that is the case - intentional or not on their part - it needs to be addressed and verbiage changed so it's not ambiguous.

Is the choice of disconnecting the pregnant woman going to be left up to the family?

If a deceased woman is not a patient how will such care be billed if the family chooses to keep her on support?

Could the fetus be considered the patient? (I'm not even sure that's an actual possibility, but stranger things have happened)

If the fetus can be considered the patient, then there's a potential loophole for the hospital to use to do this again under the guise of the rights of the fetus ..

In saying that Erick Muñoz was in the right, it opened up another can of worms that the judge declined to address from what I gather.

The way the law is, disconnecting brain dead pregnant woman will be up to the hospital, not the family.
Since hospital has the right to turn off life support without permission from the family.
I don't believe fetus that is not yet viable is considered a patient.
Insurance likely will not pay for a brain dead pregnant woman to remain on life support since she is legally dead, and medical insurance is for the living.
So there we go.

 

[Elley Mae]

I do wonder now what did happen to her and will an autopsy now be performed to determine COD. I know that the hospital has stopped performing abortions and now know that they don't want to follow wishes of patients. I am not sure why the hospital dug in their heels on this. I do hope the law is re-written or amended and sent to every hospital and every lawyer at every hospital has to sign it saying they understand exactly how to apply the law in the future.

 

[faw720]

I do wonder now what did happen to her and will an autopsy now be performed to determine COD. I know that the hospital has stopped performing abortions and now know that they don't want to follow wishes of patients. I am not sure why the hospital dug in their heels on this. I do hope the law is re-written or amended and sent to every hospital and every lawyer at every hospital has to sign it saying they understand exactly how to apply the law in the future.

JMO,I think the reason that the hospital "dug in their heels" was that initially one or more of the attending doctors were pro life in the extreme because of either religious or political beliefs. I believe there were also other doctors who thought the situation was hopeless. At that point the case was "bumped upstairs" to the administrator who immediately consulted with a hospital attorney. The hospital attorney interpreted the law incorrectly according to Judge Wallace's ruling. Then there is also the factor that the administrator & attorney possibly allowed their own personal beliefs to determine their course of action.

BTW, I have been listening intently to the local news this morning. I have not heard one word about the District Attorney's office responding to the ruling. Yesterday, they said they would be issuing a statement "later in the day". Apparently, that did NOT happen. Hopefully, the lack of a statement indicates they do not plan to appeal. This case is a political hot potato & they may just be hoping people forget about it when election day gets here.

 

[Elley Mae]

She had stopped breathing, but was alive when she arrived at the hospital, according to court documents.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/25/u...life-support-from-pregnant-woman.html?hp&_r=0

 

[faw720]

Here is a link to the 1/26 Fort Worth Star-Telegram article. This article also includes a statement from Governor Rick Perry as well as a statement from Texas Attorney General Greg Abbot.

The way I am interpreting this article is that the hospital has the right to file an appeal any time prior to the 5pm deadline on Monday. If that is the case, I suspect we won't hear any additional news until sometime Monday.

I so hope that Judge Wallace's decision will not be appealed.lease:

I'm a ditz........I forgot to include the link.

http/www.star-telegram.com/2014/01/24/551176/fetus-in-munoz-case-is-not-viable.html

Ugh!!!! Something is wrong with that link. I'll try again.

Think I now have the link fixed.

 

[Linda7NJ]

I would hope the family was allowed has said their final good-byes in private and she's no longer at the hospital...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Softail]

Hmmmm.... Yesterday there was an article that said the DA would issue a statement last night. I don't see anything anywhere. I hope that means they are not going to appeal. :twocents:

 

[faw720]

Let's try this Star Telegram link again.

http://www.star-telegram.com/2014/01/24/551176/fetus-in-Munoz-case-is-not-viable.html

Do not know what I am doing wrong. This link first gives the message that the page is not available but in a few seconds the home page of the Star Telegram pops up & you can read the article there.

If anyone knows how to get the direct link, please help me out & post it. IMO, it is well worth the read.

Thanks.

 

[alliemay]

http://www.star-telegram.com/

Is this the article you were trying to post, not sure.

 

[K_Z]

JMO,I think the reason that the hospital "dug in their heels" was that initially one or more of the attending doctors were pro life in the extreme because of either religious or political beliefs. I believe there were also other doctors who thought the situation was hopeless. At that point the case was "bumped upstairs" to the administrator who immediately consulted with a hospital attorney. The hospital attorney interpreted the law incorrectly according to Judge Wallace's ruling. Then there is also the factor that the administrator & attorney possibly allowed their own personal beliefs to determine their course of action.

BTW, I have been listening intently to the local news this morning. I have not heard one word about the District Attorney's office responding to the ruling. Yesterday, they said they would be issuing a statement "later in the day". Apparently, that did NOT happen. Hopefully, the lack of a statement indicates they do not plan to appeal. This case is a political hot potato & they may just be hoping people forget about it when election day gets here.

I agree that it was probably just a couple docs and 1-2 administrators who set this situation in motion, and kept it going this long.

I think it would be very important to do an multidisciplinary incident evaluation to determine chain of decision making, and implement policies for future situations. If the hospital were completely ethical, they would engage in professional transparency, and release a sanitized version (no names) in one or more professional journals. IMO. There is much to be learned about developing policies and procedures to protect hospitals from liability for rogue docs and administrators. I would think that by doing that, they could potentially mitigate their liability, and begin to show some professional integrity, along with rehabilitating their image.

But I doubt that they will. They have already been told in a legal and very public way that they engaged in horrible decision making. And that's not just the docs, but the administrators who supported the situation for 2 months. This situation will plague this hospital's reputation for years, IMO. And there will be liability insurance headaches for the hospital, as well as inevitable litigation. IMO.

Just no one is a winner here. Devastating all around.

I sincerely hope they comply with the court order and don't fight this with injunctions, etc. That would be a colossal mistake, IMO.