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

[Elley Mae]

Tests are done daily on the fetus, and results show a normal heart beat.

http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/tarr...and-hopes-to-fulfil-her-wishes-236654371.html

I have wondered if Dr's have done an amniocentesis test.

Amniocentesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Amniocentesis is usually done when a woman is between 16 and 22 weeks pregnant.

 

[K_Z]

Tests are done daily on the fetus, and results show a normal heart beat.

http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/tarr...and-hopes-to-fulfil-her-wishes-236654371.html

I have wondered if Dr's have done an amniocentesis test.

Amniocentesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Amniocentesis is usually done when a woman is between 16 and 22 weeks pregnant.

The date on this article is nearly 4 weeks ago, Dec 19. A tremendous amount of development happens in those 4 weeks. At 16 weeks, it is more difficult to interpret any of the fetal heart rate patterns. All the article says is that the "heart beat" was normal back then. It is likely true that the
rate was within normal limits for age. But now the fetus is 20-21 weeks, and merely the heart RATE would not be predictive of serious CNS insult. The entire picture of the fetus, using the biophysical profile assessments discussed upthread, in addition to other medical information and tests, would be used to make inferences about the overall well being of the fetus, as well as the likelihood of severe CNS insult.

I have no idea if they did an amnio, but I'm guessing they didn't. The risks (1 fetal death in 200 amnios is often quoted) seem to out weigh the benefits, in this particular case I don't think it would have revealed any essential information that would be helpful in decision making, at that point in time. The docs feel they were "mandated" to continue the pregnancy even if it was discovered the fetus was anencephalic, or had other serious or deadly chromosomal or genetic conditions, from what I understand of how they interpret the TX law.

Amniocentesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://americanpregnancy.org/prenataltesting/amniocentesis.html

Anencephaly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Why must we assume that the woman, being a woman, would not have taken this into consideration when she expressed her wishes? She apparently didnt say "I never want to be kept alive artificially like that - unless I'm pregnant."

We don't know that...

I have said many times that I would not want to be kept alive on machines..But I never added the codicil " unless I was pregnant"

She was carrying the baby, And made it past the time when most women would have terminated, which to means says her wish was to carry the baby to term.

I would not want to be kept on machines however if I was pregnant I would be until at such time the baby was delivered safely.

I think her wishes are expressed in that she did not terminate the pregnancy and had no plans to that we know of.

 

[K_Z]

It seems the bigger issue is not what Marlise Munoz wanted, or didn't want. It has been emphasized over and over that Texas law does not recognize what the woman wants if she is pregnant. If she is pregnant, she loses decision making rights-- the state removes those rights from her, and her surviving decision maker.

It doesn't matter if she had it written down and certified or notarized. Her wishes don't matter-- spoken or not, written or not. That is the interpretation of Texas law that the hospital is operating under.

And because of that, it's my opinion that this interpretation is fully ripe to be challenged up the judicial chain to the Texas supreme court, if not the SCOTUS. (Whether or not the Munoz fetus survives.)

 

[K_Z]

Tests are done daily on the fetus, and results show a normal heart beat.

http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/tarr...and-hopes-to-fulfil-her-wishes-236654371.html

I have wondered if Dr's have done an amniocentesis test.

Amniocentesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Amniocentesis is usually done when a woman is between 16 and 22 weeks pregnant.

I had a little brain fart earlier and forgot to add something.

I am curious if MRI is being used to evaluate the Munoz fetus? This is one of the areas I alluded to above when I commented that docs know a lot more about the fetus' condition than the items I listed that are straightforward and fairly easy to measure and assess.

I have read that increasingly, MRI is being used in complicated pregnancies. MRI is also being used in fetal and still born autopsies, because the fetal brain is difficult to study in the conventional manner.

Here are a couple articles that discuss.

http://www.mrisafety.com/safety_article.asp?subject=50

http://www.radiology.ucsf.edu/patient-care/patient-safety/ct-mri-pregnancy

 

[AnaTeresa]

It seems the bigger issue is not what Marlise Munoz wanted, or didn't want. It has been emphasized over and over that Texas law does not recognize what the woman wants if she is pregnant. If she is pregnant, she loses decision making rights-- the state removes those rights from her, and her surviving decision maker.

It doesn't matter if she had it written down and certified or notarized. Her wishes don't matter-- spoken or not, written or not. That is the interpretation of Texas law that the hospital is operating under.

And because of that, it's my opinion that this interpretation is fully ripe to be challenged up the judicial chain to the Texas supreme court, if not the SCOTUS. (Whether or not the Munoz fetus survives.)

Yes, I agree.

Personally, I think it's hard to say whether her parents and husband know what she would want or not, as there's no written directive. As many have pointed out, your thoughts can change when you become a mother, and unless they had new conversations about the issue, they are just as much in the dark about her thoughts as we are.

However, none of that is the point in this case. Rather, the point is the state's law, and the hospital's interpretation of it.

 

[hambirg]

It seems the bigger issue is not what Marlise Munoz wanted, or didn't want. It has been emphasized over and over that Texas law does not recognize what the woman wants if she is pregnant. If she is pregnant, she loses decision making rights-- the state removes those rights from her, and her surviving decision maker.

It doesn't matter if she had it written down and certified or notarized. Her wishes don't matter-- spoken or not, written or not. That is the interpretation of Texas law that the hospital is operating under.

And because of that, it's my opinion that this interpretation is fully ripe to be challenged up the judicial chain to the Texas supreme court, if not the SCOTUS. (Whether or not the Munoz fetus survives.)

I agree with your point. But my point is because this woman did not do that, her's is really not the case to challenge that law.

We could argue it the other way as well. If Texas did allow a pregnant woman to leave a directive saying that she would not want to be kept alive and choose to terminate the pregnancy, that situation still wouldn't apply to Marlise.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, that even if the law was overturned, it still wouldn't apply here.

 

[Fairy1]

I agree with your point. But my point is because this woman did not do that, her's is really not the case to challenge that law.

We could argue it the other way as well. If Texas did allow a pregnant woman to leave a directive saying that she would not want to be kept alive and choose to terminate the pregnancy, that situation still wouldn't apply to Marlise.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, that even if the law was overturned, it still wouldn't apply here.

Actually, this is promising to see - at least for this family, under these circumstances:

But experts say the hospital is incorrectly applying the statute because Munoz is brain-dead and beyond any chance of recovery.

"This patient is neither terminally nor irreversibly ill," said Dr. Robert Fine, clinical director of the office of clinical ethics and palliative care for Baylor Health Care System, in an interview earlier this month. "Under Texas law, this patient is legally dead."

http://news.yahoo.com/pregnant-brain-dead-woman-39-husband-sues-hospital-173102109.html

At the very least, we can hope the lawsuit allows this family to fulfill the wishes of their loved one and that the legislation is made to be less vague so that more families won't have to suffer in this way.

 

[faw720]

Yes, I agree.

Personally, I think it's hard to say whether her parents and husband know what she would want or not, as there's no written directive. As many have pointed out, your thoughts can change when you become a mother, and unless they had new conversations about the issue, they are just as much in the dark about her thoughts as we are.

However, none of that is the point in this case. Rather, the point is the state's law, and the hospital's interpretation of it.

I am not hopeful of the law being changed any time soon. Sadly, we Texans are not know for our progressive thinking. Even if a reasonable judge rules in favor of the Munoz family, I am afraid that any state appeals court would overturn the decision. What the Munoz family needs now is immediate relief. I'm afraid the case would have to go to the US Supreme Court before there could possibly be an unbiased ruling.

 

[seattlechiquita]

LIVE on HuffPost, discussion of the case: http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/se...d-the-person-die-too/52d062b502a76077a60004eb

 

[faw720]

Latest Update on Wednesday 1/15/14,2:51pm CST.

The following link states that the Munoz lawsuit was filed in the 17th District Court in Fort Worth which is a Civil Court, NOT Family Court as I had previously speculated. The judge is Melody Wilkinson.

On the same link is information about a Pro-Abortion Group NARL Pro-Choice America is asking its supporters to sign a petition declaring their opposition to the hospital's decision to keep Marlise on life support.

http://www.christianpost.com

 

[dh109977]

What happens to this baby if they aren't able to turn off life support. Is the family ok with raising this child. If there is health problems? Are they able to financially. Personally If the baby can be saved I say go for it. But they are fighting so hard I just wonder what's gonna happen.

 

[gngr~snap]

A 2010 article in the journal BMC Medicine found 30 cases of brain-dead pregnant women over about 30 years. Of 19 reported results, the journal found 12 in which a viable child was born and had post-birth data for two years on only six of them — all of whom developed normally, according to the journal.

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2014/01/14/husband-pregnant-brain-dead-texas-woman-sues-hospital/

The article said a fetus has about a 20 to 30 percent chance of survival at 24 weeks of gestation — a milestone believed to be about three weeks away — but a much higher chance, 80 percent, at 28 weeks, and a 98 percent chance at 32 weeks.

I had a 25 (ish) weeker. No steroids given prior to birth. She did get surfactant - stayed on a vent for 36 hours and then got blow by O2.

I wasn't brain dead... even though I felt like my brain was missing.
She weighed 1# 13oz and was 13 inches long. Head circumference was 8 inches.
The stress of the pregnancy released cortisol and helped to mature her lungs.
Still pulling for this wee one even though it is against all odds.
:thumbup:

Sent from my SGH-T679 using Tapatalk 2

 

[kincaid]

What happens to this baby if they aren't able to turn off life support. Is the family ok with raising this child. If there is health problems? Are they able to financially. Personally If the baby can be saved I say go for it. But they are fighting so hard I just wonder what's gonna happen.

There's always adoption, either someone else in the family or a stranger.

I just wonder if the fetus is delivered prematurely, if the father then would tell the hospital not to use extreme measures to save the baby.

 

[faw720]

IMO, the one big issue is a person being allowed to make his/her own decision affecting their life without interference from a governmental entity, any group of individuals, or even one other individual. If I make a decision & it is wrong either morally or legally, I & I alone am responsible. The Nazis decided what books people could read, what art they viewed, what music they could listen to, & most importantly of all, what people were deserving of life. In the end, it didn't work out so well for them, thank God.

Not for one minute do I want someone else telling me what I can or cannot do with my body, how I live my life, what church I must attend, what kind of car I drive, what type business I must be engaged in, who my friends must be, what my political affiliation must be or anything else of a personal nature. It's really easy to tell someone else how they should life their life especially since we don't know all of their personal circumstances. If someone else decides to proceed with an unviable pregnancy that is their decision & their business, not mine. Why on earth do people presume to tell another how to conduct their life???? It is just totally beyond me!!

Since Marlise is DEAD, her husband as next of kin should be the decision maker. PERIOD!

 

[seattlechiquita]

It seems the bigger issue is not what Marlise Munoz wanted, or didn't want. It has been emphasized over and over that Texas law does not recognize what the woman wants if she is pregnant. If she is pregnant, she loses decision making rights-- the state removes those rights from her, and her surviving decision maker.

It doesn't matter if she had it written down and certified or notarized. Her wishes don't matter-- spoken or not, written or not. That is the interpretation of Texas law that the hospital is operating under.

And because of that, it's my opinion that this interpretation is fully ripe to be challenged up the judicial chain to the Texas supreme court, if not the SCOTUS. (Whether or not the Munoz fetus survives.)

K_Z I freaking love you. :loveyou:

I think you sum up the heart of the main issue here.

I am glad to see the husband filed suit. Hope this invasion of TX in women's uterus goes up in flames.

 

[hambirg]

IMO, the one big issue is a person being allowed to make his/her own decision affecting their life without interference from a governmental entity, any group of individuals, or even one other individual. If I make a decision & it is wrong either morally or legally, I & I alone am responsible. The Nazis decided what books people could read, what art they viewed, what music they could listen to, & most importantly of all, what people were deserving of life. In the end, it didn't work out so well for them, thank God.

Not for one minute do I want someone else telling me what I can or cannot do with my body, how I live my life, what church I must attend, what kind of car I drive, what type business I must be engaged in, who my friends must be, what my political affiliation must be or anything else of a personal nature. It's really easy to tell someone else how they should life their life especially since we don't know all of their personal circumstances. If someone else decides to proceed with an unviable pregnancy that is their decision & their business, not mine. Why on earth do people presume to tell another how to conduct their life???? It is just totally beyond me!!

Since Marlise is DEAD, her husband as next of kin should be the decision maker. PERIOD!

Here's the thing. I absolutely agree with everything you posted, with the exception of the bolded.

And here's why. The woman has the right to say what happens to her body and her uterus. But with regards to her uterus, it is her right alone. Since Marlise does not have a written directive (yeah, yeah, regardless of the current law in TX. To me, that's a whole other issue that doesn't apply in this case.), no one gets to make that choice for her.

What kind of precedent do we set if we allow anyone, other than the pregnant woman, to choose to terminate her pregnancy?

 

[legalmania]

Sorry I'm not in the mood to read all the post. I know the heart beat is there but what about brain activity? Is this father going to go from a unresponsive wife on life support to a child who is going to be paraplegic? This is just a hard call, that is why it is very important to have a living will. You just never know day to day what is going to happen. My friend just told me of his friends 16 yr old son whom he gave a motorcycle to and he was losing control on it and the father kept saying he was going to take the bike away and didn't, now the boy just hit a curve and hit his head so hard his helmet broke and now the boys a paraplegic. The father refuses to take responsibility for the accident he says the boy had no coordination.

 

[al66pine]

cutting & moving to the correct thread.

 

[Fairy1]

Here's the thing. I absolutely agree with everything you posted, with the exception of the bolded.

And here's why. The woman has the right to say what happens to her body and her uterus. But with regards to her uterus, it is her right alone. Since Marlise does not have a written directive (yeah, yeah, regardless of the current law in TX. To me, that's a whole other issue that doesn't apply in this case.), no one gets to make that choice for her.

What kind of precedent do we set if we allow anyone, other than the pregnant woman, to choose to terminate her pregnancy?

This is the issue - the state of Texas is making that choice for her. How is that okay?

I believe the law at play here was intended to keep pregnant women from electing to forego medical treatment that would save their own lives, thereby endangering the lives of their unborn children - such as chemotherapy or dialysis. The law was not meant to force legally dead women from hosting a fetus for an undetermined period of time.