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

[kaRN]

She had rights when she was alive. She expressed her wishes. Her husband has rights that the state of Texas has usurped.

The state of Texas has decided they have the right to mandate fetal experiments. Using the body of a dead citizen. That's profoundly disturbing to me.

Me Too K_Z.

 

[K_Z]

The state of Texas has also made this woman's death into a circus spectacle. I believe that is a tremendous invasion of her privacy at the time of her death. They have imposed a terrible burden on her spouse and surviving child, and her family. None of them asked for this spectacle.

In contrast to the family in California who has actively sought out all forms of publicity in the case of their deceased 13 yo. And then complained about their lack of privacy.

 

[jjenny]

Re BBM- Because she's a Paramedic and knows better than to assume she'd die peacefully in her sleep of old age. :blushing:

So then why didn't she write one?

 

[jjenny]

The state of Texas has also made this woman's death into a circus spectacle. I believe that is a tremendous invasion of her privacy at the time of her death. They have imposed a terrible burden on her spouse and surviving child, and her family. None of them asked for this spectacle.

In contrast to the family in California who has actively sought out all forms of publicity in the case of their deceased 13 yo. And then complained about their lack of privacy.

What? The hospital isn't the one who brought this to the attention of the press. I don't think hospital wanted any publicity on this. This is an extremely unfair accusation.

 

[Fairy1]

Re BBM- Because she's a Paramedic and knows better than to assume she'd die peacefully in her sleep of old age. :blushing:

Exactly - she did know better and that's why, IMO, she made her position clear to her family!

 

[jjenny]

Exactly - she did know better and that's why, IMO, she made her position clear to her family!

We are discussing a lack of written advanced direction.

 

[Fairy1]

What? The hospital isn't the one who brought this to the attention of the press. I don't think hospital wanted any publicity on this. This is an extremely unfair accusation.

Did you actually read the post to which you replied to here?

I'm beginning to think reading has become optional here at WS!!!

 

[Fairy1]

We are discussing a lack of written advanced direction.

No, we're not.

 

[jjenny]

No, we're not.

Maybe you should read the post this reply was addressed to. It specifically talked about lack of WRITTEN ADVANCED DIRECTION.

 

[Fairy1]

Maybe you should read the post this reply was addressed to. It specifically talked about lack of WRITTEN ADVANCED DIRECTION.

Yeah. The post to which you replied was referring to who brought this case to the attention of the press. It was not said to be the hospital.

And, once again, this case has nothing to do with whether there was an advance written directive.

Don't know why that's so difficult to comprehend.

 

[hambirg]

What's happening here is not based on a Supreme Court ruling. It's a Texas state law.

Please provide the TX law that you are expressly stating deals with this specific case.

 

[jjenny]

Yeah. The post to which you replied was referring to who brought this case to the attention of the press. It was not said to be the hospital.

And, once again, this case has nothing to do with whether there was an advance written directive.

Don't know why that's so difficult to comprehend.

Neither the hospital nor the state of TX brought this case to the attention of a press.
That shouldn't be difficult to comprehend, should it?

 

[Fairy1]

Please provide the TX law that you are expressly stating deals with this specific case.

Section 166.049 Pregnant Patients. A person may not withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment under this subchapter from a pregnant patient.

 

[Fairy1]

Neither the hospital nor the state of TX brought this case to the attention of a press.
That shouldn't be difficult to comprehend, should it?

Nope. The family was forced to bring it to the attention of the press because they are being bullied by the state of Texas to use their loved one as a science experiment. Can't blame them myself.

 

[hambirg]

No, it doesn't.

So, if it's doesn't, please provide the legal precedent.

What exactly is the legal issue then? Why would the state keep a dead woman on life support?

What is the states interest and where are the cases that show there is some kind of issue with a state keeping a dead woman alive. . if it has NOTHING to do with her being pregnant and the state's interest and obligation to the potential life she is carrying?

 

[jjenny]

Nope. The family was forced to bring it to the attention of the press because they are being bullied by the state of Texas to use their loved one as a science experiment. Can't blame them myself.

But you think it's o'key to falsely blame the state for something it didn't do? Certainly the state of TX didn't bring it to attention of the press. So how is the state responsible for invasion of privacy here?

 

[Fairy1]

So, if it's doesn't, please provide the legal precedent.

What exactly is the legal issue then? Why would the state keep a dead woman on life support?

What is the states interest and where are the cases that show there is some kind of issue with a state keeping a dead woman alive. . if it has NOTHING to do with her being pregnant and the state's interest and obligation to the potential life she is carrying?

Again with the reading - just posted this upthread:

Section 166.049 Pregnant Patients. A person may not withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment under this subchapter from a pregnant patient.

 

[hambirg]

I'm saying this case has absolutely nothing to do with elective abortion. Nothing at all. Unless someone has a militant or radical pro life political or personal agenda.

I was responding to a poster who argued that the dead woman's inability to feel pain somehow makes all this "okay" and "right".

So, again, what is the issue? If the physicians choose to terminate life support, what of the fetus? Is the fetus alive or not? Who gets to decide? How is terminating life support NOT elective? Someone trips over a cord and accidentally terminates life support?

 

[Fairy1]

But you think it's o'key to falsely blame the state for something it didn't do? Certainly the state of TX didn't bring it to attention of the press. So how is the state responsible for invasion of privacy here?

Ummmmmm. I didn't blame the state of Texas or the hospital for bringing this case to the attention of the press. I think you've mistaken my posts for those of another.

 

[hambirg]

Again with the reading - just posted this upthread:

Section 166.049 Pregnant Patients. A person may not withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment under this subchapter from a pregnant patient.

Ok. .and what part of that don't you understand?