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

[jjenny]

Someone in a coma still has brain function. Brain dead patient doesn't have brain function.
Brain dead person can not breathe on their own. Ventillator is breathing for them.
So they can't last as long as someone in a coma or a vegetative state.

 

[Donjeta]

I'm not sure of the difference of brain dead versus coma but it does appear to be possible.jmo idk


A car crash victim who was in a coma virtually her entire pregnancy has given birth to a healthy daughter.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-62940/Coma-woman-gives-birth-daughter.html

Woman, 29, Still in 10-Year Coma, Is Pregnant by a Rapist

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

Woman In Coma Since Car Wreck Gives Birth

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=125510

OT but I looked up the rapist of the comatose woman and he was released from prison last year. Currently he's back in jail for violating his parole.

http://www.democratandchronicle.com...ted-rapist-john-horace-back-in-jail-/3871953/

He sounds extremely dangerous to me:

John Horace, convicted rapist, said, "There was never a rape in this case. There were a sexual abuse. There was no sexual gratification. I did it because I felt sorry for this person. I felt that with the information that I had obtained, that I could help this person."
http://www.whec.com/news/stories/s2901248.shtml

 

[jjenny]

I think the main problem for the fetus is that mother was so early into her pregnancy. If the record for a brain dead woman being on life support is 107 days, that would still make fetus very premature with low chance of survival.
And that is assuming fetus didn't suffer irreversible damage when mother's heart stopped beating.
This just doesn't seem likely to result in a good outcome.

 

[jjenny]

After reading up on the subject. If the pregnant woman is truly brain dead, then the law might not apply to her. Since she is legally dead. Husband could go to court and argue that if he was so inclined. On the other hand, fetus will become vialbe at 24 weeks, and she is now at 19. So if she lasts another 5 weeks fetus might have a shot at life.

 

[K_Z]

I strongly disagree with this Texas law. I am astonished that it passed into law, without significant limitations.

It's one thing to maintain a brain dead host body for a couple weeks when an otherwise normally forming fetus has developed to near viability. It is another thing entirely for the state to force a grieving husband to endure a fetal maturation experiment on the body of his brain dead wife, and then make him responsible for the costs and outcome over his entire lifetime.

This fetus was only 14 weeks at the time of the woman's death. No where near viability, with significant development left to go. A late second trimester, or third trimester fetus is mostly just gaining and growing, and is already fully formed, and I could see efforts aimed at getting the fetus to viability. But a 14 weeker? No. I don't think they should even be trying. I personally believe this is unethical, and morally wrong, for the woman who died, the fetus, the husband, and society. I know that is probably unpopular with some folks who are staunchly pro life from conception on, but that is my belief. I am neither completely "pro choice", nor completely "pro life." I don't know what you call that, but I believe in carefully evaluating the pros and cons of each set of circumstances, medically, socially, ethically, etc.

Texas has completely removed rights from the woman who was alive and expressed her wishes, as well removed rights from her surviving spouse. The state should not be in the position of removing medical decision making rights from any private, competent, adult citizen-- only protecting the rights of those that have rights. I personally don't believe a 14 week fetus should have "rights" that supercede the rights of any living adult people. The debate over extending "rights" to embryos and fetuses is ridiculous, IMO, and a very, very slippery slope.

I would like to see this case moved thru the courts to the SCOTUS.

Imagine if a teenage girl was in an accident, and subsequently declared brain dead. And at autopsy it was discovered she was a few weeks pregnant, early first trimester. Are prosecutors going to be compelled to bring involuntary manslaughter charges against the trauma doctors who cared for the teen, and may not have discovered her pregnancy in time to force her body to remain on "life support"? Where does it end?

Texas has created a very, very slippery slope with this law. It is just a matter of time before it is challenged in the courts, and the unfortunate survivors who will have to insist upon, and endure that challenge have my extreme sympathy. And my support, because, IMO, this law should be challenged.

 

[Donjeta]

http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dalla...oses-a-conundrum-for-fort-worth-doctors.html/

Marlise Munoz has been brain dead since November, when she collapsed from a blood clot in her lungs. Her wish was not to be kept alive by artificial means. Her parents and husband want to let her body die. She is dead under the definition of death in Texas law, which says that “if artificial means of support preclude a determination that a person’s spontaneous respiratory and circulatory functions have ceased, the person is dead when, in the announced opinion of a physician, according to ordinary standards of medical practice, there is irreversible cessation of all spontaneous brain function.”

But here’s the catch: Doctors discovered upon her admission to hospital that she was pregnant, and they are now keeping her artificially alive because they believe Texas law requires it. It doesn’t. She is legally dead.

Keeping Marlise alive effectively means her body now serves as nothing more now than an incubator — not something Texas legislators intended when they wrote a law in 1989 stating that doctors may not deny life-sustaining treatment from a pregnant patient.

By keeping her body artificially functioning, they are not sustaining any sort of life for the pregnant patient. The pregnant patient is dead. Moreover, the same blood clot that killed Marlise might have inflicted irreversible brain damage when it blocked oxygen to her fetus. Keeping her alive for the sake of the unborn baby is certainly doing Marlise no good, and it might even be doing the baby no good.

 

[Linda7NJ]

I strongly disagree with this Texas law. I am astonished that it passed into law, without significant limitations.



It's one thing to maintain a brain dead host body for a couple weeks when an otherwise normally forming fetus has developed to near viability. It is another thing entirely for the state to force a grieving husband to endure a fetal maturation experiment on the body of his brain dead wife, and then make him responsible for the costs and outcome over his entire lifetime.



This fetus was only 14 weeks at the time of the woman's death. No where near viability, with significant development left to go. A late second trimester, or third trimester fetus is mostly just gaining and growing, and is already fully formed, and I could see efforts aimed at getting the fetus to viability. But a 14 weeker? No. I don't think they should even be trying. I personally believe this is unethical, and morally wrong, for the woman who died, the fetus, the husband, and society. I know that is probably unpopular with some folks who are staunchly pro life from conception on, but that is my belief. I am neither completely "pro choice", nor completely "pro life." I don't know what you call that, but I believe in carefully evaluating the pros and cons of each set of circumstances, medically, socially, ethically, etc.



Texas has completely removed rights from the woman who was alive and expressed her wishes, as well removed rights from her surviving spouse. The state should not be in the position of removing medical decision making rights from any private, competent, adult citizen-- only protecting the rights of those that have rights. I personally don't believe a 14 week fetus should have "rights" that supercede the rights of any living adult people. The debate over extending "rights" to embryos and fetuses is ridiculous, IMO, and a very, very slippery slope.



I would like to see this case moved thru the courts to the SCOTUS.



Imagine if a teenage girl was in an accident, and subsequently declared brain dead. And at autopsy it was discovered she was a few weeks pregnant, early first trimester. Are prosecutors going to be compelled to bring involuntary manslaughter charges against the trauma doctors who cared for the teen, and may not have discovered her pregnancy in time to force her body to remain on "life support"? Where does it end?



Texas has created a very, very slippery slope with this law. It is just a matter of time before it is challenged in the courts, and the unfortunate survivors who will have to insist upon, and endure that challenge have my extreme sympathy. And my support, because, IMO, this law should be challenged.

Thank you... I have the same opinion... That's why I brought it up on the other thread.

The topic needs some serious attention.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Fairy1]

I strongly disagree with this Texas law. I am astonished that it passed into law, without significant limitations.

It's one thing to maintain a brain dead host body for a couple weeks when an otherwise normally forming fetus has developed to near viability. It is another thing entirely for the state to force a grieving husband to endure a fetal maturation experiment on the body of his brain dead wife, and then make him responsible for the costs and outcome over his entire lifetime.

This fetus was only 14 weeks at the time of the woman's death. No where near viability, with significant development left to go. A late second trimester, or third trimester fetus is mostly just gaining and growing, and is already fully formed, and I could see efforts aimed at getting the fetus to viability. But a 14 weeker? No. I don't think they should even be trying. I personally believe this is unethical, and morally wrong, for the woman who died, the fetus, the husband, and society. I know that is probably unpopular with some folks who are staunchly pro life from conception on, but that is my belief. I am neither completely "pro choice", nor completely "pro life." I don't know what you call that, but I believe in carefully evaluating the pros and cons of each set of circumstances, medically, socially, ethically, etc.

Texas has completely removed rights from the woman who was alive and expressed her wishes, as well removed rights from her surviving spouse. The state should not be in the position of removing medical decision making rights from any private, competent, adult citizen-- only protecting the rights of those that have rights. I personally don't believe a 14 week fetus should have "rights" that supercede the rights of any living adult people. The debate over extending "rights" to embryos and fetuses is ridiculous, IMO, and a very, very slippery slope.

I would like to see this case moved thru the courts to the SCOTUS.

Imagine if a teenage girl was in an accident, and subsequently declared brain dead. And at autopsy it was discovered she was a few weeks pregnant, early first trimester. Are prosecutors going to be compelled to bring involuntary manslaughter charges against the trauma doctors who cared for the teen, and may not have discovered her pregnancy in time to force her body to remain on "life support"? Where does it end?

Texas has created a very, very slippery slope with this law. It is just a matter of time before it is challenged in the courts, and the unfortunate survivors who will have to insist upon, and endure that challenge have my extreme sympathy. And my support, because, IMO, this law should be challenged.

Thank you - I agree 100% and I find this law and this particular situation deeply disturbing. My heart goes out to her husband and family who have made their wishes - as well as hers - known, to no avail.

 

[jjenny]

The woman expressed her wishes to not be on life support.
But she was not pregnant when she expressed these wishes.
So it's really isn't clear as to what she would have wanted in the particular situation she is in.
Fetus is going to become viable very soon. Her husband now got a lawyer.
I would hope that at least tests are run on the fetus to see if it's developing normally before trying to terminate life support.

 

[Fairy1]

This woman expressed her wishes when she was a living, breathing, human - as we all are when we express such wishes to our loved ones - whatever they may be. I'm absolutely certain she never imagined she would need to make that decision strictly from the position of a uterus, which is what this law has reduced her to being.

 

[Softail]

The woman expressed her wishes to not be on life support.
But she was not pregnant when she expressed these wishes.
So it's really isn't clear as to what she would have wanted in the particular situation she is in.
Fetus is going to become viable very soon. Her husband now got a lawyer.
I would hope that at least tests are run on the fetus to see if it's developing normally before trying to terminate life support.

Our local news reported that they are going to do more tests in February for this exact reason.

The law pertains to abortions, in case anyone wasn't clear on that. I also agree that it is wrong.

Unlike another case we are all familiar with, I don't see Erick out there begging for money. :snooty:

A sad case all around. :sigh:

 

[jjenny]

This woman expressed her wishes when she was a living, breathing, human - as we all are when we express such wishes to our loved ones - whatever they may be. I'm absolutely certain she never imagined she would need to make that decision strictly from the position of a uterus, which is what this law has reduced her to being.

There is a big difference in not wanting to be on life support and not wanting to be on life support even if pregnant. As far as I know nobody heard her say that she wouldn't want to be on life support even if she was pregnant. And as far as I can tell she did want to have the child.
The way law stands now, hospital can turn off life support from a brain dead person and doesn't need permission from relatives to do so.
If there are no exeptions made for pregnant women, then hospital would be able to turn off life support even if family doesn't want it.
Which I think would be very wrong, since there is potential for a viable fetus.
So there has to be some exception in the law that hospital has a right to turn off life suport from a brain dead patient if that patient is pregnant.
Otherwise you can have a nearly fullt term pregnant woman and hospital can say-well she is brain dead so we have a right to turn off life support since she is dead.

 

[Fairy1]

There is a big difference in not wanting to be on life support and not wanting to be on life support even if pregnant. As far as I know nobody heard her say that she wouldn't want to be on life support even if she was pregnant. And as far as I can tell she did want to have the child.
The way law stands now, hospital can turn off life support from a brain dead person and doesn't need permission from relatives to do so.
If there are no exeptions made for pregnant women, then hospital would be able to turn off life support even if family doesn't want it.
Which I think would be very wrong, since there is potential for a viable fetus.
So there has to be some exception in the law that hospital has a right to turn off life suport from a brain dead patient if that patient is pregnant.
Otherwise you can have a nearly fullt term pregnant woman and hospital can say-well she is brain dead so we have a right to turn off life support since she is dead.

No, we don't have any idea what she said, specifically. The problem with the legislation is that it doesn't matter. The state has taken the decision away from her and her family.

I also have an issue with what we'll see next in this case - who should determine what is considered a "viable" fetus. Able to survive outside the womb, but with what quality of life? What if they determine the child will be dependent for its entire life? Do they then allow the mother to be taken off life support? I think we all know how that will be received by some folks. Folks who do not have to raise the child - alone - but who will be bellyaching about "their tax dollars" helping to support the child. IMO, the father should have a say in that as well.

Thinking back to my child bearing years, I can tell you that I absolutely would not have wanted to be on life support under these circumstances and I would not want the pregnancy to continue. Though at that age, it never would have occurred to me to express that, even to my husband.

 

[jjenny]

No, we don't have any idea what she said, specifically. The problem with the legislation is that it doesn't matter. The state has taken the decision away from her and her family.

I also have an issue with what we'll see next in this case - who should determine what is a "viable" fetus.

Thinking back to my child bearing years, I can tell you that I absolutely would not have wanted to be on life support under these circumstances and I would not want the pregnancy to continue. Though at that age, it never would have occurred to me to express that, even to my husband.

If person is brain dead (and not pregnant) we have decided that it doesn't matter whether they would have wanted to be on life support or not.
Some people might want to keep their brain dead relatives on life support forever.
But per law they don't get to say.
So family doesn't always gets to decide regardless of what brain dead person would have wanted.

 

[Linda7NJ]

There is a big difference in not wanting to be on life support and not wanting to be on life support even if pregnant. As far as I know nobody heard her say that she wouldn't want to be on life support even if she was pregnant. And as far as I can tell she did want to have the child.

The way law stands now, hospital can turn off life support from a brain dead person and doesn't need permission from relatives to do so.

If there are no exeptions made for pregnant women, then hospital would be able to turn off life support even if family doesn't want it.

Which I think would be very wrong, since there is potential for a viable fetus.

So there has to be some exception in the law that hospital has a right to turn off life suport from a brain dead patient if that patient is pregnant.

Otherwise you can have a nearly fullt term pregnant woman and hospital can say-well she is brain dead so we have a right to turn off life support since she is dead.

If the child is viable on its own, it should be removed by c-section.

At 14 weeks...? IMO no way should the state have power of attorney over the mothers body and force it to be a incubator.

It should have been a family decision.

What if she has been two weeks pregnant? Three? What if the woman didn't even know she was pregnant?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jjenny]

If the child is viable on its own, it should be removed by c-section.

At 14 weeks...? IMO no way should the state have power of attorney over the mothers body and force it to be a incubator.

It should have been a family decision.

What if she has been two weeks pregnant? Three? What if the woman didn't even know she was pregnant?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's now at 20 weeks.

 

[seattlechiquita]

Our local news reported that they are going to do more tests in February for this exact reason.

The law pertains to abortions, in case anyone wasn't clear on that. I also agree that it is wrong.

Unlike another case we are all familiar with, I don't see Erick out there begging for money. :snooty:

A sad case all around. :sigh:

bbm i think i loooooooooooooove you.

 

[Softail]

bbm i think i loooooooooooooove you.

Yeah. but I am probably prettier than you! :giggle:



I do love you too! :loveyou::loveyou:

 

[Public_Hysteria]

I strongly disagree with this Texas law. I am astonished that it passed into law, without significant limitations.

It's one thing to maintain a brain dead host body for a couple weeks when an otherwise normally forming fetus has developed to near viability. It is another thing entirely for the state to force a grieving husband to endure a fetal maturation experiment on the body of his brain dead wife, and then make him responsible for the costs and outcome over his entire lifetime.

This fetus was only 14 weeks at the time of the woman's death. No where near viability, with significant development left to go. A late second trimester, or third trimester fetus is mostly just gaining and growing, and is already fully formed, and I could see efforts aimed at getting the fetus to viability. But a 14 weeker? No. I don't think they should even be trying. I personally believe this is unethical, and morally wrong, for the woman who died, the fetus, the husband, and society. I know that is probably unpopular with some folks who are staunchly pro life from conception on, but that is my belief. I am neither completely "pro choice", nor completely "pro life." I don't know what you call that, but I believe in carefully evaluating the pros and cons of each set of circumstances, medically, socially, ethically, etc.

Texas has completely removed rights from the woman who was alive and expressed her wishes, as well removed rights from her surviving spouse. The state should not be in the position of removing medical decision making rights from any private, competent, adult citizen-- only protecting the rights of those that have rights. I personally don't believe a 14 week fetus should have "rights" that supercede the rights of any living adult people. The debate over extending "rights" to embryos and fetuses is ridiculous, IMO, and a very, very slippery slope.

I would like to see this case moved thru the courts to the SCOTUS.

Imagine if a teenage girl was in an accident, and subsequently declared brain dead. And at autopsy it was discovered she was a few weeks pregnant, early first trimester. Are prosecutors going to be compelled to bring involuntary manslaughter charges against the trauma doctors who cared for the teen, and may not have discovered her pregnancy in time to force her body to remain on "life support"? Where does it end?

Texas has created a very, very slippery slope with this law. It is just a matter of time before it is challenged in the courts, and the unfortunate survivors who will have to insist upon, and endure that challenge have my extreme sympathy. And my support, because, IMO, this law should be challenged.

BBM - I completely agree with you, this is the biggest issue at play here for me personally. A 14 week fetus cannot survive on its own, thus I don't believe the mother should be kept alive artificially for so long for the SLIGHT chance that the fetus will actually survive and be born a healthy baby. Especially taking into consideration the mother's wishes before her death, and the family's wishes to take her off life support.

Instead, the painful process of grieving for a wife and loved one will be drawn out, the husband may face bankruptcy for a decision that was made FOR him, and a baby may be born without a fighting chance of survival. It just seems far too cruel.

If the fetus were further along and it was a much shorter space of time that the mother was going to be kept 'alive' for, I may feel differently. But given the facts of this case, I don't believe the decision is the right one.

JMO :moo:

 

[Elley Mae]

Texas law states that a person may not withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment from a pregnant patient.

Caplan says the Texas legislature needs to rewrite its law, which he describes as overly broad. As it's written, Caplan says, the law says "you can't have a living will if you are pregnant, even one day pregnant."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ticize-treatment-brain-dead-patients/4394173/