• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support[W:315]

Let's say she was planning to abort the fetus? What changes?

Then an evil plan was thwarted. Hooray.

Of course, we have no reason to think such awful things about the deceased, so your speculations may as well include the fantastic - let's say the fetus isn't a human but a unicorn, what changes?

So if I understand correctly, people who believe this woman should be kept on life support also believe a dead persons organs should be harvested regardless of consent? I'm not sure what the ethical difference would be in regards personal autonomy Vs. the greater good.

No, no one should be forced to be an organ donor.

I don't see how this relates at all. I know this is a common comparison people make with regards to abortion, and now this much rarer, somewhat related topic, but it really isn't the same thing and it doesn't really relate.

She may well still be able to have her organs donated at the end of this if that is what she wanted, or whatever else she wished to have done with her remains. Her brain is dead, so there is nothing more that can be done for her. The treatment being given is for the kid. It is appropriate to honor the wishes of the deceased... once she is removed from the life support. She should be removed from the life support as soon as possible, which is when that act will not needlessly kill someone else.

Your body is your property and one may bequeath that property on death, or not. You don't have to give your organs to anyone.

Among other things, what I think you are comparing is the act of not giving someone something and the act of deliberately killing them. And no, I don't think those are equivalent, even when the other will die without that thing you might be able to give them.

You are comparing random stranger with bad kidneys to a kid you created and are obliged to provide for, as well, only in the latter case you are quite literally only talking about the passive provision of oxygen and nutrition.
 
Last edited:
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

Because that is the law.

The law states keep a dead person on "life" support? Can you show me?

Patients receiving medical care are alive. I am curious, who is listed as the patient?

Again, it is disgusting that the wishes of the patient and family are not respected. I cannot imagine the agony of the family.

I have to wonder who is footing the bill? Surely the insurance company would draw the line with death. If the hospital "writes it off" it hurts the other consumers. If the taxpayer is footing the bill - the taxpayers suffer - or the people who are living on the edge and have a needed program cut because of a million dollar hospital bill for unwanted care of a dead person.

It is funny that an abortion would be legal at 14 weeks, but because the patient is dead she lacks any rights and her family lack any rights when it comes to the fetus.

I pray the baby is born healthy. But with the crisis the mother went through and the likely major prolonged hypoxic insult to their bodies, I would be doubtful. I don't have access to her records, so I just have no clue what really transpired and for how long. You cannot compare this case to a patient that perhaps had a major brain incident, but was never deprived of oxygen for a prolonged period or never had major cardiovascular collapse.
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

Again, that is the law. Also, it is from 1989. She is not big on medical law, and does not know how to read the law.
 
Considering you didn't answer the question based on my analogy, I don't particularly feel the need to answer yours.

Im pointing out how flawed your analogy is. Either you believe both or you don't. They're not different. Either the government has control of your body in death or they don't.
 
Then an evil plan was thwarted. Hooray.

Of course, we have no reason to think such awful things about the deceased, so your speculations may as well include the fantastic - let's say the fetus isn't a human but a unicorn, what changes?



No, no one should be forced to be an organ donor.

I don't see how this relates at all. I know this is a common comparison people make with regards to abortion, and now this much rarer, somewhat related topic, but it really isn't the same thing and it doesn't really relate.

She may well still be able to have her organs donated at the end of this if that is what she wanted, or whatever else she wished to have done with her remains. Her brain is dead, so there is nothing more that can be done for her. The treatment being given is for the kid. It is appropriate to honor the wishes of the deceased... once she is removed from the life support. She should be removed from the life support as soon as possible, which is when that act will not needlessly kill someone else.

Your body is your property and one may bequeath that property on death, or not. You don't have to give your organs to anyone.

Among other things, what I think you are comparing is the act of not giving someone something and the act of deliberately killing them. And no, I don't think those are equivalent, even when the other will die without that thing you might be able to give them.

You are comparing random stranger with bad kidneys to a kid you created and are obliged to provide for, as well, only in the latter case you are quite literally only talking about the passive provision of oxygen and nutrition.

I'm afraid taking a dead person off life support and letting nature take its course is not killing. This is different from abortion because it takes active intervention to abort as it does to keep a dead body's heart beating.

She never took on any responsibility to be used as an incubator in death, and made expressed desire in how she would be treated in death.

The government taking control of your body is wrong in all cases.
 
Im pointing out how flawed your analogy is. Either you believe both or you don't. They're not different. Either the government has control of your body in death or they don't.

Is that how the world works in your brain? Everything is black and white? Either the government owns 100% of your dead body, and can do anything they want with it, like dressing you up and using you as a puppet, OR, never under any circumstances whatsoever?

The facts are simple. A human child's life hangs in the balance right now because his life support source happened to die. A living woman couldn't have an abortion in Texas at 20 weeks, so why should a dead one be able to?

And no, you still didn't answer my question, and I suspect it's because you realized "Of course we shouldn't remove the body, exploding the bomb and killing other people." It's like one of two conjoined twins dying. You'd rather whine and cry about the rights of the dead twin instead of recognizing the other twin has been dependent on those same organs for his entire life as well.

I mean ****, look at yourself, you're arguing that we should kill another human being. Maybe one day you'll recognize the world isn't crystal clear black and white, but rather a magnificent shade of grey.
 
Is that how the world works in your brain? Everything is black and white? Either the government owns 100% of your dead body, and can do anything they want with it, like dressing you up and using you as a puppet, OR, never under any circumstances whatsoever?

The facts are simple. A human child's life hangs in the balance right now because his life support source happened to die. A living woman couldn't have an abortion in Texas at 20 weeks, so why should a dead one be able to?

And no, you still didn't answer my question, and I suspect it's because you realized "Of course we shouldn't remove the body, exploding the bomb and killing other people." It's like one of two conjoined twins dying. You'd rather whine and cry about the rights of the dead twin instead of recognizing the other twin has been dependent on those same organs for his entire life as well.

I mean ****, look at yourself, you're arguing that we should kill another human being. Maybe one day you'll recognize the world isn't crystal clear black and white, but rather a magnificent shade of grey.

I'm not confused on medical ethics. My counter question showed that while we may be tempted to leave the dead body on the bomb, we also would place a dead body on the bomb to save more lives. Just like we may be tempted to save someone's life by taking organs from someone who gave no consent to do so.

It's something you can't do even if the ends justify the means. So I fully understand the greyness of the situation. You miss it entirely.

Plus, this is not an abortion. No active medical intervention is required.
 
I'm not confused on medical ethics. My counter question showed that while we may be tempted to leave the dead body on the bomb, we also would place a dead body on the bomb to save more lives. Just like we may be tempted to save someone's life by taking organs from someone who gave no consent to do so.

It's something you can't do even if the ends justify the means. So I fully understand the greyness of the situation. You miss it entirely.

Plus, this is not an abortion. No active medical intervention is required.

No body parts have been taken to keep this child alive. The mother grew this child out of her own will, GIVING her life support to the child. If there were a way to separate the baby from the dead mother, it would be done, but there isn't. Killing another life by indian giving solves nothing, and is not in any way akin to extracting organs and giving it to strangers.

The mother will be brought to the graveyard with all vital organs intact and present when a living human being stops living inside her. And if this isn't an abortion, it's not an organ donation either, so your point on that is also moot. Which means it's a unique and uncommon situation where those who make decisions decided to protect life instead of destroying it.
 
Last edited:
I'm afraid taking a dead person off life support and letting nature take its course is not killing. This is different from abortion because it takes active intervention to abort as it does to keep a dead body's heart beating.

No, turning off life support won't kill the dead lady, she's already dead.

Turning off life support is a pretty active intervention from the perspective of the kid without enough surfactant in his or her lungs to survive outside yet.

She never took on any responsibility to be used as an incubator in death, and made expressed desire in how she would be treated in death.

Maybe she did maybe she didn't; no documentation to this effect, and even if there were, a DNR has no effect for the duration of pregnancy... and for good reason.
 
Ok, regardless of who much those of you referring to the unborn child as "it" (making it abundantly clear that you have dismissed other human's lives as less important than your own) would like to kill this kid, the decision is based on medical protocol. If a patient is able to make rational decisions of course we defer to their decisions within the law. In the event that the patient is unresponsive we operate under "implied consent" meaning opting for appropriate treatment that would be in line with what the patient would decide if they could. For instance if I come up on a car accident and the driver is unresponsive and bleeding from the head they would likely want me to treat them for that injury. In this case the woman carried the child past the point of legal abortion, so it would be assumed she intended to deliver the child. For those of you who would prefer this child could be a notch on the the liberal abortion totem, I suggest you go out and have sex (preferably with a stranger or someone else's partner in order to feed your need to be progressive), get pregnant, and kill "it". Perhaps that will appease your blood lust for a while.

Too much? Well, I keep hearing how the government should stay out of other people's bedrooms, perhaps you might stay out of hers.
 
Last edited:
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

Is what the father wants what the mother would have wanted? Since we don't know, then it is only right to keep the mother viable to deliver her baby.

The husband has to decide that. Marriage has benefits and responsibilities. Healthcare decisions are one such responsibility.
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

The husband has to decide that. Marriage has benefits and responsibilities. Healthcare decisions are one such responsibility.

In America, women are not property.
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

In America, women are not property.

Wow, you come back with that as a response? Women are also not the subject of eminent domain for the state to take over.In America, spouses get to decide what to do with the remains of their departed spouses. This poor woman is dead and it falls upon the husband to make the decisions for the remains. Just as in California it is to the parents of a brain-dead child to decide such matters.

I care about the rights to make a decision, I can only presume that you care about which decision they make regardless of the authority to do so.
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

In America, women are not property.
They are when they're dead. The same goes the other way around for men too.
 
Incorrect. Her body was already on life support when she died, which is subsequently providing life support for the human child....
...

Incorrect the had no pause and had been without Oxygen for an extended time. They shocked the woman and gave drugs which restarted her heart and even though she was brain dead they could detect a fetal heartbeat so they put the woman on life support.

The fetus may have also died and be brain dead also for all we know.
The fetus also recieved the shock and the meds that were used to restart the woman's heart and they may have restarted the heart of the fetus also.
 
So much "may," all of it so irrelevant.
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

Quote Originally Posted by year2late ...

Why would she believe that keeping a dead patient on life support was an option?


Because that is the law.

Actually experts say the hospital is incorrectly applying the statute because Munoz would be considered legally and medically dead.

Experts familiar with the Texas law say the hospital is incorrectly applying the statute because Munoz would be considered legally and medically dead.


"Marlise Munoz is dead, and she gave clear instructions to her husband and family -- Marlise was not to remain on any type of artificial `life sustaining treatment', ventilators or the like," the lawsuit said. "There is no reason JPS should be allowed to continue treatment on Marlise Munoz's dead body, and this Court should order JPS to immediately discontinue such."

The suit argues that the hospital's interpretation of Section 166.049 is "in complete conflict with other portions of the statute, makes no sense, and amounts to nothing more than the cruel and obscene mutilation of a deceased body against the expressed will of the deceased and her family."

Family of Pregnant, Brain Dead Woman Files Lawsuit to Remove Life Support | NBC 5 Dallas-Fort Worth
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

Actually experts say the hospital is incorrectly applying the statute because Munoz would be considered legally and medically dead.

"experts"
 
So if I understand correctly, people who believe this woman should be kept on life support also believe a dead persons organs should be harvested regardless of consent? I'm not sure what the ethical difference would be in regards personal autonomy Vs. the greater good.

Personally, not being a religious person, I think anything we as human beings can do to save or better the lives of our fellow humans should be encouraged. I see nothing ethically, morally, or civilly wrong with harvesting the organs, where possible, of those people who have died. Although I've registered for such and informed my family of such, had I not done so I'd be perfectly comfortable with harvesting being the default position and only when specific written instructions from the person who died are available and valid would harvesting not take place.
 
Incorrect the had no pause and had been without Oxygen for an extended time. They shocked the woman and gave drugs which restarted her heart and even though she was brain dead they could detect a fetal heartbeat so they put the woman on life support.

The fetus may have also died and be brain dead also for all we know.
The fetus also recieved the shock and the meds that were used to restart the woman's heart and they may have restarted the heart of the fetus also.

Usually I can credit a lot of what you post as reasonable and a good defense of your position, but I have to say, on a personal level, I find it quite sad that you are prepared to accept the possibility of all the negatives, all the contingencies that can go wrong for the fetus, but unwilling to even acknowledge or credit the possibilities in favor of the fetus surviving, developing, and reaching the point of independent viability.

This isn't a matter of choice where all the usual abortion pros and cons are at issue and where the woman is making a life-choice of her own. This is solely an issue of the viability of life for the fetus - no woman is being forced to give birth and raise a child - no woman is being forced to suffer the potential life altering or ending risks of pregnancy - no woman is being forced to carry a child she doesn't want or didn't plan for - there's only one being here who's life is in any way impacted by the decisions being made and it's a sad commentary, for me anyway, that so many people are so quick to discard this life.
 
Usually I can credit a lot of what you post as reasonable and a good defense of your position, but I have to say, on a personal level, I find it quite sad that you are prepared to accept the possibility of all the negatives, all the contingencies that can go wrong for the fetus, but unwilling to even acknowledge or credit the possibilities in favor of the fetus surviving, developing, and reaching the point of independent viability...

.

I care deeply and I fear for this fetus greatly.
The way I see it is if this woman was without oxygen for more than a few minutes there is very little chance the fetus will be born healthy.
I do pray that if The hospital and Texas law gets their way and that the fetus is carried to viability and delivered that is was spared the trauma the woman went trough and will be healthy.

However , I do have some medical knowledge (as does this woman's husband ) and that is why I am so negative in my outlook and hold very little hope for this fetus.
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

Again, that is the law. Also, it is from 1989. She is not big on medical law, and does not know how to read the law.

Can you link me to the law that says you keep a dead person on "life" support?
 
I'm afraid taking a dead person off life support and letting nature take its course is not killing. This is different from abortion because it takes active intervention to abort as it does to keep a dead body's heart beating.

She never took on any responsibility to be used as an incubator in death, and made expressed desire in how she would be treated in death.

The government taking control of your body is wrong in all cases.

Thanks for the slice of reality.
 
Ok, regardless of who much those of you referring to the unborn child as "it" (making it abundantly clear that you have dismissed other human's lives as less important than your own) would like to kill this kid, the decision is based on medical protocol. If a patient is able to make rational decisions of course we defer to their decisions within the law. In the event that the patient is unresponsive we operate under "implied consent" meaning opting for appropriate treatment that would be in line with what the patient would decide if they could. For instance if I come up on a car accident and the driver is unresponsive and bleeding from the head they would likely want me to treat them for that injury. In this case the woman carried the child past the point of legal abortion, so it would be assumed she intended to deliver the child. For those of you who would prefer this child could be a notch on the the liberal abortion totem, I suggest you go out and have sex (preferably with a stranger or someone else's partner in order to feed your need to be progressive), get pregnant, and kill "it". Perhaps that will appease your blood lust for a while.

Too much? Well, I keep hearing how the government should stay out of other people's bedrooms, perhaps you might stay out of hers.

In the case of the pregnant dead woman- why all the implied consent talk. You have the next of kin clearly telling the hospital what he knows his wife wanted. Imply from that!!!
 
Back
Top Bottom