That is what is happening here.
In general terms, that's what we have DNRs for. There is no such document in this case, or hadn't you noticed that yet?What do you think is government interference if not laws dictating when a person should be on life support?
So it's OK for government to swoop in and make decisions that are against the wishes of a person's family because it gives Republicans a warm fuzzy feeling to know that they "protected life?"In general terms, that's what we have DNRs for. There is no such document in this case, or hadn't you noticed that yet?
The kid is not dead. Killing the kid doesn't serve any such law - it violates the rights of the kid.
Again, your cynicism is unwelcome, unwarranted bull****.So it's OK for government to swoop in and make decisions that are against the wishes of a person's family because it gives Republicans a warm fuzzy feeling to know that they "protected life?"
A hospital is obliged to assume you want life-saving care. There is a reason for this, believe it or not, because life saving care has to happen pretty quickly if it is even to have a chance at, you know, actually saving a life. And in this case, well, it has done so.
If you have a DNR, in most cases the hospital is forbidden from providing life-saving care. There was no such DNR here, so intubation occurred and Mrs. Munoz is now on a ventilator in JPS. You have to specifically opt out and they have to know you have opted out. Whenever they don't know, a hospital has to try to save your life, because see last paragraph.
In this circumstance, of course, there are two patients and one is incapable of having a DNR, which is why even if there had been one, it would not have been valid during a pregnancy. The kid can't make his or her wishes known. The kid can't opt out.
That kid has a natural right to life, the same as any other human. There is no reason to kill him or her and no justification for that action. If you want to try and dismiss the act of respecting human rights a matter of "warm fuzzies," that's your prerogative, but it's still bull****.
Last edited by JayDubya; 01-16-14 at 10:50 AM.
There has to be more to this story than we know at this point. I don't understand at all a father and a grandmother not wanting to do everything possible to save the life of their developing child/grandchild.
A Canadian conservative is one who believes in limited government and that the government should stay out of our wallets and out of our bedrooms.
There is no reason to have a nasogastric tube providing her body with food or a ventilator providing her organs with oxygen... save for the fact that her kid receives that nutrition and that oxygen.
All treatment at this point is for the living patient. If Mrs. Munoz had not been pregnant or if the kid had died the ventilator would have been stopped long ago. None of the treatment occurring right now is for the sake of the dead patient; there would be no point.
That treatment would have STILL been started, of course, because there was no DNR...
Please explain how a corpse can offer or not offer consent.Or only until they're done using her as an incubator without her consent?
She's dead. At this point you honor her wishes in life by removing her from the machines as soon as possible and by making sure her remains are disposed of how she would have liked, make sure that her property is bequeathed as she would have liked. That's about it. That's all you can do for her.
Healthcare professionals are working to save the life of the other patient, however.
Last edited by JayDubya; 01-16-14 at 11:02 AM.
Are all the people lobbying to keep the fetus alive also paying for the child's medical bills?
Is there a family petitioning to keep this woman alive also willing to adopt the baby? Failing that are the people championing keeping this fetus alive also going to set up a fund to pay for life expenses until the fetus turns 18?