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

JayDubya · Jan 21, 2014

Jerry said:
The lawyer who made that for her should have advised her that it wouldn't apply while pregnant. IMO her estate is entitled to a refund.

There was no such directive. If she had tried to made such a directive, one that would have applied while pregnant, that clause would not have been legally valid anyway and would have been ignored.

Jerry said:
Since when do husbands have a right to choose anyway?

Good point. Husbands have no say and that's the way they like it. Now they turn around and try to pull this crap. It's amusing because it's so pathetic and transparent.

Jerry · Jan 21, 2014

Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

Lovebug said:
If its the law, why are they suing the hospital instead of rallying for changes in the law?

I suspect the purpose of suing is to 'settle' for the value of the bill. Too often these media bananzas happen over money. I could imagine the father facing single parenthood, loss of his wife, and not really wanting to raise a second child by himself especially a child with brain damage....taking the mother's body off life support saves a lot of hassle and cost in the long run. Short-term guilt, gets over it, moves on with full sympathy of the community.

Very easy for me to believe.

JayDubya · Jan 21, 2014

Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

year2late said:
Again, there is no hope. The patient is dead.

One patient is dead. The other is not. It is obvious you think the kid's life means nothing, but the people of my state - including me - don't agree with you.

year2late said:
At 14 weeks, the fetus was not viable outside of the womb.

Yes, hence the continued life support. Duh.

year2late · Jan 21, 2014

Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

Lovebug said:
If its the law, why are they suing the hospital instead of rallying for changes in the law?

Frankly, I do not think it is the law. The law pertains to supporting an incapacitated person, not a corpse. I think the interpretation is whacky.

JayDubya · Jan 21, 2014

Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

Jerry said:
I suspect the purpose of suing is to 'settle' for the value of the bill. Too often these media bananzas happen over money. I could imagine the father facing single parenthood, loss of his wife, and not really wanting to raise a second child by himself especially a child with brain damage....taking the mother's body off life support saves a lot of hassle and cost in the long run. Short-term guilt, gets over it, moves on with full sympathy of the community.

Seems to me he's done a lot to erode the sympathy of folks in his community.

CanadaJohn · Jan 21, 2014

Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

Lovebug said:
If its the law, why are they suing the hospital instead of rallying for changes in the law?

As in most such cases, the family is arguing that the hospital has misinterpreted the extent of the laws reach - it might simply be a timing issue - apparently, the woman was declared dead and then was attached to life support when it was determined the fetus still had a heartbeat. The law, apparently, requires that no woman who is alive be taken off life support if they are pregnant and the fetus is still alive.

By the time this reaches court and is finally adjudicated, the child will likely be in kindergarten or have not survived.

Jerry · Jan 21, 2014

Stay tuned, kids. More government intrusion into your personal medical decisions to come when The Barack Obama Show returns.

year2late · Jan 21, 2014

Jerry said:
Stay tuned, kids. More government intrusion into your personal medical decisions to come when The Barack Obama Show returns.

What intrusion into your healthcare has occurred?

You are obliged to get insured, not healthcare.

year2late · Jan 21, 2014

Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

CanadaJohn said:
As in most such cases, the family is arguing that the hospital has misinterpreted the extent of the laws reach - it might simply be a timing issue - apparently, the woman was declared dead and then was attached to life support when it was determined the fetus still had a heartbeat. The law, apparently, requires that no woman who is alive be taken off life support if they are pregnant and the fetus is still alive.

By the time this reaches court and is finally adjudicated, the child will likely be in kindergarten or have not survived.

You cannot determine brain death unless the patient is already on a ventilator. If the patient could breath at all on her own, she would not be brain dead.

CanadaJohn · Jan 21, 2014

Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

year2late said:
You cannot determine brain death unless the patient is already on a ventilator. If the patient could breath at all on her own, she would not be brain dead.

I could be wrong, but my understanding was that she was found dead and rushed to hospital and it was determined on the way that the fetus still had a beating heart. As a result, she was then put on life support. I think the "brain dead" comments here are basically irrelevant - forget the brain part, she was simply declared dead.

scatt · Jan 21, 2014

year2late said:
What intrusion into your healthcare has occurred?

You are forced to enter the healthcare insurance market for being alive.

Jerry · Jan 21, 2014

year2late said:
What intrusion into your healthcare has occurred?

You are obliged to get insured, not healthcare.

Actually as a veteran I'm not obligated to get insured :mrgreen:

All the more reason to join the service, kids :2wave:

Lovebug · Jan 21, 2014

Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

Jerry said:
I suspect the purpose of suing is to 'settle' for the value of the bill. Too often these media bananzas happen over money. I could imagine the father facing single parenthood, loss of his wife, and not really wanting to raise a second child by himself especially a child with brain damage....taking the mother's body off life support saves a lot of hassle and cost in the long run. Short-term guilt, gets over it, moves on with full sympathy of the community.

Very easy for me to believe.

year2late said:
Frankly, I do not think it is the law. The law pertains to supporting an incapacitated person, not a corpse. I think the interpretation is whacky.

CanadaJohn said:
As in most such cases, the family is arguing that the hospital has misinterpreted the extent of the laws reach - it might simply be a timing issue - apparently, the woman was declared dead and then was attached to life support when it was determined the fetus still had a heartbeat. The law, apparently, requires that no woman who is alive be taken off life support if they are pregnant and the fetus is still alive.

By the time this reaches court and is finally adjudicated, the child will likely be in kindergarten or have not survived.

Fair enough. It will be an interesting case to follow.

year2late · Jan 21, 2014

Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

CanadaJohn said:
I could be wrong, but my understanding was that she was found dead and rushed to hospital and it was determined on the way that the fetus still had a beating heart. As a result, she was then put on life support. I think the "brain dead" comments here are basically irrelevant - forget the brain part, she was simply declared dead.

They resuscitated her (got her heart beat back). It takes time to declare brain death. There is a battery of tests involved. The news indicated that the husbands lawyer presented documents that brain death was declared. And if there was a prolonged down time, it makes the situation more tragic for the family....as a paramedic, the husband knows why they rush to a scene when someone is down, you have minutes before long term neurological damage sets in. From what I recall, the baby may have a few more minutes than the mom, but still....and you think of all the drugs she was flooded with. Your OB-GYN will read you the riot act if you take almost anything pharmaceutical.

AGENT J · Jan 21, 2014

Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

AGENT J said:
since protocol seems to very so much seems it can be anywhere from $3,500 to 11,000 a day. ANd thats not anything else just ICU life support.

so this could cost 245K-770K and up.
Who pays that?
Who responsibility is that?

Woman is legally dead
this is against the husband/fathers and families wishes
insurance could be a typical insurance company and claim the woman is legally dead and or the ZEF isnt covered

seems to me if its a state law they should cover it

so nobody has anything on this, who will pay, who you think should pay?

also for the record if i was the husband and we didnt have any other kids the first day i heard of this insanity i would have simply locked the door and pulled the plug, what ever my punish was IF they could get a conviction would be worth it so others dont have thier rights violated.

Theres no way i would let my wives, mine and my families wishes and rights be ignored and violated.

year2late · Jan 21, 2014

Jerry said:
Actually as a veteran I'm not obligated to get insured :mrgreen:

All the more reason to join the service, kids :2wave:

As a veteran, you likely are covered by the VA/Tricare.......isn't that insurance?

/

year2late · Jan 21, 2014

scatt said:
You are forced to enter the healthcare insurance market for being alive.

Healthcare insurance is not receiving health care. It is there in case you need health care. No intrusion.

scatt · Jan 21, 2014

year2late said:
Healthcare insurance is not receiving health care.

It is an intrusion into healthcare.

Jerry · Jan 21, 2014

year2late said:
As a veteran, you likely are covered by the VA/Tricare.......isn't that insurance?

The VA is not insurance, no. TriCare is insurance but I'm not on it right now. Veterans have access to the VA for life, and any fees are income based. Since the VA covers everything ObamaCare requires, I'm exempt from having to insure (at least until they change their minds again).

year2late · Jan 21, 2014

Jerry said:
The VA is not insurance, no. TriCare is insurance but I'm not on it right now. Veterans have access to the VA for life, and any fees are income based. Since the VA covers everything ObamaCare requires, I'm exempt from having to insure (at least until they change their minds again).

So you have health care coverage - everything ObamaCare requires. Yeah!

Ikari · Jan 21, 2014

Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

Lovebug said:
If its the law, why are they suing the hospital instead of rallying for changes in the law?

Because it's America and we're mostly stupid, sue-happy idiots.

AGENT J · Jan 21, 2014

Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

Lovebug said:
If its the law, why are they suing the hospital instead of rallying for changes in the law?

unfortunately sueing is faster, more effective and gets more attention

year2late · Jan 21, 2014

Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

Ikari said:
Because it's America and we're mostly stupid, sue-happy idiots.

I am thinking that the law is being misinterpreted by the hospital (and many others). The law was intended (right or wrong) to keep living people on life support until the child is born. The woman is dead.

Ikari · Jan 21, 2014

Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

year2late said:
I am thinking that the law is being misinterpreted by the hospital (and many others). The law was intended (right or wrong) to keep living people on life support until the child is born. The woman is dead.

So even less the contention, yes?

Aunt Spiker · Jan 21, 2014

Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

CanadaJohn said:
I don't want to get into a whole abortion debate/discussion here - not the place - but I'm confused by this response. Seems to me you're saying that women should have the choice - I agree - but then you disparage a "glass tube generation" where medical science makes it possible to "parent" a child without a woman becoming pregnant and carrying a child to term. Could it be that you just simply support "control" rather than choice? Seems not too long ago the fashionable scenario in feminist circles was to claim that pretty soon men wouldn't be needed - are you afraid that it may come full circle and women won't be needed?

I was making a sarcastic comment about science and how it dabbles too much in what is the natural process of life and death.

When the ability of the doctors and medicine surpasses nature *and* violates the individuals personal views and decisions - it's crossed the line.

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

Struggler

Struggler

IIJAFM

Struggler

Canadian Conservative

IIJAFM

IIJAFM

Canadian Conservative

Be humble and kind

IIJAFM

"If you ain't first, you're last"

IIJAFM

IIJAFM

IIJAFM

"If you ain't first, you're last"

IIJAFM

Cheese