Page 65 of 87 FirstFirst ... 1555636465666775 ... LastLast
Results 641 to 650 of 863

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

  1. #641
    Sage



    Join Date
    May 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,250

    Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    Sure, I see the difference - if it was an easy choice, this wouldn't be news. I also see this as a potential advancement in medicine, not just for this unborn child but potentially for others in the future. If medicine simply stuck to "what has been done for decades", we'd still be bleeding patients, sawing off limbs, etc.

    For me, the main distinction in this discussion is between those who express emotion for the husband and mother who want to grieve the death of their loved one and those who express emotion for the unborn child who has a chance, however slim, at life.
    What has been done for decades was c-sections on dead (or non viable) women.

    CJ, the emotion over the unborn child is one issue. A law demanding that a dead woman maintain a pregnancy that was plagued with a catastrophic loss of oxygen and circulation at an early stage is INSANE - an another issue entirely. If the husband wanted to act on his beliefs and emotions - fine. But we cannot as a society make laws that demand it. That is INSANE.

    Like in the abortion debates...I support people that are anti-abortion. I personally am anti-abortion in most instances. But no way no shape no form do I support laws that impose my point of view on other women. The only person that can control my body is me - and my next o kin should I become incapacitated and unable to speak for myself.

  2. #642
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,190

    Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

    Quote Originally Posted by year2late View Post
    What has been done for decades was c-sections on dead (or non viable) women.

    CJ, the emotion over the unborn child is one issue. A law demanding that a dead woman maintain a pregnancy that was plagued with a catastrophic loss of oxygen and circulation at an early stage is INSANE - an another issue entirely. If the husband wanted to act on his beliefs and emotions - fine. But we cannot as a society make laws that demand it. That is INSANE.

    Like in the abortion debates...I support people that are anti-abortion. I personally am anti-abortion in most instances. But no way no shape no form do I support laws that impose my point of view on other women. The only person that can control my body is me - and my next o kin should I become incapacitated and unable to speak for myself.
    All fair comment - I do, however, find it hard to believe that the hospital would be redirecting resources to this case if there was no hope for the unborn child.

    And I appreciate your comments about the law - seems, as has been noted, there are 35 states in America that have similar laws in place. Here in Canada, I'm not aware of any similar law and in all cases hospitals make decisions based on the best interests of the patient(s) involved and frequently, the only time there is an issue is when the family wants more resources directed toward their loved one and the hospital is trying to convince them there is no hope. This case seems to be the direct opposite.

    I provide the following article that looks at this issue: End-of-Life Decision-making for Pregnant Women: Contested Terrain
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

  3. #643
    Sayonara!
    Maenad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    By the water.
    Last Seen
    07-09-14 @ 10:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,259

    Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

    According to Planned Parenthood v Casey the government does have an interest in the life and protection of the viable fetus.

    Planned Parenthood v. Casey - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    In Roe v Wade, the test was the 'trimester' test. Planned Parenthood v Casey changed to the 'viability' test. Courts in the US will act to protect a viable fetus. There is no provision in the case for what the mental capacity of the child will be after birth.

    It stands to reason that intrauterine hypoxia could have caused problems for the fetus. That is not a given nor is it 100% because there are various levels of hypoxia and fetal brain development progresses over a long period of time. Also, there are other causes of fetal hypoxia that most really have no issue with whatsoever:

    There are various causes for intrauterine hypoxia (IH). The most preventable cause is maternal smoking. Cigarette smoking by expectant mothers has been shown to have a wide variety of deleterious effects on the developing fetus. Among the negative effects are carbon monoxide induced tissue hypoxia and placental insufficiency which causes a reduction in blood flow from the uterus to the placenta thereby reducing the availability of oxygenated blood to the fetus
    Intrauterine hypoxia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Redneck, hillbilly, fundie, Bible thumper, cracker, split tails, geezer, loon, xenophobe, islamaphobe, and homophobe are not words of tolerance.

  4. #644
    Sage



    Join Date
    May 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,250

    Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    All fair comment - I do, however, find it hard to believe that the hospital would be redirecting resources to this case if there was no hope for the unborn child.

    And I appreciate your comments about the law - seems, as has been noted, there are 35 states in America that have similar laws in place. Here in Canada, I'm not aware of any similar law and in all cases hospitals make decisions based on the best interests of the patient(s) involved and frequently, the only time there is an issue is when the family wants more resources directed toward their loved one and the hospital is trying to convince them there is no hope. This case seems to be the direct opposite.

    I provide the following article that looks at this issue: End-of-Life Decision-making for Pregnant Women: Contested Terrain
    Again, there is no hope. The patient is dead. The laws pertain to "life sustaining treatment" of the patient. The patient is the pregnant woman. And the woman is dead. And the baby at 14 weeks, not only was not vialble outside of the womb, suffered through the same catastrophic loss of oxygen (there is some lag, but still catastrophic) as the mother.

    I look forward to reading the article.

  5. #645
    Sage



    Join Date
    May 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,250

    Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

    Quote Originally Posted by Maenad View Post
    According to Planned Parenthood v Casey the government does have an interest in the life and protection of the viable fetus.

    Planned Parenthood v. Casey - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    In Roe v Wade, the test was the 'trimester' test. Planned Parenthood v Casey changed to the 'viability' test. Courts in the US will act to protect a viable fetus. There is no provision in the case for what the mental capacity of the child will be after birth.

    It stands to reason that intrauterine hypoxia could have caused problems for the fetus. That is not a given nor is it 100% because there are various levels of hypoxia and fetal brain development progresses over a long period of time. Also, there are other causes of fetal hypoxia that most really have no issue with whatsoever:



    Intrauterine hypoxia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    At 14 weeks, the fetus was not viable outside of the womb.

  6. #646
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,190

    Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

    I just wanted to add this article to the discussion. While it's not completely identical to the situation here, it does relay the story of a woman who died from a cerebral hemorrhage, at 15 weeks pregnant, and she was kept on life support until her child was delivered by c-section at 27 weeks, healthy and well. It also indicates this is not the first such occasion where it has happened.

    Baby Born To Brain-Dead Mother 3 Months After Woman's Declared Death

    I should add that it also indicates that the woman was kept on life support for two additional days after giving birth so that her internal organs could be donated. I mention this to counter the arguments of some who indicate that a dead person on life support would decay and "rot" if left on life support that long.
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

  7. #647
    Sage



    Join Date
    May 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,250

    Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

    Interesting.

    I am curious, in the "natural death" act and the pregnancy exception....

    Chapter 70.122 RCW: NATURAL DEATH ACT

    (
    5) "Life-sustaining treatment" means any medical or surgical intervention that uses mechanical or other artificial means, including artificially provided nutrition and hydration, to sustain, restore, or replace a vital function, which, when applied to a qualified patient, would serve only to prolong the process of dying. "Life-sustaining treatment" shall not include the administration of medication or the performance of any medical or surgical intervention deemed necessary solely to alleviate pain
    This is my point. This speaks to an ALIVE patient ("prolonging the process of dying"). It is not applicable to a patient who has already passed away.

    If the fetus was viable at death, there would have been a C-section and a delivery. At 14 weeks....not viable.

  8. #648
    Sayonara!
    Maenad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    By the water.
    Last Seen
    07-09-14 @ 10:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,259

    Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

    Quote Originally Posted by year2late View Post
    At 14 weeks, the fetus was not viable outside of the womb.
    If I read correctly, the fetus was older when it got into the court system. That would be the point from which viability would be considered. Not an earlier point.
    Redneck, hillbilly, fundie, Bible thumper, cracker, split tails, geezer, loon, xenophobe, islamaphobe, and homophobe are not words of tolerance.

  9. #649
    Struggler
    JayDubya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    11-09-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    17,181

    Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

    Quote Originally Posted by year2late View Post
    Yup. Not every state is insane like Texas.
    Yeah, not killing kids pointlessly is insanity.

    It is just disgusting that the working poor (too rich for Medicaid to poor to pay for healthcare) have to go without or receive susbstandard healthcare
    Fine, if you want to go there, the existence of Medicaid is disgusting. People should get the services they pay for, and parents should pay for their kids care - kids don't ask to be created in the first place.

    .....and a dead woman gets high end treatment massively costly treatment against the wishes of the next of kin who knew her best.
    Treatment is for the kid. I don't know all the billing implications, but I know neonatal ICU care isn't cheap either. It may well be less expensive treatment and arguably more natural from the kid's perspective for the kid to be where he is even past 24 weeks, and if so, they should not do the c-section yet.
    Last edited by JayDubya; 01-21-14 at 12:55 PM.

  10. #650
    Sage
    Lovebug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,875

    Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

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

Page 65 of 87 FirstFirst ... 1555636465666775 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •