• 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]

Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

I'd bet money she'd want to remain on life support while the baby developed enough to live outside the womb.
I'd bet money her husband is more likely to know what she'd want than a random poster on the internet.
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

It is freaky. I know babies bond with and connect to the mother in the womb. They grow to recognize her voice.

I would think that a healthy cognitive and emotional development of the baby would need a living mother. It seems like this could create risk of learning disabilities and mental illnesses... :(



This is one of the creepiest things I've ever seen. A freaking zombie incubating a fetus that could be severely damaged already. Reality really is stranger than fiction... I sincerely hope for a miracle and that the baby will be okay. The odds are so not good, tho...
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

I agree. This is messed up. I think pregnant women should make this decision, not the hospital and government. We don't even understand what type of risks and outcomes this potentially means for an unborn baby.


If that is her husband's wish then it should be respected.

It wasn't that long ago that if a pregnant woman died, that was it for the fetus (99 times out of 100 anyway). That's the natural order of things. Keeping her alive here and now is what's really against natural law.
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

i agree there are many concerns

but i simply cant see how RvW is ignored along with the woman rights, HUSBANDS rights and family wishes. Theres no logic that will ever make sense to do that.

the mom is unable, the law is RvW it "should" be the husbands decision and thats that.

the texas law should never have existed and im glad its being challenged
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

You're taking the position that the baby would want to develope inside of the woman's dead body, and that is ridiculous. This man knew his wife's wish. She didn't want to be put on life support, and the hospital did it anyway.

This guy didn't want to be in the position of "pulling the plug," which would directly cause the death of his wife. He and his wife thought it was best to die naturally. Do you totally lack empathy and understanding of that fact?


That's fair - but let's say, however, in an abstract and admittedly crazy possibility, that a set of conjoined twins had differing views on life-support. Perhaps one had a serious problem or accident, was in a coma or brain dead and had given a directive not to put on life support - but the other twin's life depended upon life support being applied until such time as he/she could be medically treated and able to survive on his/her own. Should both have to die because one didn't want life support?
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

Terrible situation to be in.

Going forward, all future individual DNR Directives should have two options..

1. If it is known that i am pregnant, this document has no effect during the pregnancy.

or

2. If it is known that i am pregnant, this document remains in effect.

Then there can be no doubt as to the individuals intentions.
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

You're taking the position that the baby would want to develope inside of the woman's dead body, and that is ridiculous. This man knew his wife's wish. She didn't want to be put on life support, and the hospital did it anyway.

This guy didn't want to be in the position of "pulling the plug," which would directly cause the death of his wife. He and his wife thought it was best to die naturally. Do you totally lack empathy and understanding of that fact?

Having empathy for a grieving husband takes a back seat in my world to medical efforts that could possibly save another life. Once the husband is holding his new born child in his arms and sees his dead wife's eyes or nose in the child, then we can talk about empathy and understanding the facts at that moment.

Pope Francis is right about one thing - we've become a society that too readily views life as disposable. And before you get on your high horse and rail about religion, I'm not the slightest bit religious, so save it.
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

Having empathy for a grieving husband takes a back seat in my world to medical efforts that could possibly save another life. Once the husband is holding his new born child in his arms and sees his dead wife's eyes or nose in the child, then we can talk about empathy and understanding the facts at that moment.

Pope Francis is right about one thing - we've become a society that too readily views life as disposable. And before you get on your high horse and rail about religion, I'm not the slightest bit religious, so save it.

I've agreed with you pretty much through this entire thread. The mother is dead, so it is completely irrelevant what she wants. We have an obligation to try to save as many lives as we can, and if there's any chance whatsoever of this kid making it through, it should be done. I'd much rather have a 1 in 100 shot at life than no shot at all.
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

I think the issue is that she didn't want life support, but the hospital put her on life support anyway. Letting a family member died naturally is a little different than turning off the life support system.

My understanding is that she's not even 4 months pregnant, so she's going to be on this life support system for a really long time.

And I think the husband should sue if the hospital actually expects him to pay the bill.

It's his kid's medical expenses, and the hospital is not legally allowed to do anything but what they are doing.

She's already dead, and turning off the ventilator needs to happen, yes... but in this case, that would also be a frivolous and needless loss of life for one of the two patients.

Take the mom out of the hospital now and you'd just be suffocating and / or starving a helpless kid.


P.S. I don't know to what extent this matters to the various people here, but apparently from local news affiliates (and yeah, this case is local for me), there was no DNR or any such document in place. Mr. Munoz is simply saying to hospital staff that he and Mrs. Munoz had talked about getting one.

This situation now makes a bit more sense. You don't have that document in place, the hospital doesn't know. If the hospital doesn't know, they're going to bloody well intubate a 33 year old pregnant woman and assume she wants her life and her baby's life saved if at all possible.
 
Last edited:
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

It's his kid's medical expenses, and the hospital is not legally allowed to do anything but what they are doing.

She's already dead, and turning off the ventilator needs to happen, yes... but in this case, that would also be a frivolous and needless loss of life for one of the two patients.

Take the mom out of the hospital now and you'd just be suffocating and / or starving a helpless kid.


P.S. I don't know to what extent this matters to the various people here, but apparently from local news affiliates (and yeah, this case is local for me), there was no DNR or any such document in place. Mr. Munoz is simply saying to hospital staff that he and Mrs. Munoz had talked about getting one.
This situation now makes a bit more sense. You don't have that document in place, the hospital doesn't know. If the hospital doesn't know, they're going to bloody well intubate a 33 year old pregnant woman and assume she wants her life and her baby's life saved if at all possible.

Interesting. I thought that it was in place.
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

"But the fetus still has a normal heartbeat.

Munoz told ABC News that he knows his desire to end his wife's life support is unpopular with many people

Family lawyers have said it will be difficult to convince a Texas judge to grant an injunction or restraining order to put the mother's wishes ahead of her child.

Munoz said that although he and his wife had intended to sign a do-not-resuscitate order, or DNR forms, they had not done so before she fell ill.

Texas law states this on pregnant patients: "A person may not withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment under this subchapter from a pregnant patient."

And on DNR forms, under the Health and Safety Code, it reads, "I understand under Texas law this directive has no effect if I have been diagnosed as pregnant."

Husband Wants Pregnant Wife Off Life Support - ABC News
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

Both Munozes are/were EMS's, and for all we know, with what they saw in their work, they talked about "pulling the plug." But neither of them had any idea that at such a young age, she was going to be struck down by an aneurysm.

I'm probably not as familiar with this case as others posting here, but from what I have read, there is no way to know whether the baby has been catastrophically damaged because his/her mother was deprived of oxygen for an hour. If you don't know, why would you choose death rather than life (and hope)?
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

There is no safe way of knowing anything more at this time, correct.

All that is known at this time is that the kid's ticker is going along just fine, and nothing "artificial" about that.

I agree entirely NB - hope for the best, do your best to help the patient, if things don't turn out, at least you can say you gave it your all. That's what HCP are supposed to do. Absolutely nothing can be done at this point to help Mrs. Munoz - she's gone... but just giving up on the kid seems more than a little cruel.
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

It's just such a sad, terrible situation. It does seem that Mr. Munoz and Marise Munoz's mother are adamant about disconnecting her even though the baby's life will be lost too, and it's difficult for me to understand. But I do understand deep grief, and one's judgment isn't always reliable during this time (which is why grief counselors always advise not to change jobs, move, or make other enormous life-decisions).

I don't know what the odds are that this baby will be damaged or normal. Anybody have stats?
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

I don't recall seeing in the law that the husband was not permitted to move is wife to another facility--to another state.
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

He doesn't want to kill his child. He wanted to honor his wife's wish everything using white support, but the hospital put her on life support anyway. For that he is suing. If the child is unhealthy, he should sue for that too.

FACT: If the wife isn't on life support, the child dies.

FACT: If the child is born with defects, it's the result of the wife's problems, not the hospital.
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

So you would saddle the widower and his son with the medical expenses associated with keeping his dead wife on life-support, against her stated wishes. Not only that, but you decide that protecting himself and his son against this crippling debt is selfish.

Yeah, usually I'd call a parent wanting to kill his kid for money pretty damn selfish... if that's even what is going on, but that's the tack you took with your response...

Let's say that WAS the issue, just for the sake of argument - this is a highly unlikely and catastrophic event... it's what we supposedly get insurance for.

Like I said, however, grief can make people irrational... which means he could come around to being reasonable. Here's hoping.

A fourteen week old fetus went an hour without oxygen. If during a birth a baby goes without oxygen for 3 minutes the results can be severe.

That's true, during birth.

Please state your expertise on what the effects of the mom's condition will be on a kid of that age at the time of the incident, however...

Part of neural development is that we can't make new neurons, which is why brain death is death.

However, when one is still forming one's neurological system... I'll be honest, I don't know. I usually know, but I don't know this one. This isn't a frequent enough occurrence that I ever studied the implications back in school. Since I don't know, I'm holding out hope, though.


Why do you hold these views? You fear that any empathy shown to the living loved ones of this poor women, may contradict your position on abortion. We are not talking about abortion. We are talking about letting a family grieve and get on with their lives by respecting the wishes of the deceased.

Likewise, fine, okay. Perhaps you fear that any concern shown to the unborn kid will contradict your position on that other topic. It's okay, you don't have to want every kid to die...

Or hey, maybe let's just look at this issue on its own merits, whaddayasay? ;)
 
Last edited:
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

Both Munozes are/were EMS's, and for all we know, with what they saw in their work, they talked about "pulling the plug." But neither of them had any idea that at such a young age, she was going to be struck down by an aneurysm.

I'm probably not as familiar with this case as others posting here, but from what I have read, there is no way to know whether the baby has been catastrophically damaged because his/her mother was deprived of oxygen for an hour. If you don't know, why would you choose death rather than life (and hope)?

Maybe it's easier not to saddle yourself with a special needs child. :roll: /sarcasm
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

So this is highly relevant for half the conversations in this thread.

To recap:

1) No DNR in place.

2) Even if a DNR had been in place, by law, such a DNR would not be valid for the duration of a pregnancy, and that fact would be written plainly on the document.

3) Hospital was obliged by law to intubate her and put her on a vent. Hospital is obliged by law to not turn off life support for the mom because the kid is still alive.
 
Last edited:
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

Terrible situation to be in.

Going forward, all future individual DNR Directives should have two options..

1. If it is known that i am pregnant, this document has no effect during the pregnancy.

or

2. If it is known that i am pregnant, this document remains in effect.

Then there can be no doubt as to the individuals intentions.

That would make no difference in this case. The law, as the hospital is choosing to interpret it, means regardless of any document and anyone's wishes, this dead person will remain on life-support until the government decides her remains are no longer needed.

The law, as I read it, seems to apply to persons who are alive. The hospital's interpretation seems to expand the law to include dead people. Thus the challenge.
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

That would make no difference in this case.

Well no, as I've already discovered and I've already told you...

a) there is no DNR

b) even if there was a DNR, a DNR is not valid in the event of pregnancy.


This means the hospital has done and is doing exactly what they are supposed to do.
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

Weren't you just requesting a few posts ago that people keep their eye on the topic and not bring in irrelevant nonsense?

You're right. My apologies.
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

I appreciate that but abortion is not an issue here - for all we know at this point, the woman was pro-life - she was, after all, carrying a child at the time of her demise. As another stated, how does one know that she'd feel the same about life support if she had known she'd have been pregnant at the time of application. Do people who have end of life provisions really think about the possibility they'd be pregnant at the time?

As I said before, I don't know a single woman who wouldn't do all she could to save the life of her child. I have no reason to believe she would want to do otherwise.

Assuming she was against abortion because she was pregnant is an awfully big assumption.

I don't think most people think about "What if I'm pregnant?" when they write these directives. Maybe she would feel differently, but that's another big assumption. It's possible, but we really don't know. We DO know that her directive was against using artificial life support, and we also know that her husband and parents want those wishes to be carried out. IMO, if everything from the patient says no, and her immediate family says no, the government shouldn't swoop in and contradict them.
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

I don't recall seeing in the law that the husband was not permitted to move is wife to another facility--to another state.

I don't recall that either, but I'm pretty certain if he tried, considering his actions and comments to date, the state would intervene and a court would stop him from moving her. At this stage, any attempt to end the life of the child by the family will result in the state taking custody of the child in whatever form that may take.
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

I don't think most people think about "What if I'm pregnant?" when they write these directives.

Don't worry, there was no directive. So we do not even need to discuss directives anymore, she did not have one.
 
Back
Top Bottom