• 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

JayDubya said:
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.
Click to expand...

They did follow the law. To quote Charles Dickens, "The law is an ass."

For all the talk from conservatives about "big government" they don't seem to have a problem swooping in in this situation. This is about as "big" as government can get. This is the most personal of decisions. Yet you seem to have no problem with this.
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

rocket88 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Here's what seems to be known and relevant in my view:

1. As JayDubya has pointed out, there actually isn't a written directive in place, simply the husband claiming that they talked about it and what her views were.

2. We know she was pregnant, and 14 weeks into the pregnancy when she died, so it's likely whatever her views on abortion or choice or anything else in the abstract, her views on her own pregnancy was positive - otherwise, she would have aborted the fetus before 14 weeks - at least that's my presumption.

Those two points, in my view, strongly support protecting the interests of the developing child until such time as it appears a healthy birth/life is not possible.
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

CanadaJohn said:
Here's what seems to be known and relevant in my view:

1. As JayDubya has pointed out, there actually isn't a written directive in place, simply the husband claiming that they talked about it and what her views were.

2. We know she was pregnant, and 14 weeks into the pregnancy when she died, so it's likely whatever her views on abortion or choice or anything else in the abstract, her views on her own pregnancy was positive - otherwise, she would have aborted the fetus before 14 weeks - at least that's my presumption.

Those two points, in my view, strongly support protecting the interests of the developing child until such time as it appears a healthy birth/life is not possible.
Click to expand...

I'm not clear why there has to be a written directive. He is the husband and I've not seen anything that casts a doubt on that. If the wife is not able to make the decision and then that falls to the husband. I suppose if she had specifically addressed this situation in some kind of document that it could take precedent over the wishes of the husband.

This is one of those marriage rights that so many people keep fighting over.
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

rocket88 said:
They did follow the law. To quote Charles Dickens, "The law is an ass."
Click to expand...

It can be. In this case, there is nothing wrong with the laws involved.

There was no DNR, so you have to intubate and put the patient on a vent. Even if there was a DNR - and again, it has been established that there was not, for the duration of pregnancy, a DNR has no effect (which is plain within the document itself before you sign one).

One patient died, but her kid is still alive, so the hospital is still providing care to the other patient in their care.

It's reasonable.


What strikes me as crazy is the doubtlessly grief-stricken dad who wants to kill his kid for no good reason.

NOT listening to the totes cray cray dude who obviously doesn't have his kid's best interests at heart sounds like a really, really good idea.
 
Last edited:
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

JayDubya said:
NOT listening to the totes cray cray dude who obviously doesn't have his kid's best interests at heart sounds like a really, really good idea.
Click to expand...

Depends on how you feel about privacy and government interference in our lives. That's just me, I'd rather not have the government make health care decisions for me.
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

rocket88 said:
Depends on how you feel about privacy and government interference in our lives.
Click to expand...

Quite fond of the former but not the latter... though the relevance to this situation seems nil.

When I think "government interference in our lives," I'm not usually thinking about the government not letting me kill my kid for shiggles.
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

JayDubya said:
Quite fond of the former but not the latter... though the relevance to this situation seems nil.

When I think "government interference in our lives," I'm not usually thinking about the government not letting me kill my kid for shiggles.
Click to expand...

a) That's not what's happening here.

b) What do you think is government interference if not laws dictating when a person should be on life support?
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

rocket88 said:
a) That's not what's happening here.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it is. Kid's alive, dad for whatever reason doesn't care if his kid dies and wants the hospital to kill the kid, hospital isn't allowed to do so.

That is what is happening here.

What do you think is government interference if not laws dictating when a person should be on life support?
Click to expand...

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?
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

JayDubya said:
Yeah, it is. Kid's alive, dad for whatever reason doesn't care if his kid dies and wants the hospital to kill the kid, hospital isn't allowed to do so.

That is what is happening here.
Click to expand...

I'm sure he's getting his jollies off of it. :roll: Could be that he believes in natural law and letting people die when their time comes.



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?
Click to expand...

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?"
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

rocket88 said:
I'm sure he's getting his jollies off of it. :roll: Could be that he believes in natural law and letting people die when their time comes.
Click to expand...

The mom is dead, her time has come.

The kid is not dead. Killing the kid doesn't serve any such law - it violates the rights of the kid.

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?"
Click to expand...

Again, your cynicism is unwelcome, unwarranted bull****.

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:
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

JayDubya said:
The mom is dead, her time has come.

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****.

A hospital is obliged to assume you want life-saving care. If you have a DNR, it is forbidden from providing it. There was no such DNR here, so intubation occurred and Mrs. Munoz is now on a ventilator in JPS.

In any event, 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.

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.
Click to expand...

So if there's no DNR, she should be kept alive forever? Or only until they're done using her as an incubator without her consent?
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

AliHajiSheik said:
I'm not clear why there has to be a written directive. He is the husband and I've not seen anything that casts a doubt on that. If the wife is not able to make the decision and then that falls to the husband. I suppose if she had specifically addressed this situation in some kind of document that it could take precedent over the wishes of the husband.

This is one of those marriage rights that so many people keep fighting over.
Click to expand...

My only disagreement here would be in the fact that there is a third life here that is being protected and supported. Actively killing a developing child in order to appease the wishes of a grieving husband seems a little beyond the "marriage rights" argument. It reminds me of when pharaohs died and a few live servants were buried with the deceased because the pharaohs didn't want to "travel" alone.

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.
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

rocket88 said:
So if there's no DNR, she should be kept alive forever?
Click to expand...

No, she's dead. Brain death is death. She can't be "kept alive."

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...

Or only until they're done using her as an incubator without her consent?
Click to expand...

Please explain how a corpse can offer or not offer 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:
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

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?
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

CanadaJohn said:
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.
Click to expand...
So you're going to help raise the child and share in the expenses of raising the child?
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

reinoe said:
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?
Click to expand...

Her family is on the husband's side in the lawsuit, so I don't think so.
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

reinoe said:
So you're going to help raise the child and share in the expenses of raising the child?
Click to expand...

Who was going to raise and pay for the child if the mother hadn't died?

On the basis of your logic, if you're married with children and your spouse dies, you should be able to round up all the children and either kill them or let them fend for themselves because you shouldn't have to raise and pay for them yourself.
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

AliHajiSheik said:
I'm not clear why there has to be a written directive. He is the husband and I've not seen anything that casts a doubt on that. If the wife is not able to make the decision and then that falls to the husband. I suppose if she had specifically addressed this situation in some kind of document that it could take precedent over the wishes of the husband.

This is one of those marriage rights that so many people keep fighting over.
Click to expand...
Republicans want the government out of people's lives only when it's convenient. Reminds me of the Terry Schiavo case.
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

reinoe said:
Are all the people lobbying to keep the fetus alive also paying for the child's medical bills?
Click to expand...

Lobbying? It's already the law. :cool:

As far as paying for the kid's medical bill, you know, it's funny, but I don't recall having sex with Mrs. Munoz. Parents are responsible for their kids' expenses.
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

reinoe said:
Republicans want the government out of people's lives only when it's convenient. Reminds me of the Terry Schiavo case.
Click to expand...

Add abortion and SSM with that too in regards to the Republicans.
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

JayDubya said:
Please explain how a corpse can offer or not offer consent.
Click to expand...

A corpse cannot offer consent. Why should it be assumed in this case, if it is not assumed in the case of organ donors?

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.
Click to expand...

They could let her die as she would have wished. Why does the end of her pregnancy suddenly mean there's a DNR? If there's no directive, at what point do you turn it off? Why is she worth nothing more than to be an incubator?
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

JayDubya said:
Lobbying? It's already the law. :cool:

As far as paying for the kid's medical bill, you know, it's funny, but I don't recall having sex with Mrs. Munoz.
Click to expand...

Nope, but you do support them keeping her alive which costs money. So yeah, you and others should foot the bill.
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

CanadaJohn said:
Who was going to raise and pay for the child if the mother hadn't died?
Click to expand...
The mother and father. Which is now impossible.
CanadaJohn said:
On the basis of your logic, if you're married with children and your spouse dies, you should be able to round up all the children and either kill them or let them fend for themselves because you shouldn't have to raise and pay for them yourself.
Click to expand...
Wow you really jumped onto all kinds of logical fallacies here.

Who's going to take care of the fetus is a legitimate question. Seeing as how you're conservative I'm sure you're against the state doing so and so am I.
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

JayDubya said:
Lobbying? It's already the law. :cool:

As far as paying for the kid's medical bill, you know, it's funny, but I don't recall having sex with Mrs. Munoz. Parents are responsible for their kids' expenses.
Click to expand...

So because he had sex with her, he's responsible to keep the kid alive forever? What if the child is born needing life support to stay alive? He should have to pay for that forever?
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

reinoe said:
Republicans want the government out of people's lives only when it's convenient. Reminds me of the Terry Schiavo case.
Click to expand...

You mean democrats.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom