• 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

year2late said:
Can you link me to the law that says you keep a dead person on "life" support?
Click to expand...

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

scatt said:
The law.
Click to expand...

So in other words, you can't quote the exact law. Got it.
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

minnie616 said:
Actually experts say the hospital is incorrectly applying the statute because Munoz would be considered legally and medically dead.


Family of Pregnant, Brain Dead Woman Files Lawsuit to Remove Life Support | NBC 5 Dallas-Fort Worth
Click to expand...

That is the main issue for me. The woman's dead body is maintained against the will of her next of kin and family. The law seems to talk about life sustaining measures being withdrawn. The are (OF COURSE) speaking to the pregnant dead woman. But you cannot sustain her life she is DEAD.

If the family wanted to fight for keeping her body supported to maintain the pregnancy, that would be another issue.
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

TheNextEra said:
So in other words, you can't quote the exact law. Got it.
Click to expand...

You do not know what law is being used in this case?
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

scatt said:
The law.
Click to expand...

Show us the text of the law that states a dead body is to be maintained for months to support a pregnancy against the next of kin's wishes.
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

year2late said:
Show us the text of the law that states a dead body is to be maintained for months to support a pregnancy against the next of kin's wishes.
Click to expand...

Why would I need to show that?
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

scatt said:
Why would I need to show that?
Click to expand...

To support your "point"

Show the "experts" are wrong. But my guess is you do not care if they are right or wrong - but the truth matters to me.
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

scatt said:
You mean to refute "experts"?
Click to expand...

Yes, please refute the experts.

And since you have not provided the law that indicates that dead people may be forced to stay on machines against the expressed demands of the next of kin, you have given us your answer
 
CanadaJohn said:
Personally, not being a religious person, I think anything we as human beings can do to save or better the lives of our fellow humans should be encouraged. I see nothing ethically, morally, or civilly wrong with harvesting the organs, where possible, of those people who have died. Although I've registered for such and informed my family of such, had I not done so I'd be perfectly comfortable with harvesting being the default position and only when specific written instructions from the person who died are available and valid would harvesting not take place.
Click to expand...

I admire your consistency on the issue and I do agree with an opt-out mentality to organ harvesting. I personally have no problem with how my body is used after death. But a lot of people are advocating certain women should not have that right, whilst getting uncomfortable that they should advocate having that right stripped from them too.
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

year2late said:
That is the main issue for me. The woman's dead body is maintained against the will of her next of kin and family. The law seems to talk about life sustaining measures being withdrawn. The are (OF COURSE) speaking to the pregnant dead woman. But you cannot sustain her life she is DEAD.
Click to expand...

There seems to be a lot of inconsistency in people's knowledge of what brain death is and is not.

Brain death is permanent and lethal pathophysiology - there is no coming back from it because we can't repair brain damage - dead neurons are dead. The body can't regenerate them, no medicine, no gene therapy, no possibility of transplant for reasons that should be obvious given what the brain is and does, nothing is going to fix it. Because of this, brain death is death.

And yet, what you have said is also false. You said you can't sustain life because of brain death - well, you can't repair that brain, certainly. You can artificially keep that body pumping blood and oxygen and nutrition for a very long time. Normally, you wouldn't, but in this case there's a quite logical and reasonable goal on a relatively short timetable.

If the family wanted to fight for keeping her body supported to maintain the pregnancy, that would be another issue.
Click to expand...

Most do, which is why there wouldn't be any issue, we would just be proceeding business as usual, like every other time this happens.

It's only because we have some people here having a crazy, repugnant impulse... one that will hopefully be abandoned... that this is even a story.
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

rjay said:
Family of brain dead 20-week pregnant mom suing hospital refusing to turn off her life support until the baby can be born | Mail Online


I cannot believe this insanity.
Click to expand...

In this case I fault the TX lesislature and not the hospital. The hospital is in between a rock and a hard place. The lesislature needs to update this law in reguards to such things as DNR and pregnancies.

lizzie said:
The woman had an advance medical directive stating that she did not want life support or cpr.
Click to expand...

Since most DNR's don't note the odd thing linke pregnancy I can see the hospital erroring on the side of caution towards the law. This is a clear example of why all women's DNR's need to clearly state whether or not there should be an exception for if they are pregnant. Ladies go update your DNR's now!
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

maquiscat said:
In this case I fault the TX lesislature and not the hospital. The hospital is in between a rock and a hard place. The lesislature needs to update this law in reguards to such things as DNR and pregnancies.
Click to expand...

A DNR has no effect for the duration of pregnancy.

Since most DNR's don't note the odd thing linke pregnancy I can see the hospital erroring on the side of caution towards the law. This is a clear example of why all women's DNR's need to clearly state whether or not there should be an exception for if they are pregnant. Ladies go update your DNR's now!
Click to expand...

a) No DNR in this case, just the next of kin saying they probably would have wanted one.
b) See above, even with a DNR in place, it would have no effect for the duration of pregnancy. The DNR would have specifically pointed this out before signing it.

Which makes sense... It appears, of course, that what a legally valid DNR looks like varies quite a bit from state to state, certainly from nation to nation.
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

scatt said:
The law.
Click to expand...

TheNextEra said:
So in other words, you can't quote the exact law. Got it.
Click to expand...

His arguement through this whole thread has been 'it's the law'. And all the time not really knowing which specific law.

I think any 'scatt' posts can safely be ignored.

Shocking?

Perhaps, but not to me.
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

maquiscat said:
In this case I fault the TX lesislature and not the hospital. The hospital is in between a rock and a hard place. The lesislature needs to update this law in reguards to such things as DNR and pregnancies.
Click to expand...

I don't want to fault anybody. This is an extraordinary case. Perhaps citizens and legislators need to look at the existing laws and update them; we will see. In the meantime, the hospital has expressed confidence that it is following existing law.
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

JayDubya said:
A DNR has no effect for the duration of pregnancy.
Click to expand...

When the law was written, DNR's were not that common or known about, if I am reading the story correctly. Therefore they would not have taken DNR's into account. If the law specifically said, "This law superceeds all DNR orders" then we can say that for sure. Right now, if it is law that a DNR has to be followed, we have potentially conflicting laws and either the court or the lesislature needs to fix this.

a) No DNR in this case, just the next of kin saying they probably would have wanted one.
b) See above, even with a DNR in place, it would have no effect for the duration of pregnancy. The DNR would have specifically pointed this out before signing it.

Which makes sense... It appears, of course, that what a legally valid DNR looks like varies quite a bit from state to state, certainly from nation to nation.
Click to expand...

Even without one in this woman's case (for which I double down on not faulting the hospital for playing it safe legally), this case highlights the need for women to be exceptionally clear in their DNR's and for the various laws to update, in either direction, in clear language how a pregnancy affects DNR's.
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

JayDubya said:
There seems to be a lot of inconsistency in people's knowledge of what brain death is and is not.

Brain death is permanent and lethal pathophysiology - there is no coming back from it because we can't repair brain damage - dead neurons are dead. The body can't regenerate them, no medicine, no gene therapy, no possibility of transplant for reasons that should be obvious given what the brain is and does, nothing is going to fix it. Because of this, brain death is death.

And yet, what you have said is also false. You said you can't sustain life because of brain death - well, you can't repair that brain, certainly. You can artificially keep that body pumping blood and oxygen and nutrition for a very long time. Normally, you wouldn't, but in this case there's a quite logical and reasonable goal on a relatively short timetable.
Click to expand...
There simply is not a lot of research done on brain dead patients being supported more than a few hours. Because, well, it's unethical. There's a lot more to it than the brain not merely functioning. Regulation of blood flow to the gut is compromised. If she's being fed intravenously, intestinal autolysis is likely to take place in a couple of weeks. Sepsis is a risk. Muscle wasting and degradation. Abdominal fistulation.
From the case of Jahi, who is on a feeding tube.
she passed some stool that was clinically consistent with defecation of the tissues lining the bowel (i.e., her body is sloughing her gut).
Click to expand...
Tissue beneath the skin (subcutaneous and muscle) are showing gradual signs of deterioration including changes in skin "turgor" (elasticity) and increase in muscle contraction (due to loss of nervous sytem regulation).
Click to expand...
does not exhibit airway protective reflexes such as cough
Click to expand...
http://media.nbcbayarea.com/documents/HeidiFlori.pdf


And what is the timetable?
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

rjay said:
Shocking?
Click to expand...

You do not know which law it is?

year2late said:
And since you have not provided the law that indicates that dead people may be forced to stay on machines against the expressed demands of the next of kin, you have given us your answer
Click to expand...

The law the hospital is using to keep her on life-supporting machines.
 
Ben K. said:
I admire your consistency on the issue and I do agree with an opt-out mentality to organ harvesting. I personally have no problem with how my body is used after death. But a lot of people are advocating certain women should not have that right, whilst getting uncomfortable that they should advocate having that right stripped from them too.
Click to expand...

I don't believe in your linkage of this issue with organ harvesting but thought it important to indicate I do believe in organ harvesting. To me, letting a body rot without helping others is like those people who want to be buried with worldly possessions, as if the dead can be comforted by diamonds and gold.

I'm very hopeful, and perhaps foolishly, that this fetus can develop to the stage of independence and, if not, I have nothing but praise for those who are at least trying.
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

From a Dallas news source:

Erick and Marlise’s parents have been asking doctors to let her die, pointing to a Texas law that says her brain-dead condition fits the definition of death under Texas law. But doctors insist they can’t take her off life support, pointing to another state law that says because the 14-week-old fetus still has a heartbeat, the mother must be kept alive.

Husband of pregnant, brain-dead woman sues to have her removed from life support in Fort Worth | Dallas Morning News

From the UK's Telegraph:


Twelve US states have rules overturning any heath directives from comatose or vegetative state patients, including living wills, if the patient happens to be pregnant. Another 17 states have more vague instructions, with some exceptions dependent on viability of the foetus, possible harm caused by the treatment, or both. Only Wisconsin, Vermont, Oklahoma, Maryland, and New Jersey explicitly guarantee that a woman's advance directives would be upheld regardless of pregnancy.

However, far more surprising, are the number of states which don't have rules either way at all. A whopping 15 states plus Washington D.C. lack any statutory language regarding whether advance directives would be honoured in case of pregnancy.

Brain-dead pregnant woman being kept alive for her baby - against her wishes. Welcome to Texas - Telegraph

Texas Law Keeping Brain Dead Woman “Alive” Because She’s Pregnant
 
CanadaJohn said:
I don't believe in your linkage of this issue with organ harvesting but thought it important to indicate I do believe in organ harvesting. To me, letting a body rot without helping others is like those people who want to be buried with worldly possessions, as if the dead can be comforted by diamonds and gold.

I'm very hopeful, and perhaps foolishly, that this fetus can develop to the stage of independence and, if not, I have nothing but praise for those who are at least trying.
Click to expand...

Well if they insist on continuing I wish them all the luck in the world. From my experience and what we know, the prognosis is worse than terrible.
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

maquiscat said:
In this case I fault the TX lesislature and not the hospital. The hospital is in between a rock and a hard place. The lesislature needs to update this law in reguards to such things as DNR and pregnancies.



Since most DNR's don't note the odd thing linke pregnancy I can see the hospital erroring on the side of caution towards the law. This is a clear example of why all women's DNR's need to clearly state whether or not there should be an exception for if they are pregnant. Ladies go update your DNR's now!
Click to expand...

DNR? She is already DEAD. The husband wants her wishes respected. They are not resuscitating her. They are ventilating a dead person.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom