• 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

Perhaps this is what you're referring to: Formerly conjoined Guatemalan twin girls turn 10 - Worldnews.com

Two young girls, formerly conjoined twins, who as infants/toddlers had a 23 hour operation and have now survived and are thriving as pre-teens.

It's a damn shame, isn't it, when they could have just been suctioned out of their mother's womb and flushed to make some people feel "dignified".

No, it was two boys.

I don't think those girls were head conjoined. They were also older when the operation was performed.

OK, they were head conjoined.
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

The pregnant woman already died with dignity. This thread is about protecting an unborn life.

Keeping a dead woman attached to machines to have nursing staff turn her frequently, cleanse her every several hours of urine and/or feces...poke her dead body for laboratory tests, feed her with a tube , maintain IV's.........that is a dignified death? After a dignified death, a family is able to pick up the pieces, grieve, and move on. Good Lord. Dignified???Attahed to machines after death against her expressed wishes??? Please, dignified?
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

Keeping a dead woman attached to machines to have nursing staff turn her frequently, cleanse her every several hours of urine and/or feces...poke her dead body for laboratory tests, feed her with a tube , maintain IV's.........that is a dignified death?

You think they do not have the waste being deposited away from her body?
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

You think they do not have the waste being deposited away from her body?

You do not think there is a staff member turning and cleaning her?

According to current guidelines, foley catheters (bladder tube)are a no no for strictly "ease of nursing care". They promote infection. If they want to make her more prone to bladder infection, they will keep it in. As to stool, if she is having diarrhea, she can have a rectal tube. But the rectal tube does not completely prevent soiling.

By the way, do you think having her dead body turned back and forth cleansed of urine and excrement, with tubes and machines to sustain her dead body is dignified? It might be what you have to go through to recover for an illness, and nursing staff does their best to be as discreet and respectful as possible.....but after death....if you think of the dead woman's wishes.....clearly what she did not want if she were alive and comatose...let alone DEAD!!!!!
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

By the way, do you think having her dead body turned back and forth cleansed of urine and excrement, with tubes and machines to sustain her dead body is dignified? /QUOTE]

You already admitted this is not the case.
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

Keeping a dead woman attached to machines to have nursing staff turn her frequently, cleanse her every several hours of urine and/or feces...poke her dead body for laboratory tests, feed her with a tube , maintain IV's.........that is a dignified death? After a dignified death, a family is able to pick up the pieces, grieve, and move on. Good Lord. Dignified???Attahed to machines after death against her expressed wishes??? Please, dignified?

Yes, dignified - far more dignified that the craven need to destroy the potential life inside her dead body to satisfy misplaced sentimentality. Tell you what - I sure hope medical science advances far enough that when I die my carcass can be used in multiple ways, even as an incubator, to save and or promote the health and life of someone else. And if my family doesn't like it, too bloody bad and I'd be embarrassed by them if they objected.
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

The machines are specifically life-sustaining machines.

That's certainly what they're designed to do. In this case, though, they're not sustaining life, they're slowing down the decomposition of a dead body. Like I said earlier in the thread, I truly hope for the best, but this is beyond creepy.

"Hi! I'm John. I was incubated in my mother's dead body." :shock:
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

Like I said earlier in the thread, I truly hope for the best, but this is beyond creepy.

Welcome to state intervention.
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

Yes, dignified - far more dignified that the craven need to destroy the potential life inside her dead body to satisfy misplaced sentimentality. Tell you what - I sure hope medical science advances far enough that when I die my carcass can be used in multiple ways, even as an incubator, to save and or promote the health and life of someone else. And if my family doesn't like it, too bloody bad and I'd be embarrassed by them if they objected.

While I respect what you want done with your dead body......you cannot make that decision for others.
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

If it was my child, and my responsibility, yes. I took care of my mother for the last 25 years of her life, many of those years while she was bedridden and changing and washing her several times a day. Before that, I took care of my father in similar circumstances. They didn't want to be put in a home or facility and I valued their lives, such as they were, to the very end.

It's funny, at least to me, that those on the left are always tossing out the "are you willing to adopt the child" challenge whenever discussing unborn life and yet for every other circumstance where those on the left want to have society and "taxpayers" fund and support the less fortunate, they never claim they are willing to have the homeless live with them, the unemployed live with them, the handicapped live with them, the addicted live with them. No, there's no need for anyone on the left to take personal responsibility for the millions they want society to support, yet anyone who values the defenseless lives of the unborn must be willing to personally adopt every child saved.

That attitude is a disgrace.

I respect what you did for your parents, but you weren't 30 years older than them. Dealing with the reality of what happens to them after you die.

Your admonishment of the generalised "left" (i consider myself on the right and am anti-abortion) applies to the husband. An EMT who was paid a pitance to save lives, certainly more than most of us here ever have or will. He has to sit beside his decaying wife with a baby that has the survival probability of close to zero. But you're sitting here thinking you know more about the issue than he does.

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

I wonder how the baby is receiving nourishment? Surely whatever they are pumping into the woman's stomach would not be en par with her being alive and eating according to her craving impulses? I think this baby is screwed either way.

It's really disturbing that Texas can bypass a DNR order, which is legally binding, all because of Christian ideology. For all we know this baby and its mother were meant to die together and journey on together. Even the religious implications here are disturbing. Christians get to decide because they made the law. She already told us her choice when she didn't make any stipulation to save the baby. She doesn't want her body violated, which is what's going to happen when the baby is full term and a c-section is needed.

This case is gross... and Texas is ****ed up. That baby will be born without a mother. It is not the State's choice.
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

It's really disturbing that Texas can bypass a DNR order, which is legally binding, all because of Christian ideology.

There is no DNR.
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

If it was my child, and my responsibility, yes. I took care of my mother for the last 25 years of her life, many of those years while she was bedridden and changing and washing her several times a day. Before that, I took care of my father in similar circumstances. They didn't want to be put in a home or facility and I valued their lives, such as they were, to the very end.

It's funny, at least to me, that those on the left are always tossing out the "are you willing to adopt the child" challenge whenever discussing unborn life and yet for every other circumstance where those on the left want to have society and "taxpayers" fund and support the less fortunate, they never claim they are willing to have the homeless live with them, the unemployed live with them, the handicapped live with them, the addicted live with them. No, there's no need for anyone on the left to take personal responsibility for the millions they want society to support, yet anyone who values the defenseless lives of the unborn must be willing to personally adopt every child saved.

That attitude is a disgrace.

I have had my mother with me for about 15 years. I have respected her wishes and cared for her as best I can. So I understand the concept. Completely.

But what about this woman's husband. He wants to abide by his wife's wishes. They were both paramedics - so I am sure they were acutely aware of quality of life issues and had made personal judgments about quality of life. Who are we to push our individual points of view on that family? People decide all the time on infants, children, adults, and the elderly to withhold medical care - why is it so cringingly horrible to allow a woman who suffered catastrophic cardiovascular collapse including lack of ox.ygen to pass along with the 14 week old fetus (who was without O2 as well). I just think this is a decision that should have been left to the next of kin.
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

There is no DNR.

Scat!

She is dead. You do not need a DNR order for a dead person. She is not being resuscitated. You do not resuscitate a corpse.

What do you not "get" about "dead"?
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

I have had my mother with me for about 15 years. I have respected her wishes and cared for her as best I can. So I understand the concept. Completely.

But what about this woman's husband. He wants to abide by his wife's wishes. They were both paramedics - so I am sure they were acutely aware of quality of life issues and had made personal judgments about quality of life. Who are we to push our individual points of view on that family? People decide all the time on infants, children, adults, and the elderly to withhold medical care - why is it so cringingly horrible to allow a woman who suffered catastrophic cardiovascular collapse including lack of ox.ygen to pass along with the 14 week old fetus (who was without O2 as well). I just think this is a decision that should have been left to the next of kin.

I appreciate what you're saying, however, for me, husbands and wives don't get to take their children with them when they die. As someone who is pro-choice, I appreciate when a woman makes a decision about her pregnancy even if, personally, I hate the decision. Many here, including yourself, believe that their is only one life at issue here, that being the woman. I, on the other hand, with others here, believe that there is also only one life at issue here, that being the developing fetus.

You talk about the husband wanting to abide by the wife's wishes - I'll credit he believes that to be true, but I don't personally believe that any woman who is pregnant and intent on giving birth would freely give a direction that should she die her unborn child should be taken with her. I've seen what women do to protect the lives of their children, some giving their own life to save their child. I think it's an insult to the memory of this woman that her husband believes she wouldn't want everything done to save her child.

And you're right - the husband and wife were both paramedics. As such, nothing would convince me that they wouldn't know the absolute need of having their wishes in writing in order for them to be valid. Perhaps it's just a matter of the invincibility of youth that nothing formal was put in writing, but there wasn't.

As for leaving the decision to next of kin, I would tend to agree - where we disagree here is what is in the best interest of the developing life. It's not unheard of that government would step in to protect the interests of the vulnerable when the guardians of those interests are acting in their own interests rather than that of the patient.
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

Scat!

She is dead. You do not need a DNR order for a dead person. She is not being resuscitated. You do not resuscitate a corpse.

What do you not "get" about "dead"?

Perhaps what many aren't getting is that there is only one "being" on life support, and that is the developing fetus. The "corpse" as you call it is simply a conduit for implementing life support to the benefit of the fetus. The "mother's" wishes aren't being denied, in that sense, since she is dead. What are being denied are the personal, emotional, wishes of the husband and woman's mother, which have no status in law, period.
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

I appreciate what you're saying, however, for me, husbands and wives don't get to take their children with them when they die. As someone who is pro-choice, I appreciate when a woman makes a decision about her pregnancy even if, personally, I hate the decision. Many here, including yourself, believe that their is only one life at issue here, that being the woman. I, on the other hand, with others here, believe that there is also only one life at issue here, that being the developing fetus.

You talk about the husband wanting to abide by the wife's wishes - I'll credit he believes that to be true, but I don't personally believe that any woman who is pregnant and intent on giving birth would freely give a direction that should she die her unborn child should be taken with her. I've seen what women do to protect the lives of their children, some giving their own life to save their child. I think it's an insult to the memory of this woman that her husband believes she wouldn't want everything done to save her child.

And you're right - the husband and wife were both paramedics. As such, nothing would convince me that they wouldn't know the absolute need of having their wishes in writing in order for them to be valid. Perhaps it's just a matter of the invincibility of youth that nothing formal was put in writing, but there wasn't.

As for leaving the decision to next of kin, I would tend to agree - where we disagree here is what is in the best interest of the developing life. It's not unheard of that government would step in to protect the interests of the vulnerable when the guardians of those interests are acting in their own interests rather than that of the patient.

So where do you draw the line. What if she was 3 weeks pregnant?
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

Perhaps what many aren't getting is that there is only one "being" on life support, and that is the developing fetus. The "corpse" as you call it is simply a conduit for implementing life support to the benefit of the fetus. The "mother's" wishes aren't being denied, in that sense, since she is dead. What are being denied are the personal, emotional, wishes of the husband and woman's mother, which have no status in law, period.

So, are you telling me they have the patient listed as the baby?
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

No they are not. She is not alive. Are you saying brain dead people are alive?

Exactly.

It seems like many posters on this thread think the ventalator can keep a dead body from decaying because the heart is beating and oxygen is being pumped in with the ventalator.

What they fail to understand is she is brain dead because her brain had no oxygen and no blood flow for an extended period of time.

The brain is dead and decay is setting in. Just like what happens when when a limb does get blood flow for a period of time and gangrene sets in and the limb starts to rot.

Sorry for being so blunt but it seems many of the posters on this thread who support keeping her on the ventalitor just don't understand she is dead... not in a coma, not in a vegetive state where machines can keep a persons body maintained for an extended period of time.
 
Last edited:
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

What they fail to understand is she is brain dead because her brain had no oxygen and no blood flow for an extended period of time.

The brain is dead and decay is setting in. Just like what happens when when a limb does get blood flow for a period of time and gangrene sets in and the limb starts to rot.

.

No, that really is not the case. A body which is artificially ventilated still has circulation, as the heart is still beating. The only reason why there would be rot or decay would be that the people taking care of the individual in question, neglected to turn the person regularly, to take the pressure off the different pressure points on the body. In that case, a pressure ulcer would develop, but it could be healed by regular turning/repositioning and wound care.
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

well im playing catch up and im going to state what i think the facts are please correct me if wrong

woman is brain dead
woman is 20 weeks pregnant (incident happened at 14 weeks)
woman had order to not be on life support
woman is married making her husband legally and medically in control
Texas law prohibits it from following a family/will directive when a pregnancy is involved.
Father also wants to abort because of possible damage to the Fetus

as i could tell, seems those are the facts, please correct me if im wrong


if the above is true the Texas state law violates rights in my simply opinion because it disregards the woman's rights and RvW and puts an extra restriction that is above and beyond RvW.

the womans will/order/wishes should be done AND since the father is alive and married so should his

Now since the unconstitutional law exists it does have to be challenged so thats that. there has to be a court case.

What should happen to this law is what has happened to many other laws, since it goes against RvW it should be removed and struck down, since it violates will/individual rights it should also be struck down.

Keeping a woman alive 10 weeks or longer against her wishes, husbands wishes and family wishes is horrible and then during medical procedures on her body afterwards is also horrible.

Having said all that, again though, the law is on the books and currently the hospital is within their legal right. Im glad this is going to court and the law should be struck down.

well i haven read every post but nothing has changed about what i wrote above but now i have a new question that is a side topic.

uhm, who is paying for all this?
how expensive is it to keep somebody on life support for multiple months especially if they are legally dead, does insurance pay?
who is responsible?
and in the texas law that is unconstitutional is there a limit? like what if this would have happened and she was only 3 weeks? would the law still try to keep her supported for 21+ weeks?
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

No, that really is not the case. A body which is artificially ventilated still has circulation, as the heart is still beating. The only reason why there would be rot or decay would be that the people taking care of the individual in question, neglected to turn the person regularly, to take the pressure off the different pressure points on the body. In that case, a pressure ulcer would develop, but it could be healed by regular turning/repositioning and wound care.

My understanding is the brain did not receive oxygen for an extended period of time.
I was stating her brain is decaying inside not that her body is rotting.

I agree pressure ulcers could still develop but I was referring to her brain decaying.

Sorry , I did not make that more clear.
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

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
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

No, that really is not the case. A body which is artificially ventilated still has circulation, as the heart is still beating. The only reason why there would be rot or decay would be that the people taking care of the individual in question, neglected to turn the person regularly, to take the pressure off the different pressure points on the body. In that case, a pressure ulcer would develop, but it could be healed by regular turning/repositioning and wound care.

Nope. Her airway can't be cleared by itself, she will start digesting her own digestive system and her muscles will decay due to neurological death. Regardless of any proper nursing, she will decompose.
 
Back
Top Bottom