• 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 think it is wrong because the acting legal consent is with the husband and the hospital is not acting in accordance with that. If the woman had a living will saying otherwise, I would completely support that but as she does not the legal consent should pass to the husband.

My wife and I have living wills exactly for this type of situation should it occur.

The legal consent lies with the hospital, by law, legally because of the pregnancy. 34 other states have very similar laws.
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

I think it is wrong because the acting legal consent is with the husband and the hospital is not acting in accordance with that. If the woman had a living will saying otherwise, I would completely support that but as she does not the legal consent should pass to the husband.

My wife and I have living wills exactly for this type of situation should it occur.

But in Texas it would not matter. If your wife was pregnant when incapacitated, the pregnancy must be maintained against your will unless there was a clear stipulation about her being pregnant. How many young people have living wills let alone one with such a stipulation?
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

But in Texas it would not matter. If your wife was pregnant when incapacitated, the pregnancy must be maintained against your will unless there was a clear stipulation about her being pregnant. How many young people have living wills let alone one with such a stipulation?

35 states have similar laws.
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

The legal consent lies with the hospital, by law, legally because of the pregnancy. 34 other states have very similar laws.

How many hospitals in those states would keep a BRAIN DEAD patient at 14 weeks gestation on mechanical ventilation (etc) against the will of the husband?
 
Last edited:
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

How many hospitals in those states would keep a BRAIN DEAD patient at 14 weeks gestation alive against the will of next of the husband?

Possibly 35, by law.
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

Possibly 35, by law.

I doubt it. The law is to keep a living patient on life support. Not a dead person on death support.

The laws are intended for comatose or vegetative patients. No the deceased.
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support


Yup. Not every state is insane like Texas. 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.....and a dead woman gets high end treatment massively costly treatment against the wishes of the next of kin who knew her best. Disgusting. Yup - pro-fetus (not pro-life) priorities are so prevalent.
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

I think it is wrong because the acting legal consent is with the husband and the hospital is not acting in accordance with that. If the woman had a living will saying otherwise, I would completely support that but as she does not the legal consent should pass to the husband.

My wife and I have living wills exactly for this type of situation should it occur.

I appreciate that view, however, in Texas, in this type of case, the law trumps any living will provision where a pregnancy is at issue, so even if a living will was in place to end life support measures, the hospital would have to continue them for the protection of the fetus.

I take from what you've said that if the husband agreed with continuing life support, it would be "right" but because he doesn't it's "wrong". That's fair and I'm generally one to oppose government being too involved in the personal lives of its citizens, but in this case and cases like it, I favour support of the helpless life that could possibly survive with intervention.

Personally, I believe this case is such an issue and newsworthy because in 99 out of 100 such cases the family would be on the side of the hospital trying to do everything possible to save the developing life - they're not here, and that's why it's come to light.
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

You do what has been done for decades in cases of maternal demise and advanced pregnancy. Do a C-section. A crash C-section can be done in MINUTES.

The pregnancy of Marlise was early. It also was subject to all the medications and loss of oxygen (etc) as she was. Don't you see a distinct and clear difference?

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

The woman had an advance medical directive stating that she did not want life support or cpr.
The lawyer who made that for her should have advised her that it wouldn't apply while pregnant. IMO her estate is entitled to a refund.
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

This makes my head hurt. I can't wrap my head around how this can be legally allowed. To force a woman to carry full term is taking away her right to choose. But then she's dead, so she can't choose anyway.
Well technically she's not a woman anymore since she's brain-dead. She's an incubator. I'm sorry for the crass way that's worded but it's the truth. TX wants it's little tax-payer born. I'll be very interested to read what this child's view on abortion is in 18 years.
 
Since when do husbands have a right to choose anyway?
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

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

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
 
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
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

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.
 
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:



Intrauterine hypoxia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

At 14 weeks, the fetus was not viable outside of the womb.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

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

Yup. Not every state is insane like Texas.

Yeah, not killing kids pointlessly is insanity. :roll:

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:
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?
 
Back
Top Bottom