Page 16 of 21 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 205

Thread: Judge: brain-dead pregnant woman to be removed from life support

  1. #151
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,391

    Re: Judge: brain-dead pregnant woman to be removed from life support

    Quote Originally Posted by Middleground View Post
    I can agree with this. But I cannot help but think of a situation that would not not happen to either of us because of our universal medical system. Say this woman did not have health insurance, or that the insurance would not pay to prolong this woman's life... can a hospital force a family to pay for the care of a loved one when it goes against their wishes?
    You're right, of course, that this would not happen here in Canada. The cost of care is seldom a determining factor in hospital care of the critically ill. We do, however, have cases where prolonged life support is challenged by hospitals in court when a family refuses to accept the advice/recommendation of doctors to remove artificial means. In a case like this, in Canada, I believe the hospital would have honoured the family's wishes and ended life support almost immediately or at least within days. But then, we don't have this big pro-life/pro-choice hornets nest of competing legislation/jurisdictions that they do in the US.
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

  2. #152
    Rule of Two
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    43,703

    Re: Judge: brain-dead pregnant woman to be removed from life support

    Quote Originally Posted by nota bene View Post
    I'll look forward to your providing details to support your claim here. Earlier in this thread Removable Mind said that this was about a "pro-life" administrator, and I'll look forward to the details about this too.

    A name would be a terrific start.
    I think the misapplication of Texas law is pretty telling. Usually, when one side cites unrelated and irrelevant laws, there is a hidden ideological agenda. On the left, we have the extreme Vegan/ALF-types. They'll go as far as citing the UN Human Rights charter in order to justify their attacks on animal research labs. On the right, there are the extreme pro-life types who'll cite laws concerning fully developed, biologically independent and sentient human beings and apply them to zygotes. This forum is full of them. You'll catch fundy Christians going on and on about the UN Human Rights Charter applies to a clump of cells. After many such incidents, you start noticing a pattern.

    What I think is far more telling is the kind of people this case has brought out of the woodwork. At no point did they consider any of the actual medical data, the emotions of the people around this woman and the very real possibility that this fetus would suffer horrible health conditions if it even made it to birth. All that mattered was that it be "given a chance" to live. It didn't matter the real world implications as long as the hospital could exercise what is clearly an anti-choice agenda. This brings the question: What kind of sick twisted mind supports incubating an egg inside of a zombie to maintain what is clearly religious-political stance? Doesn't matter now. The case is done, the judge has spoken and the hospital has been found to be in the wrong.
    Peace is a lie. There is only Passion. Through Passion I gain Strength. Through Strength I gain Power. Through Power I gain Victory. Through Victory my chains are Broken. The Force shall free me.

  3. #153
    Sage


    Join Date
    May 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    14,069

    Re: Judge: brain-dead pregnant woman to be removed from life support

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    You're right, of course, that this would not happen here in Canada. The cost of care is seldom a determining factor in hospital care of the critically ill. We do, however, have cases where prolonged life support is challenged by hospitals in court when a family refuses to accept the advice/recommendation of doctors to remove artificial means. In a case like this, in Canada, I believe the hospital would have honoured the family's wishes and ended life support almost immediately or at least within days. But then, we don't have this big pro-life/pro-choice hornets nest of competing legislation/jurisdictions that they do in the US.
    I think this is near the heart of the reason why the doctors failed to bring this case to the court immediately after they noted she died on November 28th 2013. There are political ramifications of going against pro-life or pro choice- must be overwhelming.
    Last edited by year2late; 01-25-14 at 01:42 PM.

  4. #154
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    48,322

    Re: Judge: brain-dead pregnant woman to be removed from life support

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    1.)Life vs property, that's what it comes down to. That is fact. You choose property, I choose life. That's all there is to it. You're making an awful song and dance here to try to pretend it's something that it's not. You can just admit it, you take property over life.
    yes i know you keep repeating this OPINION but thats all it is lol
    let me know when this fact changes
    Quote Originally Posted by MateoMtnClimber View Post
    Yes, gay people absolutely have the right to infringe on other people's religious rights.
    Quote Originally Posted by RamFel View Post
    Genetically human & human being is exactly the same thing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    homosexuality is objectively wrong, but because science tells me it is, not politics.
    Quote Originally Posted by calamity View Post
    I'm not at risk for AIDS. Gays are.

  5. #155
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    48,322

    Re: Judge: brain-dead pregnant woman to be removed from life support

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    1.)It's not a posted lie.
    2.) The Texas law could not violate the rights of the woman as the woman is no longer a woman and corpses have no rights.
    3.)But where's your proof in all this, I asked and got nothing but deflection. If inanimate objects have rights, then surely you can demonstrate this positive claim, yes?
    1.) yes it was in fact as lie as i did give examples and you lied about it
    2.) yes it can because the way the law is written it doesnt just apply to this lady who in this case is dead but other lades and this ladey had a husband who is the father and she has a family
    3.) proof of what?!?!?!?!?! lol

    youll have to be more specific, ONE OF MY VERY FIRST statements YOU ATTACKED and try to called wrong said THIS"
    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    I couldnt care less about subjective morals yours or mine.

    the contention is that it goes against RvW (and other rights as mention before and after)

    i mean theres been no ruling on this so we'd have to see, its only my opinion but this is why i want this to go to court

    i cant see any way to justify it in this case and say it doesnt go against rights and RvW.
    that proof?

    nice try but this is ALL opinion and this is why your posts keep failing because you are trying to claim facts in something thats never even gone to court to be challenged and theres no ruling on it.

    THANK YOU for pointing this out since its EXACTLY why your posts have failed, you are claiming facts where there are . . . . . . .wait for it . . . . wait for it . . . . NONE
    Keep trying though its great
    Quote Originally Posted by MateoMtnClimber View Post
    Yes, gay people absolutely have the right to infringe on other people's religious rights.
    Quote Originally Posted by RamFel View Post
    Genetically human & human being is exactly the same thing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    homosexuality is objectively wrong, but because science tells me it is, not politics.
    Quote Originally Posted by calamity View Post
    I'm not at risk for AIDS. Gays are.

  6. #156
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    48,322

    Re: Judge: brain-dead pregnant woman to be removed from life support

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    1.)All you have here is opinion
    2.) and emotion.
    3.) You are more than free to exercise both
    4.) but emotion has no place in law.
    5.) The "wife" has no rights, it is no longer a wife, it is no longer human, it is a thing. Things do not have rights. Less you want to demonstrate that inanimate objects have rights, I await your argument for it. But until then
    6.) it will be filed right next to "The earth is 6000 years old".
    7.) So with your inability to demonstrate your positive claim that inanimate objects have rights, we are left with just one situation.
    8.) The fetus, a living human life9
    9.) and the property rights of the husband over the corpse of his wife.
    10.) As such, till you can demonstrate your positive claim
    11.) rationally we acknowledge that it is life vs property.
    12.)The thing is, you just seem like you do not want to admit the side you're on.
    13.) There's no opinion on life vs. property, that is fact. Less you can demonstrate otherwise. But you can't, or at least haven't.
    14.)Keep running your mouth, but you're not putting forth an argument.
    15.) Dead is dead, the dead have no rights.
    16.)What's alive is the fetus
    17.) and the husband (please don't say something like "you don't think that there are other people alive other than the husband and fetus" because that would just be dishonest tripe and we don't need any more of that from ya)
    18.), so the life of the fetus vs. the property rights of the husband.
    19.) That's functionally what this comes down to.
    20.) You can at least admit that you take property over life instead of trying to do this little song and dance to make it look otherwise.
    1,) correct as do you thank you for admitting this again since its what i said from the begining and also why you are wrong trying to falsly and dishonestly claim facts
    2.) nope this is another posted lie, theres ZERO emotion on why i want it to go to court, this strawman fails again
    3.) i know but im factually only doing one
    4.) good thing its a fact i never said it did nor am i using emotion then
    5.) earlier examples already prove this false, there are still rights and laws that protect the dead and her husband and family still matter to and there rights, this fact will never change
    6.) well that would be a mistake because what i pointed out was factually true and this if factual false
    7.) another failed strawman and lie
    8.) correct it is
    9.) nope there the wifes, husbands and family's rights and laws that protect them all. This wont magically go away.
    10.) already done see above and the examples pages ago
    11.) who is we? lol you mean YOUR OPINION because thats all it is
    12.) another posted lie
    13.) proven by WHAT? LMAO this is where your post goes into complete dishonesty mode, this is not a fact, its your opinion, if its a fact state the case that made it so, state the law the makes it so, this hasnt been challenged yet, This case hasnt gone to court yet so WE, me and you, dont know. YOU ARE GUESSING lol and this is why your posts fail. DId marty McFLy tell you how the case will turn out or something? lol sorry when you call it a fact you are 100% factually wrong since this hasnt gone to trail yet, its just your OPINION and nothing will change that fact until theres a trial nothing
    14.) LOL remind me whos emotional again? hehehe thats it get tough. My argument was put further with examples and i called it my opinion and it is and we wont know unlees it gets challenged and goes to trial. So until then you lose and all you have is opinion also. I love that this angers you.
    15.) see 5# your point loses again
    16.) correct
    17.) opinion
    18.) opinion
    19.) opinion
    20.) cant cause thats not what im doing nor is it my argument its your failed strawman and opinion as already proven since theres no trial or case decision yet. Its hilarious watching you get so mad over me simply not sharing your opinion and pointing out that what you are saying is in fact opinion. Why?
    Cases has happened therefore its your opinion, just like mine, just like i said pages ago lol
    Quote Originally Posted by MateoMtnClimber View Post
    Yes, gay people absolutely have the right to infringe on other people's religious rights.
    Quote Originally Posted by RamFel View Post
    Genetically human & human being is exactly the same thing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    homosexuality is objectively wrong, but because science tells me it is, not politics.
    Quote Originally Posted by calamity View Post
    I'm not at risk for AIDS. Gays are.

  7. #157
    Sayonara!
    Maenad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    By the water.
    Last Seen
    07-09-14 @ 09:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,259

    Re: Judge: brain-dead pregnant woman to be removed from life support

    Quote Originally Posted by Middleground View Post
    I can agree with this. But I cannot help but think of a situation that would not not happen to either of us because of our universal medical system. Say this woman did not have health insurance, or that the insurance would not pay to prolong this woman's life... can a hospital force a family to pay for the care of a loved one when it goes against their wishes?
    If the doctors are complying with a law that says they must keep the woman alive, yes, the hospital can charge. Wouldn't it be convenient when you got tired of granny, just to take her to a hospital as say, 'just go ahead and kill her?'
    Redneck, hillbilly, fundie, Bible thumper, cracker, split tails, geezer, loon, xenophobe, islamaphobe, and homophobe are not words of tolerance.

  8. #158
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    48,322

    Re: Judge: brain-dead pregnant woman to be removed from life support

    Quote Originally Posted by Middleground View Post
    I can agree with this. But I cannot help but think of a situation that would not not happen to either of us because of our universal medical system. Say this woman did not have health insurance, or that the insurance would not pay to prolong this woman's life... can a hospital force a family to pay for the care of a loved one when it goes against their wishes?
    that would be mentally insane IMO and if they try that i hope the family sues over that too

    life support at 3-11k a day for 2 months???

    if insurance doesn't pay that should be on the state, hell IMO it should be on the state anyway since its thier law and not anything medical/scientific.
    Quote Originally Posted by MateoMtnClimber View Post
    Yes, gay people absolutely have the right to infringe on other people's religious rights.
    Quote Originally Posted by RamFel View Post
    Genetically human & human being is exactly the same thing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    homosexuality is objectively wrong, but because science tells me it is, not politics.
    Quote Originally Posted by calamity View Post
    I'm not at risk for AIDS. Gays are.

  9. #159
    Sayonara!
    Maenad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    By the water.
    Last Seen
    07-09-14 @ 09:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,259

    Re: Judge: brain-dead pregnant woman to be removed from life support

    Quote Originally Posted by Middleground View Post
    This person who you claim is not dead would never ever be able to function without any artificial help. That is dead.
    That's what they said about Karen Quinlan. But she lived another 10 years after the life support was stopped.

    Karen Ann Quinlan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    I'm really sorry to burst your little bubble, but you simply don't have the ability to call those absolutes. And certainly not based on something you read. A person on life support still has vital signs. The person may be brain dead (flat EEG), but unless and until the life support is disconnected the person is not dead and, like Karen Quinlan, may not even die at that point. The person who wrote out her death certificate with her still on life support should lose his medical license. That was one of the most unethical things I've ever heard of.
    Redneck, hillbilly, fundie, Bible thumper, cracker, split tails, geezer, loon, xenophobe, islamaphobe, and homophobe are not words of tolerance.

  10. #160
    Sayonara!
    Maenad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    By the water.
    Last Seen
    07-09-14 @ 09:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,259

    Re: Judge: brain-dead pregnant woman to be removed from life support

    Quote Originally Posted by year2late View Post
    The hospital has acknowledged that she was dead (brain dead) November 28th 2013, but did not formally pronounce her. It would have been medically correct and accurate to do. In medicine you do not misdiagnose to suit a law. You diagnose correctly (in this case death) and if you need to seek clarification of what to do, then you seek an immediate remedy from a judge. It is this lack of placing a known diagnosis (or pronouncement) that makes this case seem like there were possibly other motivations.



    I think you need to study up on the Uniform Determination of Death Act. Properly diagnosed brain death is death. A patient on a ventilator can be dead with a pulse. Not unusual.

    Determination of Death Act Summary

    I hope that helps.
    Perhaps you should read the link before you post it. FWIW about mid way down it says this:


    The Uniform Brain Death Act simply established that the "irreversible cessation of all functioning of the brain, including the brain stem" is death. It then prescribed that determination of death be made in accordance with "reasonable medical standards." The ULC assumed that the traditional criteria would stand automatically alongside the brain-death standard described in the uniform act, and so did not mention those criteria in the act itself. But this omission proved confusing for states trying to adopt comprehensive legislation on the subject.
    Those 'traditional criteria' are vital signs.


    I hope that helps. Or you might want to just go to law school.
    Last edited by Maenad; 01-25-14 at 06:18 PM.
    Redneck, hillbilly, fundie, Bible thumper, cracker, split tails, geezer, loon, xenophobe, islamaphobe, and homophobe are not words of tolerance.

Page 16 of 21 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •