• 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!

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

I hope that all of this is over and that Erick Munoz will soon be able to bury his wife and to grieve and focus on his son and heal. But you never know--perhaps he will want to become some sort of advocate or write a book or just claim his 15 minutes. For his sake, I hope not.
 
nota bene said:
I hope that all of this is over and that Erick Munoz will soon be able to bury his wife and to grieve and focus on his son and heal. But you never know--perhaps he will want to become some sort of advocate or write a book or just claim his 15 minutes. For his sake, I hope not.
Click to expand...

I agree, but it will be very difficult to just let go the past 2 months. he was put through hell. They should have pronounced her legally 2 monts ago and demanded immediate clarification on the law as it pertained to a ldead pregnant mother. But I do hope he can have some normalcy in the near future.
 
polgara said:
Lots of scary movies were made about people being buried alive. :eek: I believe that the cemetaries in Louisiana attached a rope with a bell to the hand of a person being buried, that rang outside the crypt, to prevent burying a person that wasn't dead. :shock:

I don't know if the husband was being dramatic, but the stress and sadness he was experiencing is certainly understandable.
Click to expand...

It is clear that the doctors were under a law which was put on the books in 1977 that mandated keeping a pregnant woman alive until the fetus is viable. They had no choice. I am amazed at the number of people who think it is all so cut and dried, person is brain dead, pull the plug. It just isn't that easy. When I finished my master's I, through no choice of my own, got in the middle of something similar. The Ethics Committee had given a family the choice of pulling the plug on one of theirs. The staff went completely ballistic. The man was still conscious. I was sent over to the unit to 'support' the staff through it. Their comment to me, 'Discharge him. If the family wants to kill him let them take him home and do it themselves.' I had to agree. So, I took this back to management. It was the first time the staff had been heard on the matter. The doctors went and evaluated him and decided, contrary to what the Ethics Committee thought, the man was not a candidate to have the plug pulled.

There are laws and some very fine lines in these situations. The patient and the family are not the only ones with rights. Hospital staff also have the right not to have to do something they find morally repugnant. The law in America is more a balancing act than anything else. It seeks to balance the rights of all concerned. I do recall the similar fight by the family of Karen Quinlan. But when they pulled the plug, she did not die, she lay comatose without life support for 10 years.
 
Maenad said:
It is clear that the doctors were under a law which was put on the books in 1977 that mandated keeping a pregnant woman alive until the fetus is viable. They had no choice. I am amazed at the number of people who think it is all so cut and dried, person is brain dead, pull the plug. It just isn't that easy. When I finished my master's I, through no choice of my own, got in the middle of something similar. The Ethics Committee had given a family the choice of pulling the plug on one of theirs. The staff went completely ballistic. The man was still conscious. I was sent over to the unit to 'support' the staff through it. Their comment to me, 'Discharge him. If the family wants to kill him let them take him home and do it themselves.' I had to agree. So, I took this back to management. It was the first time the staff had been heard on the matter. The doctors went and evaluated him and decided, contrary to what the Ethics Committee thought, the man was not a candidate to have the plug pulled.

There are laws and some very fine lines in these situations. The patient and the family are not the only ones with rights. Hospital staff also have the right not to have to do something they find morally repugnant. The law in America is more a balancing act than anything else. It seeks to balance the rights of all concerned. I do recall the similar fight by the family of Karen Quinlan. But when they pulled the plug, she did not die, she lay comatose without life support for 10 years.
Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing an insider's view from someone who has been there--done that! Makes it more understandable. :thumbs:
 
I love how all the "pro-lifers" come out of the woodwork when cases such as these occur. To defend the life of ONE unsavable woman. In a state with more than a quarter of its population--over six MILLION people--unable to afford health insurance. Because of its "pro-life" governor.
 
Phys251 said:
I love how all the "pro-lifers" come out of the woodwork when cases such as these occur. To defend the life of ONE unsavable woman. In a state with more than a quarter of its population--over six MILLION people--unable to afford health insurance. Because of its "pro-life" governor.
Click to expand...

Are you in a coma? We have Obamacare now. Everyone can afford health insurance!
 
Maenad said:
Are you in a coma? We have Obamacare now. Everyone can afford health insurance!
Click to expand...

Not if you're a member of the working poor in a state that won't expand Medicaid, such as Texas.
 
Maenad said:
It is clear that the doctors were under a law which was put on the books in 1977 that mandated keeping a pregnant woman alive until the fetus is viable. They had no choice. I am amazed at the number of people who think it is all so cut and dried, person is brain dead, pull the plug. It just isn't that easy. When I finished my master's I, through no choice of my own, got in the middle of something similar. The Ethics Committee had given a family the choice of pulling the plug on one of theirs. The staff went completely ballistic. The man was still conscious. I was sent over to the unit to 'support' the staff through it. Their comment to me, 'Discharge him. If the family wants to kill him let them take him home and do it themselves.' I had to agree. So, I took this back to management. It was the first time the staff had been heard on the matter. The doctors went and evaluated him and decided, contrary to what the Ethics Committee thought, the man was not a candidate to have the plug pulled.

There are laws and some very fine lines in these situations. The patient and the family are not the only ones with rights. Hospital staff also have the right not to have to do something they find morally repugnant. The law in America is more a balancing act than anything else. It seeks to balance the rights of all concerned. I do recall the similar fight by the family of Karen Quinlan. But when they pulled the plug, she did not die, she lay comatose without life support for 10 years.
Click to expand...

It was cut and dry. The law clearly pertained to an incapacitated pregnant patient who cannot speak for herself. This woman was DEAD. And the judge was clear that the law did not pertain to a dead patient.
 
Will big government Republicans try to pass emergency laws and attempt federal action like they did with Terry Schiavo?
 
reinoe said:
Will big government Republicans try to pass emergency laws and attempt federal action like they did with Terry Schiavo?
Click to expand...

With Obama in charge nope. His response instead was to proclaim that pot really isn't that bad.:lamo I think he was sending a message,;)
 
digsbe said:
I don't know the case in detail, but if it was possible to carry to term they should have done all they can to save the child.

How do you feel about hospitals denying care to an otherwise "viable" patient that would survive if they got that care? Say a man goes to the ER with angina developing to full on cardiac arrest. The hospital staff can save him, but should they say "well, it's against our wishes to save you for x reason" and let him naturally die? Ethically there isn't too much difference considering both are human lives. They are different cases with different considering, but in both they are allowing someone to die when there are means to save them available.
I'm quite confident in my knowledge of biology though, refresher courses won't be needed.
Click to expand...

Except doctor don't practice philosophy, they practice medicine- BIG difference. The FETUS isn't the same as an adult male, in the hospital or a court of law. The fetus was not viable at the time of the mother's death. (You don't know biology as well as you think)

This wasn't about the wishes of the hospital, but the wishes of the family. You are bending 'logic' like the comparison of cutting off a leg being the same as terminating a pregnancy. In the adult male the priority for who gets to decide end of life is not the hospital to be first, they don't get a 'X reason" to deny.

Are you truly sure the dead woman would remain functional enough for long enough to carry the fetus past 24 weeks and not produce a badly deformed baby? The woman's body will continue to deteriorate because she isn't in a coma, she is dead. Big difference on what happens to the body. that dead body passes fluids to the fetus, it isn't a 'closed' system. (this is why women should be very careful what medications they take while pregnant.)

You Sir, don't know biology.... :peace
 
I feel real conflicted about this. In theory this is the right decision but it should have been made at the time she became brain dead. The hospital should have respected the wishes of the husband/family and let the woman and her unborn fetus die peacefully. Instead they made her into a brain dead breeding machine because the hospital was playing god/big brother with someone over whom they had zero right to decide.

It was down to the family to decide whether or not she should have been taken off life support and not some goddamn hospital because they did not have the right to do this to this woman, her fetus and her family. I hope the hospital is sued for their meddling in this family's right to decide.

But on the other hand, in 4 to 6 weeks time, the fetus could become viable and taken out through c-section.

As I wrote, I feel real conflicted about this, but in the end the family should have been respected and if a judge agrees with them then their final say must be respected.
 
Maenad said:
What does death smell like? I have worked with dying patients and even cleansed bodies and put them in body bags. I noticed no odor. I think the man is just being dramatic. Nobody smells good in the hospital, particularly if they haven't been bathed and I doubt that she has been. A comatose person on life support has a body that is functioning just like it did before it became comatose with the exception of things like the brain and the muscles going into contracture. The person does not lie there and 'decay.'
Click to expand...

Depends on the level of decomposition. There's no smell immediately after death but once the body starts to decompose it's just putrid, there's nothing else like it. Those still on Life support don't have the smell of death. There's a difference between the smell of death and the smell associated with being in hospital for 2 months and bathing normally vs hygiene care administered in hospital. Her husband is a paramedic, i don't understand why he wouldn't already know that. I'm sure he's experienced it in his working enviroment.

Pretty sad story for all involved. Let them RIP now.
 
notquiteright said:
Except doctor don't practice philosophy, they practice medicine- BIG difference. The FETUS isn't the same as an adult male, in the hospital or a court of law. The fetus was not viable at the time of the mother's death. (You don't know biology as well as you think)

This wasn't about the wishes of the hospital, but the wishes of the family. You are bending 'logic' like the comparison of cutting off a leg being the same as terminating a pregnancy. In the adult male the priority for who gets to decide end of life is not the hospital to be first, they don't get a 'X reason" to deny.

Are you truly sure the dead woman would remain functional enough for long enough to carry the fetus past 24 weeks and not produce a badly deformed baby? The woman's body will continue to deteriorate because she isn't in a coma, she is dead. Big difference on what happens to the body. that dead body passes fluids to the fetus, it isn't a 'closed' system. (this is why women should be very careful what medications they take while pregnant.)

You Sir, don't know biology.... :peace
Click to expand...

Medicine has the principal of do no harm and protect life. Heck, the Hippocratic Oath forbids abortion. Now, abortion is a reality of medicine, but the premise is not to kill.

And I do know biology, never once did I suggest that a fetus was going to survive without the living mother... My "logic" is that fetuses, as human lives, should be protected and life preserved. In cases where a life can be saved, it should be done. The mother was brain dead, the fetus could have possibly been brought to term and life support then withdrawn. Being brain dead and on life support does not mean the body is rotting in the sense of physical death. Her body is living, but her brain is dead. Machines kept her functioning. As I said, I don't know the case in detail, but if there was a chance of having the child brought to viability and then C-sectioned it should be done to preserve one life instead of ending 2.

If you must know, I'm a published scientist, current doctoral student and have my bachelors degree in molecular biology. Don't try to spin your philosophy that a human fetus should have no protection as me not knowing biology. A large part of the reason that I am pro-life is because I'm educated on biology and I know that the fetus is an individual human life, not some inhuman clump of cells as many would call it. You might want to be careful when applying a "you don't know x" to people that disagree with your ethical views on human life and human value.
 
Last edited:
Phys251 said:
Not if you're a member of the working poor in a state that won't expand Medicaid, such as Texas.
Click to expand...

Damn pesky constitution.
 
digsbe said:
Medicine has the principal of do no harm and protect life. Heck, the Hippocratic Oath forbids abortion. Now, abortion is a reality of medicine, but the premise is not to kill.

And I do know biology, never once did I suggest that a fetus was going to survive without the living mother... My "logic" is that fetuses, as human lives, should be protected and life preserved. In cases where a life can be saved, it should be done. The mother was brain dead, the fetus could have possibly been brought to term and life support then withdrawn. Being brain dead and on life support does not mean the body is rotting in the sense of physical death. Her body is living, but her brain is dead. Machines kept her functioning. As I said, I don't know the case in detail, but if there was a chance of having the child brought to viability and then C-sectioned it should be done to preserve one life instead of ending 2.

If you must know, I'm a published scientist, current doctoral student and have my bachelors degree in molecular biology. Don't try to spin your philosophy that a human fetus should have no protection as me not knowing biology. A large part of the reason that I am pro-life is because I'm educated on biology and I know that the fetus is an individual human life, not some inhuman clump of cells as many would call it. You might want to be careful when applying a "you don't know x" to people that disagree with your ethical views on human life and human value.
Click to expand...

The hospital's "decision" to try and keep the fetus alive had nothing to do with life&death and everything to do with some a-hole administrator trying to engage in politics.
 
reinoe said:
The hospital's "decision" to try and keep the fetus alive had nothing to do with life&death and everything to do with some a-hole administrator trying to engage in politics.
Click to expand...

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.
 
digsbe said:
Medicine has the principal of do no harm and protect life. Heck, the Hippocratic Oath forbids abortion. Now, abortion is a reality of medicine, but the premise is not to kill.
Click to expand...

The Hippocratic oath forbids use of abortion remedies.

There was no abortion in this case.
 
Phys251 said:
Not if you're a member of the working poor in a state that won't expand Medicaid, such as Texas.
Click to expand...

No, no! That is what Obamacare is for. Now, EVERYONE can afford insurance.
 
year2late said:
It was cut and dry. The law clearly pertained to an incapacitated pregnant patient who cannot speak for herself. This woman was DEAD. And the judge was clear that the law did not pertain to a dead patient.
Click to expand...

A person on life support is not dead. I am a nurse. I think I know dead. The person is being kept alive with life support. A dead person has no pulse, blood pressure, heartbeat, or respirations. This woman has all that because of the life support she is on.
 
notquiteright said:
Except doctor don't practice philosophy, they practice medicine- BIG difference. The FETUS isn't the same as an adult male, in the hospital or a court of law. The fetus was not viable at the time of the mother's death. (You don't know biology as well as you think)

This wasn't about the wishes of the hospital, but the wishes of the family. You are bending 'logic' like the comparison of cutting off a leg being the same as terminating a pregnancy. In the adult male the priority for who gets to decide end of life is not the hospital to be first, they don't get a 'X reason" to deny.

Are you truly sure the dead woman would remain functional enough for long enough to carry the fetus past 24 weeks and not produce a badly deformed baby? The woman's body will continue to deteriorate because she isn't in a coma, she is dead. Big difference on what happens to the body. that dead body passes fluids to the fetus, it isn't a 'closed' system. (this is why women should be very careful what medications they take while pregnant.)

You Sir, don't know biology.... :peace
Click to expand...

It was truly wrong for someone to call this woman dead. As long as she has vital signs she is NOT dead. She may be 'brain dead' (flat EEG), but, in spite of what her husband claims to smell, she is not decaying because her body is still functioning with life support. You people calling her 'dead' are off the deep end.
 
CanadaJohn said:
As I noted in my comments, in reference to the article, the hospital only came to the decision that the fetus was no longer viable either today or very recently. As such, the hospital, in effect, supported the petition of the husband in court. That is why the judge ruled in his favour.

In my view, there's no need to be disgusted with the hospital for following the law and trying to save the fetus - that's honorable. It's also honorable that when they determined the fetus could not survive, they joined the petition to remove life support. I would hope that every hospital could be so ethical and honorable when dealing with difficult situations such as this.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Maenad said:
A person on life support is not dead. I am a nurse. I think I know dead. The person is being kept alive with life support. A dead person has no pulse, blood pressure, heartbeat, or respirations. This woman has all that because of the life support she is on.
Click to expand...

This person who you claim is not dead would never ever be able to function without any artificial help. That is dead.
 
reinoe said:
The hospital's "decision" to try and keep the fetus alive had nothing to do with life&death and everything to do with some a-hole administrator trying to engage in politics.
Click to expand...

nota bene said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

Maenad said:
A person on life support is not dead. I am a nurse. I think I know dead. The person is being kept alive with life support. A dead person has no pulse, blood pressure, heartbeat, or respirations. This woman has all that because of the life support she is on.
Click to expand...

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