• 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

Maenad said:
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?'
Click to expand...

She has been dead since November 28th, 2013. They were not keeping her alive.
 
Hatuey said:
This woman was not on life support for an illness or disease. She did not have a treatable condition. She was for all intended purposes: dead.
Click to expand...

Who gives a **** about any of that? Yeah - brain death is death, and she's dead.

Her kid isn't. Her kid should have treatment.

The judge's ruling in this case is nonsensical, according to what I have read it says that as a matter of law a brain dead patient can't be pregnant. That's absurd and it's obscene.

Nothing that takes place at this point will cause one iota of harm to the deceased. The right thing to do is to treat the patient you can treat.

It's ridiculous that this isn't the legal standard, regardless of jurisdiction.
 
Last edited:
year2late said:
She has been dead since November 28th, 2013. They were not keeping her alive.
Click to expand...

With her brain death, Mrs. Munoz died on 11-28-13. Brain death is a fatal and permanent pathophysiological condition. Without the brain, the rest of the body is just so much tissue, the organism will invariably die without artificial intervention and even that intervention cannot stop the inevitable... which is why we consider brain death to be death.

However, you are still half-wrong - life support was keeping the rest of her body alive, which means her kid was still getting oxygen and nutrition.
 
Last edited:
Maenad said:
No, no! That is what Obamacare is for. Now, EVERYONE can afford insurance.
Click to expand...

The problem is not the ACA. The problem is the states that feel that it is a good thing to screw over the poor. Maenad I know some working-poor people who are going to have to make some very tough decisions because Republican governors chose not to let them be able to reasonably afford insurance.
 
Phys251 said:
The problem is not the ACA. The problem is the states that feel that it is a good thing to screw over the poor. Maenad I know some working-poor people who are going to have to make some very tough decisions because Republican governors chose not to let them be able to reasonably afford insurance.
Click to expand...

You cannot access insurance in states that did not decide to pay for the federal PPACA program?
 
scatt said:
You cannot access insurance in states that did not decide to pay for the federal PPACA program?
Click to expand...

The working poor are mostly out of luck in those states. If they do not meet criteria for medicate and are too poor for insurance or medical care.

Wait till you get sick, lose your job and your home and you can qualify.
 
JayDubya said:
Who gives a **** about any of that? Yeah - brain death is death, and she's dead.

Her kid isn't. Her kid should have treatment.

The judge's ruling in this case is nonsensical, according to what I have read it says that as a matter of law a brain dead patient can't be pregnant. That's absurd and it's obscene.

Nothing that takes place at this point will cause one iota of harm to the deceased. The right thing to do is to treat the patient you can treat.

It's ridiculous that this isn't the legal standard, regardless of jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

its a victory for rights and peace of the whole family :)
 
And if the hospital bills them for their 'services,' I hope they are sued to within an inch of their "corporations are people too, my friends" life.
 
AGENT J said:
its a victory for rights and peace of the whole family :)
Click to expand...

That it is. And what a great article in HuffPo about those alleged 'right-to-lifers.'

When Pro-life Goes Frankenstein: The Case of Marlise Munoz | Morgan Guyton
Indeed, Rachel Cox at LifeNews berates Erick for wanting to honor his wife's wishes about her end-of-life care:

Why is this father trying to find all the reasons why his wife and unborn child should be removed from life support and left to die, and not the reasons why they shouldn't? I find it very frustrating and disheartening that Erick Munoz thinks this way and also frightening that so many people actually agree with him. I believe these hopeless, negative attitudes about the Munoz family's situation are caused mainly by one thing: abortion. Abortion causes society to devalue human beings. When the abortion industry, media, and politicians pound in our heads over and over that unborn babies are blobs of disposable tissue, it's easier to see why someone would not be motivated to preserve the life of their "clump of cells."
Click to expand...

Of course. It's all abortion's fault. That's why Erick and his wife's parents, all of whom want to end life support, are seeking closure and the ability to grieve their loss. Because the abortion industry has corrupted their minds. That's why Erick doesn't want a brain-dead body that is only a shell of a person to be artificially respirated as a super-expensive, organic fetus incubator. Elizabeth Landau writes that using the terms "brain-dead" and "life support" is a big part of the problem. When the brain no longer functions, a person is not just "brain-dead"; they are all the way dead. "Life support" is a misnomer in such cases because what's happening with the person's body is not life, but just a sort of zombie un-death, no different than if a mad scientist figured out how to create an organ plantation in which livers and kidneys and stomachs and hearts could be harvested from recently dead people and incubated outside of human bodies to be transplanted in the future (hey, it might not be a bad idea, but it isn't human life).
Click to expand...
 
Maenad said:
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?'
Click to expand...

They were not complying with the law. The judge recognized that the hospital understood that she was dead November 28th 2013 and has been dead since. The law does not apply to a dead person. Particularly a patient that has been dead for 2 months.

Judges Order on Munoz Matter
 
Sykes said:
And if the hospital bills them for their 'services,' I hope they are sued to within an inch of their "corporations are people too, my friends" life.
Click to expand...

I have to wonder if this is one of the reasons they did not sign the death certificate when she died in November, so they technically bill for services. Since they have now acknowledged she has been dead for 2 months, I cannot see how they could legally charge a dime.

And since the judge has acknowledged the law did not pertain to dead people....they really have no cause to charge. They probably (clearly definitely)should have gone to the courts in November.

Can you imagine that as insurance nickel and dimes living patients who need the care....they pay full out on a dead woman for 2 months of critical care???I would be so surprised if that happened.
 
year2late said:
I have to wonder if this is one of the reasons they did not sign the death certificate when she died in November, so they technically bill for services. Since they have now acknowledged she has been dead for 2 months, I cannot see how they could legally charge a dime.

And since the judge has acknowledged the law did not pertain to dead people....they really have no cause to charge. They probably (clearly definitely)should have gone to the courts in November.

Can you imagine that as insurance nickel and dimes living patients who need the care....they pay full out on a dead woman for 2 months of critical care???I would be so surprised if that happened.
Click to expand...

They can charge up to the second he wanted to take his wife off life support (obviously).
 
year2late said:
I have to wonder if this is one of the reasons they did not sign the death certificate when she died in November, so they technically bill for services. Since they have now acknowledged she has been dead for 2 months, I cannot see how they could legally charge a dime.

And since the judge has acknowledged the law did not pertain to dead people....they really have no cause to charge. They probably (clearly definitely)should have gone to the courts in November.

Can you imagine that as insurance nickel and dimes living patients who need the care....they pay full out on a dead woman for 2 months of critical care???I would be so surprised if that happened.
Click to expand...

if they charge for ANYTHING past the moment he let them know his wife doesnt want to be on machines he should add that to the very strong court case he already has, if needed i hope this goes all the way to SCOTUS.
 
scatt said:
They can charge up to the second he wanted to take his wife off life support (obviously).
Click to expand...

So they should have no charges after NOvember 28th 2013.
 
Maenad said:
A person on life support is not 'decaying.'
Click to expand...

She was decaying.
Her brain was dead. It had been denied oxygen and blood for an extended period time.

The brain was decaying and since she could not clear her airways it is very likly her digestive system
Was starting to decay too.

This woman was not in a coma or a vegetive state.
She was dead and try as they might they cannot stop a dead body from decaying.
 
minnie616 said:
She was decaying.
Her brain was dead. It had been denied oxygen and blood for an extended period time.

The brain was decaying and since she could not clear her airways it is very likly her digestive system
Was starting to decay too.

This woman was not in a coma or a vegetive state.
She was dead and try as they might they cannot stop a dead body from decaying.
Click to expand...

Not to mention Atrophy starts as a person stops moving, coma, life-support. Atrophy is the breakdown of organs and tissue...decay.
 
minnie616 said:
Karen was not brain dead she was in a permanent vegetive state.

Apples and oranges as the say.
Click to expand...

I do not get why Quinlon is even brought up. PVS was nowhere near brain death.
 
Hatuey said:
You can't possibly be serious. You do realize that life sustaining treatment is for people who are... you know... alive? This is why the law was being misapplied to begin with:

Compassion and Support - End-of-Life and Palliative Care Planning, MOLST for New York State



This woman was not on life support for an illness or disease. She did not have a treatable condition. She was for all intended purposes: dead. Anti-choicers tried to turn her body into an incubation chamber under a law they misapplied.
Click to expand...

Your link is for New York. This case is in Texas.
 
Maenad said:
Your link is for New York. This case is in Texas.
Click to expand...

Can you at least acknowledge that she has been dead since November 28th 2013 - according to the doctors, the hospital, and her husband?

Can you at least acknowledge that the judge ruled that the law in question does not apply since she was dead?
 
year2late said:
Can you at least acknowledge that she has been dead since November 28th 2013 - according to the doctors, the hospital, and her husband?

Can you at least acknowledge that the judge ruled that the law in question does not apply since she was dead?
Click to expand...

I am quite aware of what has been in the press about this case. She has been on life support all that time, not death support. It is fairly well a moot point right now, though. Take a break and get your states straightened out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom