• 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

She was 14 weeks when this first happened - only now is she 20 weeks.

SHE made the choice and decided she didn't want to be on life support. They should not have the right to alter HER decision on this.

Respect the final wishes of the deceased when it comes to their actual body, please.

When only their body is a stake, that's fine. But if another human is on the line, I don't see the issue here other than maybe...maybe the taxpayers should foot the bill for the remaining time kept alive to save the child.
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

When only their body is a stake, that's fine. But if another human is on the line, I don't see the issue here other than maybe...maybe the taxpayers should foot the bill for the remaining time kept alive to save the child.

And for the entirety of its life?
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

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.

Well, I am assuming that the person would be kept alive via tube feeding, drugs to regulate blood pressure, and hormonal drugs as well, in which case, the body could be kept alive for a relatively long time. As for the woman that this thread is about, she isn't brain-dead from what I understand.
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

Well, I am assuming that the person would be kept alive via tube feeding, drugs to regulate blood pressure, and hormonal drugs as well, in which case, the body could be kept alive for a relatively long time. As for the woman that this thread is about, she isn't brain-dead from what I understand.

She he is brain dead according to every media outlet I've come across. Cardiopulmonary collapse is a pretty common occurrence in brain death, leading to enteric ischaemia leading to a gut. imbalance of bacteria and self digestion. Her lungs will continue to fill with foul gunk no matter the quality of lavage. Nothing can be done about her soft tissue wasting.
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

When only their body is a stake, that's fine. But if another human is on the line, I don't see the issue here other than maybe...maybe the taxpayers should foot the bill for the remaining time kept alive to save the child.

A woman's body should never been seen and used as just an incubator - which is all they're doing.

I find it offensive on a moral level that they'll put aside everything for one far from being born infant. She 14 weeks into her pregnancy when she went into a vegetative state. This situation should not be happening. They should have let the husband mourn the loss of infant and wife in a respectable manner rather than abducting the concept of letting her go and turning her into a science experiment.
 
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

You have to pull teeth in that state to get help for the working poor (too rich for Medicaid too poor to afford health care)yet they go all out for a dead woman who never wanted to be hooked up to all the machines.
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

A woman's body should never been seen and used as just an incubator - which is all they're doing.

I find it offensive on a moral level that they'll put aside everything for one far from being born infant. She 14 weeks into her pregnancy when she went into a vegetative state. This situation should not be happening. They should have let the husband mourn the loss of infant and wife in a respectable manner rather than abducting the concept of letting her go and turning her into a science experiment.
Not vegetative. DEAD.:(
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

I find it offensive on a moral level that they'll put aside everything for one far from being born infant.

After that other thread, what you "find offensive on a moral level" is a pretty solid indicator of the right thing to do.

Nothing says you have to be for killing every kid all the time, you know.
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

So where do you draw the line. What if she was 3 weeks pregnant?

I don't presume top draw the line - I leave it to medical science to determine if saving the fetus and bringing it to term or independent existence is feasible and/or likely. I doubt very much, in your example, that doctors would know a woman is 3 weeks pregnant - the woman likely wouldn't even know - until an autopsy was done, so the point is moot. I'll always take the side of saving innocent life, where possible.
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

So, are you telling me they have the patient listed as the baby?

I don't know - likely not - in legal terms, I doubt an unborn child is covered under the parent's insurance policy - but there's no doubt that the fetus is the patient.
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

After that other thread, what you "find offensive on a moral level" is a pretty solid indicator of the right thing to do.

Nothing says you have to be for killing every kid all the time, you know.

Yeah sure - I support the right for dead women to be buried and a 13 year old to have a real childhood.

Such a ghastly belief, here.

Seriously - if technology keeps going and it becomes possible to test tube babies from concept you'd rather that be what happens rather than women making a choice about anything. Glass tube generation here we come. Who's going to care for them? WHO CARES!
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

A woman's body should never been seen and used as just an incubator - which is all they're doing.

I find it offensive on a moral level that they'll put aside everything for one far from being born infant. She 14 weeks into her pregnancy when she went into a vegetative state. This situation should not be happening. They should have let the husband mourn the loss of infant and wife in a respectable manner rather than abducting the concept of letting her go and turning her into a science experiment.

If you can save the baby, I don't see the problem. Yes science has moved us forward, we shouldn't shun it and waste life when we can otherwise do something about it. Don't fear science.
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

Yeah sure - I support the right for dead women to be buried and a 13 year old to have a real childhood.

Such a ghastly belief, here.

Seriously - if technology keeps going and it becomes possible to test tube babies from concept you'd rather that be what happens rather than women making a choice about anything. Glass tube generation here we come. Who's going to care for them? WHO CARES!

You're starting to sound a bit like a young earth creationist.
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

Yeah sure - I support the right for dead women to be buried and a 13 year old to have a real childhood.

Such a ghastly belief, here.

Seriously - if technology keeps going and it becomes possible to test tube babies from concept you'd rather that be what happens rather than women making a choice about anything. Glass tube generation here we come. Who's going to care for them? WHO CARES!

I don't want to get into a whole abortion debate/discussion here - not the place - but I'm confused by this response. Seems to me you're saying that women should have the choice - I agree - but then you disparage a "glass tube generation" where medical science makes it possible to "parent" a child without a woman becoming pregnant and carrying a child to term. Could it be that you just simply support "control" rather than choice? Seems not too long ago the fashionable scenario in feminist circles was to claim that pretty soon men wouldn't be needed - are you afraid that it may come full circle and women won't be needed?
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

If you can save the baby, I don't see the problem. Yes science has moved us forward, we shouldn't shun it and waste life when we can otherwise do something about it. Don't fear science.

Yes, but as pointed out she went dead while the baby was 14 weeks. She shouldn't be used as an incubator just because she is unable to give any type of consent. Also, there is no telling what the lack of oxygen has done to the fetus in terms of mental development and won't be seen for probably years to come.

No, this isn't science keeping a dead woman alive as an incubator, this is just wrong. Now if science was able to remove the fetus from her and they could develop on their on, that's fine. But this is just plain wrong IMO.
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

I don't presume top draw the line - I leave it to medical science to determine if saving the fetus and bringing it to term or independent existence is feasible and/or likely. I doubt very much, in your example, that doctors would know a woman is 3 weeks pregnant - the woman likely wouldn't even know - until an autopsy was done, so the point is moot. I'll always take the side of saving innocent life, where possible.

So ignorance of a brain dead woman's pregnancy is an excuse?? am not being flip about it - if this is so important and "ethical", should they not be testing every comatose or brain dead woman of childbearing years for pregnancy before they "pull the plug' ??? By they way, most women I know these days have a sense of if they are pregnant or not with the first missed period so. They miss a period, take an ept and voila.

If she is 21 days pregnant and brain dead - why not? Is that life not going to be respected and given a chance?
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

I don't know - likely not - in legal terms, I doubt an unborn child is covered under the parent's insurance policy - but there's no doubt that the fetus is the patient.

DO you think a dead person is covered by insurance?
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

So ignorance of a brain dead woman's pregnancy is an excuse?? am not being flip about it - if this is so important and "ethical", should they not be testing every comatose or brain dead woman of childbearing years for pregnancy before they "pull the plug' ??? By they way, most women I know these days have a sense of if they are pregnant or not with the first missed period so. They miss a period, take an ept and voila.

If she is 21 days pregnant and brain dead - why not? Is that life not going to be respected and given a chance?

Sure you're being flip, that's why you make such a laughable suggestion. As for a woman "sensing" she's pregnant, that may very well be true, but how many women tell their husbands or others that they sense they're pregnant at 21 days? Remember, the woman is dead so what she "sensed" even an hour ago isn't going to be readily available to those treating her.

I'll turn your own question back on you - at 8 months pregnant, 7 months, 6 months, when do you just let the mother and her unborn child both die because the husband/father mother/grandmother want to get on with grieving? You're the one sitting in judgement and passing a death sentence on a developing human life, so you tell us your criteria for deeming a life worth saving.
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

DO you think a dead person is covered by insurance?

I don't know the legal ins and outs of American medical coverage - here in Canada, it wouldn't be an issue - the fetus would be a patient and as such would be entitled to all the life-saving services the hospital could offer. I'm tempted to say that in America, where companies get sued for coffee being too hot, an insurance company is not going to want to be seen as killing a child that a hospital is trying to save. In this case, where the husband and mother want the plug pulled, it might be easier for them, but I don't know.
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

Yes, but as pointed out she went dead while the baby was 14 weeks. She shouldn't be used as an incubator just because she is unable to give any type of consent. Also, there is no telling what the lack of oxygen has done to the fetus in terms of mental development and won't be seen for probably years to come.

No, this isn't science keeping a dead woman alive as an incubator, this is just wrong. Now if science was able to remove the fetus from her and they could develop on their on, that's fine. But this is just plain wrong IMO.

To be clear - is it wrong in your mind because the husband and mother want it to end? Would it be right if the husband and mother were demanding the hospital keep the woman's body functioning because her unborn child is still alive? Why is this "just plain wrong"?
 
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

To be clear - is it wrong in your mind because the husband and mother want it to end? Would it be right if the husband and mother were demanding the hospital keep the woman's body functioning because her unborn child is still alive? Why is this "just plain wrong"?

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

Well, I am assuming that the person would be kept alive via tube feeding, drugs to regulate blood pressure, and hormonal drugs as well, in which case, the body could be kept alive for a relatively long time. As for the woman that this thread is about, she isn't brain-dead from what I understand.

Can you point to where you have seen that she is not brain dead? Most reports I have seen clearly state that she is.

http://www.krdo.com/news/lawyers-re...-dead/-/417220/23979194/-/enuunx/-/index.html

"We have recently received Marlise Munoz's medical records, and can now confirm that Mrs. Munoz is clinically brain dead, and therefore deceased under Texas law," attorneys Jessica Janicek and Heather King said in an e-mail.
 
Last edited:
Re: Texas Hospital keeping pregnant dead lady on life support

Sure you're being flip, that's why you make such a laughable suggestion. As for a woman "sensing" she's pregnant, that may very well be true, but how many women tell their husbands or others that they sense they're pregnant at 21 days? Remember, the woman is dead so what she "sensed" even an hour ago isn't going to be readily available to those treating her.

I'll turn your own question back on you - at 8 months pregnant, 7 months, 6 months, when do you just let the mother and her unborn child both die because the husband/father mother/grandmother want to get on with grieving? You're the one sitting in judgement and passing a death sentence on a developing human life, so you tell us your criteria for deeming a life worth saving.

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

Yes, but as pointed out she went dead while the baby was 14 weeks. She shouldn't be used as an incubator just because she is unable to give any type of consent. Also, there is no telling what the lack of oxygen has done to the fetus in terms of mental development and won't be seen for probably years to come.

No, this isn't science keeping a dead woman alive as an incubator, this is just wrong. Now if science was able to remove the fetus from her and they could develop on their on, that's fine. But this is just plain wrong IMO.

They aren't keeping a dead woman alive, she's dead. Gone and out and no longer human. The baby on the other hand is up and coming and human. If the choice is between an inanimate object and a human, I see no contention. If we had the tech to remove the kid and use other tools to keep it alive, then OK, but otherwise it doesn't seem like this huge moral dilemma some are making it out to be.
 
Back
Top Bottom