• 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

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.

They husband did not allow tests on the fetus until recently, which is why it took so long. At the beginning the husband kept saying we know nothing about the condition of the fetus.
 
Bless this family. They have suffered in a way that is cruel.

Not really. They suffered when she was died. This was an attempt to keep a corpse warm long enough to allow the human life inside to be born. It is not worse than the initial death was.
 
My only disgust is with the length of time this took to get to the courts. Courts have schedules, but the hospital should have insisted this be fast tracked. I have a hard time believing it two 2 months to get here.

also like i said i hope the next step is getting this law thrown out or amendment so it no longer go against rights and RvW.
THe familys suffering is over and the child can be put to rest thank god but theres still more that needs done.
 
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.

Well. It's over, John. The hospital didn't have a statutory argument. They made a completely reckless claim that they were held legally responsible to keep the fetus alive until viability age between 26 and 28 week. NONSENSE!

The fetus was 14 weeks old when the woman died. There is no legal protection for a 14 week old fetus. The husband had every right to stand proxy in determining his wife's fate.
 
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.

I do not know enough about these things, but how is it possible to keep anything alive inside of something brain dead and decaying? Science is wonderful, but nature does what nature does! This make me want to throw up, for the fetus's sake! :shock:

Greetings, CJ. :2wave:
 
Well. It's over, John. The hospital didn't have a statutory argument. They made a completely reckless claim that they were held legally responsible to keep the fetus alive until viability age between 26 and 28 week. NONSENSE!

The fetus was 14 weeks old when the woman died. There is no legal protection for a 14 week old fetus. The husband had every right to stand proxy in determining his wife's fate.

Haha, now you are adding wants. Did the judge say the law was baseless or its application to this woman was baseless?
 
Well. It's over, John. The hospital didn't have a statutory argument. They made a completely reckless claim that they were held legally responsible to keep the fetus alive until viability age between 26 and 28 week. NONSENSE!

The fetus was 14 weeks old when the woman died. There is no legal protection for a 14 week old fetus. The husband had every right to stand proxy in determining his wife's fate.

Yes it is over, and we will have to simply acknowledge that we disagree as to why it's over.
 
I do not know enough about these things, but how is it possible to keep anything alive inside of something brain dead and decaying? Science is wonderful, but nature does what nature does! This make me want to throw up, for the fetus's sake! :shock:

Greetings, CJ. :2wave:

Good evening Lady P.

I don't presume to know the medical ins and outs of this - most of medicine is a mystery to me. I simply know that there are cases where a dead body has remained "functioning" while a fetus has developed inside until viable. In another thread on this subject, I posted an article about a woman who died at 15 wks pregnant and they kept her on life support for 12 weeks and the child was born and is now normal, healthy, and a pre-teen, so it can be done in certain circumstances.
 
I do not know enough about these things, but how is it possible to keep anything alive inside of something brain dead and decaying? Science is wonderful, but nature does what nature does! This make me want to throw up, for the fetus's sake! :shock:

Greetings, CJ. :2wave:

The whole thing plays out like the plot of a horror movie.....except for the ending.
 
Haha, now you are adding wants. Did the judge say the law was baseless or its application to this woman was baseless?

CNN reported that the judge said it was not applicable since she was dead.

I am waiting for the transcript to make sure they got it right, though.
 
Yes it is over, and we will have to simply acknowledge that we disagree as to why it's over.

How can you disagree? The hospital's defense was published what . They were WRONG.

They had zero guarantee that if they kept that deformed fetus alive to viability that it would live. And if it lived...and it would have been against the wishes of the father, would the hospital assume financial liability for however long the child lived?
 
also like i said i hope the next step is getting this law thrown out or amendment so it no longer go against rights and RvW.
THe familys suffering is over and the child can be put to rest thank god but theres still more that needs done.

It's not really against RvW though. There is claim to property for sure, but that's about it.
 
How can you disagree? The hospital's defense was published what . They were WRONG.

They had zero guarantee that if they kept that deformed fetus alive to viability that it would live. And if it lived...and it would have been against the wishes of the father, would the hospital assume financial liability for however long the child lived?

I asked that very important question i also asked who is paying for any of this?

how expensive is it to keep somebody on life support i read it can be like 3-11k a day, at two months thats a lot of money

i hope they dont expect to give that bill to the husband
 
It's not really against RvW though. There is claim to property for sure, but that's about it.

curious why doesnt it go against RvW? aborting can be done for any reason prior to 24 weeks

a law saying that this istuation negates that 24 week window no matter what the woman wanted is against that
 
I asked that very important question i also asked who is paying for any of this?

how expensive is it to keep somebody on life support i read it can be like 3-11k a day, at two months thats a lot of money

i hope they dont expect to give that bill to the husband

I think the bill is really the only real contention, I don't see there being some moral quandary over keeping a body warm to protect and deliver a human.
 
curious why doesnt it go against RvW? aborting can be done for any reason prior to 24 weeks

a law saying that this istuation negates that 24 week window no matter what the woman wanted is against that

RvW is about a woman's right to choose and gives them a window in which they can have an abortion. But this wasn't a woman, this was a dead human. A dead human is no longer human, it is not a person, it has no rights; it's a thing. A corpse is a thing. Corpses have no rights. Ergo, it has nothing to do with RvW. As I said, there was claim to property (a corpse can be property), but that's it. Dead people have no rights.
 
CNN reported that the judge said it was not applicable since she was dead.

I am waiting for the transcript to make sure they got it right, though.

That's not quite true according to the statutes...actually.

Even if she had a valid medical directive...here's is how they read in Texas.

If I acknowledge that all treatments may be withheld or removed except those needed to maintain my comfort. I understand that under Texas law this directive has no effect if I have been diagnosed as pregnant. This directive will remain in effect until I revoke it. No other person may do so.
But the failed case by the hospital is that the statute requires them to keep the fetus alive until viability. NONSENSE. That's a pro-life hospital administrator trying to get around abortion rights.
 
I think the bill is really the only real contention, I don't see there being some moral quandary over keeping a body warm to protect and deliver a human.

I couldnt care less about subjective morals yours or mine.

the contention is that it goes against RvW

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.
 
I couldnt care less about subjective morals yours or mine.

the contention is that it goes against RvW

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.

RvW is applicable only to humans. A corpse is not human.
 
That's not quite true according to the statutes...actually.

Even if she had a valid medical directive...here's is how they read in Texas.


But the failed case by the hospital is that the statute requires them to keep the fetus alive until viability. NONSENSE. That's a pro-life hospital administrator trying to get around abortion rights.

Oh, it was? What was his or her name? Was this hospital administrator a pro-life activist? What's your evidence?
 
How can you disagree? The hospital's defense was published what . They were WRONG.

They had zero guarantee that if they kept that deformed fetus alive to viability that it would live. And if it lived...and it would have been against the wishes of the father, would the hospital assume financial liability for however long the child lived?

The hospital, from what I've seen, in the last day or two determined that the fetus was not viable and thus joined the husband in his petition to remove life support. That is far different from your claim that the law did not apply. I suspect, had the hospital determined the fetus was still viable, we might have a different outcome and a certainty of appeal.

The hospital wasn't wrong - the prognosis for the fetus changed, and therefore their position on application of the law changed.
 
1.)RvW is about a woman's right to choose and gives them a window in which they can have an abortion.
2.) But this wasn't a woman, this was a dead human. A dead human is no longer human, it is not a person, it has no rights; it's a thing. A corpse is a thing. Corpses have no rights. Ergo, it has nothing to do with RvW. As I said, there was claim to property (a corpse can be property), but that's it. Dead people have no rights.

1.) correct and that window is 24 weeks which was not achieved yet
2.) Her decision is to not revive her which would end her pregnancy, her choice.
also she has a husband, who by law is her, they are one, he is also the father and their is family

i still see zero justification for this law and i cant imagine any reason for it to hold up once challenged and it to be found worthy of violating RvW and other rights.

also dead people do have some rights, well, or at least laws that protect them. abusing your dead body is a crime, after you die if you had a request for your body to be treated in a way according to your religion and i just came along and through it in the wood chipper thats a crime too.
 
I'll check it out...

IE I have no idea, I'll just assume the people in charge of the hospital were a bunch of bible thumpin, slack jawed yokels rather than educated people confused about legislation.

No one believes the law needs to be re-worded?
 
Oh, it was? What was his or her name? Was this hospital administrator a pro-life activist? What's your evidence?

Well, Nota...let's start with this and I'll research the administrator...how's that?

At JPS, we deliver over 6,000 babies a year - approximately 20% of all deliveries in Tarrant County. Our obstetrical program offers a wealth of amenities to help make childbirth a wonderful and positive experience.

Maternity services at JPS begin long before the day of delivery. Parenthood is about much more than giving birth, and JPS offers unique prenatal services to help new mothers prepare for the arrival of a new family member and ensure that every child born at JPS has the best possible start in life.

JPS is among the first in the region to become a designated Centering Pregnancy center, offering women the opportunity to receive expanded prenatal care under a new model that’s been tied to better birth outcomes. Expectant mothers in Centering Pregnancy prepare for motherhood in a small group setting, enjoying the benefits extended time with nurse practitioners and other healthcare providers, as well as the support of other new mothers. At JPS, the goal is that every pregnant woman begin receiving prenatal care by the 13th week of pregnancy, and women in Centering Pregnancy meet at least weekly until their babies are born.

In addition, JPS promotes newborn sleep safety through the promotion of Safe to Sleep patient education. Focused on safe sleep habits for newborns, the program is shared with new parents through discharge teaching in the hospital and through its Centering Pregnancy prenatal groups.
 
Back
Top Bottom