• 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

A Tarrant County judge Friday ruled in favor of the family of a brain-dead pregnant woman who wished to take the mother off life support.

The ruling came after a brief hearing held Friday afternoon in a case that has drawn attention around the world. The judge said Marlise Munoz must be removed from life support by 5 p.m. on Monday and that the hospital can appeal.


Munoz, 33, developed a blood clot, and in November, before controversy surrounded her brain-dead condition, Munoz was taken to JPS Hospital, 14 weeks pregnant with her second child.

The hospital disagreed with the family's wishes to have her removed from life support, citing a Texas law that requires a pregnant woman to be kept on life support until the fetus is viable at about 24 to 26 weeks.

The family of Munoz could be seen wiping away tears during Friday's hearing in a Tarrant County courtroom.


Court documents filed on Friday by a family's lawyers and prosecutors representing a Ft. Worth hospital stated the fetus inside a brain-dead pregnant woman was "not viable."

The court filing was the first time the hospital publicly acknowledged the deteriorating condition of the fetus and came just hours before the Friday afternoon hearing.

Erick Munoz, Marlise's husband, filed his own two-page sworn affidavit Thursday.

He begins by stating, "Since my wife's death on November 26th, 2013, I have had to endure the pain of watching my wife's dead body be treated as if she were alive."

He goes on to say he is positive that his wife Marlise is dead and lists several reasons, saying in part, "When I bend down to kiss her forehead, her usual scent is gone, replaced instead with what I can only describe as the smell of death."

He also says, "Her limbs have become so stiff and rigid due to her deteriorating condition that now, when I move her hands, her bones crack and her legs are nothing more than dead weight."

Lawyers for the family on said Wednesday said in a court filing the fetus of Munoz "is distinctly abnormal" and its lower extremities deformed

Bless this family. They have suffered in a way that is cruel.
 
CNN is reporting that the judge has said that since Marlise Munoz was dead, the law did not apply.
 
How unfortunate, for both people involved.
 
A life that should have been allowed to pass with the mother.

Why? If her body would survive birth and that life brought out of the womb, allowing it to die was needless, cruel and unethical.
 
Not much is known about fetal survival when mothers suffer brain death during pregnancy. German doctors who searched for such cases found 30 of them in nearly 30 years, according to an article published in the journal BMC Medicine in 2010.

Those mothers were further along in pregnancy -- 22 weeks on average -- when brain death occurred than in the Texas case. Birth results were available for 19 cases. In 12, a viable child was born. Follow-up results were available for six, all of whom developed normally.
Texas hospital ordered to remove life support from pregnant, brain-dead woman | Fox News

I'd say that KNOWING that at least 6 of 30 babies in a similar circumstance developed normally would be a rather compelling reason NOT to pull the plug.
 
My thoughts superficially were that I would have erred on the side of the family's wishes. However, I might add, I would never seek to qualify someone's life as "worthy" or "unworthy" without first-hand information or likelihood of survival immediately after birth. I thought such speculation was undue and demeaning.
 
Bless this family. They have suffered in a way that is cruel.

GREAT NEWS!!!!!! THANK GOD!!!

now i hope they sue the pants off the hospital for being forced to suffer like they did and abusing the wifes body.
I also hope the law is thrown out in the future or minimum it is rewritten so it doesnt violate RvW and other individual rights.

SO happy for the family for this to be over with i cant imagine the amount of pain and suffering and torture they were forced through.
 
Why? If her body would survive birth and that life brought out of the womb, allowing it to die was needless, cruel and unethical.
This was a fetus that suffered prolonged anoxic insult. The lack of viability was inevitable. If the doctors did not have a sense of that, then....they probably need some refresher courses.
 
GREAT NEWS!!!!!! THANK GOD!!!

now i hope they sue the pants off the hospital for being forced to suffer like they did and abusing the wifes body.
I also hope the law is thrown out in the future or minimum it is rewritten so it doesnt violate RvW and other individual rights.

SO happy for the family for this to be over with i cant imagine the amount of pain and suffering and torture they were forced through.

To me the law was always clear. The subject was the pregnant patient. You do not continue life support to a brain dead patient. If the fetus was at a viable stage, deliver it.
 
This was a fetus that suffered prolonged anoxic insult. The lack of viability was inevitable. If the doctors did not have a sense of that, then....they probably need some refresher courses.

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.
 
Last edited:
Texas hospital ordered to remove life support from pregnant, brain-dead woman | Fox News

I'd say that KNOWING that at least 6 of 30 babies in a similar circumstance developed normally would be a rather compelling reason NOT to pull the plug.

since rights are involved and this goes against them and RvW, no
since the study was based on random sporadic info of varying (not really similar) cases of 30 in 30 years for 20%, no
since the on avg they were 8 WEEKS further along, no

i dont find it compelling at all, not even a little

but then again all that is needed even even if it was 80% and matched the weeks perfectly and 1 million studies is this goes against rights, RvW and the womans, husbands and families wishes

but you are free to be compelled
 
To me the law was always clear. The subject was the pregnant patient. You do not continue life support to a brain dead patient. If the fetus was at a viable stage, deliver it.

agreed 100% feel so bad for the poor family
 
Show me one of those cases that were as a result of a prolonged anoxic insult. Otherwise you are comparing apples to oranges.

That information isn't readily available but if it turns out that even one of those situations was comparable (though the baby was a few weeks further along) would that change your mind?
 
Bless this family. They have suffered in a way that is cruel.

I would agree.

And based on the evidence presented, I would agree that the court made the only appropriate ruling.

I believe the operative words in the article presented are: Court documents filed on Friday by a family's lawyers and prosecutors representing a Ft. Worth hospital stated the fetus inside a brain-dead pregnant woman was "not viable." The court filing was the first time the hospital publicly acknowledged the deteriorating condition of the fetus and came just hours before the Friday afternoon hearing.

I hope this puts to rest comments about the hospital having a hidden agenda and acting illegally. By all accounts I've seen, they seem to have been acting professionally and in compliance with the law, as they saw it.
 
Last edited:
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.

First of all, unless the patient has a DNR in place (there is a special form) or a DPOA or living will, if they come into the hospital they are considered "full codes".Not sure why you would bring up that example. Weird.

But when they are pronounced dead, the care stops.
 
I would agree.

And based on the evidence presented, I would agree that the court made the only appropriate ruling.

I believe the operative words in the article presented are: Court documents filed on Friday by a family's lawyers and prosecutors representing a Ft. Worth hospital stated the fetus inside a brain-dead pregnant woman was "not viable." The court filing was the first time the hospital publicly acknowledged the deteriorating condition of the fetus and came just hours before the Friday afternoon hearing.

I hope this puts to rest comments about the hospital having a hidden agenda and acting illegally. By all accounts I've seen, they seem to have been acting professionally and in compliance with the law, as they saw it.

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.
 
1.)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.

I agree! its pathetic this was allowed to drag on considering the circumstances.
 
That information isn't readily available but if it turns out that even one of those situations was comparable (though the baby was a few weeks further along) would that change your mind?

Actually...on one of these threads, folks posted links. I read them and the case that folks posted the most about (cannot remember the foreign country)the case was about a woman that had major brain surgery....monitored situation, never lost oxygen or such. It was strictly a "brain event". If there was an optimal situation for this to happen...I guess that was it. The situation with Marise Munoz was very different. There was a prolonged lack of oxygen that was clearly going to have a devastating effect on the fetus.
 
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.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom