Brain dead pregnant woman's fetus is "abnormal"

[year2late]

I guess it is the "had to know that" thing that makes me think at the very least it was about pro-life politicking.

These are highly educated people. Of course the doctors knew it was medically correct to pronounce her dead legally. Yet they did not.

Of course the lawyers knew that the law did not pertain to dead people. But if they lacked that assurance, they at least knew they needed to have the law clarified in court.

Just smells of politicking. Whether it was passive (caving to political pressures) or they were actively involved remains to be seen.

 

[CanadaJohn]

The hospital could not have deemed the fetus viable because no fetus has ever been viable until 21 weeks and 6 days. She died at something like 14 weeks. The whole thing is ridiculous, and that is why it is so heartbreaking for the family. For whatever reason, the hospital wanted a corpse to give birth to a live child.

You've made this point numerous times and I was just going to let it go, but since you persist, I'll provide the following:

Definition of Viable Pregnancy:

A doctor will say that a pregnancy is "viable" if there are no indicators of miscarriage and there is a reasonable expectation that the pregnancy will result in the birth of a live infant. A nonviable pregnancy would be a pregnancy in which there is no chance of a live infant being born, such as an ectopic pregnancy, a molar pregnancy, or a pregnancy in which the baby no longer has a heartbeat.

The term "age of viability" refers to the point in pregnancy at which the baby could have a chance of survival if born prematurely, which is generally around 24 weeks of pregnancy

As I said, as long as the hospital considered the fetus to be viable they continued to keep the woman on life support in order to protect the development of the fetus. Once they determined the fetus was no longer viable, they joined the petition of the husband to legally have life support removed.

 

[JayDubya]

Yes indeedy. In addition to the Texas in the Advance Directives Act, the following also exist.

This hospital and doctors knew the woman was DEAD...period.

Irrelevant. Yes, she has been declared brain dead. That has never been in question.

Brain death is death - again, no one in any of these threads has really been challenging that fact... exactly one poster did that in one recent thread about a different brain dead patient, and he is a vehement pro-abortion poster.

The death of the one patient remains irrelevant as long as you can save the other.

In addition the section of the Texas Advanced Directive Act of 1999 which states - Sec. 166.049. PREGNANT PATIENTS. A person may not withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment under this subchapter from a pregnant patient.

She was and remains a patient and she was and remains pregnant. It seems plain enough that the law applies.

If for some reason this law doesn't, then another should be written that explicitly clarifies that life support should not be withdrawn from a pregnant patient even if brain dead, as brain death does not mean life support will not keep the remainder of the one patient's body sustained long enough for the sake of the other patient.

This should be the legal standard regardless of jurisdiction. It is a moral horror to note that it is not.

An appeal should occur, immediately.

The woman was DEAD. No life support was necessary on a dead woman in the first place so the Section 166.049 wasn't relevant. Furthermore, the Texas Advance Directive Act say ZERO about the unborn or fetus.

Life support was necessary. It remains necessary.

Thus we must consider the more important precedence: Roe v Wade.

That naked stupidity need never warrant consideration, least of all here in Texas.

 

[CanadaJohn]

If the woman wants to have her corpse kept artificially pumping blood for the sake of a fetus and the husband wants that, too, there isn't anything wrong with this. What's disgusting is a case like the OP, where the woman has specifically stated that she didn't want that and the husband and parents of the woman agreed with her, and a bunch of strangers do it anyway. Who are these strangers doing to the woman's body what she never wanted, her husband never wanted, and her parents never wanted? Talk about a loss of respect for the family in America . . . .

This is patently false and shouldn't be allowed to let stand.

There is no evidence, zero, that the woman gave any kind of directive related to her pregnancy should she become ill and unresponsive. There is evidence, from the husband, that he and his wife discussed end of life issues and artificial life support, etc., but even then there was no indication that the woman "specifically stated" that if she was stricken in this manner she wanted her baby to die with her. It's disgusting that you'd even claim that. There was no legal document, no documents at all, presented that give a definitive disposition of the woman if she fell into this condition and was pregnant.

You can argue about the law that requires hospitals to keep the patient on life support, if pregnant, but don't manufacture outrage where none exists.

 

[CanadaJohn]

I guess it is the "had to know that" thing that makes me think at the very least it was about pro-life politicking.

These are highly educated people. Of course the doctors knew it was medically correct to pronounce her dead legally. Yet they did not.

Of course the lawyers knew that the law did not pertain to dead people. But if they lacked that assurance, they at least knew they needed to have the law clarified in court.

Just smells of politicking. Whether it was passive (caving to political pressures) or they were actively involved remains to be seen.

What "smells of politicking" is the need of some to manufacture villians to push a narrative where no villians exist and where the narrative isn't applicable.

 

[year2late]

At 14 weeks with the mother having had a pronged anoxic event with cardiovascular collapse, and the mother dead on a ventilator....that viability issue was pretty apparent. Was anybody surprised when the hospital announced the pregnancy was not viable?

But of course, the viability issue is moot, since the law clearly pertains to an incapacitated mother not a dead one. I think that was one of my first comments when this issue came up. It can't pertain to a dead person.

I think the other issue about fetal viability is what normally happens when a mother is pregnant and dead. There would be a crash C-section and a lot of prayers.
The fact is that people to not see death by neurologic causes as "really dead". US Laws support death by neurologic causes as real death. If a family wants to treat their dead loved one differently, they can see if they can convince a doctor, hospital, or judge to see it their way. But leaving a dead person on a vent for weeks and months should never be a default position.

 

[mak2]

Keeping a dead person on life support against the wishes of the family does not require much manufacturing of villans. Villains exist in this case. .

What "smells of politicking" is the need of some to manufacture villians to push a narrative where no villians exist and where the narrative isn't applicable.

 

[year2late]

What "smells of politicking" is the need of some to manufacture villians to push a narrative where no villians exist and where the narrative isn't applicable.

You do not believe that the hospital was under pressure from the right to life crowd?

You think in Texas you want to be known as the hospital that killed the fetus? I use the word "killed" because it has been used on these forums and I have seen this in dialog about this case.

 

[CanadaJohn]

You do not believe that the hospital was under pressure from the right to life crowd?

You think in Texas you want to be known as the hospital that killed the fetus? I use the word "killed" because it has been used on these forums and I have seen this in dialog about this case.

Proof??

 

[year2late]

Keeping a dead person on life support against the wishes of the family does not require much manufacturing of villans. Villains exist in this case. .

"Villains" - not sure about that particular word...but I think it is fair to say the hospital did not have the interests of the patient and family as their priority.

If they cared about the patient or family, they would have pronounced her as dead on November 28th 2013 and gone to the courts for clarification on the law. That way if all they were afraid of was breaking the law....that would have been settled two months ago and a family would not have been tortured for 2 months. Yes tortured.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Keeping a dead person on life support against the wishes of the family does not require much manufacturing of villans. Villains exist in this case. .

It's called obeying the law.

 

[JayDubya]

At 14 weeks with the mother having had a pronged anoxic event with cardiovascular collapse, and the mother dead on a ventilator....that viability issue was pretty apparent. Was anybody surprised when the hospital announced the pregnancy was not viable?

What I have seen the hospital state is "at the time of this hearing, the fetus gestating inside Mrs. Munoz is not viable."

Well no kidding. At the gestational age by last Friday, no Homo sapiens would be viable outside the womb, regardless of any other factor.

As such, this does not appear to indicate what you seem to think it does. We know the lawyers for the family have made some claims based on early ultrasounds, but I see no reason to put much stock in those claims.


I will note that I have been trying to get more information on this case and it has been exceedingly difficult / frustrating, always getting the same shallow blurbs in a different order

 

[JayDubya]

"Villains" - not sure about that particular word...but I think it is fair to say the hospital did not have the interests of the patient and family as their priority.

Please explain how it is in the interest of the living patient to not provide care.

 

[year2late]

Proof??

Why else would medical doctors not pronounce a patient dead that they know is dead?

Why would a hospital not ask for a simple clarification of a law? It is because they already knew the law did not pertain to dead people.

Legal proof? I have none. Just sense enough to know that doctors should have done the medically correct thing from the beginning. There had to be strong pressure not to do the right thing.

But their actions make no sense - even if they truly wanted to just follow the law - the law does NOT tell them not to pronounce the patient. WHy would they fail to do so? Why have they not done so yet? (last indication from the court is that this had to happen by Monday at 5pm)Why wait to pronounce, even after the court clarified that the law does not apply to dead people?

Yes, I question their intentions and whose interests they are supporting. It clearly is not the patient, the family, or the non viable fetus.

 

[reinoe]

What "smells of politicking" is the need of some to manufacture villians to push a narrative where no villians exist and where the narrative isn't applicable.

The villains were the hospital administrators.

 

[reinoe]

Please explain how it is in the interest of the living patient to not provide care.

There was no living patient, try as you might to pretend there was.

 

[reinoe]

It's called obeying the law.

The court disagrees.

 

[JayDubya]

There was no living patient, try as you might to pretend there was.

There are always (at least) two patients in a pregnancy, try as you might to pretend that is not the case.

Of course, you do seem to do a lot of pretending... it might be more accurate to say I think you're pretending to pretend.

 

[reinoe]

There are always (at least) two patients in a pregnancy, try as you might to pretend that is not the case.

Of course, you do seem to do a lot of pretending... it might be more accurate to say I think you're pretending to pretend.

A 14 week old fetus is not a patient. It can be aborted.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Why else would medical doctors not pronounce a patient dead that they know is dead?

Why would a hospital not ask for a simple clarification of a law? It is because they already knew the law did not pertain to dead people.

Legal proof? I have none. Just sense enough to know that doctors should have done the medically correct thing from the beginning. There had to be strong pressure not to do the right thing.

But their actions make no sense - even if they truly wanted to just follow the law - the law does NOT tell them not to pronounce the patient. WHy would they fail to do so? Why have they not done so yet? (last indication from the court is that this had to happen by Monday at 5pm)Why wait to pronounce, even after the court clarified that the law does not apply to dead people?

Yes, I question their intentions and whose interests they are supporting. It clearly is not the patient, the family, or the non viable fetus.

So, in other words, no proof, just a need to impune motive on the part of people charged with saving life on a daily basis and following the law to the best of their ability. I seem to recall you being "outraged" when anyone questioned the motives of the husband yet you freely imply motives on nameless, faceless people simply doing their jobs as best they could.

I can be just as outlandish. I think the husband caused his wife's illness because he didn't want the baby and wanted to collect life insurance and he got additional life insurance for the fetus and he wanted to collect on those policies months ago because he has gambling debts he needs to pay off before the Mexican mafia comes to kill him. How's that?

 

[CanadaJohn]

The court disagrees.

Show me what court claimed the hospital wasn't following the law?

 

[year2late]

It's called obeying the law.

They were not obeying the law. The law does not pertain to dead people. They were failing to pronounce her dead when she was dead to pretend like they were following the law.

 

[CanadaJohn]

They were not obeying the law. The law does not pertain to dead people. They were failing to pronounce her dead when she was dead to pretend like they were following the law.

I'm going in circles with you again on this - you have years of experience in healthcare but you have zero understanding of how legislation reads and how laws apply.

 

[JayDubya]

A 14 week old fetus is not a patient. It can be aborted.

Yes, IF the mother wants to kill her kid and hires someone to do it, then you're right, instead of being treated like a human patient with rights, the kid is violently killed and disposed of.

That's the only way to legally get away with killing the kid, and while closing that loophole or not is the subject of this subforum, it's quite irrelevant as all know, because Mrs. Munoz DIDN'T hire anyone to kill her kid. So you're back to square one, two patients.

 

[year2late]

Show me what court claimed the hospital wasn't following the law?

The ruling stated the law did not apply because she was dead.

Do you accept that she died on NOvember 28th 2013?