- Joined
- Jan 5, 2010
- Messages
- 16,693
- Reaction score
- 5,632
- Location
- There's my hat.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Communist
Perhaps this is what you're referring to: Formerly conjoined Guatemalan twin girls turn 10 - Worldnews.com
Two young girls, formerly conjoined twins, who as infants/toddlers had a 23 hour operation and have now survived and are thriving as pre-teens.
It's a damn shame, isn't it, when they could have just been suctioned out of their mother's womb and flushed to make some people feel "dignified".
The pregnant woman already died with dignity. This thread is about protecting an unborn life.
Keeping a dead woman attached to machines to have nursing staff turn her frequently, cleanse her every several hours of urine and/or feces...poke her dead body for laboratory tests, feed her with a tube , maintain IV's.........that is a dignified death?
You think they do not have the waste being deposited away from her body?
By the way, do you think having her dead body turned back and forth cleansed of urine and excrement, with tubes and machines to sustain her dead body is dignified? /QUOTE]
You already admitted this is not the case.
Keeping a dead woman attached to machines to have nursing staff turn her frequently, cleanse her every several hours of urine and/or feces...poke her dead body for laboratory tests, feed her with a tube , maintain IV's.........that is a dignified death? After a dignified death, a family is able to pick up the pieces, grieve, and move on. Good Lord. Dignified???Attahed to machines after death against her expressed wishes??? Please, dignified?
The machines are specifically life-sustaining machines.
Like I said earlier in the thread, I truly hope for the best, but this is beyond creepy.
Yes, dignified - far more dignified that the craven need to destroy the potential life inside her dead body to satisfy misplaced sentimentality. Tell you what - I sure hope medical science advances far enough that when I die my carcass can be used in multiple ways, even as an incubator, to save and or promote the health and life of someone else. And if my family doesn't like it, too bloody bad and I'd be embarrassed by them if they objected.
If it was my child, and my responsibility, yes. I took care of my mother for the last 25 years of her life, many of those years while she was bedridden and changing and washing her several times a day. Before that, I took care of my father in similar circumstances. They didn't want to be put in a home or facility and I valued their lives, such as they were, to the very end.
It's funny, at least to me, that those on the left are always tossing out the "are you willing to adopt the child" challenge whenever discussing unborn life and yet for every other circumstance where those on the left want to have society and "taxpayers" fund and support the less fortunate, they never claim they are willing to have the homeless live with them, the unemployed live with them, the handicapped live with them, the addicted live with them. No, there's no need for anyone on the left to take personal responsibility for the millions they want society to support, yet anyone who values the defenseless lives of the unborn must be willing to personally adopt every child saved.
That attitude is a disgrace.
It's really disturbing that Texas can bypass a DNR order, which is legally binding, all because of Christian ideology.
If it was my child, and my responsibility, yes. I took care of my mother for the last 25 years of her life, many of those years while she was bedridden and changing and washing her several times a day. Before that, I took care of my father in similar circumstances. They didn't want to be put in a home or facility and I valued their lives, such as they were, to the very end.
It's funny, at least to me, that those on the left are always tossing out the "are you willing to adopt the child" challenge whenever discussing unborn life and yet for every other circumstance where those on the left want to have society and "taxpayers" fund and support the less fortunate, they never claim they are willing to have the homeless live with them, the unemployed live with them, the handicapped live with them, the addicted live with them. No, there's no need for anyone on the left to take personal responsibility for the millions they want society to support, yet anyone who values the defenseless lives of the unborn must be willing to personally adopt every child saved.
That attitude is a disgrace.
There is no DNR.
She is dead.
I have had my mother with me for about 15 years. I have respected her wishes and cared for her as best I can. So I understand the concept. Completely.
But what about this woman's husband. He wants to abide by his wife's wishes. They were both paramedics - so I am sure they were acutely aware of quality of life issues and had made personal judgments about quality of life. Who are we to push our individual points of view on that family? People decide all the time on infants, children, adults, and the elderly to withhold medical care - why is it so cringingly horrible to allow a woman who suffered catastrophic cardiovascular collapse including lack of ox.ygen to pass along with the 14 week old fetus (who was without O2 as well). I just think this is a decision that should have been left to the next of kin.
Scat!
She is dead. You do not need a DNR order for a dead person. She is not being resuscitated. You do not resuscitate a corpse.
What do you not "get" about "dead"?
I appreciate what you're saying, however, for me, husbands and wives don't get to take their children with them when they die. As someone who is pro-choice, I appreciate when a woman makes a decision about her pregnancy even if, personally, I hate the decision. Many here, including yourself, believe that their is only one life at issue here, that being the woman. I, on the other hand, with others here, believe that there is also only one life at issue here, that being the developing fetus.
You talk about the husband wanting to abide by the wife's wishes - I'll credit he believes that to be true, but I don't personally believe that any woman who is pregnant and intent on giving birth would freely give a direction that should she die her unborn child should be taken with her. I've seen what women do to protect the lives of their children, some giving their own life to save their child. I think it's an insult to the memory of this woman that her husband believes she wouldn't want everything done to save her child.
And you're right - the husband and wife were both paramedics. As such, nothing would convince me that they wouldn't know the absolute need of having their wishes in writing in order for them to be valid. Perhaps it's just a matter of the invincibility of youth that nothing formal was put in writing, but there wasn't.
As for leaving the decision to next of kin, I would tend to agree - where we disagree here is what is in the best interest of the developing life. It's not unheard of that government would step in to protect the interests of the vulnerable when the guardians of those interests are acting in their own interests rather than that of the patient.
Perhaps what many aren't getting is that there is only one "being" on life support, and that is the developing fetus. The "corpse" as you call it is simply a conduit for implementing life support to the benefit of the fetus. The "mother's" wishes aren't being denied, in that sense, since she is dead. What are being denied are the personal, emotional, wishes of the husband and woman's mother, which have no status in law, period.
No they are not. She is not alive. Are you saying brain dead people are alive?
What they fail to understand is she is brain dead because her brain had no oxygen and no blood flow for an extended period of time.
The brain is dead and decay is setting in. Just like what happens when when a limb does get blood flow for a period of time and gangrene sets in and the limb starts to rot.
.
well im playing catch up and im going to state what i think the facts are please correct me if wrong
woman is brain dead
woman is 20 weeks pregnant (incident happened at 14 weeks)
woman had order to not be on life support
woman is married making her husband legally and medically in control
Texas law prohibits it from following a family/will directive when a pregnancy is involved.
Father also wants to abort because of possible damage to the Fetus
as i could tell, seems those are the facts, please correct me if im wrong
if the above is true the Texas state law violates rights in my simply opinion because it disregards the woman's rights and RvW and puts an extra restriction that is above and beyond RvW.
the womans will/order/wishes should be done AND since the father is alive and married so should his
Now since the unconstitutional law exists it does have to be challenged so thats that. there has to be a court case.
What should happen to this law is what has happened to many other laws, since it goes against RvW it should be removed and struck down, since it violates will/individual rights it should also be struck down.
Keeping a woman alive 10 weeks or longer against her wishes, husbands wishes and family wishes is horrible and then during medical procedures on her body afterwards is also horrible.
Having said all that, again though, the law is on the books and currently the hospital is within their legal right. Im glad this is going to court and the law should be struck down.
No, that really is not the case. A body which is artificially ventilated still has circulation, as the heart is still beating. The only reason why there would be rot or decay would be that the people taking care of the individual in question, neglected to turn the person regularly, to take the pressure off the different pressure points on the body. In that case, a pressure ulcer would develop, but it could be healed by regular turning/repositioning and wound care.
No, that really is not the case. A body which is artificially ventilated still has circulation, as the heart is still beating. The only reason why there would be rot or decay would be that the people taking care of the individual in question, neglected to turn the person regularly, to take the pressure off the different pressure points on the body. In that case, a pressure ulcer would develop, but it could be healed by regular turning/repositioning and wound care.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?