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.
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.
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.
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
Not vegetative. DEAD.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.
I find it offensive on a moral level that they'll put aside everything for one far from being born infant.
So where do you draw the line. What if she was 3 weeks pregnant?
So, are you telling me they have the patient listed as the baby?
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.
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.
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!
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!
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.
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.
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.
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?
DO you think a dead person is covered by insurance?
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"?
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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?