I think it is wrong because the acting legal consent is with the husband and the hospital is not acting in accordance with that. If the woman had a living will saying otherwise, I would completely support that but as she does not the legal consent should pass to the husband.
My wife and I have living wills exactly for this type of situation should it occur.
I think it is wrong because the acting legal consent is with the husband and the hospital is not acting in accordance with that. If the woman had a living will saying otherwise, I would completely support that but as she does not the legal consent should pass to the husband.
My wife and I have living wills exactly for this type of situation should it occur.
But in Texas it would not matter. If your wife was pregnant when incapacitated, the pregnancy must be maintained against your will unless there was a clear stipulation about her being pregnant. How many young people have living wills let alone one with such a stipulation?
The legal consent lies with the hospital, by law, legally because of the pregnancy. 34 other states have very similar laws.
How many hospitals in those states would keep a BRAIN DEAD patient at 14 weeks gestation alive against the will of next of the husband?
Possibly 35, by law.
I doubt it.
Cool.
Yup. Not every state is insane like Texas.
I think it is wrong because the acting legal consent is with the husband and the hospital is not acting in accordance with that. If the woman had a living will saying otherwise, I would completely support that but as she does not the legal consent should pass to the husband.
My wife and I have living wills exactly for this type of situation should it occur.
You do what has been done for decades in cases of maternal demise and advanced pregnancy. Do a C-section. A crash C-section can be done in MINUTES.
The pregnancy of Marlise was early. It also was subject to all the medications and loss of oxygen (etc) as she was. Don't you see a distinct and clear difference?
The hospital doesn't have a choice. Take your crusade to the legislators who wrote the law, not the hospitals which follow it.
The lawyer who made that for her should have advised her that it wouldn't apply while pregnant. IMO her estate is entitled to a refund.The woman had an advance medical directive stating that she did not want life support or cpr.
Well technically she's not a woman anymore since she's brain-dead. She's an incubator. I'm sorry for the crass way that's worded but it's the truth. TX wants it's little tax-payer born. I'll be very interested to read what this child's view on abortion is in 18 years.This makes my head hurt. I can't wrap my head around how this can be legally allowed. To force a woman to carry full term is taking away her right to choose. But then she's dead, so she can't choose anyway.
What has been done for decades was c-sections on dead (or non viable) women.Sure, I see the difference - if it was an easy choice, this wouldn't be news. I also see this as a potential advancement in medicine, not just for this unborn child but potentially for others in the future. If medicine simply stuck to "what has been done for decades", we'd still be bleeding patients, sawing off limbs, etc.
For me, the main distinction in this discussion is between those who express emotion for the husband and mother who want to grieve the death of their loved one and those who express emotion for the unborn child who has a chance, however slim, at life.
What has been done for decades was c-sections on dead (or non viable) women.
CJ, the emotion over the unborn child is one issue. A law demanding that a dead woman maintain a pregnancy that was plagued with a catastrophic loss of oxygen and circulation at an early stage is INSANE - an another issue entirely. If the husband wanted to act on his beliefs and emotions - fine. But we cannot as a society make laws that demand it. That is INSANE.
Like in the abortion debates...I support people that are anti-abortion. I personally am anti-abortion in most instances. But no way no shape no form do I support laws that impose my point of view on other women. The only person that can control my body is me - and my next o kin should I become incapacitated and unable to speak for myself.
There are various causes for intrauterine hypoxia (IH). The most preventable cause is maternal smoking. Cigarette smoking by expectant mothers has been shown to have a wide variety of deleterious effects on the developing fetus. Among the negative effects are carbon monoxide induced tissue hypoxia and placental insufficiency which causes a reduction in blood flow from the uterus to the placenta thereby reducing the availability of oxygenated blood to the fetus
All fair comment - I do, however, find it hard to believe that the hospital would be redirecting resources to this case if there was no hope for the unborn child.
And I appreciate your comments about the law - seems, as has been noted, there are 35 states in America that have similar laws in place. Here in Canada, I'm not aware of any similar law and in all cases hospitals make decisions based on the best interests of the patient(s) involved and frequently, the only time there is an issue is when the family wants more resources directed toward their loved one and the hospital is trying to convince them there is no hope. This case seems to be the direct opposite.
I provide the following article that looks at this issue: End-of-Life Decision-making for Pregnant Women: Contested Terrain
According to Planned Parenthood v Casey the government does have an interest in the life and protection of the viable fetus.
Planned Parenthood v. Casey - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In Roe v Wade, the test was the 'trimester' test. Planned Parenthood v Casey changed to the 'viability' test. Courts in the US will act to protect a viable fetus. There is no provision in the case for what the mental capacity of the child will be after birth.
It stands to reason that intrauterine hypoxia could have caused problems for the fetus. That is not a given nor is it 100% because there are various levels of hypoxia and fetal brain development progresses over a long period of time. Also, there are other causes of fetal hypoxia that most really have no issue with whatsoever:
Intrauterine hypoxia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
5) "Life-sustaining treatment" means any medical or surgical intervention that uses mechanical or other artificial means, including artificially provided nutrition and hydration, to sustain, restore, or replace a vital function, which, when applied to a qualified patient, would serve only to prolong the process of dying. "Life-sustaining treatment" shall not include the administration of medication or the performance of any medical or surgical intervention deemed necessary solely to alleviate pain
At 14 weeks, the fetus was not viable outside of the womb.
Yup. Not every state is insane like Texas.
It is just disgusting that the working poor (too rich for Medicaid to poor to pay for healthcare) have to go without or receive susbstandard healthcare
.....and a dead woman gets high end treatment massively costly treatment against the wishes of the next of kin who knew her best.
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?