- Joined
- Oct 20, 2009
- Messages
- 28,431
- Reaction score
- 16,990
- Location
- Sasnakra
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
We're not talking about what you believe. We're talking about what's real.
Except in 35 states.
Post the states and the
Link please ...
There's no pending legislation here. In fact we don't even have clarity on what the CURRENT state of things is until the court weighs in. For all you know the hospital's interpretation is wrong and there's nothing to oppose. It's not like the hospital is taking any kind of stand on the issue either way, they're just trying to follow the law. Whichever way this court decides is how the hospital is going to act. The hospital isn't going to be filing for appeals and injunctions. This is not a re-enactment of Terry Schiavo. The family is uniform in their decision.Yeah that works - suggesting on a debate forum that we should just go with the flow: never question, disagree, disapprove, or alter anything that's ever put into legislation, etcetcetc?
Since when?
The abortion debate forum is alive and hopping with people who oppose the CURRENT state of things.
Not to rain on your parade, but my best source says it's 37 states, as of 2012. You may be using an older, or, more recent source.Except in 35 states.
Not to rain on your parade, but my best source says it's 37 states, as of 2012. You may be using an older, or, more recent source.
The 12-state number comes from those states which completely ban removal of life-support from pregnant patients; TX being one of them. The remaining 25 states have varying stipulations. While TX and other states completely invalidate the directive throughout the entire pregnancy, other states only invalidate the directive if the fetus is already viable. Additionally, Georgia, for example, requires both validity and the directive's specific direction to remove life-support if the fetus is not viable. Absent that specific declaration, Georgia will not remove life-support even if the fetus is not viable. Hawaii has yet different angle, in that the state allows the individual doctor to ignore an advanced directive to remove life-support from a pregnant patient.
Well in all fairness nothing is proven until there's a credible link to supporting data. Now seeing as how it took me about 45 minutes to dig up my source, I hope you'll understand if I just keep it on reserve and see if anyone else cares to do their own homework.hey look you did the work and it further proves her post wrong, AWESOME!
thanks!
Well in all fairness nothing is proven until there's a credible link to supporting data. Now seeing as how it took me about 45 minutes to dig up my source, I hope you'll understand if I just keep it on reserve and see if anyone else cares to do their own homework.
That being said, Scatt, I did re-read this entire thread and you never did source your 35-state number. I know this woman didn't have a DNR but you did say 34 other states have similar laws to TX and it's expected that you can source your claims. I like your style but there comes a point where you need to lay your cards on the table.
Well she didn't say that. That's bull**** you interjected into this thread. She said 35 states have similar laws regarding DNRs.if you say so where this all started was scatt falsely implying that in 35 states pregnant women dont have rights, thats already false
Well she didn't say that. That's bull**** you interjected into this thread. She said 35 states have similar laws regarding DNRs.
Since the woman in question didn't have a DNR, for any of the DNR laws to then apply, the whole thing is academic and irrelevant anyway, which is the second reason you aren't getting direct answers.
Maybe if you stop being an ass and stick to the topic, and maybe apply logic, you might get somewhere. Judging from your posting history you aren't predisposed to rational thought so I won't hold my breath, or respond to you further. I look forward to the update after the court has ruled.
poster; said:Pregnancy does not end your rights.
Except in 35 states.
And at what point does this 'acceptance' end?
1 week after conception?
5 weeks after conception?
At what point does a husband - or the woman herself - lose the right to make these end of life decisions?
Pregnancy does not end your rights.
- They made all of these decisions without consent or consult when she was 14 weeks into the pregnancy. It was knee jerk. IF this happened when she was far enough along for the baby to live outside the womb then I would have supported Cesarean and picu.
I don't presume to know - that's why I say I leave the viability of this developing life to the medical community in the hospital.
I do know I wouldn't leave it to emotional irrationality like asking if I'd do the same if she was "1 week" or "5 weeks" pregnant - that's as irrational as me asking you why you support abortion at 8 months.
I also know that since Roe v Wade, medical science has increased the odds of viability for a fetus outside the womb, narrowing the window in many peoples' minds about when an abortion is strictly a woman's choice. Many doctors who support abortion rights believe that after a shorter period of time there must be a medical reason to abort, not just a choice. It's why abortion as an issue is actively under discussion in the US.
While this is not an abortion issue, it is an issue of "human rights" and what should or could be done to save the life of the weakest among us. When there are two competing interests, one should always err on the side of least harm. In this case, there is no personal harm to the woman who as all have agreed is dead - the only personal harm from choice is to the fetus.
Update:
Fetus of Texas woman on life support 'distinctly abnormal,' family lawyers say - U.S. News
While I am forever erring on the side of saving the baby, this doesn't sound good. If it's true, and the baby does have such severe abnormalities, it won't survive to term, anyway, and this entire argument will be moot.
Update:
Fetus of Texas woman on life support 'distinctly abnormal,' family lawyers say - U.S. News
While I am forever erring on the side of saving the baby, this doesn't sound good. If it's true, and the baby does have such severe abnormalities, it won't survive to term, anyway, and this entire argument will be moot.
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.
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.
Update:
Fetus of Texas woman on life support 'distinctly abnormal,' family lawyers say - U.S. News
While I am forever erring on the side of saving the baby, this doesn't sound good. If it's true, and the baby does have such severe abnormalities, it won't survive to term, anyway, and this entire argument will be moot.
Not to rain on your parade, but my best source says it's 37 states, as of 2012. You may be using an older, or, more recent source.
The 12-state number comes from those states which completely ban removal of life-support from pregnant patients; TX being one of them. The remaining 25 states have varying stipulations. While TX and other states completely invalidate the directive throughout the entire pregnancy, other states only invalidate the directive if the fetus is already viable. Additionally, Georgia, for example, requires both validity and the directive's specific direction to remove life-support if the fetus is not viable. Absent that specific declaration, Georgia will not remove life-support even if the fetus is not viable. Hawaii has yet different angle, in that the state allows the individual doctor to ignore an advanced directive to remove life-support from a pregnant patient.
If so....the LIVING WILL has no bearing.
There is no living will.
From the articleUpdate:
Fetus of Texas woman on life support 'distinctly abnormal,' family lawyers say - U.S. News
While I am forever erring on the side of saving the baby, this doesn't sound good. If it's true, and the baby does have such severe abnormalities, it won't survive to term, anyway, and this entire argument will be moot.
I can only imagine their distress.“Even at this early stage, the lower extremities are deformed to the extent the gender cannot be determined,” the statement says.
In addition the statement says the fetus has swelling of the brain — “hydrocephalus” — as well as a possible heart problem.
“Quite sadly, this information is not surprising due to the fact that the fetus, after being deprived of oxygen for an indeterminate length of time, is gestating within a dead and deteriorating body, as a horrified family looks on in absolute anguish, distress and sadness,” the statement from Munoz's lawyers Heather King and Jessica Janicek read.
There is no living will.
And the "patient" is not living.
Wrong. Since the (potential) mother died from lack of oxygen in her blood then the odds that the fetus is developing normally are slim. While medical miracles may be able to deliver (likely prematurely) the fetus as a baby that may be only the beginning of a lifetime of constant care being required for a severely disabled person. Do you expect the state to raise and care for this (potential) child or for that burden to fall upon those not allowed any say in this decision?
She is on life-sustaining medical equipment.
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?