D
Diana_Catherine
Guest
but it was about another life.
Texas man wants pregnant wife off life support despite state laws
- Status
D
Diana_Catherine
Guest
I could be wrong but doesn’t that just mean that if the baby is born “now” he or she wouldn’t survive. I don’t think it means the baby won’t survive later. They would have to make that decision down the road.
M
Mrs_Sally
Guest
Usually with a pregnancy “viable” does mean when the baby can survive outside the mother. In this case though, the hospital has also listed very serious problems that the baby has including problems with the brain and heart as well as deformity - I assume this is from ultrasound or other tests they are doing. It sounds like the baby won’t survive even if brought to term.
We will likely hear something from the courts tonight. Praying for everyone involved.
J
J_Peterson
Guest
It is a life but it’s not independent, it needs it’s mother to grow. The mother isn’t on life support, the child is. If society crumbles and we lose our ability to use technology, this issue will not happen. Are we morally required to extend life as long as we are technologically able to? If so, why should our morality tied to our technology?
If they were able to remove the child and put it in a lab and let it grow in an artificial womb, would that be okay? How about a surrogate?
M
Magdalen2013
Guest
No, they did an ultrasound – the baby has hydrocephalus (water where the brain should be) and is severely deformed (the lower body is just a lump – there should have been legs and feet by now).
D
Diana_Catherine
Guest
Remember also that this case is going to decide a lot of things in the future, such as should a deformed baby be allowed to live or be born or do we decide the fate of a child based on how healthy it is. Then it will lead down the road what to do with others who are “not normal”, who are already alive but have abnormalities. How many times do we hear of a family that is told to abort their baby because of it has abnormalities and they choose not to and are blessed by the short time they have with that child. This is going to set a precedent for a lot of things that go against Catholic teaching, which happens to be the last place that is upholding moral teaching.
True the baby has abnormalities but from what I understand about our faith, it teaches us that it not a reason to end a life.
True the baby has abnormalities but from what I understand about our faith, it teaches us that it not a reason to end a life.
D
Diana_Catherine
Guest
I know a woman whose baby was born with hydrocephalus. It was a beautiful baby and lived for a several years and was a blessing to the family. They were grateful to know the little girl.
Also, it is water on the brain, not water where the brain should be.
I also know of a woman who gave birth to a beautiful baby whose heart was on the wrong side of his body. She loved the baby, spent time with the baby for a couple of weeks before he died and stated she was so very blessed.
Many nurses will sit and hold deformed babies and can tell you of the love they feel knowing the baby.
M
Mrs_Sally
Guest
The difference between those cases and this is that the mother was alive. This mother is dead and I think we need to remember the difference.
I also have a good friend whose baby was diagnosed with a terminal condition. She carried the baby to term and delivered, the whole family held and loved the baby until it died an hour or so later.
If this mother were living, I too would be unequivical in my support of the baby. My concerns come in because the mother is dead and keeping her body on a respirator is completely experimental and extraordinary.
Buring the dead is a corporal work of mercy. Leaving her body to decompose for weeks just to see what might happen to a severely injuried baby is not required according to Catholic moral teaching.
I also have a good friend whose baby was diagnosed with a terminal condition. She carried the baby to term and delivered, the whole family held and loved the baby until it died an hour or so later.
If this mother were living, I too would be unequivical in my support of the baby. My concerns come in because the mother is dead and keeping her body on a respirator is completely experimental and extraordinary.
Buring the dead is a corporal work of mercy. Leaving her body to decompose for weeks just to see what might happen to a severely injuried baby is not required according to Catholic moral teaching.
C
Cider
Guest
Of course the fetus is not viable, there are a few more weeks to go before it reaches the age of viability. All viability means is mature enough to live outside the womb.
D
Diana_Catherine
Guest
Exactly.
D
Diana_Catherine
Guest
but the baby is alive.
I also have a good friend whose baby was diagnosed with a terminal condition. She carried the baby to term and delivered, the whole family held and loved the baby until it died an hour or so later.
If this mother were living, I too would be unequivical in my support of the baby. My concerns come in because the mother is dead and keeping her body on a respirator is completely experimental and extraordinary.
Buring the dead is a corporal work of mercy. Leaving her body to decompose for weeks just to see what might happen to a severely injuried baby is not required according to Catholic moral teaching.
S
St_Francis
Guest
No, viability means more than that:
Definition
adjective
(1) Alive; capable of living, developing, or reproducing, as in a viable cell.
(2) Able to live on its own or outside the uterus, used of an embryo, fetus or newborn.
(3) Possible; practicable; capable of being done.
I doubt that the hospital would mention the age-related gestational state of the baby in the court documents; it is much more reasonable to consider that they are saying that the baby cannot survive on its own.
With regards to the difference between this situation and the situation of a women whose baby has been diagnosed as hydroencephalic or the like is that in the other cases mentioned, there was no medical intervention to keep the pregnancy going. In this case, the extraordinary medical treatment is on-going and seems to be all that is keeping the baby alive.
Even if this treatment can be sustained until the baby is gestationally 9 months old, it seems that the baby will be unable to live on its own.
The difference between *withdrawal of treatment *and abortion is *vast. *One is intinsically evil, and the other is morally acceptable under certain circumstances.
C
Corki
Guest
Possibly. The doctors said today that they are closer to the time when they can test for viability (around 24 weeks). Maybe we should all just be patient until then.
M
Marie5890
Guest
Court has ordered mother be removed from all life support by monday.
E
estesbob
Guest
So sad
M
Marie5890
Guest
Apparently the hospital agrees that the baby is not viable? No head or limbs?
S
St_Francis
Guest
It seems that new information makes more certain that all that the medical treatment was accomplishing was to delay the death of the baby.
Eternal rest grant unto these, O Lord; let Thy perpetual light shine upon them, and may they rest together in peace*–Amen *
Eternal rest grant unto these, O Lord; let Thy perpetual light shine upon them, and may they rest together in peace*–Amen *
M
Mrs_Sally
Guest
M
Marie5890
Guest
On all sides.
D
Diana_Catherine
Guest
I saw where they said the baby didn’t have legs and were unable to determine the sex and the baby had hydrocephalus (water or fluid on the brain) but I don’t see where they are seeing the baby had no head. ?
- Status