Texas man wants pregnant wife off life support despite state laws

[adrift]

This situation is different. We’re talking about a non-viable fetus in a dead mother. I do not think God intended for a fetus to survive this situation.

That may be so. It might have also been God’s will for the child to survive as long as he/she has. When this started the condition of the baby, was unknown.

There is no “defender” in this case, unless one believes that non-viable fetuses in dead mothers are supposed to survive. Now, if one wants to attempt to bring the baby to term, it can’t hurt to try. But playing God is not required in this case.

The point is there are those who have said that the family wishes should be paramount. I challenge that position which you have not addressed.

This is an entirely different situation. Dealing with the living is not the same as dealing with a young, non-viable fetus in a dead mother.

It is only different because you now know that the child is not viable. What would be your position if the child had developed normally or had downs syndrome? No one knew at the outset what the results would be.

 

[jediliz]

This situation is different. We’re talking about a non-viable -]fetus/-] BABY in a dead mother. I do not think God intended for a -]fetus/-] BABY to survive this situation.

There is no “defender” in this case, unless one believes that non-viable -]fetuses/-] BABIES in dead mothers are supposed to survive. Now, if one wants to attempt to bring the baby to term, it can’t hurt to try. But playing God is not required in this case.

This is an entirely different situation. Dealing with the living is not the same as dealing with a young, non-viable -]fetus/-] BABYin a dead mother.

Made a few corrections for you.

If she was 14 weeks when she collapsed and that was two months ago…the baby was almost viable.

 

[St_Francis]

There was one who was 15 weeks. It makes me so sad that the pro-abortion arguments are used. It didn’t work it might have. Experimentation is the basis of medical advancement. We would not have penicillin, heart, liver transplants and numerous other procedures that started with experimentation and today is the norm. When first used, there was a poor success rate. There are those here who point at the outcome and say the child wasn’t viable nanny nanny nanny forgetting they are talking about a human life who has a right to life. It could have gone the other way just as easily. I am glad they tried.

The fact that arguments are used under other circumstances to make a case for something which is always wrong does not invalidate the arguments when they are used in a situation when the action is not always wrong.

To take the life of one who has done no wrong is always wrong, no matter what his ir her condition is. However, one of the possible criteria for withdrawal of medical treatment is the condition of the one being treated.

In this particular case, it seems that it was not and possibly never was true that “it could so have easily gone the other way.”

Yes children sometimes must be protected from the very ones that are suppose to be their defenders. Just like families choose for religious reasons not to provide medical assistance, the state is liable to protect them. Now those who are saying that it belongs to the family to decide would you say the same thing for the family who won’t give a blood transfusion or the parent who won’t take their children to a doctor because they believe they should rely on prayer alone?

The problem os that there is a question not only of the prognosis but of the burden of the treatment. A blood transfusion is often not burdensome and extremely helpful in restoring health. But how helpful is keeping a loved one in a state in which she is dead but on a ventilator when the prognosis for the baby is very poor? It seems to have been more like delaying the death of than saving the life of the baby. The treatment is very serious, much more so than a blood transfusion.

 

[adrift]

The fact that arguments are used under other circumstances to make a case for something which is always wrong does not invalidate the arguments when they are used in a situation when the action is not always wrong.

To take the life of one who has done no wrong is always wrong no matter what his ir her condition is. However, one of the possible criteria for withdrawal of medical treatment is the condition of the one being treated.

In this particular case, it seems that it was not and possibly never was true that “it could so have easily gone the other way.”

Hindsight is wonderful.

The problem os that there is a question not only of the prognosis but of the burden of the treatment. A blood transfusion is often not burdensome and extremely helpful in restoring health. But how helpful is keeping a loved one in a state in which she is dead but on a ventilator when the prognosis for the baby is very poor? It seems to have been more like delaying the death of than saving the life of the baby. The treatment is very serious, much more so than a blood transfusion.

There is some truth to what you say but the problem is it is hindsight. There are those who have survived so yeah it could have gone the other way and yes the hospital was right to error in favor of life. It is nice to now have all the evidence but back when this started they didn’t have it. To dismiss the argument that parents do not always act in their children’s best interest looses the point that they don’t. It doesn’t matter if you consider the treatment serious. To the parent it is an unwarranted intrusion just as many have stated here.

 

[BellsMom]

Just like families choose for religious reasons not to provide medical assistance, the state is liable to protect them.

Would the state ever remove a child from the parents care to subject him or her to experimental medical procedures? I certainly hope not.

I know a family who’s 5 year old daughter was diagnosed with brain tumor. It was encapsulated in her brain stem. Her parents enrolled her in some experimental treatments. They had a very very low success rate but they could only hope. What if the parents had decided against those treatments? Should the state have forced them, after all there was a “chance” even if less then 1 in 100?

That hospital, thinking they were following the law, subjected that woman’s body to extraordinary treatment against her will and her baby to a scientific experiment against the will of the baby’s father and extended family.

It’s absolutely frightening where this could lead in the future.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

The point is there are those who have said that the family wishes should be paramount. I challenge that position which you have not addressed.

I believe that the child’s interest should be paramount. However, in this particular case, the child was far from be able to live outside of its mother’s womb. In 99% of human history we wouldn’t even need to discuss this situation. It is only through advancements in science that we can attempt to play God.

It is only different because you now know that the child is not viable. What would be your position if the child had developed normally or had downs syndrome? No one knew at the outset what the results would be.

As time progressed, it became obvious what the outcome would be. The result ended up being the what would normally be expected of a non-viable fetus in a dead mother.

 

[SMGS127]

I believe that the child’s interest should be paramount. However, in this particular case, the child was far from be able to live outside of its mother’s womb. In 99% of human history we wouldn’t even need to discuss this situation. It is only through advancements in science that we can attempt to play God.

As time progressed, it became obvious what the outcome would be. The result ended up being the what would normally be expected of a non-viable fetus in a dead mother.

There was no news until very recently that the CHILD was non-viable. The life-or-death status of the mother was completely irrelevant. As long as the CHILD could be viable, life support should have remained.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Made a few corrections for you.

My terminology is accurate.

If she was 14 weeks when she collapsed and that was two months ago…the baby was almost viable.

14 weeks is nowhere near viable. And the fact that the mother was dead subsequent to that is a real problem. It is only through playing God that the fetus (or baby) lived as long as it did was due to playing God, which failed.

 

[St_Francis]

Hindsight is wonderful.

Not at all. I have been saying the same thing throughout this thread. There was never a really good prognosis for this baby once his or her mother had died, *and *the baby had experienced considerable trauma, oxygen deprivation and the re-starting several times of the mother’s heart.

Now, the Church allows a woman to undertake life-saving medical treatment *even if it is foreseen that the treatment could kill the child. *The Church does *not *require that heroic measures be taken to save *anyone’s *life.

Even if the baby had been in good health, it does not seem that it would be required to keep his or her mother on a ventilator for weeks on end to save the baby’s life.

There is some truth to what you say but the problem is it is hindsight. There are those who have survived so yeah it could have gone the other way and yes the hospital was right to error in favor of life. It is nice to now have all the evidence but back when this started they didn’t have it.

It seems that the main reason the hospital undertook such strenuous measures for Mrs Muñoz is that they believed the law required it. In the 38 states in which there is no similar law, doctors probably would not have even tried to resusitate someone who had suffered so long an oxygen deprivation and who was without a heartbeat.

IOW, in 38 states, Mrs Muñoz would have disd and her baby would have died, all privately, without our ever knowing about it.

To dismiss the argument that parents do not always act in their children’s best interest looses the point that they don’t. It doesn’t matter if you consider the treatment serious. To the parent it is an unwarranted intrusion just as many have stated here.

That parents do not always act in their children’s best interest is *irrelevant *here. The right to life is the right not to be killed, not the right to live under any and all circumstances.

 

[adrift]

Not at all. I have been saying the same thing throughout this thread. There was never a really good prognosis for this baby once his or her mother had died, *and *the baby had experienced considerable trauma, oxygen deprivation and the re-starting several times of the mother’s heart.

You could never be certain of the prognosis you could only guess. Only with reliable information could a decision be made and that makes it hindsight even your guess.

Now, the Church allows a woman to undertake life-saving medical treatment *even if it is foreseen that the treatment could kill the child. *The Church does *not *require that heroic measures be taken to save *anyone’s *life.

Only if it is not a direct attack on the baby but an unintended consequence.

Even if the baby had been in good health, it does not seem that it would be required to keep his or her mother on a ventilator for weeks on end to save the baby’s life.

Sadly this was not the case. It does not seem is a poor foundation.

It seems that the main reason the hospital undertook such strenuous measures for Mrs Muñoz is that they believed the law required it. In the 38 states in which there is no similar law, doctors probably would not have even tried to resusitate someone who had suffered so long an oxygen deprivation and who was without a heartbeat.

This has no bearing on the case.

IOW, in 38 states, Mrs Muñoz would have disd and her baby would have died, all privately, without our ever knowing about it.

This has no bearing on the case.

That parents do not always act in their children’s best interest is *irrelevant *here. The right to life is the right not to be killed, not the right to live under any and all circumstances.

Of course it is relevant to the argument that says the state should stay out of it and leave it up to the family.

 

[Personanongrata]

Made a few corrections for you.

If she was 14 weeks when she collapsed and that was two months ago…the baby was almost viable.

I don’t think you understand the meaning of the word “viable”.

 

[St_Francis]

You could never be certain of the prognosis you could only guess. Only with reliable information could a decision be made and that makes it hindsight even your guess.

Right, I made an educated guess based in the information at hand, and part of that educated guess was my assumption that the doctors and family knew more than they were telling us. I based that assumption on what midwives had been able to telle about the condition of my children during the course of my pregnancy.

There probably is not a lot of information out there about the effects of unborn babies who suffer through their mothers’ prolonged oxygen deprivation and repeated electrical shocks to re-start their hearts. It is probably reasonable to think that these are not conducive to health, however.

Only if it is not a direct attack on the baby but an unintended consequence.

Precisely. And taking a person who is dead off a ventilator is also not a direct attack on the unborn child of the person who has died.

Sadly this was not the case. It does not seem is a poor foundation.

Did you leave out part of this sentence?

This has no bearing on the case.

This has no bearing on the case.

How can this not have a bearing on the case? If Mrs Muñoz had died in a different state, the ventilation would not have been started, and the baby would have died at about the same time as his or her mother.

But because of the hospital’s understanding of the law, ventilation was started. It seems that you are arguing that it was wrong to take the mother off the ventilator, but you have no concern that in the vast majority of cases, the ventilation would never have been started. That seems contradictory to me.

Of course it is relevant to the argument that says the state should stay out of it and leave it up to the family.

If what the family proposes is moral, then the state should not intervene. You are not showing that the withdrawal of the ventilator is immoral.

 

[adrift]

Did you leave out part of this sentence?

Yep

It is sad not to err in favor of life.

How can this not have a bearing on the case? If Mrs Muñoz had died in a different state, the ventilation would not have been started, and the baby would have died at about the same time as his or her mother.

Because it is a what if and the are rarely relevant.

But because of the hospital’s understanding of the law, ventilation was started. It seems that you are arguing that it was wrong to take the mother off the ventilator, but you have no concern that in the vast majority of cases, the ventilation would never have been started. That seems contradictory to me.

Not arguing that at all. What is done elsewhere is not of concern. What if’s rarely are.

If what the family proposes is moral, then the state should not intervene. You are not showing that the withdrawal of the ventilator is immoral.

It is actually neutral. My stance is give life a chance. My concern is that most of the arguments could be used and are for abortion. No this has nothing to do with abortion so why are the same arguments used?

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

There was no news until very recently that the CHILD was non-viable.

If you have evidence that a 14-week-old fetus in a dead mother is viable, I would like to read the case.

The life-or-death status of the mother was completely irrelevant.

For a fetus that is not viable outside the womb, whether the mother is or is not alive is not only relevant, it’s everything.

As long as the CHILD could be viable, life support should have remained.

The mother is dead; she is not on life support; she’s simply on support, which allows her body to decay at a slower rate. This medical issue in this case is whether a dead mother can give the necessary life support to the fetus.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

It is sad not to err in favor of life.

Nobody here disagrees. But we have to be realistic. And in this particular case, the result appears to be damaging and prolonged suffering of the fetus.

I am all for realistic extraordinary measures. But on the other hand, death is part of life. We believe in a glorious afterlife, and we should not make others suffer because we believe they should live when it is obvious God is calling them home.

 

[St_Francis]

Yep

It is sad not to err in favor of life.

It is sad when we lack the resources to save lives, but death is a part of life.

Because it is a what if and the are rarely relevant.

Your whole argument is based on a what if. You are saying what if the baby had had a chance? when the baby did not have a chance.

It is actually neutral. My stance is give life a chance. My concern is that most of the arguments could be used and are for abortion. No this has nothing to do with abortion so why are the same arguments used?

As I said before, that the abortion advocates use an emotionally wrenching but invalid argument in the case of abortion does not invalidate the argument in a case where it does matter.

Maybe what this means is that we need to be more clear about what “pro-life” and “right to life” mean. We are pro-life in that we believe it is wrong to *take *an innocent life, we are not pro-life in that we are against natural death.

And we believe that babies have the right not to be killed by humans, not that they have a right not to die of natural causes which are preventable, if at all, only with great difficulty.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

It is actually neutral. My stance is give life a chance. My concern is that most of the arguments could be used and are for abortion. No this has nothing to do with abortion so why are the same arguments used?

I meant to also comment on this before I got distracted. The arguments aren’t the same, nor can they ever be. The mother is dead. The only way an abortion can occur is to put the mother on support THEN intentional kill the baby. Simply taking the mother off support at a stage when the fetus isn’t viable, nor has any reasonable chance of being viable, is in no way an abortion.

Another issue I see that seems to be implied is that the mother and child are separate beings. Biologically, they are in fact not. The only way will be is if they are separated, and that cannot be done in this case. That is a very crucial distinction.

 

[adrift]

I meant to also comment on this before I got distracted. The arguments aren’t the same, nor can they ever be. The mother is dead. The only way an abortion can occur is to put the mother on support THEN intentional kill the baby. Simply taking the mother off support at a stage when the fetus isn’t viable, nor has any reasonable chance of being viable, is in no way an abortion.

Another issue I see that seems to be implied is that the mother and child are separate beings. Biologically, they are in fact not. The only way will be is if they are separated, and that cannot be done in this case. That is a very crucial distinction.

I made it quite clear that the reason given were similar to what abortion advocates use to support their killing not that this was an abortion. Don’t change my statement.

I don’t know where you are getting your information on biology but from the moment of conception the child has it’s own system that is quite separate from the mother. Another pro abortion argument. The baby isn’t a baby until is born.

The DNA is different than the mother’s.

These are just some arguments against your statement

1. An individual’s body parts all share the same genetic code. If the unborn child were actually a part of the mother’s body, the unborn’s cells would have the same genetic code as the cells of the mother. This is not the case. Every cell of the unborn’s body is genetically distinct from every cell in the mother’s body.
   2.Human embryos are not independently generated by the woman. According to former United States Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop,"we should not view the unborn baby as an extension of the woman’s body [because] it did not originate only from the woman. The baby would not exist without the man’s seed."1
2. In many cases, the blood type of the unborn child is different than the blood type of the mother. Since one body cannot function with two different blood types, this is clearly not the mother’s blood.
3. In half of all pregnancies, the unborn child is a male, meaning that even the sex of the child is different from the mother.
   more

 

[adrift]

If you have evidence that a 14-week-old fetus in a dead mother is viable, I would like to read the case.

.

It was posted earlier in the thread.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Family: Brain-dead Texas woman off life support

AP says, ‘Marlise Munoz’s body soon will be buried… The 23-week-old fetus she was carrying will not be born.’

Marlise Munoz and her baby will be buried.