Texas man wants pregnant wife off life support despite state laws

[Lochias]

CCC:2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.280

Murder is murder, no matter how small.

 

[St_Francis]

…Until the child is born, it is part of the mother…

warrior monk,

The baby is NOT PART OF THE MOTHER. The baby is a separate unique human being…

OK, this is not an either/or point but a both/and one.

The baby is a separate and individual member of the human species; *and *because enclosed inside the mother, a part of the mother.

What happens to the mother can affect the unborn baby, but the unborn baby has his or her own identity.

So, Warrior Monk, I assume under other circumstances you would agree that the baby is an individual human separate from his or her mother?

And Jediliz, I assume you would agree that the baby is inside and dependent on the mother in a irremovable state, and so is affected by what happens to the mother?

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Murder is murder, no matter how small.

The Church does not teach that this situation is murder. That is your own accusatory opinion that is not supported by the Church. One should not be accusing others of grave sin with no basis.

 

[Lochias]

The Church does not teach that this situation is murder. That is your own accusatory opinion that is not supported by the Church. One should not be accusing others of grave sin with no basis.

Murder is murder, no matter how small. The Church teaches that human life is human life. It’s rather elementary.

Murder, murder, murder.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

So, Warrior Monk, I assume under other circumstances you would agree that the baby is an individual human separate from his or her mother?

The most I will agree to is that the fetus is a potential individual being that is currently part of the mother. IMHO, considering the fetus a separate identity creates also sorts of problems, some of which are very apparent in this discussion.

Note: I prefer the term “fetus” not as an impersonal term, but simply because it refers specifically to the unborn, whereas “baby” can refer to born or unborn, creating confusion.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

I should also add that my arguments are consistent, and apply to either fetuses, any type of conjoined twins, or any other situation involving non-independent persons. And before anyone mentions it, different DNA is not obviously not the deciding factor whether or not a being is an individual; some humans have identical DNA to others, and some humans have more than one set of DNA.

 

[buc_fan33]

You should remember that the mother was brain dead.
There is no suffering on her part at all.

The devices maintaining her body were in effect maintaining the unborn child.

If, as you assumed in your scenario, that the child were perfectly healthy, then all that has been done is removal of devices that were supporting the life of the child.

But I think this views suffering in a purely physical way. There is psychological suffering for the woman’s family in being unable to bury her or give her a proper funeral. There is spiritual suffering (presumably) in not allowing the woman’s soul to go to the Lord.

I agree that this is a sad case, but this is not on par with abortion. There is a world of difference, logically and morally, between actively willing the death of another, and tolerating a foreseen but undesired and unintended death.

 

[buc_fan33]

Murder is murder, no matter how small. The Church teaches that human life is human life. It’s rather elementary.

Murder, murder, murder.

With respect, I really do not think that this is a case of murder. I think that what is happening here is in our zeal to be pro-life, which is a good thing, we are not able to step back and look at this situation logically and actually analyze it.

I would be very interested to read what a faithful moral theologian would have to say on the matter…someone like Germaine Grisez or William May for instance.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

With respect, I really do not think that this is a case of murder. I think that what is happening here is in our zeal to be pro-life, which is a good thing, we are not able to step back and look at this situation logically and actually analyze it.

I would be very interested to read what a faithful moral theologian would have to say on the matter…someone like Germaine Grisez or William May for instance.

I am trying to get through Grisez’s “The Way of Our Lord Jesus”. I don’t know if he still writes.

So far, I have read very limited comments from theologians. I’ve been looking for them almost daily.

John Haas, the President of the National Catholic Bioethic Center was quoted briefly by a Philadelphia publication that he thought the child was receiving extraordinary care. I posted a link in one of my posts.

Another bioethicst also from the National Catholic Bioethic Center, indicated that these decisions are made on a case by case basis. Her name is Marie Hilliard. She indicated that if care was ordinary for child it must continue, is it is extraordinary it was not mandatory. I think I linked to her as well

FatherTadeusz Pacholczyk, also of the Catholic Bioethic center spoke briefly about it with Raymond Arroyo, on “The World Over” It should be available on the EWTN website I imagine.

The reality is that there have been just a very limited number of cases where mother’s suffered brain death and baby was sustained following brain death. Practically all the babies the age of this one have not survived, and died in utero.

I am not at all comfortable with the severe judgment Mr. Munoz has received by many.

I would assume that, yes, he wanted to save his wife and child, or else he would not have started CPR or called the ambulance.

And, I am not sure on how adamant the hospital was in saving the baby.

If Mr. Munoz was not allowed to make decisions for the child, why was there no guardian appointed for the child?

 

[Mrs_Sally]

If Mr. Munoz was not allowed to make decisions for the child, why was there no guardian appointed for the child?

I think this is a very important point. The law should require a guardian to be appointed in this type of case. Even if no other changes are made to this law, it should at least require a legalguardian for the child if the parents/family are not allowed to speak for it.

 

[Lochias]

With respect, I really do not think that this is a case of murder. I think that what is happening here is in our zeal to be pro-life, which is a good thing, we are not able to step back and look at this situation logically and actually analyze it.

I would be very interested to read what a faithful moral theologian would have to say on the matter…someone like Germaine Grisez or William May for instance.

Murder is murder, no matter how small.

 

[Lochias]

I should also add that my arguments are consistent, and apply to either fetuses, any type of conjoined twins, or any other situation involving non-independent persons. And before anyone mentions it, different DNA is not obviously not the deciding factor whether or not a being is an individual; some humans have identical DNA to others, and some humans have more than one set of DNA.

So, we’ve got license to terminate anyone that relies on anyone else for aid or help, because by golly, why should anyone have to be inconvenienced? Smashing, just smashing.



The one good thing about this thread is that it shows just how pervasive the “Cafeteria Catholic” mentality can be. Something to be on guard against.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

If Mr. Munoz was not allowed to make decisions for the child, why was there no guardian appointed for the child?

I would speculate the that circumstances of the matter are examined. If the fetus was 24 weeks old at the time of the mother’s death versus 14 weeks, this entire situation would have been handled entirely differently, and the possibility of a guardian may have been considered. It’s not like this is the first time this situation has occurred, so the doctors have a history of similar situations to examine and make the appropriate decisions.

 

[St_Francis]

The most I will agree to is that the fetus is a potential individual being that is currently part of the mother. IMHO, considering the fetus a separate identity creates also sorts of problems, some of which are very apparent in this discussion.

Note: I prefer the term “fetus” not as an impersonal term, but simply because it refers specifically to the unborn, whereas “baby” can refer to born or unborn, creating confusion.

I think that any in-depth discussion would require a separate thread, but here’s a brief explanation…

You mentioned DNA not being unique because identical twins have the same DNA. Unborn children* are not “potential” human beings–they are full human beings: they have their own DNA *separate from either of their parents’ DNA; *their cells reproduce (they grow), and they are independently alive, as shown by cases in which this scenario only with an unborn child not traumatized has survived after the mother’s death.

To me, sperm and ova are “potential” human beings and once joined, they become “actual” human beings.

• Most people who are pro-life do not use the term fetus because the advocates of abortion have misused the word, making it sound like a different sort of being rather than a full human.

We have separate words for the many stages of life: elderly, adult, adolescent, toddler, baby, fetus, embryo, blastula… each of us has been through several of these stages, but the advocates of abortion want to make it sound like those who have not yet been born are some other type of being.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

So, we’ve got license to terminate anyone that relies on anyone else for aid or help, because by golly, why should anyone have to be inconvenienced? Smashing, just smashing.

You are looking at this situation for your own preconceived, biased viewpoint. Fact is, nobody to license to terminate anyone, but rather the doctors were legally obligated to “take license” to put a dead woman on a ventilator. The license taken was actually to interfere with God’s natural course of events. The Church has already taught that such extraordinary acts are not necessary.

The one good thing about this thread is that it shows just how pervasive the “Cafeteria Catholic” mentality can be. Something to be on guard against.

What kind of mentality would you call accusing others of murder, when the accuser has no basis for determining intent other than speculation, and the accuser’s accusations are inconsistent with established teachings on the matter…a “faithful Catholic?” People that think only with their emotions tend to do damage to their own cause, by chasing others from the faith. Those people are even more harmful than “cafeteria Catholics,” because at least the cafeteria Catholics can ultimately claim ignorance.

 

[buc_fan33]

Murder is murder, no matter how small.

That sounds nice and all, and I agree, that murder is murder. The question though is, “Is this case murder?”

I don’t mean this to sound in any way disrespectful, but have you ever studied moral theology? On many questions, the answer is very clear. But, on many questions, the answer is not so clear and faithful moral theologians disagree. For instance, on the question of embryo adoption (placing embryos who were created in in-vitro fertilization into the wombs of surrogate mothers) is currently being debated among moralists. On both sides of the debate (it’s moral and should be done vs. it’s immoral and should not be) are faithful moral theologians who have dedicated their entire careers to this field. There are people on both sides who have earned doctorates in this field and who cannot by any stretch of the imagination be called dissenters.

But, on this topic, as well as many others, the Church has not spoken. So, moral theologians hash out, using principles, what is right and wrong. There are a myriad of issues like this.

The present topic of discussion, whether or not removing this woman from life support, effectively ending the life of her unborn child, constitutes murder is not nearly so cut and dry as you might believe.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

I think that any in-depth discussion would require a separate thread, but here’s a brief explanation…

You mentioned DNA not being unique because identical twins have the same DNA. Unborn children* are not “potential” human beings–they are full human beings: they have their own DNA separate from either of their parents’ DNA;

Keep in mind that we believe that to be the case by default, since we have not actually examined everyone’s DNA. Strange things happen; we can verify that certain persons are chimeras. Furthermore, we are eventually going to have to deal with the issues of cloning, where children could have the exact DNA of their mother.

I’m not going to argue the point of whether or not unborn children are “full human beings,” since it’s simply a matter of how one defines what “full human beings” are. I will argue the point that these “full human beings” are not independent; i.e., they are part of, and entirely dependent on, their mothers until they are born.

• Most people who are pro-life do not use the term fetus because the advocates of abortion have misused the word, making it sound like a different sort of being rather than a full human.

 

[St_Francis]

…If Mr. Munoz was not allowed to make decisions for the child, why was there no guardian appointed for the child?

Mr Munoz was the guardian–if there was no debate, the child did not need a separate guardian.

I think this is a very important point. The law should require a guardian to be appointed in this type of case. Even if no other changes are made to this law, it should at least require a legalguardian for the child if the parents/family are not allowed to speak for it.

The father was unable to make decisions for the child because the law stated that X shall be done. A guardian would have been in the same position as the father was.

It does not seem that the hospital was intent on keeping the mother on the ventilator, just on following the law.

 

[St_Francis]

Keep in mind that we believe that to be the case by default, since we have not actually examined everyone’s DNA. Strange things happen; we can verify that certain persons are chimeras. Furthermore, we are eventually going to have to deal with the issues of cloning, where children could have the exact DNA of their mother.

I’m not going to argue the point of whether or not unborn children are “full human beings,” since it’s simply a matter of how one defines what “full human beings” are. I will argue the point that these “full human beings” are not independent; i.e., they are part of, and entirely dependent on, their mothers until they are born.

If you have a science background, then you should understand this.

I used to live near a beach where they had signs posted about the illegality of disturbing the eggs of sea turtles. Sea turtles are endangered and this is why their eggs are protected. Do not those “embryos” and “fetuses” represent separate sea turtles? Or are they too still parts of their mothers?

FWIW, I have a science background, and I try to use specificity when discussing such matters. It’s actually compounded when discussing Catholic matters, because the Church uses terms in a matter that are often not entirely consistent with the manner they are used colliquially. Using the term fetus gives no doubt that we are discussing “baby in utero, dependent on mother” which is is different that “baby already born,” and is essential in this discussion.

I understand what you are saying, and I sometimes think it would be better for us to “take back” the scientific terms instead of leaving them out there twisted by those who advocate abortion. But like with the word abortion itself, which also refers to spontaneous abortion (miscarrriage), sometimes communications are helped by using a common terminology rather than technical language.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

If you have a science background, then you should understand this.

I used to live near a beach where they had signs posted about the illegality of disturbing the eggs of sea turtles. Sea turtles are endangered and this is why their eggs are protected. Do not those “embryos” and “fetuses” represent separate sea turtles? Or are they too still parts of their mothers?’/quote]

What happens to the eggs on the beach if the mother dies?