Texas man wants pregnant wife off life support despite state laws

  • Thread starter Thread starter gracepoole
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
twoshoes said:
I’m not sure she is dead, but we know for sure the baby is alive. I was speaking for the life of the unborn. Your comment has given me new thought. thank you.
Click to expand...
if she is brain dead she is dead

the Church recognizes brain death as bodily death even if other parts of the body may still be going.
 
twoshoes said:
I’m not sure she is dead, but we know for sure the baby is alive. I was speaking for the life of the unborn. Your comment has given me new thought. thank you.
Click to expand...
She was dead and now the ventilator has been turned off. In fact, at this point she may already be buried. I think we should be praying for the repose of her soul and that of the baby.

I am sure that medical technology will continue to advance, and in other situations like this (let’s pray they are rare) doctors will know a bit more about how to care for the baby until it is viable.

However, I am still opposed to a law that says that extraordinary care *must *be given in situations where the patient and the family determine that they do not want that level of intervention. The church tells us that ordinary care cannot be withdrawn, but that *extraordinary *care is not required.
 
buc_fan33 said:
Are you sure that she is dead? Because, the Church would say that she could be anointed. It seems to me that the Church is at least erring on the side of caution, assuming that she is alive.
Click to expand...
I read somewhere a while ago that the Church allows Anointing for a period of time after breathing has ceased and the heart stopped beating (the usual signs of death) because the Church does not know when the soul departs and would prefer to err on the side of caution. Could this be a similar situation?
 
catholictiger said:
if she is brain dead she is dead

the Church recognizes brain death as bodily death even if other parts of the body may still be going.
Click to expand...
There are functions in the body that can continue when one dies (brain death). Most don’t continue for long without artificial support, but can function independently of the brain for a time.
 
vz71 said:
Yes, very similar.
Click to expand...
StFrancis addressed the issue. This situation is outside of the time frame for survival that has already been observed, which is significant in and of itself. But the other issues involved made a situation where survival has never occurred that much more of a certainty. The Church certainly does not require support in such circumstances.
 
TheWarriorMonk said:
StFrancis addressed the issue. This situation is outside of the time frame for survival that has already been observed, which is significant in and of itself. But the other issues involved made a situation where survival has never occurred that much more of a certainty. The Church certainly does not require support in such circumstances.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. The point is fairly moot at this point.
However, we have a duty to sustain long enough to make the determination.
Making the determination that the baby cannot survive based solely upon the time frame involved is inadequate.
 
twoshoes said:
I’m not sure she is dead, but we know for sure the baby is alive. I was speaking for the life of the unborn. Your comment has given me new thought. thank you.
Click to expand...
2278 Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of “over-zealous” treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one’s inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected.
Click to expand...
In this case, for a while, the health of the unborn was unknown.
Church teaching has it that we can withdraw treatment not to cause death, but rather in acceptance that we cannot stop it.

We must sustain at the very least long enough to determine that we cannot stop the death of the unborn.
 
Mrs_Sally said:
She was dead and now the ventilator has been turned off. In fact, at this point she may already be buried. I think we should be praying for the repose of her soul and that of the baby.

I am sure that medical technology will continue to advance, and in other situations like this (let’s pray they are rare) doctors will know a bit more about how to care for the baby until it is viable.

However, I am still opposed to a law that says that extraordinary care *must *be given in situations where the patient and the family determine that they do not want that level of intervention. The church tells us that ordinary care cannot be withdrawn, but that *extraordinary *care is not required.
Click to expand...
As medical science continues to advance, the blurry line between recovery and certain death will continue to be redrawn and made ever more uncertain.
 
vz71 said:
In this case, for a while, the health of the unborn was unknown.
Church teaching has it that we can withdraw treatment not to cause death, but rather in acceptance that we cannot stop it.

We must sustain at the very least long enough to determine that we cannot stop the death of the unborn.
Click to expand...
I believe the public didn’t know the condition of the baby.

Shouldn’t the hospital have known?

Science knows enough about prenatal growth and development to judge the condition of a 14 week baby and see how and if the baby progresses week to week.

I’ve had a miscarriage earlier than that. Sonograms, blood work to check hormones, were done. The doctors were able to recognize that the development of the baby and hormone levels did not match up to a “viable” pregnancy.

14 weeks is early, but sonograms and other tests should have given some idea of the trauma baby received.

If the hospital did not know, then I would ask if they were really trying to find out.

😦
 
vz71 said:
As medical science continues to advance, the blurry line between recovery and certain death will continue to be redrawn and made ever more uncertain.
Click to expand...
I certainly agree with this. In the case at hand, though, there does not appear to have been new procedures utilized that were geared toward saving this child. If that was the case, my opinion would be modified accordingly. It appears that the mother was put on support to comply with the law, and not because anyone believed that the child would survive given the circumstances.
 
vz71 said:
Making the determination that the baby cannot survive based solely upon the time frame involved is inadequate.
Click to expand...
Naturally, that’s a personal opinion. Past precedence is most certainly a determining factor in the treatment of patients.
 
TheWarriorMonk said:
The baby’s chance for life was destroyed when the mother died. No child in the history of mankind has ever survived under the circumstances that this child was subject to.
Click to expand...
You are not God. You have no idea what would have happened with certainty. To think that we can’t try because the odds are slim is one of the most absolutely foolish and selfish points of view that I have ever heard uttered.
Your repetition of this statement clearly demonstrates that you have no idea what you are talking about.
Click to expand...
And the fact that you can’t refute it means that I am actually right. Murder is murder, no matter how small.
It also shows that you don’t think things through. If it is true that this is murder, then it would follow that the Church’s position on ectopic pregnancy, where a few, albeit small number, of children have survived, is also wrong.
Click to expand...
This has already been addressed. The manner in which you choose to wallow in purposeful, self-inflicted ignorance isn’t something I have any control over, for my part.

Murder is murder, no matter how small. You can try to de-humanize the rights and character of that poor little child all you want, but it doesn’t change the Truth.

God sees everything, not you.
 
Lochias said:
You are not God. You have no idea what would have happened with certainty. To think that we can’t try because the odds are slim is one of the most absolutely foolish and selfish points of view that I have ever heard uttered.
Click to expand...
Then dead bodies should not be buried, because more bodies have risen from the dead that 14-week-old fetuses in dead mothers have survived.

Then the Church is wrong is a matter of morals, with the matter of ectopic pregnancies, since children of ectopic pregnancies have actually survived. Not only that, removing the fallopian tube would be outright murder by your standard.
And the fact that you can’t refute it means that I am actually right. Murder is murder, no matter how small.
Click to expand...
Actually I have discussed this in detail. You chose not to listen to me or the Catholic Church; you only hear the voice in you head.
Murder is murder, no matter how small. You can try to de-humanize the rights and character of that poor little child all you want, but it doesn’t change the Truth.
Click to expand...
The Church does not require extraordinary means in this case. If you disagree, your argument is with the Church, not me.
 
Lochias said:
“Resistance is futile. Hope is futile. Humanity is futile. Life is futile.”

This is the crux of your viewpoint and logic, in a nutshell.
Click to expand...
That’s your opinion of someone else with no basis. You have provided no basis for your statements, not basis for your logic, and ignore the fact that accusation of murder is absolutely un-Catholic, points a finger at the Church, and is contrary to what the Church teaches.
 
BTW, your accusations, baseless assumptions, derogatory comments, and lack of understanding of Church doctrine is entirely unbecoming of someone that is reputedly discerning. If you really are discerning, I hope the Church is aware of your activities.
 
TheWarriorMonk said:
I’ve researched the matter, and the success rate for a fetus at 14 weeks is 0%. If you evidence to the contrary, present it. A fetus at 14 weeks is approximately 2 months away from a limited chance of survival. There is not evidence that a fetus can survive 2 months off of a decaying corpse. Evidence of dying and/or being stillborn? Yes. Survival? No.

No evidence means you have no basis for your opinion.
Click to expand...
This baby was 15 weeks now maybe you consider one week to be a great difference but I don’t. So your 0% is not true and your statement that there is no evidence is also untrue.

The baby born to a brain-dead mother: Foetus survives from 15 to 27 weeks while mother is on life-support before being delivered by C-section
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top