Texas man wants pregnant wife off life support despite state laws

[adrift]

I’m sorry, but abortion is not always wrong… very few things are ALWAYS anything. Terminating a pregnancy in order to save the mother’s life is not wrong. In some cases, terminating the pregnancy would result in saving the mother’s life, and failing to do so would result in the death of both the mother and the child, so to say that it is ALWAYS wrong is purely ridiculous.

To terminate a pregnancy is an automatic excommunication. To procure an abortion for any reason is a mortal sin. You can argue what the medical community calls it but the fact remains that to remove a fallopian tube is not called an abortion even if it contains a fertilized egg. The intent is not to cause death but to remove a damaged part of the body. Direct abortion is ALWAYS wrong.

After 20 weeks, it is called a stillbirth.

 

[GraceSofia]

It seems to me that the argument hinges on what is “extraordinary” measures for the baby and what isn’t, and that the definition is subjective. We aren’t going to find it in the Catechism, for example. I suppose if the father were Catholic, he would consult with a priest and even contact the Catholic bioethical people; in this case, the father doesn’t appear to be interested in Catholic morality anyhow. If the mother were seven or eight months pregnant, there would be no debate.

When did we lose the right to make a living will? When did we lose the right to decide whether we wish to be kept on life support? This was a predetermined choice that the patient made, and it should be enforced.

When you are pregnant. The body inside your body is not your body.

There was another case of a pregnant woman who admitted to previous drug abuse, but reported that she had been clean for over a year. In this case the doctor decided that she should be put on medications to prevent withdrawals… medications that can be harmful to the mother, and that she did not consent to. She was arrested and a guardian ad litem was appointed for her fetus… this woman couldn’t even afford an attorney, and her fetus had one that was working to contravene the mother’s right to consent to or decline medical treatment. At what point did we decide that a fetus’s life was more important than the mother’s? At what point did we decide that an unborn child has more rights than a breathing, competent adult?

In general, society hasn’t decided this, unfortunately. In general, with legalised abortion the adult female has more rights than the preborn female, including the right to kill the preborn female. It’s nuts when you think about it. In the case you mentioned, the baby’s right to life is more important than the wishes of the mother.

I’m completely against abortion, but I’m also completely against neglecting ALL of the rights of the mother as well. This woman had the right to decide whether or not she wanted to be on life support, and she availed herself of that right. That decision should be enforced, just like any other living will.

But it’s not clear that she had thought about what she wanted if she were pregnant. What if she were 8 months pregnant?

If the argument is that she’s being assaulted (which is what violation of a DNR or other living will is considered legally) in order to save a life, then why are we allowed to decide whether or not we want to donate organs? Can this precedent be used to force someone onto life support because their organs could save lives? How is it acceptable to force someone on life support to basically incubate a fetus, but it is considered by many to be wrong to terminate a pregnancy to save the mother? These are all important questions, but in the end, if you claim to be against state interference, then this is a clear violation of that principle. The possible precedents that this case might set are even more horrible. If the state can force this treatment, what is to stop them from forcing other treatments like smoking cessation medications, or blood transfusions, or immunizations… or even birth control?

Some good questions. (Probably needing a separate thread).

And there is a difference between being declared dead and being declared brain-dead. She still has rights.

I think earlier it was established that brain dead = dead (legally).

I’m sorry, but abortion is not always wrong… very few things are ALWAYS anything. Terminating a pregnancy in order to save the mother’s life is not wrong. In some cases, terminating the pregnancy would result in saving the mother’s life, and failing to do so would result in the death of both the mother and the child, so to say that it is ALWAYS wrong is purely ridiculous.

Doctors have said that the intentional killing of an unborn baby by abortion is never necessary. "Most of what passes as a therapeutic, or medically-necessary abortion, is not necessary at all to save the mother’s life. . .

“Let us illustrate this principle further: if a rescuer is venturing into a burning vehicle to try to save its injured occupants, and is only able to save one of the two occupants, is it justifiable for him to then take out his gun and shoot the occupant he was unable to save? Of course not! Intentionally killing those you were not able to save is never justified in healthcare. We have the technology and expertise to provide quality healthcare to a pregnant woman without intentionally killing her unborn baby, regardless of the severity of her disease.” From The Official Position Statement of the Association of Pro-Life Physicians.

 

[GraceSofia]

The NCReg had a good article today analyzing this situation in light of Catholic moral teaching.

ncregister.com/daily-news/pregnant-womans-brain-dead-diagnosis-renews-abortion-debate/

Interesting.
I am wondering why the family won’t allow the hospital to state whether the mother is brain dead … or not.

 

[SMGS127]

In the medical community we define any end of a pregnancy that does not result in a live birth as an abortion. The medical word for a miscarriage is “spontaneous abortion.” So, when a patient has a condition that requires the surgical removal of a fetus in order to save their life, you can call it what you want, but in the medical community, we call it an abortion.

And in the Catholic community, of whom’s forum you are writing, it is not called an abortion procedure if the intent of the procedure is not the death of the child and either the procedure is necessary or the death of the child is accidental.

And by the way, I am in the scientific community. A lot of things get called things they shouldn’t.

 

[St_Francis]

In the medical community we define any end of a pregnancy that does not result in a live birth as an abortion. The medical word for a miscarriage is “spontaneous abortion.” So, when a patient has a condition that requires the surgical removal of a fetus in order to save their life, you can call it what you want, but in the medical community, we call it an abortion.

Seanny,
I think everyone would understand what you are saying better if you were clearer in what you are saying. In everyday speech, non-medical people use the word abortion to indicate a procured abortion, excluding spontaneous abortions, which non-medical people call a miscarriage.

Now, it may be that in the medical community they call an operation to remove a Fallopian tube an abortion, but in everyday life, non-medical people would not call that an abortion.

*Directly causing *the death of the unborn child is always and everywhere wrong. Medically treating the mother with the unfortunate and unintended loss of the child is *not *wrong.

On the medical side, it may be that there is no differentiation between a procured abortion, a spontaneous abortion, and the end of the unborn baby’s life as the unintended side-effect of medical treatment (altho I doubt it, since medically the patient would be different under the various scenarios), but in the area of ethics, we need to be clear.

 

[St_Francis]

But their wishes are still required to be followed. And if her husband is her proxy, then he speaks for her now…. not the state. And there is a difference between being declared dead and being declared brain-dead. She still has rights.

In the medical community, brain-death *is *death.

 

[Lochias]

This is my line of reasoning:

1. From this article: “A 2010 article in the journal BMC Medicine found 30 cases of brain-dead pregnant women over about 30 years. Of 19 reported results, the journal found 12 in which a viable child was born…”

Awesome. Glad that 12 precious human lives were saved.

So, of the reported results, a little less than 66% of the babies survived. Considering that it is likely that the unreported results were not successful, it seems that the chances for this baby are very low.

 

[Country_Gal]

If the mother was oxygen deprived, then so was the baby in her womb. Therefore, the baby was also neurologically compromised

 

[Lochias]

If the mother was oxygen deprived, then so was the baby in her womb. Therefore, the baby was also neurologically compromised

Prove it.

 

[Corki]

If the mother was oxygen deprived, then so was the baby in her womb. Therefore, the baby was also neurologically compromised

It’s quite possible but the extent of any compromise is as yet unknown. One of the things mentioned in the first article was that they needed to perform some tests on the baby but it was too early. Once the baby reaches 22 weeks (he/she is at 20 now) a lot more information will be available.

 

[St_Francis]

St Francis;11603268:

This is my line of reasoning:

1. From this article

: “A 2010 article in the journal BMC Medicine found 30 cases of brain-dead pregnant women over about 30 years. Of 19 reported results, the journal found 12 in which a viable child was born…”

Awesome. Glad that 12 precious human lives were saved.

Doesn’t matter. Human life is human life.

So? If the mother is, as everyone keeps saying, a brain-dead corpse, what does it matter?

This is to point out the experimental nature of the treatment. IOW, this is not at all the same thing as having the baby on a ventilator.

Any chance is a chance worth taking, “extraordinary treatment” means exactly jack-squat in terms of impact, and no-one in life is free from burdens.

All I am saying is 1. it is *not *murder, and 2. I will not say that, given the information I have, I will not say that what he is doing is wrong, altho at this point it is getting very close to being moot. I do not think that this action is going against Catholic moral teaching.

And while it’s true that each life has its burdens, Christ criticized the Pharisees for binding and laying heavy burdens on others. If an action is moral according to the Church, then it seems to me that when a person takes that action, we should not criticize him.

 

[Lochias]

This is to point out the experimental nature of the treatment. IOW, this is not at all the same thing as having the baby on a ventilator.

What, precisely, does that have to do with anything in this case, though?

All I am saying is 1. it is *not *murder, and 2. I will not say that, given the information I have, I will not say that what he is doing is wrong, altho at this point it is getting very close to being moot. I do not think that this action is going against Catholic moral teaching.

1.If that baby has a chance to live, and the plug is pulled, it’s murder. Murder is murder, no matter how small.

1. That’s okay, I will: What he’s doing is wrong. And, what you think is, bluntly, your opinion and nothing more. Other Catholics have weighed in and come to the exact opposite conclusion.

And while it’s true that each life has its burdens, Christ criticized the Pharisees for binding and laying heavy burdens on others. If an action is moral according to the Church, then it seems to me that when a person takes that action, we should not criticize him.

Apples and oranges. This is a human life. This is a human life. This is a human life. I’ll keep repeating it, until it sinks in. This is a human life. This is a human life. THIS IS A HUMAN LIFE.

And the Church criticizes actions all the time. Let’s not play games, here.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

What, precisely, does that have to do with anything in this case, though?

1.If that baby has a chance to live, and the plug is pulled, it’s murder. Murder is murder, no matter how small.

1. That’s okay, I will: What he’s doing is wrong. And, what you think is, bluntly, your opinion and nothing more. Other Catholics have weighed in and come to the exact opposite conclusion.

Apples and oranges. This is a human life. This is a human life. This is a human life. I’ll keep repeating it, until it sinks in. This is a human life. This is a human life. THIS IS A HUMAN LIFE.

And the Church criticizes actions all the time. Let’s not play games, here.

And the Church does not require all extraordinary methods to be used to preserve a life.

If the baby is receiving extraordinary means to keep him or her alive, they are not required.

If in fact the baby is receiving ordinary means, then they are required.

It isn’t a routine scenario that we can easily determine what is ordinary or extraordinary.

 

[Mulligan2]

But their wishes are still required to be followed. And if her husband is her proxy, then he speaks for her now…. not the state. And there is a difference between being declared dead and being declared brain-dead. She still has rights.

I agree. This seems perfectly logical.

In the medical community we define any end of a pregnancy that does not result in a live birth as an abortion. The medical word for a miscarriage is “spontaneous abortion.” So, when a patient has a condition that requires the surgical removal of a fetus in order to save their life, you can call it what you want, but in the medical community, we call it an abortion.

I was not aware of this. Thank you for the clarification on this.

 

[Lochias]

And the Church does not require all extraordinary methods to be used to preserve a life.

There is nothing extraordinary about a baby growing in the womb.

If the baby is receiving extraordinary means to keep him or her alive, they are not required.

There is nothing extraordinary about a baby growing in the womb.

If in fact the baby is receiving ordinary means, then they are required.

That is good, because there is nothing extraordinary about a baby growing in the womb.

It isn’t a routine scenario that we can easily determine what is ordinary or extraordinary.

It’s quite easy, actually. The baby is growing in the womb. It is a human life. It is a human life. It is a human life.

 

[Lochias]

I agree. This seems perfectly logical.

We are talking about the baby, not the mother. The baby is a human life. There is nothing extraordinary about a baby growing in the womb.

It is a human life. It is a human life. It is a human life.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

There is nothing extraordinary about a baby growing in the womb.

There is nothing extraordinary about a baby growing in the womb.

That is good, because there is nothing extraordinary about a baby growing in the womb.

It’s quite easy, actually. The baby is growing in the womb. It is a human life. It is a human life. It is a human life.

Babies for most of humanity except for 12 babies cited earlier grow in live mothers.

It is quite out of the ordinary for baby to be kept alive like this.

I do not know (and neither do you) that this is a clear cut case of ordinary care and not extraordinary care.

I am concerned that this is “disproportionate to the expected outcome” and “overzealous”.

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.
2279 Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity if death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable Palliative care is a special form of disinterested charity. As such it should be encouraged

 

[vz71]

If it is the churches position of accepting that we cannot stop death…
Then I need to see evidence that we cannot stop the death of the baby.

Else we must do what we can to save the baby.

 

[Lochias]

Babies for most of humanity except for 12 babies cited earlier grow in live mothers.

Well, the baby isn’t growing in a dead womb, now is it?

It is quite out of the ordinary for baby to be kept alive like this.

Inside a functioning, living womb? Hardly.

I do not know (and neither do you) that this is a clear cut case of ordinary care and not extraordinary care.

I do indeed know. It’s common sense.

I am concerned that this is “disproportionate to the expected outcome” and “overzealous”.

Welp. It’s not. Problem solved.

It’s a human life. It’s a human life. It’s a human life.

 

[RACJ]

If Munoz says that his wife’s wishes would be to disconnect her life support to kill her AND her infant, I say he is lying. Just like the odious Michael Schiavo lied about Terri.