Texas man wants pregnant wife off life support despite state laws

[Mulligan2]

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”.

Good points.

I am also concerned about the husband. His wife is brain dead. Surely he wants to have a proper burial for her, achieve some form of closure, and begin to emotionally recover from losing his wife. Instead, his emotions are being toyed with by the government, and he’s being kept in an emotional purgatory, while his wife is dead but not dead. I find this very unseemly.

 

[adrift]

Good points.

I am also concerned about the husband. His wife is brain dead. Surely he wants to have a proper burial for her, achieve some form of closure, and begin to emotionally recover from losing his wife. Instead, his emotions are being toyed with by the government, and he’s being kept in an emotional purgatory, while his wife is dead but not dead. I find this very unseemly.

Amazingly you don’t mention this husband as the father of a still living baby. I guess you are right in not mentioning his child as he doesn’t seem that he cares much about his child. The government for once is trying to protect the most vulnerable. It is unfitting that the child is not considered other than as an emotional drain on the sperm doner.

 

[SMGS127]

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.

This isn’t true. The Church does not require extraordinary methods disproportional to the end result. A person on life support who likely will never wake up or who is dead (even if brain death, which is also death) can be taken off, due to extraordinary circumstances. In this case, the baby’s life will more than likely be saved due to these measures, so it is immoral to remove the child from life support.

To give an equivalent scenario, suggesting removing life support in this scenario is moral is the equivalent of suggesting that removing life support from a person under heavy anaesthesia is moral since the person could not survive without the life support. The mere fact that a child cannot survive without life support at this moment in time does not make it moral to remove the life support when it is more than likely that the child will soon be able to survive without it.

 

[St_Francis]

This isn’t true. The Church does not require extraordinary methods disproportional to the end result. A person on life support who likely will never wake up or who is dead (even if brain death, which is also death) can be taken off, due to extraordinary circumstances. In this case, the baby’s life will more than likely be saved due to these measures, so it is immoral to remove the child from life support.

To give an equivalent scenario, suggesting removing life support in this scenario is moral is the equivalent of suggesting that removing life support from a person under heavy anaesthesia is moral since the person could not survive without the life support. The mere fact that a child cannot survive without life support at this moment in time does not make it moral to remove the life support when it is more than likely that the child will soon be able to survive without it.

I think a great deal of the question revolves around *how likely it is *that the child will survive. To me, the low likelihood of survival coupled with the extra-ordinary nature of the treatment is what allows for a moral withdrawal of treatment if the treatment is a grave burden.

 

[St_Francis]

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.

I read about a lady who had cancer who signed a Do Not Treat. Then unexpectedly another thing happened to her which could have been fairly easily treated, but because of the DNT, was not treated. Her family and friends were unable to do anything about it because she was unconscious, but they felt that this sort of thing was not what she had had in mind.

And this is the problem with living wills and DNRs–they are a resoinse to one imagined scenario, but do not cover every contingency.

This husband says that she said she didn’t want to be kept alive on tubes. (I do not thik that this is a basis for a moral decision in this case.) Now, usually when young healthy people consider this sort of scenario, they have something in mind. But then something *else *happens. The wish of the patient may not have encompassed that at all–she may not have ever thought of it.

Now, how likely is it that this precise scenario is what Mrs Muñoz was thinking of when she said that? I’d say incredibly unlikely. If she were not pregnant, she would have been taken off the machines and buried weeks ago. There would be no question of her being kept alive on tubes because she had already died.

 

[Miss_Felicity]

Have not read all the comments (on purpose) I think its an overstep of the state government to overrule the wishes of the couple. I think this sets a horrible standard for a number of reasons.

 

[Dawnia]

It seems that the husband after has finally gotten around to suing the hospital to have life support ended. I’m not sure why he waited so long. From one account, the child was 21 weeks on Monday. Depending on how long it takes for the court to assign a new judge and get a hearing scheduled, the child could be already born by that point.

 

[YADA]

I may have missed it in the news reports but - this women did not have a Living Will that was written, signed and witnessed …

In other words - we only have her husband’s verbal testimony that she stated she dis not want to be kept alive …

A Living Will is not just s simple statement like that - typically … there are several questions that you have to answer and in many ways it is nuanced. Also - you typically name the person who can speak for you … As many have pointed out here … she might want to have her baby’s life saved - if there was the chance … and she is not able to speak for the child now

Also - much is made about them both being EMTs and what they witnessed in their work having been the impetus for their discussion of wishes … Being EMTs - they would know that written Living Wills are necessary. In fact, I am sure that the absence of Living Wills and that attempts by hospital staff to get patients to sign them would have been a frequent occurrence they would have witnessed - as well as the heart ache in the absence of the document …

Additionally - they would know that the person named to speak on their behalf could not also act as the witness for the signature.

As a parent - I find it odd that there is not a desire to have the child live - especially by her parents… I know husbands often have a hard time dealing with a child that survives childbirth when the mother does not - as if the child is the cause of the mothers death - but the parents … that baffles me …



May God grant this father a heart to love this unborn child and give it the life it deserves, the motherless child that he has at home and to heal this man’s broken heart that mourns the loss of his wife

 

[Lochias]

I say again: That baby is a human life.

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

 

[vz71]

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.

Without much more evidence I find it difficult to assume the worst of him.

This is a horrible situation.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

catholicnewsagency.com/news/ethicist-texas-end-of-life-debate-must-consider-unborn-child/

Ethical treatment, she explained, is “always case-specific.” In this case, treatment decisions must consider whether keeping alive the body of the mother as a means of life-support is proportionate and ordinary care, which is morally required, or is “extraordinary” or “futile” care.

This moral judgment should include whether the impact of providing treatment will be excessive on the family or on the community as a whole. It should also weigh the “serious concerns about the baby’s ability to live.” The unborn child’s health may have been compromised by oxygen deprivation.

However, if the care can be provided “proportionately” and without “undue burden” to the unborn child, the family, and the community, then it is morally required.

nbcnews.com/health/opinion-life-support-wrong-brain-dead-pregnant-woman-2D11926338

Medical experts agree that trying to bring a fetus to term in a dead body is highly “experimental.” The right to say no is a fundamental right governing any and all experimental interventions.

My concern does Catholic teaching require highly experimental treatment?

Does the Church teach that highly experimental treatment is “ordinary care” or “extraordinary care”

 

[St_Francis]

catholicnewsagency.com/news/ethicist-texas-end-of-life-debate-must-consider-unborn-child/

I think the key word in this quote is “case-specific.” What we have in many situations is a set of guidelines to apply, and unless there is a gross violation of those guidelines, the people are acting in the realm of morality. The guidelines include various aspects including: prognosis of the patient, the potential improvement from the treatment, the chances of obataining that improvement, and the burdensomeness of the treatment in relation to all that.

You could imagine a sort of graph for this: one line for each aspect. The lines will not necessarily be straight. Like gallons per mile, the line might curve.

In this particular case, *about which we do not have all the relevant information, *we have the extraordinariness of the treatment–this may be the earliest gestational age at which this has occurred; we have only a general, not particular, idea of the prognosis; we have a huge *general *gap between abandoning the treatment or successful outcome,…

However, we do not know, and the doctors may not even know, the condition of the baby.

So all we can really consider is the general guidelines and how they might apply to *what little we know *of this particular case.

nbcnews.com/health/opinion-life-support-wrong-brain-dead-pregnant-woman-2D11926338

My concern does Catholic teaching require highly experimental treatment?

Does the Church teach that highly experimental treatment is “ordinary care” or “extraordinary care”

Even this is difficult to say. In the old days, vitamin deficiencies could cause serious illness, but the treatment was inexpensive and easy to take. At one point, it was experimental, bit who would turn it down or deny it? The risk was low, the potential for return was great. So one cannot say that even experimental treatment is always something one can refuse for oneself or another.

 

[seekerz]

That baby is alive. The baby has a right to life that we cannot take away, no matter how hard we try.

Deepest, most grievous shame and fault on those who are trying.

Every pregnancy involves two people, which is why even when the baby is dying and posing a risk to mother’s life, we can’t simply kick it out of the womb. Similarly, the mother isn’t simply a receptacle for life, she is owed her own dignity as a human being. Besides, who knows what effect these extraordinary measures might have on the baby’s own biological integrity?

 

[seekerz]

I think the key word in this quote is “case-specific.” What we have in many situations is a set of guidelines to apply, and unless there is a gross violation of those guidelines, the people are acting in the realm of morality. The guidelines include various aspects including: prognosis of the patient, the potential improvement from the treatment, the chances of obataining that improvement, and the burdensomeness of the treatment in relation to all that.

You could imagine a sort of graph for this: one line for each aspect. The lines will not necessarily be straight. Like gallons per mile, the line might curve.

In this particular case, *about which we do not have all the relevant information, *we have the extraordinariness of the treatment–this may be the earliest gestational age at which this has occurred; we have only a general, not particular, idea of the prognosis; we have a huge *general *gap between abandoning the treatment or successful outcome,…

However, we do not know, and the doctors may not even know, the condition of the baby.

So all we can really consider is the general guidelines and how they might apply to *what little we know *of this particular case.

Even this is difficult to say. In the old days, vitamin deficiencies could cause serious illness, but the treatment was inexpensive and easy to take. At one point, it was experimental, bit who would turn it down or deny it? The risk was low, the potential for return was great. So one cannot say that even experimental treatment is always something one can refuse for oneself or another.

I don’t think the definition of extraordinary changes if someone is pregnant. If her body is being kept functioning by means of life support, to my understanding, that meets the Church’s definition of extraordinary care. But perhaps it is not as simple as that: the care is not benefiting the mother, so you might see this as a major multiple organ donation that is (depending on which laywer you ask) state-mandated.

So to answer those who simply insist on the baby being kept alive, would they agree that a sibling or parent could be legally forced by the state to donate an organ to keep a baby alive? No doubt such a donation would be an act of love, but should/can the state mandate it? If so, then it would no longer meet the definition of “donation”. I believe the principle of free will comes into this as well.

And for those casting aspersions on the husband’s motives, he is legally the one who can make such decisions, but in ***direct contrast *** to Terry Schiavo, this woman is already dead.

 

[adrift]

Isn’t it true that those who support abortion usually use the argument that it is the woman’s body? It seems that argument is sacrosanct even if the woman is dead.

 

[St_Francis]

I don’t think the definition of extraordinary changes if someone is pregnant. If her body is being kept functioning by means of life support, to my understanding, that meets the Church’s definition of extraordinary care. But perhaps it is not as simple as that: the care is not benefiting the mother, so you might see this as a major multiple organ donation that is (depending on which laywer you ask) state-mandated.

No, what I meant was that this is extraordinary care *for the baby. *

So to answer those who simply insist on the baby being kept alive, would they agree that a sibling or parent could be legally forced by the state to donate an organ to keep a baby alive? No doubt such a donation would be an act of love, but should/can the state mandate it? If so, then it would no longer meet the definition of “donation”. I believe the principle of free will comes into this as well.

I am not sure that this sort of situation is what the law was mesnt to deal with.

And for those casting aspersions on the husband’s motives, he is legally the one who can make such decisions, but in ***direct contrast *** to Terry Schiavo, this woman is already dead.

I have to agree that we should *in no way *cast aspersions on the motives of the husband because he knows a lot more about the situation than we do.

 

[Lochias]

Every pregnancy involves two people, which is why even when the baby is dying and posing a risk to mother’s life, we can’t simply kick it out of the womb. Similarly, the mother isn’t simply a receptacle for life, she is owed her own dignity as a human being. Besides, who knows what effect these extraordinary measures might have on the baby’s own biological integrity?

The mother’s dead, so that argument flies out of the window.

And, you’re right, we don’t know. But. you’re simply assuming the effects will be bad.

Please look forward in time to prove that this baby will be born with three heads and a tail, and then the rest of your argument might have some merit.

 

[Lochias]

No, what I meant was that this is extraordinary care *for the baby. *

Wrong.

I am not sure that this sort of situation is what the law was mesnt to deal with.

The law protects life. Simple enough.

I have to agree that we should *in no way *cast aspersions on the motives of the husband because he knows a lot more about the situation than we do.

Murder is murder, no matter how small. It’s a human life. It’s a human life. It’s a human life.

 

[Lochias]

Isn’t it true that those who support abortion usually use the argument that it is the woman’s body? It seems that argument is sacrosanct even if the woman is dead.

Those who support abortion have no respect for the human body at all.

 

[Stillsosola]

This is soo sad but I agree the woman should be on life support until her child can be safely delivered only 3 more months and the baby would have a very good chance of survival this man is very confused and greiving for his wife I will pray for him to have his eyes opened to whats right. And for this poor womans soul and for the innocent baby.