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.
SeannyM said:
Wow, what a terribly sad thing! Obviously, if the child is alive still, I want to see it born, but at the same time, I’m opposed to prolonging suffering. I’m afraid a court may have to step in here at some point. The family will be in my prayers.
Click to expand...
A person kept alive on a life-support machine is not suffering.

If you are referring to the suffering of the husband seeing his wife like this, then I hardly think that sacrificing his child’s life would be an appropriate thing to do to alleviate the husband’s suffering.
 
jjgigem said:
If the woman is clinically brain dead then she is not suffering! I don’t understand the “suffering” argument that is being presented by the husband. Therefore, I would like to see an attempt made to deliver the baby prior to removing life support. I am left wondering if there is something more going on with the husband regarding his responsibilities to raise and support the child if the child is born. Maybe, there is another reason and the husband is not wanting to admit it.
Click to expand...
He already has a toddler…he probably doesn’t want to be a single father to TWO small children.

Err on the side of life. What happened to “in sickness and in health”?
 
jjgigem said:
If the woman is clinically brain dead then she is not suffering! I don’t understand the “suffering” argument that is being presented by the husband. Therefore, I would like to see an attempt made to deliver the baby prior to removing life support. I am left wondering if there is something more going on with the husband regarding his responsibilities to raise and support the child if the child is born. Maybe, there is another reason and the husband is not wanting to admit it.
Click to expand...
I agree we. I wonder if the suffering is the husband’s suffering. I can’t believe he would want to kill his own child-- and also deprive his born child of a sibling. That would be such a tragedy to deny the born child not only his mother, but his sibling!

Maybe finances are the concern, and something could be done to help the man with that?
Maybe he will be stuck with a humongously ruinous hospital bill the longer she is kept alive?
 
adrift said:
It isn’t to keep the mother alive but to give a chance to the child to live.
Click to expand...
The mother is in effect already dead. We are only holding onto her to satisfy ourselves. We should not deny the will of God. He has called his daughter and her baby home.
 
PeopleB4Things said:
The mother is in effect already dead. We are only holding onto her to satisfy ourselves. We should not deny the will of God. He has called his daughter and her baby home.
Click to expand...
If that were true, then no amount of life support would keep the baby alive.
 
PeopleB4Things said:
The mother is in effect already dead. We are only holding onto her to satisfy ourselves. We should not deny the will of God. He has called his daughter and her baby home.
Click to expand...
What are you basing that claim on? So you think God caused this woman’s pulmonary embolism? Following that line of thinking, God willed the ability of people to be put on life support, and God willed the state of Texas to pass the law that makes it illegal to remove life support from a pregnant woman. And that would also mean that God willed the legalization of abortion.

So much for free will, if God wills everything that happens.
 
PeopleB4Things said:
The mother is in effect already dead. We are only holding onto her to satisfy ourselves. We should not deny the will of God. He has called his daughter and her baby home.
Click to expand...
The baby is in effect still alive. Mother Teresa once said “It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish.” We should not deny this little child the right to life. We have the medical technology that God has provided to keep this child alive.

As your name says, people before things.

Yours for life,

the phoenix
 
the_phoenix said:
The baby is in effect still alive. Mother Teresa once said “…” We should not deny this little child the right to life. We have the medical technology that God has provided to keep this child alive.

As your name says, people before things.

Yours for life,

the phoenix
Click to expand...
Your “quote” of Blessed Teresa of Calcutta is inaccurate. It is listed in these “significantly paraphrased versions or personal interpretations of statements Mother Teresa made; they are not her authentic words.”
 
Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. This is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion.
Click to expand...
That is Mother Teresa speaking to the United Nations in 1994.

I am appalled that any Christian could support killing this innocent baby.
 
Cider said:
What are you basing that claim on? So you think God caused this woman’s pulmonary embolism? Following that line of thinking, God willed the ability of people to be put on life support, and God willed the state of Texas to pass the law that makes it illegal to remove life support from a pregnant woman. And that would also mean that God willed the legalization of abortion.

So much for free will, if God wills everything that happens.
Click to expand...
I agree that interventions of God in our lives are rare. He no more helped someone get a job as he gave this woman an embolism. Miracles/direct interventions are rare and hard to prove as they should be for the exact reason that you mentioned. Free will can only be achieved if God does not play us as chess pieces, orchestrating every event. He does not inflict pain on the innocents who are assaulted and killed by oppressors and he doesn’t bring glory to Super Bowl winners. We can pray for guidance in our decisions and actions but we cannot hold God accountable when things don’t turn out the way we planned. This horrid situation for this family is not the work of God.

That being said, there is something about obstructing the natural order of things. If the mother was in a coma, alive but unaware, things would be different. She is in effect dead. We could keep brain dead people alive for various reasons. We could take all those extra unwanted frozen embryos that would normally be killed and put them into brain dead people that doctors or companies keep animated as incubators. It’s a noble idea I guess, like donating your organs to save the lives of others. But I think most people would agree that it’s going over the line, even knowing that every unnecessary death of an unborn child is tragic. It’s no different here. The state is asking doctors to keep this brain dead woman’s body animated to incubate a fetus. As we begin to make this practice lawful, acceptable, and normal and as we compel the medical community to engage in the practice regardless of their medical opinions, we walk a path that I’m not too sure we really want to go down.
 
But this child is not dead. The life support machine is stopping her (or him) from dying, it is supporting her (or his) life. Isn’t that what life support is for?

There are two people involved here, not just one. The child has as much right to life as an adult has. Or do we consider the child as a ‘by-product’ of the mother that ought to die when the life support to the mother is switched off?

This little baby is a child, a human being with as much right to life as you or I. If I was in serious danger and could be saved through life support, then I’d want that to happen. The same ought to apply to this little child.

This child is entitled to life!
 
Quite frankly, I find the woman’s pregnancy status completely irrelevant. Either life support counts as “ordinary means” to preserve life and removing it would count as active euthanasia, or it counts as “extraordinary means” to preserve life and removing it would count as allowing nature to take its course. If life support counts as “ordinary means” then it is always and everywhere immoral to terminate it whether the patient is pregnant or not. If life support counts as “extraordinary means” then it is permissible to terminate it (per the patient’s wishes or those next in line to make such decisions) no matter if the patient is pregnant. The question now becomes: how does the Catholic Church classify life support? Is it considered ordinary means or extraordinary means to the preservation of life?
 
Elizium23 said:
Your “quote” of Blessed Teresa of Calcutta is inaccurate. It is listed in these “significantly paraphrased versions or personal interpretations of statements Mother Teresa made; they are not her authentic words.”
Click to expand...
Well then, I’ll go with the quote GraceSofia supplied …

As well as, the words on this sign, which I photographed back in January, 2010 during the March for Life in Washington, DC:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Three sisters representing Parish Visitors of Mary Immaculate, Monroe NY carry a sign showing Pope Benedict with some children and the words “Hope and Trust in Life.”

Thanks for responding to me and giving me the opportunity to better respond to you.

Praying for the family in Texas, that God lead all to life, mother, father, and children …

~~ the phoenix
 
Brandon_Cal said:
Quite frankly, I find the woman’s pregnancy status completely irrelevant.
Click to expand...
The woman’s ‘pregnancy status’ (as you call it) means that there are two patients, not one, involved. There is the life of a woman and the life of a child being supported.
Brandon_Cal said:
Either life support counts as “ordinary means” to preserve life and removing it would count as active euthanasia, or it counts as “extraordinary means” to preserve life and removing it would count as allowing nature to take its course. If life support counts as “ordinary means” then it is always and everywhere immoral to terminate it whether the patient is pregnant or not.
Click to expand...
Again you speak of one patient, as if her pregnancy is simply some sort of condition. You are completely disregarding the life of a young child as if the child’s life is immaterial and not even worth consideration.
Brandon_Cal said:
If life support counts as “extraordinary means” then it is permissible to terminate it (per the patient’s wishes or those next in line to make such decisions) no matter if the patient is pregnant. The question now becomes: how does the Catholic Church classify life support? Is it considered ordinary means or extraordinary means to the preservation of life?
Click to expand...
You miss the point entirely. As far as the Church is concerned there is the life of a child involved here. The life of a child that will be independently viable in a short period of time. Ceasing the life support would be killing the child in the womb. This is not permitted by the Church and would be regarded as murder. The patient’s relative does not have the right to authorise the killing of an unborn child.
 
I am not sure what the moral choice should be. 😦

Yes baby is dependent on mom. But mom as reports state is brain dead. We aren’t obliged to continue futile treatments that are very burdensome. There doesn’t seem any other way for baby to survive. Baby isn’t old enough to be delivered prematurely. Would these treatments be futile even for the baby?

Baby was 14 weeks at the time of the mother’s embolism. Is it even possible for a heart lung machine to keep mothers body functioning for long enough for baby to be born? Do they have reasonable hope baby will indeed survive?
 
GraceSofia said:
I don’t see that there is any question about the right thing to do morally (and from a Catholic point of view. It is odd to think that legally, if the mother were awake she could choose to kill the baby). Removing the mother from life support results in killing the baby.

It has been done before.

dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2506281/Baby-born-brain-dead-mother-foetus-survives-15-27-weeks.html

cbsnews.com/news/brain-dead-mom-gives-birth-to-twins-while-on-life-support/
Click to expand...
I have a few concerns.

Does removing mom from life support actually mean “killing” the baby as in being equivalent to a “direct abortion”?

Or is keeping mom on life support (mom is on a heart lung machine due to brain death) equivalent to using extraordinary means? Does it mean that extraordinary means are being used to keep baby alive as well?

Extraordinary means are permitted to be used. I am not sure that they are mandatory, especially if they are futile.

The case in the first article, the Hungarian woman was 1 week further along. Only 3 known cases exist in history of a baby surviving that long. The second article, the baby was born after 1 month of the other being on life support.

This woman would probably need 8 more weeks for baby to be born.

My concern is the baby receiving ordinary care, or extraordinary care? If it is extraordinary care, then it isn’t required.
 
Mary_Gail_36 said:
Or is keeping mom on life support (mom is on a heart lung machine due to brain death) equivalent to using extraordinary means? Does it mean that extraordinary means are being used to keep baby alive as well?
Click to expand...
Ah. :idea: Are there any Church documents that talk about heart/lung machines?
I know that giving food and water is not considered extraordinary.

I found this as a resource, but haven’t gone through them all. It would take a long time.

ncbcenter.org/page.aspx?pid=1192
 
why dont they just remove the baby from the mother surgically and then focus on keeping the baby alive in an incubator and other such methods?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top