Texas man wants pregnant wife off life support despite state laws

[Holly3278]

I am not sure what the teaching of the Catholic Church is on this issue but if I were a man and I was married to a woman who was in this situation, I would demand that my wife’s body be kept alive until the baby was sufficiently mature to survive outside of the womb with no serious problems. I just honestly think that it would be more honoring of the sanctity of life to do the thing which would help to keep the baby alive.

 

[Dawnia]

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?

That’s the plan, however it’s too early for them to do so without setting themselves up for a malpractice/wrongful death suit.

 

[seekerz]

That’s the plan, however it’s too early for them to do so without setting themselves up for a malpractice/wrongful death suit.

Just read about this case today, and I’m not sure if it doesn’t represent uncharted territory. 14 weeks (what I’ve read as the age of the pregnancy) is very early and a baby of that age is nowhere near ready to survive outside the womb even with the best support. Do we even know what happens to a baby kept alive in a dead mother for so long? Doesn’t the baby need more than just oxygen to grow and develop normally and wouldn’t the mother’s natural processes (like digestion and waste removal) deteriorate over time?

From what I can see (and I may be totally wrong) - this fits the definition of extraordinary means: both for mother and baby, since any fatal event without the implementation of life support measures, would have resulted in baby’s death following very soon after mother’s. In our quest to protect life, I think it’s important to not step over into the attitude of preventing death at all costs.

Not sure what Catholic ethicists’ views might be.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Just read about this case today, and I’m not sure if it doesn’t represent uncharted territory. 14 weeks (what I’ve read as the age of the pregnancy) is very early and a baby of that age is nowhere near ready to survive outside the womb even with the best support. Do we even know what happens to a baby kept alive in a dead mother for so long? Doesn’t the baby need more than just oxygen to grow and develop normally and wouldn’t the mother’s natural processes (like digestion and waste removal) deteriorate over time?

From what I can see (and I may be totally wrong) - this fits the definition of extraordinary means: both for mother and baby, since any fatal event without the implementation of life support measures, would have resulted in baby’s death following very soon after mother’s. In our quest to protect life, I think it’s important to not step over into the attitude of preventing death at all costs.

Not sure what Catholic ethicists’ views might be.

I would too. I haven’t read anything about this case from a Catholic POV.

I understand that mom may have been deprived of oxygen for up to an hour. I am not a doctor, but that seems like a very long time to attempt to put a person on life support.

I understand that another 15 week old baby was able to be brought to 27 weeks. But there have only been 3 cases in the world where a baby survived.

It seems to be highly experimental and does not seem to be ordinary care for the baby.

Poor family.

 

[Dawnia]

Just read about this case today, and I’m not sure if it doesn’t represent uncharted territory. 14 weeks (what I’ve read as the age of the pregnancy) is very early and a baby of that age is nowhere near ready to survive outside the womb even with the best support. Do we even know what happens to a baby kept alive in a dead mother for so long? Doesn’t the baby need more than just oxygen to grow and develop normally and wouldn’t the mother’s natural processes (like digestion and waste removal) deteriorate over time?

From what I can see (and I may be totally wrong) - this fits the definition of extraordinary means: both for mother and baby, since any fatal event without the implementation of life support measures, would have resulted in baby’s death following very soon after mother’s. In our quest to protect life, I think it’s important to not step over into the attitude of preventing death at all costs.

Not sure what Catholic ethicists’ views might be.

Although the woman is brain dead, apparently her heart is still beating on it’s own, so her body is still functioning. (Kind of crazy) She was 14 wks pregnant when this happened. She’s now closer to 20 weeks. I don’t know if there have been other cases, because frankly I’m not sure many people would complain about doctors making efforts to keep their unborn child alive.

I imagine that once the baby is delivered the docs will end life support according to the families wishes. And we can only hope and pray that the child is healthy.

 

[St_Francis]

Although the woman is brain dead, apparently her heart is still beating on it’s own, so her body is still functioning. (Kind of crazy) She was 14 wks pregnant when this happened. She’s now closer to 20 weeks. I don’t know if there have been other cases, because frankly I’m not sure many people would complain about doctors making efforts to keep their unborn child alive.

I imagine that once the baby is delivered the docs will end life support according to the families wishes. And we can only hope and pray that the child is healthy.

As Another poster explained in a discussion about the case of Jahi MacMath, the teen who died but whose body is being kept on a ventilator, the heart is not directed by the brain to beat, bit it does need oxygen. So someone who is brain dead and still ventilated will continue to have a beating heart for some time–I am not sure they have ever kept someone in this state on a ventilator for an extended period of time.

However, because the brain is not sending out signals, there are bodily processes which are not continuing, and so the body is deteriorating.

---

Extraordinary means can be refused if ithere is insufficient chance of good results or if there is a burden on the patient or others, which can include financial.

It would seem that in this case, the father’s request is moral, given the experimental nature of the undertaking, and the potential burden, emotionally and financially, to the family.

The mother has died; the baby would die as a result of the mother’s death, not as the result of a positive action on the part of anyone.

 

[Dawnia]

As Another poster explained in a discussion about the case of Jahi MacMath, the teen who died but whose body is being kept on a ventilator, the heart is not directed by the brain to beat, bit it does need oxygen. So someone who is brain dead and still ventilated will continue to have a beating heart for some time–I am not sure they have ever kept someone in this state on a ventilator for an extended period of time.

However, because the brain is not sending out signals, there are bodily processes which are not continuing, and so the body is deteriorating.

---

Extraordinary means can be refused if ithere is insufficient chance of good results or if there is a burden on the patient or others, which can include financial.

It would seem that in this case, the father’s request is moral, given the experimental nature of the undertaking, and the potential burden, emotionally and financially, to the family.

The mother has died; the baby would die as a result of the mother’s death, not as the result of a positive action on the part of anyone.

Thanks for this info. I haven’t been following the other case.

With the whole question of morality, there doesn’t appear to be an immoral option.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

As Another poster explained in a discussion about the case of Jahi MacMath, the teen who died but whose body is being kept on a ventilator, the heart is not directed by the brain to beat, bit it does need oxygen. So someone who is brain dead and still ventilated will continue to have a beating heart for some time–I am not sure they have ever kept someone in this state on a ventilator for an extended period of time.

However, because the brain is not sending out signals, there are bodily processes which are not continuing, and so the body is deteriorating.

---

Extraordinary means can be refused if ithere is insufficient chance of good results or if there is a burden on the patient or others, which can include financial.

It would seem that in this case, the father’s request is moral, given the experimental nature of the undertaking, and the potential burden, emotionally and financially, to the family.

The mother has died; the baby would die as a result of the mother’s death, not as the result of a positive action on the part of anyone.

I agree. It would be heroic to continue for sake of the baby. But it wouldn’t be immoral to not continue.

 

[seekerz]

I agree. It would be heroic to continue for sake of the baby. But it wouldn’t be immoral to not continue.

I think the heroic part applies to the life support measures. “The sake of the baby” part…not sure we know what effect this unnatural situation is having on the baby’s development. Not to forget the need to respect a corpse. I hate to ask it but: if the mother is not eating, through what processes is the baby’s nutrition coming?

The main problem I have with this is the state (apparently) being able to override the wishes of the family. I’m seeing today that there are protests happening on both sides and that is sad because really this particular decision screams: “to be made by loved ones in consultation with their doctors”.

 

[GraceSofia]

Not to forget the need to respect a corpse.

Well, she’s brain dead, but she’s not dead yet.

I hate to ask it but: if the mother is not eating, through what processes is the baby’s nutrition coming?

I guess intravenous feeding. This can supply 100% of nutritional needs – for decades if need be.

 

[St_Francis]

Well, she’s brain dead, but she’s not dead yet.

No, brain dead is actually dead. When all brain activity ceases, breathing stops and this causes the heart to stop beating. The process has been interrupted by the ventilator’s delivering oxygen to her lungs–this is why her heart has not yet stopped.

 

[SMGS127]

No, brain dead is actually dead. When all brain activity ceases, breathing stops and this causes the heart to stop beating. The process has been interrupted by the ventilator’s delivering oxygen to her lungs–this is why her heart has not yet stopped.

^ this. The Church considers death to be either cardiovascular death or neurological death. Either method constitutes full and total death.

 

[seekerz]

Well, she’s brain dead, but she’s not dead yet.I guess intravenous feeding. This can supply 100% of nutritional needs – for decades if need be.

I’m thinking biological processes here. One can give IV nutrition, but what metabolic processes persist in a brain dead person? Can hormonal pathways (usually necessary for a healthy pregnancy) persist in a person whose brain isn’t functioning? There are so many questions, which is why this situation is truly experimental - and I for one have a problem with experimenting on life.

 

[seekerz]

Here’s an interesting piece by a medical ethicist on both of the controversial brain death cases: ncronline.org/news/people/ethicists-criticize-treatment-brain-dead-patients

If Munoz is alive but unconscious, McCullough says the hospital shouldn’t be blamed for taking the legally cautious approach of keeping her on life support. Texas law states that a person may not withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment from a pregnant patient.

If she is brain-dead, then “you have a pregnancy in a cadaver,” McCullough said. “Then the law no longer applies.” If Munoz is dead, and the hospital wishes to continue ventilation to save her fetus, that is considered a medical experiment, and should undergo careful consideration by a committee of experts, McCullough said.

“In desperate cases, you respond with very careful thought and deliberation,” said McCullough, who chairs the fetal therapy board at Texas Children’s Hospital.

Given that Munoz suffered a loss of oxygen to her brain because of the clot, the fetus may also have suffered grievous harm, as well, Caplan said. “You probably have a fetus who is terribly devastated,” Caplan said. “I do think the family’s wishes should be honored.”

At this point, Munoz’s fetus is not viable, said McCullough, noting that infants are generally not considered viable – or able to survive with full medical support – until the 24th week of a 40-week pregnancy. Caplan said the Texas legislature needs to rewrite its law, which he describes as overly broad. As it’s written, Caplan said, the law says "you can’t have a living will if you are pregnant, even one day pregnant.

It seems that the real question here is: is the mother brain dead or not? Her family says so, but the hospital may not be able to comment due to privacy laws.

 

[GraceSofia]

Here’s an interesting piece by a medical ethicist on both of the controversial brain death cases: ncronline.org/news/people/ethicists-criticize-treatment-brain-dead-patients

Good find.

Many people don’t understand the differences between a coma, persistent vegetative state and brain death. …

This was me.

 

[Lochias]

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.

 

[masondoggy]

The law in Texas is very poorly written and needs to be rewritten. The family should be permitted to remove life support.

Catholics are not obligated to accept extraordinary measures of treatment. We can, but we aren’t doing anything immoral by refusing them. It would be the same if this baby had been born @ 23/24 weeks. We* can* morally go all out and do anything and everything to save the baby. Or we can give the baby comfort/palliative care until it passes. I just don’t see this situation as being much different.

 

[jediliz]

so we should let an innocent baby die? Just let the baby continue growing and then they can take him or her out by c-section and let the woman be buried.

The baby does NOT need to die, too! ERR on the SIDE OF LIFE. The LIFE of the **baby **STILL MATTERS.

 

[masondoggy]

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.

Yes, the baby is alive but removing life support equipment from the mother would not be directly killing the baby. It is a secondary, unintended consequence. Just as in an ectopic pregnancy when the mom’s fallopian tube needs to be removed and the baby dies as an unintended consequence. This is allowed by the Church. There is no shame involved here.

 

[GraceSofia]

It’s a complicated situation. The National Catholic Bioethics Center (Pa, U.S.) gave a statement on the other case of the young girl, Jahi McMath here: ncbcenter.org/resources/jahi-mcmath-and-catholic-teaching-on-the-determination-of-death

However, they have not given a statement on the Munoz case, only some verbal comments: Brain-dead patients prompt new questions about end-of-life decisions

The Munoz case in Fort Worth is complicated by several factors – her pregnancy and the inability of her unborn child to survive outside the womb; the law passed in Texas in 1989 and amended 10 years later that requires the continuation of life support for pregnant women; and federal health privacy laws that restrict any sharing of information with the media without the permission of Munoz’s family, which the hospital says has not been granted.

Even if Munoz’s physicians have determined her to be brain dead, there is another patient to consider, said Marie T. Hilliard, director of bioethics and public policy and a staff ethicist at the National Catholic Bioethics Center. The unborn child cannot survive without receiving oxygenated blood from his or her mother until he or she reaches at least 23 or 24 weeks of gestation, Hilliard said.

The unborn child’s surrogate decision-makers – which in the Munoz case would apparently be his or her father, Erick Munoz, 26 – must act in the child’s best interests in determining whether continuing medical treatment would be disproportionately burdensome on the patient, the family and the community in relation to the anticipated outcome, Hilliard said.

Catholic teaching is clear, she added, that any “direct, intended termination of a pregnancy” before viability is an abortion and not permitted. “But we don’t have the facts to ascribe any intent” to Munoz’s husband and parents, who are seeking to force the hospital to remove the woman’s respirator, Hilliard said.