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.
When I think of indirect abortion, it concerns situations in which the goal is to save the mother’s life, with unintended consequences that a child may be lost. If that were to happen in this case, assuredly no life is saved, and one would be killed.

I don’t know if the father has financial difficulties, so I won’t comment on that since he may not have a real choice if that were the reality. However if it is only to end “suffering”, I feel that would draw close to arguments used for euthanasia.

A difficult situation…

Prayers for the family. 😦
 
Virga said:
When I think of indirect abortion, it concerns situations in which the goal is to save the mother’s life, with unintended consequences that a child may be lost. If that were to happen in this case, assuredly no life is saved, and one would be killed.
Click to expand...
I don’t think it is a good idea to talk about “indirect abortions” because in the minds of those who are not medical professionals, abortion is procured abortion. Talking about ndirect abortions may give the impression that intentionally committing an act which will and for the purpose of ending a pregnancy “indirectly” as long as it is not direct is morally ok.
I don’t know if the father has financial difficulties, so I won’t comment on that since he may not have a real choice if that were the reality. However if it is only to end “suffering”, I feel that would draw close to arguments used for euthanasia.
Click to expand...
A difficult situation…
Click to expand...
Prayers for the family. 😦
Click to expand...
To withdraw extraordinary medical care for the purpose of ending suffering is also *not *immoral.
 
Lochias said:
masondoggy;11598692 said:
Yes, it would. If, as you say, the mother is nothing more than a vegetable, then the ONLY life that is now at stake is the mother’s. You can’t justify the killing of an infant for the comfort of a corpse.

We’re not talking about saving a mother’s life, and your example has exactly zero merit in this situation.

Its’ a baby. It’s alive. The mother’s life is not at stake. It would be murder.
Click to expand...
The mother being on a ventilator/heart lung machine (if in fact she is actually brain dead) is extraordinary care for the unborn child. T

It isn’t even known if this treatment could even result in the birth of the baby. It hasn’t really ever been done before. There was a cited case in this thread where a 15 week old baby was able to be brought to birth. That article said they believe there are only 3 cases of a baby being kept alive that long.

Is it immoral to end highly experimental treatment, especially extraordinary means?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Lochias said:
Yes, it would. If, as you say, the mother is nothing more than a vegetable,
Click to expand...
The (derogatory) term vegetable is used when the patient in a “persistent vegetative state”–a state in which the brain function has **not **totally ceased but is continuing to maintain bodily functions such as digestion.

In this case, the mother has *died. *A few bodily functions continue in her body through the use of machines.
then the ONLY life that is now at stake is the mother’s. You can’t justify the killing of an infant for the comfort of a corpse.
Click to expand...
The baby would *not *be “being killed” by removal of the ventilator–the baby would die as a result of nature’s being allowed to take its course.

The Church has ruled that it **is **moral to decline extra-ordinary medical treatment under certain circumstances. From what we know of the case, it would seem that the outcome is very uncertain. Additionally, the treatment may be burdensome to the family in other ways, emotionally, financially, or another way.
We’re not talking about saving a mother’s life, and your example has exactly zero merit in this situation.
Click to expand...
Its’ a baby. It’s alive. The mother’s life is not at stake. It would be murder.
Click to expand...
Stopping the ventilator would **not **be murder. It would be, as the CCC puts it, that “one’s inability to impede it [death] is merely accepted.”

Here is the entire paragraph:
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.
 
St_Francis said:
The (derogatory) term vegetable is used when the patient in a “persistent vegetative state”–a state in which the brain function has **not **totally ceased but is continuing to maintain bodily functions such as digestion.

In this case, the mother has *died. *A few bodily functions continue in her body through the use of machines.

We’re talking about the baby now, not the mother.

The baby would *not *be “being killed” by removal of the ventilator–the baby would die as a result of nature’s being allowed to take its course.
Click to expand...
Nope. It’s in the nature of the baby to survive, not die. You are wrong.
The Church has ruled that it **is **moral to decline extra-ordinary medical treatment under certain circumstances. From what we know of the case, it would seem that the outcome is very uncertain. Additionally, the treatment may be burdensome to the family in other ways, emotionally, financially, or another way.
Click to expand...
The baby is the patient now, not the mother.
Stopping the ventilator would **not **be murder. It would be, as the CCC puts it, that “one’s inability to impede it [death] is merely accepted.”
Click to expand...
Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Here is the entire paragraph:
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...
All assuming that the patient is the mother, NOT the baby.

You are wrong.
 
Lochias said:
Nope. It’s in the nature of the baby to survive, not die. You are wrong.

The baby is the patient now, not the mother.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Here is the entire paragraph:

All assuming that the patient is the mother, NOT the baby.

You are wrong.
Click to expand...
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…”
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.
  1. The treatment is experimental. Yes, the baby is the one being treated, but the treatment being used is not having the baby on a ventilator but having the body of the mother on a ventilator.
So, the chances of success are not-high (66%) to low (under 50%); the treatment is very extraordinary; and this situation is certainly one which has the potential of being a burden to the family (and one can assume that it is doing so).
 
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. The right wing constantly complains about government interference, but here we see a prime example of it.

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?

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. 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?
 
SeannyM said:
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. The right wing constantly complains about government interference, but here we see a prime example of it.
Click to expand...
According to the news article, she did not sign a dnr. Even so the baby didn’t make that choice.
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?
Click to expand...
Your asking the wrong question. At what point, did we decide that we had the right to chose one life over another?
I’m completely against abortion, but I’m also completely against neglecting ALL of the rights of the mother as well.
Click to expand...
Doesn’t sound like it.
 
adrift said:
According to the news article, she did not sign a dnr. Even so the baby didn’t make that choice.

Your asking the wrong question. At what point, did we decide that we had the right to chose one life over another?

Doesn’t sound like it.
Click to expand...
She did discuss her wishes with her husband, and I’m assuming she appointed him as her proxy.

As far as choosing one life over another… In a case where the mother’s life is at risk, the person who is already breathing has a right to receive any and all life-saving interventions, so you should err on the side of the patient already alive. But in this case, she didn’t choose one life over the other, she made it clear that she didn’t want to be on life support. That’s not the same thing.

And sorry if it “doesn’t sound like it.” But what I mean is that I’m against abortion as contraception… but as a life-saving intervention, that boils down to a very difficult choice that the patient needs to make using all available information about her chances of survival, the baby’s chances of survival were she to not have the procedure.

And I’m not asking the wrong question, I’m asking the question I intended to ask… especially pertaining to the other example I cited. There is absolutely no reason that the state should be able to force a medication on a patient who is capable of making or withholding informed consent for that medication.
 
SeannyM said:
She did discuss her wishes with her husband, and I’m assuming she appointed him as her proxy.

As far as choosing one life over another… In a case where the mother’s life is at risk, the person who is already breathing
Click to expand...
:eek: The baby is alive. The woman is not breathing she is dead. The one who has a chance at life should be given it.
has a right to receive any and all life-saving interventions, so you should err on the side of the patient already alive.
:eek: in this case the mother is dead the baby is alive.
But in this case, she didn’t choose one life over the other, she made it clear that she didn’t want to be on life support. That’s not the same thing.
Click to expand...
Her choice was not about her baby dying if she was taken off life support. No one really knows what her choice would be. The choice is both die instead of one having a chance.
And sorry if it “doesn’t sound like it.” But what I mean is that I’m against abortion as contraception… but as a life-saving intervention, that boils down to a very difficult choice that the patient needs to make using all available information about her chances of survival, the baby’s chances of survival were she to not have the procedure.
Click to expand...
Then you aren’t against abortion. Abortion is always wrong. We are not talking about abortion in this situation. It wouldn’t be an abortion to let mother die. It is a sad case. If the baby somehow survives I would hate to be that father explaining why to the child.
 
The state has taken possession of a dead woman’s body against her will to keep it artificially functioning so it can serve as an incubator to a fetus. If this is truly legal, imagine the possibilities for future horrors. What other uses can the state find for brain dead citizens?

Ghoulish. The fetus and it’s mother should have been allowed to die a natural death.
 
SeannyM said:
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?
Click to expand...
She’s been declared dead. Dead people do not have rights under the law. 🤷
 
Dawnia said:
She’s been declared dead. Dead people do not have rights under the law. 🤷
Click to expand...
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.
 
adrift said:
Then you aren’t against abortion. Abortion is always wrong. We are not talking about abortion in this situation. It wouldn’t be an abortion to let mother die. It is a sad case. If the baby somehow survives I would hate to be that father explaining why to the child.
Click to expand...
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.

Now this case is not about abortion, I agree. What this case is about is whether the state has the right to supersede the legal right to refuse life support, along with the right to overrule the decisions of a medical proxy. It is also about the precedents that this sets… Where does it stop? Does the state have the right to force a mother to take medications that could harm her against her will because she is pregnant and they believe the medications would be beneficial to the fetus? Does the state have the right to force someone to force someone to be placed on life support in order to harvest their organs? Does the state have the right to force someone to undergo painful medical testing if there is reason to believe that they have some genetic mutation that could cure cancer? Where does this stop? Today you support this because there is a possibility that a fetus may remain viable (a slim possibility at that). But you may not be so supportive of what this could lead to. This could set legal precedents that allow the state to force contraceptives on someone who is a carrier for a dangerous congenital disorder. I bet then you’d be a little more supportive of the right to determine your wishes for medical care, or to appointed a proxy to act on your behalf in the event that you become incapacitated.
 
SeannyM said:
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.
Click to expand...
If a child dies as the side effect of a necessary medical procedure designed to save the life of a mother, the procedure is NOT an abortion. So yes, an abortion is always wrong.
 
SMGS127 said:
If a child dies as the side effect of a necessary medical procedure designed to save the life of a mother, the procedure is NOT an abortion. So yes, an abortion is always wrong.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top