Texas man wants pregnant wife off life support despite state laws

[Cider]

But why would the father of the child absolutely refuse to allow the hospital to reveal any information on the baby’s status whatsoever? If the baby had no chance to survive, you’d think he would allow them to release this in order to quell anger against his actions and allow people to understand his decision better.

Good question.

 

[St_Francis]

Well art least you admit from the outset that your opinion is biased due to your animosity against conservatives and isn’t actually based on morality or a reverence for life.

If you had read the rest of his post, you’d see that his opinion is not based on a dislike of consrvatives but on some actual reasoning. Instead of dismissing what he says because he admits he’s not happy with conservatives, why don’t you respond to his points?

 

[St_Francis]

abcnews.go.com/Health/family-pregnant-texas-woman-sues-hospital-keeping-life/story?id=21531385…

I wonder if it might make them put a time limit, requiring that the baby be closer to viability.

The problem with making laws like this is that the time factors are not the only considerations which go into making a decision like this.

 

[GraceSofia]

The problem with making laws like this is that the time factors are not the only considerations which go into making a decision like this.

Oh, I know, but we know many laws are problematic, if not downright idiotic. I am not saying they should do it, just wondering if they will do it.

 

[Cricket123]

Well art least you admit from the outset that your opinion is biased due to your animosity against conservatives and isn’t actually based on morality or a reverence for life.

My “animosity” towards modern American conservatives is based on a clear memory of life and politics in America pre-Reagan, but that would be a subject for another thread.

My opinion on this case is based on the idea that continuing life-support under these circumstances constitutes extraordinary and experimental treatment, and it ought to be the family’s choice to continue or discontinue such treatment, and either choice should be respected.

This is entirely consistent with Church teaching.

 

[vz71]

I consider it a “conservative-death-panel” because, to paraphrase a bit, they are saying: "We decide when death begins, based on a powerful feeling, but not science." The wishes of the family should prevail, either way, and we should assume that they have considered this woman and her baby as wife, mother, daughter; child and grandchild, and decided accordingly, and probably appropriately, based on all the available information.

Science tells us the baby has a heartbeat.
Science also tells us that the technology is available to preserve that life.
In this case the powerful feeling towards life and the science are in agreement.

Until we know further, I know enough to believe the moral action is to maintain the support of the mother’s body to allow this infant to be delivered and to live.

 

[twoshoes]

The difference is the baby could be damaged beyond saving already.
And we may not expect all efforts to produce a live birth.

Accepting that we cannot stop death requires we know how close to death we are.

We need further tests to know viability. But that requires time, and means keeping the machines running until we can test.

It breaks my heart to see the callous responses to life and looking for the easy way out some in these post have proposed. It is a terrible state that the faith of our church has fallen to this level of sin, ( Popes and Bishops words not mine). So many ready to give up on a life because it is hard, inconvenient, and may or may not be the wishes of the mother, as if her wishes or the wishes of the father are the determining factor in preserving the life of this CHILD. God spoke his wishes at conception and if this child is to live or not is his Will not mine or yours. We can only fight that the child will live. When in doubt listen to the teachings of Mother Church, she will guide you.

This is the same problem I have with the death penalty, if we are to error, let us error on the side of life.

This message from Saint Therese of Lisieux is my guide, (Trials help us greatly to detach us from earth. They make us look to God, rather than of this world). As Jesus said at the in the Garden of Gethsemane, Mark 14: 38 “Watch and pray that that you may not be put to the test”.

 

[estesbob]

My “animosity” towards modern American conservatives is based on a clear memory of life and politics in America pre-Reagan, but that would be a subject for another thread.

My opinion on this case is based on the idea that continuing life-support under these circumstances constitutes extraordinary and experimental treatment, and it ought to be the family’s choice to continue or discontinue such treatment, and either choice should be respected.

This is entirely consistent with Church teaching.

Hating conservatives and killing this child is consistent with catholic teaching???

Lets no confuse Church teaching on not being required to use extraordinary means and the fact there are TWO lives involved here. The family does not have a right to kill this child. there is a controversy in this case only because the culture of death has so hardened our hearts we look upon killing children as a right.

 

[ringil]

So are there plans to end life sustaining measures for this mother? How long are they going to let the pregnancy continue? Is there word on this?

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Science tells us the baby has a heartbeat.
Science also tells us that the technology is available to preserve that life.
In this case the powerful feeling towards life and the science are in agreement.

Until we know further, I know enough to believe the moral action is to maintain the support of the mother’s body to allow this infant to be delivered and to live.

I don’t think science tells us at all that we have the technology to save this life.

I posted this earlier. It’s from a Catholic hospital system’s directives.

The task of medicine is to care even when it cannot cure. Physicians and their patients must evaluate the use of the technology at their disposal. Reflection on the innate dignity of human life in all its dimensions and on the purpose of medical care is indispensable for formulating a true moral judgment about the use of technology to maintain life. The use of life-sustaining technology is judged in light of the Christian meaning of life, suffering, and death. In this way two extremes are avoided: on the one hand, an insistence on useless or burdensome technology even when a patient may legitimately wish to forgo it and, on the other hand, the withdrawal of technology with the intention of causing death

If you look up on Google, “cardiac arrest in pregnant patients” various protocols come up on how to treat a mom and baby when mom goes into cardiac arrest.

The directive is that babies older than 20 weeks should be birthed by C section, within** 5** minutes of mom’s heart stopping if the heart cannot be started. Within 10-15 minutes irreversible neurological damage occurs to the baby due to lack of oxygen. I also read that the prognosis for babies under 20 weeks is very poor.

So there is a situation where, Mom suffered a stopped heart so significant that she suffered brain death. Her heart was possibly stopped for an hour. What other systems in her body suffered?

There are a number of cases where mom suffered brain death and baby survived. Most babies the age of this one kept alive in their moms’ have died in utero. Were those brain death’s caused by trauma or by a cardiac event?

The Church says that ordinary means to preserve life must be taken. The Church also says that extraordinary means to preserve life are not mandatory at all.

None of the Catholic ethicists have made any pronouncement declaring that this care is ordinary care. They have commented that there in not much they know.

So with all these factors, I am very uncomfortable and saddened that dad is being likened to Michael Schiavo, that Dad is a murderer, that discontinuing treatment that could be futile is the same moral gravity as an abortion.

I, personally am not convinced this is ordinary care. I know that at times babies are born too small or too weak to survive. The state does not force the parents to submit to futile burdensome treatments.

But the state, in this case, has the right to force the father to submit his child to this to highly experimental treatment where no one knows the outcome. Did the hospital even appoint a guardian for the baby to make medical decisions on his/her behalf? Because they are not allowing the father to do so,

Is the hospital consulting with perinatal specialists to make sure baby has proper blood flow, proper nutrition, and is growing the way he should be growing? And why wait until 24 weeks to test. Shouldn’t testing be constant and continual for the baby?

How are pregnant mothers who present with cardiac arrest treated in a Catholic hospital? Like this?

 

[vz71]

I don’t think science tells us at all that we have the technology to save this life.

Why not?
We have done it before.

Perhaps I should have stated History tells us…

I just thought science and technology would agree that what has been done before can be done again.

 

[Dawnia]

I don’t think science tells us at all that we have the technology to save this life.

I posted this earlier. It’s from a Catholic hospital system’s directives.

Something similar happened in the Colorado case where the father is suing the hospital for not saving the unborn twins who died while the hospital was working on the mother. Those babies were nearer to term than this child, yet they didn’t survive the CPR. The fact that this child not only survived the trauma of CPR he/she is still alive. He/she may not make it very long, but he/she is at least being given a chance at live. It has already survived 7-8 weeks, what is waiting a few more?

There have been countless cases where doctors have predicted the early demise of a patient only to be proven wrong. I know of so many wonderful cases where people who have horrific medical issues have overcome them to not only far outlive predictions, but to also become very successful in life. Case in point - Jon Morrow

 

[masondoggy]

I don’t think science tells us at all that we have the technology to save this life.

I posted this earlier. It’s from a Catholic hospital system’s directives.

If you look up on Google, “cardiac arrest in pregnant patients” various protocols come up on how to treat a mom and baby when mom goes into cardiac arrest.

The directive is that babies older than 20 weeks should be birthed by C section, within** 5** minutes of mom’s heart stopping if the heart cannot be started. Within 10-15 minutes irreversible neurological damage occurs to the baby due to lack of oxygen. I also read that the prognosis for babies under 20 weeks is very poor.

So there is a situation where, Mom suffered a stopped heart so significant that she suffered brain death. Her heart was possibly stopped for an hour. What other systems in her body suffered?

There are a number of cases where mom suffered brain death and baby survived. Most babies the age of this one kept alive in their moms’ have died in utero. Were those brain death’s caused by trauma or by a cardiac event?

The Church says that ordinary means to preserve life must be taken. The Church also says that extraordinary means to preserve life are not mandatory at all.

None of the Catholic ethicists have made any pronouncement declaring that this care is ordinary care. They have commented that there in not much they know.

So with all these factors, I am very uncomfortable and saddened that dad is being likened to Michael Schiavo, that Dad is a murderer, that discontinuing treatment that could be futile is the same moral gravity as an abortion.

I, personally am not convinced this is ordinary care. I know that at times babies are born too small or too weak to survive. The state does not force the parents to submit to futile burdensome treatments.

But the state, in this case, has the right to force the father to submit his child to this to highly experimental treatment where no one knows the outcome. Did the hospital even appoint a guardian for the baby to make medical decisions on his/her behalf? Because they are not allowing the father to do so,

Is the hospital consulting with perinatal specialists to make sure baby has proper blood flow, proper nutrition, and is growing the way he should be growing? And why wait until 24 weeks to test. Shouldn’t testing be constant and continual for the baby?

How are pregnant mothers who present with cardiac arrest treated in a Catholic hospital? Like this?

I completely agree with post.

 

[Cricket123]

Hating conservatives and killing this child is consistent with catholic teaching???

Lets no confuse Church teaching on not being required to use extraordinary means and the fact there are TWO lives involved here. The family does not have a right to kill this child. there is a controversy in this case only because the culture of death has so hardened our hearts we look upon killing children as a right.

“Hating” would be a bit strong. I would settle for having Bible-Belt Jeezo-publicans, especially of the Texas variety, back on the fringes where they belong, wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross. Do you really think a Buckley or a Goldwater would have taken these people seriously? This is a separate issue, though.

As far as extraordinary means, I think this case involves both extraordinary and experimental means, for both the woman and the baby, and that the family, in consultation with their doctors, should be able to decide whether or not to continue these, without interference from the aforementioned legislators in Austin, and without explanation to the citizens of FOX Nation, who are not entitled to one. And this is consistent with Catholic teaching, regardless of my opinions on modern American conservatives.

 

[estesbob]

“Hating” would be a bit strong. I would settle for having Bible-Belt Jeezo-publicans, especially of the Texas variety, back on the fringes where they belong, wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross. Do you really think a Buckley or a Goldwater would have taken these people seriously? This is a separate issue, though.

As far as extraordinary means, I think this case involves both extraordinary and experimental means, for both the woman and the baby, and that the family, in consultation with their doctors, should be able to decide whether or not to continue these, without interference from the aforementioned legislators in Austin, and without explanation to the citizens of FOX Nation, who are not entitled to one. And this is consistent with Catholic teaching, regardless of my opinions on modern American conservatives.

I disagree. they should not be allowed to kill this baby. You wouldn’t think we would need such but thank God the Texas legislature passed the law.

 

[Lochias]

This thread makes me sick to my stomach.

It’s a human life. Anyone who can’t see how precious that very idea is, and how we must fight for human life, rather than the fleeting comfort of those who’d really just rather not deal with it…well.

I can’t say what I want to because of charity guidelines. I can’t believe faithful Catholics are even questioning this. The Church hasn’t spoken because it’s very clear-cut. I’ve never seen so many doubting Thomases in one place in my life.

“Show us the proof that the baby will live! and be healthy!”

If we went by that, then none of us should have been born, for there is never 100% proof that a child will be born healthy.

There is, however, always a chance, however large or small. This is what we strive for.

I’m leaving this thread. I hope everyone here does a lot of praying on this issue. Not a one of us is guaranteed to be free of suffering in this life, and to end the life of a growing baby child because of freedom from discomfort is about as un-Catholic and inhuman as one can get.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Marie Hilliard, director of bioethics and public policy at the National Catholic Bioethics Center, told CNA Jan. 9 that we “want to give an identity to that human being, who isn’t just a fetus but a grandchild.”

“This might be all that a family has left of the person who has been declared brain-dead.”

Ethical treatment of the unborn baby could require the life-sustaining treatment for the mother, so long as this medical treatment is not “disproportionate,” “futile,” or causing harm to the baby, Hilliard said, acknowledging that the pregnant woman’s family is suffering “the great grief that accompanies the death or the dying of a loved one.”

Hilliard, a registered nurse with a master’s degree in maternal-child health nursing, noted that the woman’s pregnancy complicates the degree to which a patient’s wishes can be followed.

“Her wishes are about her own body. Now we have another human being involved.”

Hilliard said Catholic ethics recognize total brain death as death, but she noted that it is uncertain whether Munoz is fully brain-dead, given the hospital’s silence on the question.

If Munoz is in fact brain-dead, “we are now dealing with one human being who is alive, and that is the 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.

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

 

[vz71]

“Show us the proof that the baby will live! and be healthy!”

Just want to clarify my positioning

I want to see further testing done to determine viability of the baby.

The mother is dead. We can readily see that.

But the baby may be injured severely as well, and we are simply postponing the inevitable.

We simply do not know without tests.

As to the judgements we have seen concerning the father, I do not believe I would release the hospital either. It is no one’s business. Those that judge haven’t sufficient information and will likely stand in their own harsh judgement criteria later.

 

[Mulligan2]

This thread makes me sick to my stomach.

It’s a human life. Anyone who can’t see how precious that very idea is, and how we must fight for human life, rather than the fleeting comfort of those who’d really just rather not deal with it…well.

I can’t say what I want to because of charity guidelines. I can’t believe faithful Catholics are even questioning this. The Church hasn’t spoken because it’s very clear-cut. I’ve never seen so many doubting Thomases in one place in my life.

“Show us the proof that the baby will live! and be healthy!”

If we went by that, then none of us should have been born, for there is never 100% proof that a child will be born healthy.

There is, however, always a chance, however large or small. This is what we strive for.

I’m leaving this thread. I hope everyone here does a lot of praying on this issue. Not a one of us is guaranteed to be free of suffering in this life, and to end the life of a growing baby child because of freedom from discomfort is about as un-Catholic and inhuman as one can get.

Please consider the realities of the situation, especially in relation to you. This situation does not involve you. The family in question are the ones involved. They are the ones who know all of the medical details. They are under no obligation to share these details with the public. Your understanding of the medical realities in this situation are purely speculative.

 

[St_Francis]

So are there plans to end life sustaining measures for this mother? How long are they going to let the pregnancy continue? Is there word on this?

It seems that in these cases, they wait as long as possible since the older the baby is at birth, the better his or her chance of survival. It seems that at a certain point, the deterioration of the mother’s body forces the doctors to perform a C-section, but when that will occur is difficult to say–there is little information from other cases, and there are probably a number of affecting factors.