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.
Lochias said:
So we’re entitled to pick and choose what suffering comes at us in life? Good golly, how did I miss that memo?
Click to expand...
In fact, not only does the Church allow any moral choice in suffering, The Church *mandates *reduction of suffering lest it lead to the sin of despair!

Right now, the family is suffering because of an *intrusion *into the natural course of things. The natural course of things would have been that both mother and baby would have died in November. The current situation is *not *a natural one.
Did I say suffering was wonderful? And it’s amazing that you take this stance, since without medical care the baby would suffer.
Click to expand...
Do you have information we don’t have? Because we do not know anything about the condition of the baby, who may or may not be suffering now.
 
St_Francis said:
In fact, not only does the Church allow any moral choice in suffering, The Church *mandates *reduction of suffering lest it lead to the sin of despair!
Click to expand...
Tell that to Jesus, hanging from the Cross. Sometimes, we are to suffer. There is nothing wrong with that, and the idea that we can reduce all suffering to a minimum is a vain thought, indeed.
Right now, the family is suffering because of an *intrusion *into the natural course of things. The natural course of things would have been that both mother and baby would have died in November. The current situation is *not *a natural one.
Click to expand...
Wrong. They are suffering because of family tragedy. That does not mean that we heap tragedy upon tragedy in the name of not wanting to suffer.

You can knock it off with all of the “natural course” hooey, too. We’ve already established that we, as humans, do all sorts of things to deviate from the “natural course” in order to be healthy and well.
Do you have information we don’t have? Because we do not know anything about the condition of the baby, who may or may not be suffering now.
Click to expand...
So first, you say that the baby should have died, and now you’re arguing about whether or not the baby is healthy? Sounds like you’ve got your illogical arguments crossed. Which is it, “St. Francis”? ***Are we to hope for life, or throw it away the instant things become hard? ***
 
ringil said:
Thank you for your reply,

Yes, this case is different from Shaivo’s.

It seems to me this is not a case where the Church can give a firm answer. In that spirit I would tend to support the family and their wishes.

Prayers for all involved.
Click to expand...
The baby is part of the family. Whoops, there goes that argument…
 
Lochias said:
Tell that to Jesus, hanging from the Cross. Sometimes, we are to suffer. There is nothing wrong with that, and the idea that we can reduce all suffering to a minimum is a vain thought, indeed.
Click to expand...
Are you criticizing Church teaching, then?
Wrong. They are suffering because of family tragedy. That does not mean that we heap tragedy upon tragedy in the name of not wanting to suffer.
Click to expand...
Tye part of their suffering related to the current medical situation *would not exist *were it not for the medical treatment.

I am in no way criticizing the hospital for having treated her, but I am recognizing that this situation is the result of medical activity, and not the natural course of events.
You can knock it off with all of the “natural course” hooey, too. We’ve already established that we, as humans, do all sorts of things to deviate from the “natural course” in order to be healthy and well.
Click to expand...
Yes, we do, and why do we do that? Because health problems are deviations from the norm or ideal of healthy bodies. We do not “treat” people by atraching extra arms, do we? No. We endeavor to restore normalcy in a patient.

Additionally, our motive for doing so *is to reduce suffering. *
So first, you say that the baby should have died, and now you’re arguing about whether or not the baby is healthy?Sounds like you’ve got your illogical arguments crossed. Which is it, “St. Francis”? Are we to hope for life, or throw it away the instant things become hard?
Click to expand...
I did not say the baby should have died; I pointed out that the baby Would have died. Whatever the condition of the baby, when the mother died, the baby too would have died.

Given the situation, we now do not know the condition of the baby, but given what we do know, we know that the baby has suffered oxygen deprivation and the effects of his or her mother’s heart being electrically shocked back into life. Do you know what these two things do to unborn babies? Because I do not.
 
Lochias said:
The baby is part of the family. Whoops, there goes that argument…
Click to expand...
What I wrote was not an argument. It was my opinion on an issue where there is no clear right or wrong.

No matter how many times you cry out “Baby! Baby! Baby!- it’s a Baby!”
 
ringil said:
What I wrote was not an argument. It was my opinion on an issue where there is no clear right or wrong.

No matter how many times you cry out “Baby! Baby! Baby!- it’s a Baby!”
Click to expand...
Then what is it?

BTW I agree there is no clear right or wrong.
 
Lochias said:
No, sorry. “Ordinary, everyday medical care” is an arbitrary statement that, in this context, is modified to fit only your view.

Removing a tumor could be considered by many to be “outside the norm”, so I guess if someone gets cancer, they’d better just go ahead and die, by your logic; after all, God’s surely calling them home, right?

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Lochias, there are times when cancer treatment becomes futile, and the patient no longer is treated.

The Church permits this.
 
ringil said:
I am speaking to the appeals to emotion seeking to silence disagreement on an issue in which there is no clear “right” or “wrong”.

Of course this is a baby.
Click to expand...
My daughter disagree with me on this. She says the Church has always taught that the basic dignity of man must be upheld. She says we have taken away this womens dignity by not allowing her to die a natural death. Now I believe her dignity is affirmed by nurturing her unborn child but i also see my daughters point.
 
estesbob said:
My daughter disagree with me on this. She says the Church has always taught that the basic dignity of man must be upheld. She says we have taken away this womens dignity by not allowing her to die a natural death. Now I believe her dignity is affirmed by nurturing her unborn child but i also see my daughters point.
Click to expand...
This one is hard.

I pray that some good can come of this.
 
estesbob said:
My daughter disagree with me on this. She says the Church has always taught that the basic dignity of man must be upheld. She says we have taken away this womens dignity by not allowing her to die a natural death. Now I believe her dignity is affirmed by nurturing her unborn child but i also see my daughters point.
Click to expand...
I respect your opinions.

I am not convinced the baby is being treated in a dignified fashion at all.

Before a child is mandated extraordinary experimental treatment, there should be at least some type of idea what could happen.

Miscarriages are not prevented at 14 weeks, I don’t think anything can be done except monitor the mother, and remove the dead child if it is not expelled naturally.

14 weeks is 26 weeks away from full term.

The baby faced up to an hour without oxygen. How could they know that treatment wouldn’t be burdensome for the baby? Baby was so oxygen deprived that major systems were injured enough to cause them to not develop properly.

Read my last post about Dr.Haas from the National Catholic Bioethic Center.

And let’s keep this family in our prayers.
 
I Believe that they had a valid point made on EWTN. The point was that even though the husband had talked to his wife about a situation where if she was brain dead and on life support that they decided that they would wish to be taken off life support. But here lies the problem, I doubt it was ever discussed that if she was pregnant and the baby was still alive would she still want to be taken off life support and I find that the mother In carrying the child that long made a choice that she was willing to keep the baby and it is in the safety of the child that lies the heart of the issue sense the mother is not alive and cannot be saved her death is not the true issue.
 
For the first time, John Peter Smith Hospital acknowledges that Marlise Munoz, who is being kept on a respirator under Texas law, has been brain dead since November 28 and that the “fetus gestating inside Mrs. Munoz is not viable,” according to court documents released before a Friday hearing.
Click to expand...
😦
 
ringil said:
This one is hard.

I pray that some good can come of this.
Click to expand...
The good that can come of this is that the government would finally realize that these decisions rest solely with the individuals involved, in consultation with their doctors, and if they so choose, in consultation with their priest or spiritual advisor. The notion that these deeply personal decisions should be made by a politician or bureaucrat - or an armchair quarterback in an internet forum - is the height of lunacy.
 
adrift said:
😦
Click to expand...
Since November!! They’ve been trying to incubate a child in a corpse for about 2 months on the order of the government. That’s really not okay.

I think it’s time to get these cases out of the media and let the families deal with them as they see fit in private. This really isn’t the governement’s or our business.
 
J_Peterson said:
Since November!! They’ve been trying to incubate a child in a corpse for about 2 months on the order of the government. That’s really not okay.

I think it’s time to get these cases out of the media and let the families deal with them as they see fit in private. This really isn’t the governement’s or our business.
Click to expand...
The privacy argument is same one used by pro aborts, just saying. Government has an interest in preserving life and in stable families. The privacy argument can be used to support many aberrant things. I’m not sure we really want to open that can of worms.
 
The hospital officially stated today that the fetus is not viable. God’s will cannot be thwarted no matter how hard we humans try to deny his will. He called his two children home weeks ago. Hopefully an end to this tragedy is within sight. May these two souls rest in the peace and comfort of God and may the family begin the process of healing in the loving arms of family and friends.
 
Cider said:
The privacy argument is same one used by pro aborts, just saying. Government has an interest in preserving life and in stable families. The privacy argument can be used to support many aberrant things. I’m not sure we really want to open that can of worms.
Click to expand...
My point wasn’t necessarily about privacy although I think it is important. Preserving life is fine but that’s not what they are doing in this case. The government forced this hospital to keep a child in the body of it’s dead mother for 2 months. In other words, this was an experiment using a child and a corpse under orders from the governement. Nobody’s dignity is preserved here. The can of worms was this law that gives the governement power over families decisions regarding medical decisions (this was not about abortion).
 
Just a little while ago someone asked about this on Catholic Answers open forum. I thought the answer was inspiring:

The child is a reminder of the love between the husband and wife and all care should be taken to preserve that child’s life. He reminded us of Gianna Molla, who refused chemotherapy until after her baby was born and then she died a week later. True this case is different in that the mom is already dead but as someone else said, what would the mother want? Would she want all to be done so her child could live?

If doctors can decide the baby is brain dead that would be one thing but Catholic teaching says there are two people there and both lives must be considered. Just because someone is deformed doesn’t mean they should die.

It seems like a lot of people sound as though they are having a hard time with this because she is dead and her body is a corpse. It is true it is a corpse but I am sure the hospital is doing all they can to care for the body and it is not as disgusting as it sounds as our bodies are God’s creation.

This family needs a lot of prayer and guidance and I hope they have a good spiritual advisor.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top