Texas man wants pregnant wife off life support despite state laws

[Diana_Catherine]

It seems that new information makes more certain that all that the medical treatment was accomplishing was to delay the death of the baby.

Eternal rest grant unto these, O Lord; let Thy perpetual light shine upon them, and may they rest together in peace*–Amen *

I am not sure I agree with the first part of your statement but I do pray that they rest in peace and that we remember to pray for them.

I did read where they are possibly going to work on changing the laws regarding a woman dying while pregnant and whether or not a baby should be kept alive. I am afraid where this is going to lead us.

We also need to pray for guidance for ourselves, the medical profession, and our politicians that we always stand on the side of life and Catholic teaching.

 

[catholictiger]

one of the arguments I saw brought up is that the baby will be mentally and physically handicap so if you going to force the family to keep the woman and the baby alive at all costs, logically you should also apply that to the elderly and do away with DNRs and just let old people rot away on life support.

I don’t agree with this at all but I did want to see your statements on the matter.

 

[St_Francis]

I am not sure I agree with the first part of your statement but I do pray that they rest in peace and that we remember to pray for them.

I did read where they are possibly going to work on changing the laws regarding a woman dying while pregnant and whether or not a baby should be kept alive. I am afraid where this is going to lead us.

We also need to pray for guidance for ourselves, the medical profession, and our politicians that we always stand on the side of life and Catholic teaching.

It is true that forces in favor of evil will try to use this to their advantage as I have seen in other cases and have already seen in this one (some of the commentary in articles).

I think the best defense in this case is for those who are pro-life to educate themselves about the issues surrounding the beginning and the end of life and quickly make statements about how this case has nothing to do with abortion: withdrawal of treatment is not at all similar to killing an innocent human being. There is just no equivalence.

The issue in this case had to be presented legally, bit from the Catholic point of view revolved around *discontinuing *action which was extraordinary, birdensome, and unlikely of success rather than *taking *action whatever the situation.

 

[catholictiger]

but the baby is alive.

I also have a good friend whose baby was diagnosed with a terminal condition. She carried the baby to term and delivered, the whole family held and loved the baby until it died an hour or so later.

If this mother were living, I too would be unequivical in my support of the baby. My concerns come in because the mother is dead and keeping her body on a respirator is completely experimental and extraordinary.

Buring the dead is a corporal work of mercy. Leaving her body to decompose for weeks just to see what might happen to a severely injuried baby is not required according to Catholic moral teaching.

this is a very unique case and I’m not sure if the Church has stated anything on this matter. But I would say that if we live in a world that is ok with just letting a baby die when we have every chance to keep it alive, than we are going in the wrong direction. It may not be Catholic teaching but the women should be kept alive to try and save the life of the baby and I think no other option should be considered.

this is a complex bio-ethical issue but I still think what the judge ordered is completely wrong.

 

[catholictiger]

Apparently the hospital agrees that the baby is not viable? No head or limbs?

not viable means can’t survive outside of mothers womb.

if the baby is dead than they would make that clear.

 

[St_Francis]

this is a very unique case and I’m not sure if the Church has stated anything on this matter. But I would say that if we live in a world that is ok with just letting a baby die when we have every chance to keep it alive, than we are going in the wrong direction. **It may not be Catholic teaching **but the women should be kept alive to try and save the life of the baby and I think no other option should be considered.

this is a complex bio-ethical issue but I still think what the judge ordered is completely wrong.

Would you be more Catholic than the Pope? It is moral to withdraw treatment under certain circumstances, and this case appears to have met the criteria.

It is always sad when someone dies, esp so young, but we must accept our limitations. In this case it seems to turn out that all that was accomplished was to delay death to a baby who had already suffered a great deal of trauma.

 

[Diana_Catherine]

one of the arguments I saw brought up is that the baby will be mentally and physically handicap so if you going to force the family to keep the woman and the baby alive at all costs, logically you should also apply that to the elderly and do away with DNRs and just let old people rot away on life support.

I don’t agree with this at all but I did want to see your statements on the matter.

I had to read your posts twice to get your meaning. My thought was, many people were bringing up that the baby would be deformed and this was being said before anything was mentioned as to what those deformities would be, so I was thinking what should we do with anyone who is born deformed. What about people when they are left deformed after an accident or come back deformed from war. Where do we do with them? Do we still see them as heroes. I do.

 

[SMGS127]

"This is not Catholic teaching. You are misrepresenting John Paul II statement.

Lochias’s position was that death could not possibly have happened to a person who is still breathing. I am not misrepresenting Bl. JPII or the NCBC when I say that that statement is unequivocably false. The Catholic Church recognizes brain death as a valid means of death in conjunction with doctors. In this case, several doctors have all concurred that the women is 100% brain dead, meaning the women is dead by Catholic doctrine, period.

 

[Diana_Catherine]

Would you be more Catholic than the Pope? It is moral to withdraw treatment under certain circumstances, and this case appears to have met the criteria.

It is always sad when someone dies, esp so young, but we must accept our limitations. In this case it seems to turn out that all that was accomplished was to delay death to a baby who had already suffered a great deal of trauma.

Correct me if I am wrong but I don’t believe that statement he was talking about this case. Personally I feel they should have given the baby more time. With all the medical technology we have today, it is hard to say what we could have done for the child given more time. I recently read where doctors are now able to do certain surgeries on fetus’ in the mothers womb.

 

[St_Francis]

Correct me if I am wrong but I don’t believe that statement he was talking about this case.

I guess we’ll have to see what precisely he meant; I gathered he was referring to this case and any other similar case.

Personally I feel they should have given the baby more time. With all the medical technology we have today, it is hard to say what we could have done for the child given more time. I recently read where doctors are now able to do certain surgeries on fetus’ in the mothers womb.

It seem that the amount of trauma caused the baby to be in a terrible state incompatible with life on his or her own. While it is true that doctors can perform surgeries on unborn babies, doctors can’t fix everything, and the extent of this baby’s conditions seem to be irreparable. Remember that the baby experienced his or her mother’s lack of oxygen, which killed her, as well as “multiple” electric shocks to re-start her heart.

The Church teaches that is is *not *immoral to stop treatment, and that sometimes we have to recognize our limitations.

 

[vz71]

Lochias, there are times when cancer treatment becomes futile, and the patient no longer is treated.

The Church permits this.

Does the baby have cancer?

When was this discovered?

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Does the baby have cancer?

When was this discovered?

No. I was responding to his comment about not treating cancer.

 

[Diana_Catherine]

I guess we’ll have to see what precisely he meant; I gathered he was referring to this case and any other similar case.
.

Where did the Pope say this. Was it today? I must have missed this somewhere. I wasn’t sure what Pope you were talking about or when it was said.

It seem that the amount of trauma caused the baby to be in a terrible state incompatible with life on his or her own. While it is true that doctors can perform surgeries on unborn babies, doctors can’t fix everything, and the extent of this baby’s conditions seem to be irreparable. Remember that the baby experienced his or her mother’s lack of oxygen, which killed her, as well as “multiple” electric shocks to re-start her heart.

The Church teaches that is is *not *immoral to stop treatment, and that sometimes we have to recognize our limitations.

Thing is, I never heard much being said about the state of the baby. Mostly it was the state of the mother and how horrible it was to keep the baby alive in a deceased body. It is just hard for us on an internet forum to be making such a determination when we really aren’t the ones reading the medical records and I am just not sure of the condition of the baby because of that. I know how our society looks at these situations today and pregnancies today and life is looked at as not very important, especially a baby’s. That is why I am uncomfortable saying we reached our limitations. I am uncomfortable making any kind of statement about the baby’s life when all we have to go by are a few statements, mostly posted on CNN, which I don’t feel leans to well in our favor. I have worked as a nurse and have seen what the medical profession can do when they are bent on saving a life. It is amazing.

Again, I know this is hard on the family and especially the husband but as I said earlier I heard one of the apologists on Catholic Answers remind us today that the baby is a gift of the husband and wife’s love. A gift of life.

I find this very sad and pray for all involved, even all who are debating this on the internet and struggling with it in their hearts.

 

[St_Francis]

Where did the Pope say this. Was it today? I must have missed this somewhere. I wasn’t sure what Pope you were talking about or when it was said.

No, Catholictiger said, “Regardless of Church teaching…” and I chose the best example of someone who could be expected to follow Church teaching that i could think of. It was a rhetorical question.

But it does serve as a reminder that we should hold to Church teachings and not put additional teachings in which are merely our opinion.

Thing is, I never heard much being said about the state of the baby. Mostly it was the state of the mother and how horrible it was to keep the baby alive in a deceased body. It is just hard for us on an internet forum to be making such a determination when we really aren’t the ones reading the medical records and I am just not sure of the condition of the baby because of that. I know how our society looks at these situations today and pregnancies today and life is looked at as not very important, especially a baby’s. That is why I am uncomfortable saying we reached our limitations. I am uncomfortable making any kind of statement about the baby’s life when all we have to go by are a few statements, mostly posted on CNN, which I don’t feel leans to well in our favor. I have worked as a nurse and have seen what the medical profession can do when they are bent on saving a life. It is amazing.

Again, I know this is hard on the family and especially the husband but as I said earlier I heard one of the apologists on Catholic Answers remind us today that the baby is a gift of the husband and wife’s love. A gift of life.

I find this very sad and pray for all involved, even all who are debating this on the internet and struggling with it in their hearts.

Remeber that just because society views something in a certain way all the time doesn’t mean it never happens.

ETA: It occurs to me… just because we acknowledge that we cannot save a life does not mean that we are making a judgement about the worth of that life. Secularists may do this with their quality of life allowing killing people (through abortion or euthanasia), but when it comes to withdrawal of medical treatment, the moral issues revolve around the treatment itself, the burden imposed, and the potential good to be accomplished.

 

[punisherthunder]

None of that makes the baby less human. It’s alive, and we cannot murder a human child.

Why are you attacking me?

I didn’t say the baby was less human. I was stating a medical fact(s) about this particular case. I’m not in the hospital nor in the woman’s womb, so I can’t say for sure to what degree the child is deformed. All I can go by are articles online and what the doctors can comment on. It doesn’t take an M.D. to say that at this stage in the pregnancy that things are going bad for a fetus when the mother has been labeled medically dead. Added, I find it shocking and sad that the fetus is too deformed at this point that no gender can be established, let alone a human body. I hope for the sake of all involved that God takes this matter into his mighty, and compassionate hands and gives us a solution. It’s cases like these where there is so much heartache. I pray that Jesus helps bring resolve to this family and soon.

 

[catholictiger]

Would you be more Catholic than the Pope? It is moral to withdraw treatment under certain circumstances, and this case appears to have met the criteria.

It is always sad when someone dies, esp so young, but we must accept our limitations. In this case it seems to turn out that all that was accomplished was to delay death to a baby who had already suffered a great deal of trauma.

St. Francis you are completely mis reading my post

I in no way claimed that I was more Catholic than the Pope

what I was saying is that I’m not sure what the Church teaches, and because of this my statement may or may not be in line with Catholic teaching it is my personal opinion. If someone knows the official Catholic teaching please let me know and I will recant anyway I would have disagreed with the teaching. Of course I would look to understand why the Church teaches it and not just accept it in blind faith, but while I seek understanding I trust the Church is teaching the truth.

 

[catholictiger]

No, Catholictiger said, “Regardless of Church teaching…” and I chose the best example of someone who could be expected to follow Church teaching that i could think of. It was a rhetorical question. .

again you misread my post

maybe the way I phrased it was misleading and I’m sorry about that.

I’ll try and rephrase and make it clear

Note: the following is my opinion and I do not claim to have authority on the Catholic Teaching on this view point.

because the baby is living and growing for the sake of the baby he should be allowed to live. The malformatilies bring up an interesting question in this debate but if the baby could survive pregnancy than I think you should give it a chance.

But it does serve as a reminder that we should hold to Church teachings and not put additional teachings in which are merely our opinion.

but if you are unsure about a certain Catholic teaching or it is something that the Church is in no way clear about something personal opinion is ok. I would be shocked if the Church has taught definitively on cases like this one, so when we discuss it we are trying to discuss what is moral and good. I have full trust in the magisterium but I have not seen anything that the Church teaches on the matter.

 

[St_Francis]

again you misread my post

maybe the way I phrased it was misleading and I’m sorry about that.

I’ll try and rephrase and make it clear

Note: the following is my opinion and I do not claim to have authority on the Catholic Teaching on this view point.

because the baby is living and growing for the sake of the baby he should be allowed to live. The malformatilies bring up an interesting question in this debate but if the baby could survive pregnancy than I think you should give it a chance.

but if you are unsure about a certain Catholic teaching or it is something that the Church is in no way clear about something personal opinion is ok. I would be shocked if the Church has taught definitively on cases like this one, so when we discuss it we are trying to discuss what is moral and good. I have full trust in the magisterium but I have not seen anything that the Church teaches on the matter.

i understand better what you meant, and I’m sorry I misunderstood you.

For various types of situations, the particulars of the specific situation are vital to coming to an understanding of the moral course of action. In these areas, the Church offers only guideleines, not definitive rulings.

And i also want to point out here that Church teaching allows for a broad range of action in the middle, bit that one can generally sin by going too far in excess as well as in paucity of action; however, it is *always *evil to *kill *the patient.

WRT withdrawal of medical treatment, it can be morally acceptable to withdraw or reject medical treatment. If you read through all this thread, Mary Gail posted several long quotes and links to articles which I found very helpful.

 

[vz71]

Apparently the hospital agrees that the baby is not viable? No head or limbs?

If the baby is really headless, then this is an easy question to answer.

It cannot be alive.

But I somehow doubt this thread could go this long with such a condition.

Should they somehow show the baby cannot survive outside the womb, then this is truly an exercise in futility, and the situation is truly one of simply being unable to stop death.

Is it possible to Baptize the baby before it is born?

 

[Diana_Catherine]

If the baby is really headless, then this is an easy question to answer.

It cannot be alive.

But I somehow doubt this thread could go this long with such a condition.

Should they somehow show the baby cannot survive outside the womb, then this is truly an exercise in futility, and the situation is truly one of simply being unable to stop death.

Is it possible to Baptize the baby before it is born?

I think people took that because the baby had hydrocephalus, fluid on the brain, as meaning he was headless, which is an incorrect interpretation of that word. I knew a young girl who was born with hydrocephalus, years ago and survived and she had a head.

I think baptizing the baby is a good question to ask.

I think this is a situation we all are going to need to pray about and lean on God’s understanding. I have found the whole situation sad. I am bothered by it becoming a precedent for other situations regarding deformed fetuses. It seems taking the life of the child was rationalized by it being deformed. I certainly understand it being strange it living in a deceased woman’s body. That one is hard but what if she survived after the shocks and all they did to save her life and then they discovered the baby was deformed, would our fight for the baby’s life be different? I am afraid this will exacerbate the, “have an abortion because your baby is deformed” mindset. Just check out the comments below the articles at CNN and see the mindset from the secular point of view.