Texas man wants pregnant wife off life support despite state laws

[St_Francis]

What happens to the eggs on the beach if the mother dies?

Nothing, the eggs continue to live on the sustenance provided by their mother in the egg.

Mammals of course are different. But are there “actual” or only “potential” sea turtles in those eggs?

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Mr Munoz was the guardian–if there was no debate, the child did not need a separate guardian.

The father was unable to make decisions for the child because the law stated that X shall be done. A guardian would have been in the same position as the father was.

It does not seem that the hospital was intent on keeping the mother on the ventilator, just on following the law.

The hospital interpreted the law in a way that seems to not have ever happened before in Texas even though the law has been in effect since the 1980’s. Mrs. Munoz cannot possibly be the only woman who suffered a stopped heart that caused her brain death while pregnant.

If the patient was the baby, Mr. Munoz was the guardian. If the hospital believed that Mr. Munoz was acting against the interests of the baby, they should have gotten a guardian appointed to act on behalf of the baby.

If the hospital was really concerned that baby could be saved, why not have a guardian?

To me, it does not seem that they dotted all their i’s and crossed all their t’s.

They didn’t tell Mr. Munoz, “Your wife is brain dead, your child has X % chance of survival if we do a, b and c. We will need these specialists etc. We are consulting the ethics committee, these are the potential risks that your baby could face. Do you want pastoral care? How about psychological care?”

 

[Lochias]

You are looking at this situation for your own preconceived, biased viewpoint. Fact is, nobody to license to terminate anyone, but rather the doctors were legally obligated to “take license” to put a dead woman on a ventilator. The license taken was actually to interfere with God’s natural course of events. The Church has already taught that such extraordinary acts are not necessary.

Gotcha. Cancer is natural, too, so no cancer patient can ever receive treatment again. You’re hittin’ 'em right out of the park! Look at ya go!

What kind of mentality would you call accusing others of murder, when the accuser has no basis for determining intent other than speculation, and the accuser’s accusations are inconsistent with established teachings on the matter…a “faithful Catholic?” People that think only with their emotions tend to do damage to their own cause, by chasing others from the faith. Those people are even more harmful than “cafeteria Catholics,” because at least the cafeteria Catholics can ultimately claim ignorance.

Murder is murder, no matter how small. Either that baby was human, or she wasn’t. Pick one.

 

[St_Francis]

The hospital interpreted the law in a way that seems to not have ever happened before in Texas even though the law has been in effect since the 1980’s. Mrs. Munoz cannot possibly be the only woman who suffered a stopped heart that caused her brain death while pregnant.

If the patient was the baby, Mr. Munoz was the guardian. If the hospital believed that Mr. Munoz was acting against the interests of the baby, they should have gotten a guardian appointed to act on behalf of the baby.

I think the point is that they didn’t think he was acting against the interests of the baby; they just felt their hands were tied by the law.

If the hospital was really concerned that baby could be saved, why not have a guardian?

To me, it does not seem that they dotted all their i’s and crossed all their t’s.

They didn’t tell Mr. Munoz, “Your wife is brain dead, your child has X % chance of survival if we do a, b and c. We will need these specialists etc. We are consulting the ethics committee, these are the potential risks that your baby could face. Do you want pastoral care? How about psychological care?”

We don’t know what the hospital told Mr Munoz.

What it seems like happened is that the hospital had a certain interpretation of the law, so they would not remove the ventilator, but that the doctors did have a professional opinion that morally the ventilator could be removed.

The hospital did not seem to be *fighting *to keep Mrs Munoz on the ventilator.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Gotcha. Cancer is natural, too, so no cancer patient can ever receive treatment again.You’re hittin’ 'em right out of the park! Look at ya go!

Your attitude is hostile, and the accusations of other committing grave sins is uncharitable and very anti-Catholic.

Murder is murder, no matter how small. Either that baby was human, or she wasn’t. Pick one.

True. But this isn’t murder, not by any interpretation of any authoritative Church document. As I’ve noted earlier, removal of fallopian tubes is permitted in ectopic pregnancies, yet the survival rate for children of ectopic pregnancies far exceeds the survival rate of 14-week-old fetuses of dead mothers. Are you accusing those in the Church that interpreted this matter of murder also?

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Nothing, the eggs continue to live on the sustenance provided by their mother in the egg.

Mammals of course are different. But are there “actual” or only “potential” sea turtles in those eggs?

They are potential and independent, versus potential and dependent for humans.

 

[vz71]

What happens to the eggs on the beach if the mother dies?

From the time a human baby is born to several months later, it is completely dependent upon the parents for survival.

If the parents are not there, it will die.

Unless there is action taken by an outside party.

The baby is separate from the mother. Dependent 100% perhaps, but a separate entity nonetheless.

The logic saying that it was alright to cut life support since the baby was just part of the woman’s body is the same logic that provides the supposed right to kill the unborn child.
It is a logic that equates dependence with sameness.
And this logic is wrong.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

From the time a human baby is born to several months later, it is completely dependent upon the parents for survival.

If the parents are not there, it will die.

Unless there is action taken by an outside party.

The baby is separate from the mother. Dependent 100% perhaps, but a separate entity nonetheless.

The logic saying that it was alright to cut life support since the baby was just part of the woman’s body is the same logic that provides the supposed right to kill the unborn child.
It is a logic that equates dependence with sameness.
And this logic is wrong.

The baby is 100% dependent on a dead mother. All outside actions require dealing with a dead mother, because that is the support for the child.

If one insists on taking care of the child, one should remove the baby from the dead mother and take one’s chances. Letting the child feed off of a corpse for several months is not a realistic course of action by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, it is macabre and disturbing.

 

[vz71]

The baby is 100% dependent on a dead mother. All outside actions require dealing with a dead mother, because that is the support for the child.

If one insists on taking care of the child, one should remove the baby from the dead mother and take one’s chances. Letting the child feed off of a corpse for several months is not a realistic course of action by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, it is macabre and disturbing.

Why take the action with the least chance of working on the basis that it is ‘macabre and disturbing’?
Many common procedures we have today could be viewed in the same emotional way.

We know this procedure has worked in the past, we know without the procedure the survival chance is 0%.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

We know this procedure has worked in the past, we know without the procedure the survival chance is 0%.

I would like to see the cases where children have lived in this type of situation. I’ve actually been researching the matter, and all of the data I’ve seen (real medical studies) indicate that death is the result. In the earliest cases (which is later than 14 weeks), there are always significant complications.

When given two choices with a survival rate of 0%, the choice of removing the fetus is the better of the two, IMHO, because it has a greater chance of doing less damage.

 

[Lochias]

Your attitude is hostile, and the accusations of other committing grave sins is uncharitable and very anti-Catholic.

Pointing out the holes in your logic large enough to drive a semi through isn’t “hostile.” I can’t help it if you don’t like others refuting your (il)logic.

True. But this isn’t murder, not by any interpretation of any authoritative Church document. As I’ve noted earlier, removal of fallopian tubes is permitted in ectopic pregnancies, yet the survival rate for children of ectopic pregnancies far exceeds the survival rate of 14-week-old fetuses of dead mothers. Are you accusing those in the Church that interpreted this matter of murder also?

Ectopic pregnancies are not the same thing, not by a mile. For one, the mother is alive. Two, the child in those instances would die one way or another, so the point is to save the mother’s life during a time when the child’s cannot be saved one way or another.

Murder is murder, no matter how small.

 

[Marie5890]

Can anyone who has actually studied Catholic Moral theology point me in a direction as to where I can better educate myself as to how the Magisterium would most likely view this?

I do see a lot of personal opinions and views, and clearly fueled by emotions, but not to much as to where we can go an educated ourselves.

TIA

 

[St_Francis]

They are potential and independent, versus potential and dependent for humans.

So dependency is not the issue. The definition of potential is “having or showing the capacity to become or develop into something in the future.”

That means you are saying that whatever is in within the eggshell or womb *is not yet *the offspring of whatever species we are talking about.

At what point does it stop being “potential” and start being “actual”?

 

[ELDEN_S_WIFE]

For information on Catholic teaching in all areas of human ethics go here:

ncbcenter.org/ The National Catholic Bioethics Center.

They should have everything you need to know about the subject.

Hope this helps!

 

[Marie5890]

For information on Catholic teaching in all areas of human ethics go here:

ncbcenter.org/ The National Catholic Bioethics Center.

They should have everything you need to know about the subject.

Hope this helps!

Thank you!!

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Ectopic pregnancies are not the same thing, not by a mile.

True. That’s because there are children of ectopic pregnancies that are actually alive, whereas there a no such thing a 14-week old fetus of a brain dead mother than actually survived.

For one, the mother is alive.

So is your argument that if a mother is alive that fact that a child can survive an ectopic pregnancy is perfectly okay to remove the fallopian tube guaranteeing the child won’t survive, yet a dead mother MUST be put on support even though there is no evidence that a 14-year-old fetus with a BD mother can survive?

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

At what point does it stop being “potential” and start being “actual”?

We don’t know. Just like the Church doesn’t know when ensoulment occurs, other than we are certain the child has a soul at birth.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I would like to see the cases where children have lived in this type of situation. I’ve actually been researching the matter, and all of the data I’ve seen (real medical studies) indicate that death is the result. In the earliest cases (which is later than 14 weeks), there are always significant complications.

When given two choices with a survival rate of 0%, the choice of removing the fetus is the better of the two, IMHO, because it has a greater chance of doing less damage.

Try searching on google for, “German study on births to brain dead mothers”.

 

[vz71]

I would like to see the cases where children have lived in this type of situation. I’ve actually been researching the matter, and all of the data I’ve seen (real medical studies) indicate that death is the result.

and

In the earliest cases (which is later than 14 weeks), there are always significant complications.

Would seem to be mutually exclusive.
For one would have to be alive to have complications.

When given two choices with a survival rate of 0%, the choice of removing the fetus is the better of the two, IMHO, because it has a greater chance of doing less damage.

Rather then use a procedure that has worked in the past you would prefer one that has never worked.
Does not seem very logical.

 

[vz71]

We don’t know. Just like the Church doesn’t know when ensoulment occurs, other than we are certain the child has a soul at birth.

Why is it every argument for cutting life support of the mother appears to be an argument used by abortion advocates?

Could it be because at their core the two arguments are really the same?