Texas man wants pregnant wife off life support despite state laws

[St_Francis]

They seem to be referencing the same baby. The information on this baby only became available recently.

Ah, yes, I see you are correct. I saw the different dates and the different descriptions of the cause of collapse and thought they were different cases. Thanks for that clarification.

 

[BellsMom]

Do you suggest that a medical procedure is only licit if it has been tried in the past successfully?

YES! Experimental procedures must be optional for the patient or when the patient cannot decide for themselves, a guardian.

I cannot believe the number of posters on this thread who seem to have no problem with the state/corporation taking possession of either their body or the body of someone they are responsible for to use for medial experiments AGAINST their will.

Its absolutely frightening.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

These babies seem to have survived 3 months in their mothers’ wombs starting from when they were at 15 weeks gestation.

They are currently the youngest to have been born alive.

I’d have to see all the details, naturally. One of the issue in the case under discussion that I’ve taken into consideration is that the body seemed to be deteriorating (decomposing).

 

[vz71]

I’ve researched the matter, and the success rate for a fetus at 14 weeks is 0%. If you evidence to the contrary, present it. A fetus at 14 weeks is approximately 2 months away from a limited chance of survival. There is not evidence that a fetus can survive 2 months off of a decaying corpse. Evidence of dying and/or being stillborn? Yes. Survival? No.

No evidence means you have no basis for your opinion.

The actions of the hospital speak to the contrary.

 

[vz71]

The opinion piece is devoid of the reality of the situation. There is no discussion of probability the child will survive, which is 0%.

This discussion begins with the reality that a 14-week-old fetus in a dead mother is not supposed to live (if the fetus was viable, 22+ weeks, the story would be different).

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.

That is exactly my point. There is no evidence a child under these conditions can survive, other than emotion-based speculation. If one believes that a child of 14 weeks has any type of feeling, then there had better be good reason to prolong its inevitable death.

But in this particular case, with a historic 0% chance of survival, and not close the time frame that a child could possibly survive, the result of one’s actions is the prolonged suffering and inevitable death of the child.

There is no requirement to put the mother on support in the first place, especially since there is no hope of survival for the child.

Can anyone prove anything with 100% certainty?

I don’t know.
It seems you have been giving us this 100% certainty over and over.

 

[vz71]

YES! Experimental procedures must be optional for the patient or when the patient cannot decide for themselves, a guardian.

I cannot believe the number of posters on this thread who seem to have no problem with the state/corporation taking possession of either their body or the body of someone they are responsible for to use for medial experiments AGAINST their will.

Its absolutely frightening.

Please advise where exactly the child expressed wishes to die under these circumstances.

The mother’s expressed wishes concerning her death did not include the child.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

I don’t know.
It seems you have been giving us this 100% certainty over and over.

Okay, I’ll clarify. We cannot know everything.

However, one thing we do know, based on past precedence, is that in 100% of the cases, without exception, a fetus 14 weeks or younger always dies when the mother is brain dead.

Another thing we know for certain is the Church does not require a brain dead mother to be put on support.

It certainly is easily to critic, isn’t it? It’s much easier than thinking and learning.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Please advise where exactly the child expressed wishes to die under these circumstances.

Please advise where the Church requires the mother to be put on support.

 

[Lochias]

Can you please explain in what way, specifically, he is against Catholic moral theology?

I’m quite confident that there would be a range of opinions from moral theologians on the matter. I referenced an article from Dr. Christian Brugger. I reference him because I know him and studied under him. I have more respect for that man than I can possibly put into words on this page. He will most likely forget more about moral theology than any of us will know in our lifetimes.

But, I’ll bet that if I asked him, he would be very quick to say that his opinion is just that, an opinion. Others may reason to a different opinion. And again, I’ll bet there are faithful moralists who have done so.

Honestly, I was on the other side of the fence. But, disagreeing with someone of this caliber gives one pause. It would be like an amateur disagreeing with Gary Kasparov about a move in chess. The amateur might be right, but dollars to donuts, he’s missing something that the grandmaster and greatest chess player of all time (Kasparov) noticed.

That said though, I suspect that there are other “grandmasters” (to go with the analogy) who do come down on the other side of things.

You keep using this line,

Please, how is this murder? Simply saying something is murder does not make it so.

Dr. Brugger’s line of reasoning is the most solid in favor of it being immoral to remove life support.

Catholics support life. Destroying the chance of a baby’s right to live because of discomfort on the part of others is the most weaksauce, horrible argument I’ve ever heard.

That baby was alive. Murder is murder, no matter how small.

 

[vz71]

Okay, I’ll clarify. We cannot know everything.

Good.
Then we do not know the child would die.

However, one thing we do know, based on past precedence, is that in 100% of the cases, without exception, a fetus 14 weeks or younger always dies when the mother is brain dead.

There are a number of ailments that we recover from today that had nearly 100% mortality just a few decades ago.

Another thing we know for certain is the Church does not require a brain dead mother to be put on support.

The mother is not the only patient to consider.

It certainly is easily to critic, isn’t it? It’s much easier than thinking and learning.

Am I being accused of something or are you simply commenting a truism?

 

[vz71]

Please advise where the Church requires the mother to be put on support.

As stated earlier, the mother is not the only patient to consider.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Catholics support life. Destroying the chance of a baby’s right to live because of discomfort on the part of others is the most weaksauce, horrible argument I’ve ever heard.

The baby’s chance for life was destroyed when the mother died. No child in the history of mankind has ever survived under the circumstances that this child was subject to.

That baby was alive. Murder is murder, no matter how small.

Your repetition of this statement clearly demonstrates that you have no idea what you are talking about.

It also shows that you don’t think things through. If it is true that this is murder, then it would follow that the Church’s position on ectopic pregnancy, where a few, albeit small number, of children have survived, is also wrong.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Good.
Then we do not know the child would die.

We know that 100% of children under these circumstances have died.

More people have risen from the dead. Does that mean cannot bury/cremate people because by doing so we would potentially be murdering them?

There are a number of ailments that we recover from today that had nearly 100% mortality just a few decades ago.

Once again, you are not thinking this through. The procedure used was a procedure that has a 100% failure rate. Advancements are not made by repeating failures; it is made my new techniques and procedures, which were not utilized here. We no longer use quicksilver to treat diseases either, because, like this procedure used in these circumstances, the failure rate is 100%.

Am I being accused of something or are you simply commenting a truism?

The only thing I accuse you of is that your opinions are not based on anything the Church has stated.

 

[vz71]

We know that 100% of children under these circumstances have died.

But we also know that there have been a handful that survived in similar circumstances with the same procedures.

The only thing I accuse you of is that your opinions are not based on anything the Church has stated.

Perhaps you should review the specific paragraphs in the Catechism.
It is quite possible to read these and have multiple conclusions based upon the circumstances.

Which is why I have refrained from making the same accusation towards you.

 

[buc_fan33]

Catholics support life. Destroying the chance of a baby’s right to live because of discomfort on the part of others is the most weaksauce, horrible argument I’ve ever heard.

That baby was alive. Murder is murder, no matter how small.

Yes, we do support life, unequivocally. But, your choice of words changes the entire debate. You said, “destroying the chance of a baby’ right to live…” “Destroying,” is an active verb. No one ACTIVELY killed this child. There is an ocean’s worth of difference between actively killing and what happened here.

Look…I agree with you. I was on the other side, but like I said earlier, when a master disagrees with your position, a wise and humble person reevaluates where he made a mistake. If Greg Maddux is going to give me pitching advice, I listen. If Gary Kasparov gives me chess advice, I listen.

I actually think that your instincts are right. But, this nice paraphrasing of Dr. Seuss’ famous line from Horton, Here’s a Who does nothing to further the debate. I see from your profile that you are discerning a possible religious vocation. I wish you well in that endeavor. But, and I honestly say this in all charity, I beg you to listen well and study well in seminary. Your people deserve a better and more well thought out answer than this.

I’ve been fortunate enough to take ten credit hours of graduate level study in the field of moral theology, and I am telling you, it is not as cut and dry simple as you are making it out to be. To ignore that reality does a disservice to the work of theologians. We have a faith based on reason, not emotion. Again, I don’t mean for that to sound derogatory or condescending in any way.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

But we also know that there have been a handful that survived in similar circumstances with the same procedures.

Not similar. The case we are dealing with is outside the bounds of the most extreme case of survival.

Perhaps you should review the specific paragraphs in the Catechism.

The Church has a position on extraordinary means, which seems to be void from your discussions. In the best case case scenario this would be extraordinary; it is actually beyond extraordinary simple because the survival rate for a case like this in the history of mankind is 0%. There is no obligation to put the mother on support in this case. Furthermore, one could be accused of tormenting the child if you believe that child can feel.

 

[vz71]

Not similar. The case we are dealing with is outside the bounds of the most extreme case of survival.

Yes, very similar.

The Church has a position on extraordinary means, which seems to be void from your discussions. In the best case case scenario this would be extraordinary; it is actually beyond extraordinary simple because the survival rate for a case like this in the history of mankind is 0%. There is no obligation to put the mother on support in this case. Furthermore, one could be accused of tormenting the child if you believe that child can feel.

Without knowing the condition of the child inside her, there is perfectly valid reason to place this child on support.

Let us not forget there is more then one patient to consider.
The mother is too far gone to be able to help, but the child may or may not be.
And support of the mother’s body maintains the child better then any machine we have.
We have an obligation to support at the very least until we can know for certain the condition of the child.

 

[St_Francis]

Yes, very similar.

Without knowing the condition of the child inside her, there is perfectly valid reason to place this child on support.

Let us not forget there is more then one patient to consider.
The mother is too far gone to be able to help, but the child may or may not be.
And support of the mother’s body maintains the child better then any machine we have.
We have an obligation to support at the very least until we can know for certain the condition of the child.

I have 2 problems with what you are saying. the first is that this was experimental; this baby was much younger than the small proportion of babies who have been saved this way, and second, this baby had suffered a great deal of oxygen deprivation and the electrical shocks given to restart the mother’s heart.

Second, at the time this discussion started, we knew nothing about the baby’s prognosis. This is a factor in deciding whether to withdraw medical treatment. When the news was released of the baby’s condition, it was found to be very bad. This is probably something that was at least suspected all along by the doctors and I imagine must have played a large part ij the family’s decision to withdraw treatment.

 

[catholictiger]

I know I have been gone for a couple days but I talked to someone I trust on these issues and after what he said I think my view needs to slightly change while it pretty much stays the same.

Ok as I have said before the Church has said nothing on this and really has no role in this situation. It really comes down to the medical science and can the baby survive even with the mother dead. The Church leaves it up to those in the medical field to decide what is best for the mother and the baby. Because of the complexity of the situation and the fact that usually babies can’t survive when their mother is dead the Church has nothing to say on this.

I would say that if the baby is healthy and will live a healthy life I think it would be a good prudent decision to keep the women on life support until the baby is viable, but in no way should this be a moral requirement because of the death of the mother.

this situation was different the baby (fetus) had little to no chance of survival so prolonging the mother’s life was unnecessary and probably an undue burden on the family. So what the father requested I have no issue with.

Again this is left up to the medical field not really morality. As long as nothing is done that attacks the baby in the womb.

 

[twoshoes]

Are you sure that she is dead? Because, the Church would say that she could be anointed. It seems to me that the Church is at least erring on the side of caution, assuming that she is alive.

I’m not sure she is dead, but we know for sure the baby is alive. I was speaking for the life of the unborn. Your comment has given me new thought. thank you.