Brain Dead Texas Women Kept on Life Support to Deliver Baby

[I cucked Alex Jones]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/24/health/pregnant-brain-dead-woman-texas/

 

(CNN) -- Is Marlise Munoz "nothing more than an empty shell," as her husband says, contending she's been brain dead since November and should be left to rest in peace?
Or is she and the fetus inside her worth sustaining using devices like a respirator and ventilator, as a Texas hospital has done?
Those overarching, complicated questions could be answered Friday, when lawyers for Munoz's family square off in court with those representing Fort Worth's John Peter Smith Hospital.
The court could provide closure to a wrenching story that started with a pregnant woman found unconscious on her kitchen floor. In the more than eight weeks since then, lying prone in a hospital bed, the 33-year-old became the focus of an intense, emotional debate about who is alive, who is dead, and how the presence of a fetus possibly changes the equation.
Hospital spokesman J.R. Labbe said last month that doctors are simply trying to obey a Texas law that says "you cannot withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment for a pregnant patient."
Attys: Brain-dead mom's fetus abnormal Ethics and law regarding brain-dead mother Family wants pregnant woman off ventilator
But to Munoz's husband, Erick, she is not a patient because she is not alive. He and other family members say the hospital should abide by her wishes -- which weren't written down but, they say, relayed verbally to them -- and not have machines keep her organs and blood running.
Mom of pregnant woman on life support: Change the law
In a lawsuit trying to force the hospital to cut off those machines so they can bury her, Erick Munoz contends doctors told him his wife "had lost all activity in her brain stem" and an accompanying chart stated that she was "brain dead."
In an affidavit filed Thursday in court, Erick Munoz said little to him now is recognizable about Marlise. Her bones crack when her stiff limbs move. Her usual scent has been replaced by the "smell of death." And her once lively eyes have become "soulless."
"Over these past two months, nothing about my wife indicates she is alive," Erick Munoz said. "... What sits in front of me is a deteriorating body."
Husband: 'Obscene mutilation of a deceased body'
It should have been a happy time for Marlise and Erick Munoz, two trained paramedics awaiting the arrival of their second child.
Then everything came crashing down around 2 a.m. on November 26, when she was rushed to the north-central Texas hospital.
Once there, Erick Munoz said, he was told his wife "was for all purposes brain dead." The family also says the fetus may have been deprived of oxygen.
Lawyers: Records back claim that woman is brain dead
In his lawsuit, Munoz claims subsequent measures taken at the hospital -- and, in turn, the state law used to justify them -- amount "to nothing more than the cruel and obscene mutilation of a deceased body against the expressed will of the deceased and her family."
The family's attorneys more recently said that Marlise's fetus "is distinctly abnormal," suffering from hydrocephalus and "deformed to the extent that the gender cannot be determined."
"Quite sadly, this information is not surprising due to the fact that the fetus, after being deprived of oxygen for an indeterminate length of time, is gestating within a dead and deteriorating body, as a horrified family looks on in absolute anguish, distress and sadness," attorneys Jessica Janicek and Heather King said in a statement.
The hospital and the Tarrant County District Attorney's Office, which said it will defend the medical facility, have not offered the same level of detail as members of the Munoz family.
But earlier this month, Labbe did tell CNN that his hospital believed "the courts are the appropriate venue to provide clarity, direction and resolution in this matter."
Strong opinions on both sides of debate
The strong feelings about the next chapter for Marlise Munoz and her unborn child were on display Thursday outside the Fort Worth hospital.
Some held signs reading "God stands for life" and "Praying for Baby Munoz and family," believing that doing whatever is necessary for the unborn child's sake was imperative.
The opposite view was represented by those toting placards with messages like "Let Marlise rest in peace" and "Respect Marlise's wishes."
When life support is really 'death support'
"Her family doesn't want life support for her, and we don't feel its right for the state or the hospital to force this on her," a woman on that side of the debate, Autumn Brackeen, told CNN affiliate WFAA.
Another person who doesn't believe the "life-sustaining measures" are warranted is Tom Mayo, a Southern Methodist University law professor who helped write the law being cited by the hospital.
"She's not a patient anymore," Mayo said, adding that the hospital was misinterpreting the statute. "So I don't see how we can use a provision of the law that talks about treating or not treating a patient in a case where we really don't have a patient."
For all the passions on both sides of the debate, others saw plenty of gray area -- the kind of thing that might not be resolved until the baby is born and, perhaps, develops outside the womb.
"A lot depends, first of all, on how long the patient here was deprived of oxygen, or otherwise compromised," said Dr. Jeffrey Ecker of Massachusetts General Hospital, who works on complicated pregnancies and prenatal diagnosis
"We can certainly use tools like ultrasound and MRI to sometimes see where there has been injury as a result of low blood pressure or low oxygen. But just seeing that things look well isn't the same as saying that things will be well," Ecker said.

 

 

Another day in Texas it seems.

 

For those who are too lazy or too illiterate to read, a women in Texas is being kept on life support to deliver her unborn baby. Not only is the baby likely to suffer severe birth defects if it is born, but the mother of the child specifically said in her will thatif she was to enter a vegetative state, she would like life support to be cut off. Unfortunately for her, the state of Texas and its crazy pro life population have totally ignored to will of her and her family and instead want her to remain on life support to fulfill their batsh*t crazy agenda. What they want done with the Frakenbaby if and when it's born is left up to the reader's imagination, although I doubt they will be paying the medical and therapist bills.

Edited January 24, 2014 by Nipperkins

[WinterEdit]

Huh... wow.

 

Well I guess this belongs in the same folder as euthanasia for example. I do not support the Texans and how they're ignoring the last will of that woman, though. Anyway, I don't think it's a bad thing for her as she can't feel anything (or can she? I do not know enough about brain death).

 

As for the baby, it's kind of cruel to let him/her live with birth defects... if they are severe at least. Not only (s)he will have possible bullying later on (who knows what the world will be like when e.g. that baby is in school... possibly), (s)he might also need assistance in everyday things too. And I'm not saying this because I have some sort of an unjustified hate for them. They can't change what they are or have become.

 

Let's put it this way... I don't want to have an opinion whether it's good or bad to have a child like that. I'd say 'it's not my business', but what if that happened to, well, me? I guess I would allow the child to live as long as possible (if the birth defects are fatal after some time or something like that). I do realize it's possibly not the best for the child, but if it was... I'm going like decades into the future right now, but if it was my child, I wouldn't be able to let that child die, allow an abortion or something like that. Regardless of the birth defects. Or that if (s)he had no mother.

 

tl;dr - I think the mother's will should be respected regardless of the circumstances. I can't - or don't want to - really say anything about the baby (without maddening someone in here) - it's that baby's family's business what they do. Though, it can be a very hard decision for them to do.

[Bad.boy!]

[insert edgy troll post here]

Edited July 20, 2020 by Bad.boy!
cringe

[I cucked Alex Jones]

Yeah, besides the dead women's wishes, the wishes of her family, and the fact they can't even determine the baby's gender, there is really no reason to pull her off life support.

[Crazyeighties]

They just ordered her be taken off life support a news update just came on to announce it

 

A judge on Friday ordered a Texas hospital to remove life support for a pregnant, brain-dead woman whose family had argued that she would not want to be kept in that condition.

 

Judge R. H. Wallace Jr. issued the ruling in the case of Marlise Munoz. John Peter Smith Hospital in Fort Worth has been keeping Munoz on life support against her family's wishes. The judge gave the hospital until 5 p.m. CST Monday to remove life support.

 

Munoz was 14 weeks pregnant when her husband found her unconscious Nov. 26, possibly due to a blood clot. Both the hospital and the family agree that the fetus could not be born alive at this point. However, John Peter Smith Hospital had argued that it had to protect the life of the unborn child.

 

Erick Munoz says he and his wife are paramedics who were clear that they didn't want life support in this type of situation. Her parents agreed. His attorney argued to the judge Friday that keeping the woman on life support would set a dangerous precedent for future cases of pregnant, brain-dead women.

 

Attorneys for the family declined to say what the next steps were, pending a potential appeal from the hospital.

 

The Tarrant County District Attorney's Office, which is representing the hospital in the lawsuit, said the hospital was expected to issue a statement later Friday in response to the ruling.

 

Hospital officials have said they were bound by a state law prohibiting withdrawal of treatment from a pregnant patient. Several experts interviewed by The Associated Press have said the hospital is misapplying the law because Marlise Munoz would be considered legally and medically dead.

 

"Marlise Munoz is dead, and she gave clear instructions to her husband and family - Marlise was not to remain on any type of artificial `life sustaining treatment', ventilators or the like," the lawsuit said. "There is no reason JPS should be allowed to continue treatment on Marlise Munoz's dead body, and this Court should order JPS to immediately discontinue such."

 

The case has raised questions about end-of-life care and whether a pregnant woman who is considered legally and medically dead should be kept on life support for the sake of a fetus. It also has gripped attention on both sides of the abortion debate, with anti-abortion groups arguing Munoz's fetus deserves a chance to be born.

 

Earlier this week, Erick Munoz's attorneys said that the fetus, now believed to be at about 22 weeks' gestation, is "distinctly abnormal." They attorneys said they based that statement on medical records they received from the hospital.

 

Not much is known about fetal survival when mothers suffer brain death during pregnancy. German doctors who searched for such cases found 30 of them in nearly 30 years, according to an article published in the journal BMC Medicine in 2010.

 

Those mothers were further along in pregnancy - 22 weeks on average - when brain death occurred than in the Texas case. Birth results were available for 19 cases. In 12, a viable child was born. Follow-up results were available for six, all of whom developed normally.

 

In refusing to take Marlise Munoz off life support, the hospital has cited a provision of the Texas Advance Directives Act that reads: "A person may not withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment under this subchapter from a pregnant patient."

 

Experts interviewed by The Associated Press, including two who helped draft the legislation, said a brain-dead patient's case wouldn't be covered by the law.

 

Copyright 2014 Scripps Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Edited January 24, 2014 by Crazyeighties

[TheGodDamnMaster]

And away she goes.

[Mr. House]

And away she goes.

This story is depressing as f*ck, and I hoped to not have to see it again. Unfortunately you decided to bump it to the top with the severely enlightening comment 'And away she goes'

 

Thanks.

[TheGodDamnMaster]

 

And away she goes.

This story is depressing as f*ck, and I hoped to not have to see it again.

Then you should have steered clear.

[Finn 7 five 11]

 

 

 

 

And away she goes.

This story is depressing as f*ck, and I hoped to not have to see it again.

Then you should have steered clear.

Cry me a river, the title set up for something bad.

Good, she shouldn't have been kept alive, that's horrid and is only going end badly.

[Mr. House]

 

 

 

And away she goes.

This story is depressing as f*ck, and I hoped to not have to see it again.

Then you should have steered clear.

Cry me a river, the title set up for something bad.

Good, she shouldn't have been kept alive, that's horrid and is only going end badly.

 

Yeah right I got that, but it comes up at the top of the subsection thread when people comment on it. Don't get so far up your own ass with that conceit pal, or you might get lost up there.

[Finn 7 five 11]

 

 

 

 

 

And away she goes.

This story is depressing as f*ck, and I hoped to not have to see it again.

Then you should have steered clear.

Cry me a river, the title set up for something bad.

Good, she shouldn't have been kept alive, that's horrid and is only going end badly.

 

Yeah right I got that, but it comes up at the top of the subsection thread when people comment on it. Don't get so far up your own ass with that conceit pal, or you might get lost up there.

So I'm conceited because you're upset about a topic title?

If you didn't want to read about depressing stuff you should have just ignored the topic, this stuff is posted on forum all the time, take school shooting topics for example, you can't say that they are less depressing than this topic, yet I've seen you post in there plenty of times.

[Mr. House]

 

 

 

 

 

And away she goes.

This story is depressing as f*ck, and I hoped to not have to see it again.

Then you should have steered clear.

Cry me a river, the title set up for something bad.

Good, she shouldn't have been kept alive, that's horrid and is only going end badly.

 

Yeah right I got that, but it comes up at the top of the subsection thread when people comment on it. Don't get so far up your own ass with that conceit pal, or you might get lost up there.

So I'm conceited because you're upset about a topic title?

If you didn't want to read about depressing stuff you should have just ignored the topic, this stuff is posted on forum all the time, take school shooting topics for example, you can't say that they are less depressing than this topic, yet I've seen you post in there plenty of times.

 

You're conceited because of the sarky comment, sunshine. You're cool though, so I'll forgive you.

[I cucked Alex Jones]

Dude, every comment you make is sarcastic has hell. I really wouldn't call people out for being conceited.

[lil weasel]

Is the next step is to take any 'brain dead' woman and use her body as an incubator for donor eggs?

Seems the Legislatures have already made it clear a woman's body is not hers, regarding rape and other unwanted pregnancies.

The mistake here is that the woman didn't make a "living will". Which would still be complicated by the States overriding law on pregnancies.

 

I doubt that The Hospital and medical staff are working for free. Possibly the need to fill beds may also be the deciding material fact involved here too.

Who is paying for this 'required' treatment?

If the baby is viable at birth who will be 'required' to pay for its care should it be 'defective'?

Now might be a good time to decide, and amend the State law.

 

What was the spark that created the need for this Law?