Brain dead woman kept alive against her wishes

[gremcint]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/22/us/pre...xas/index.html

because she was 14 weeks pregnant. Here we have it, it's not a strawman argument anymore, this is just grotesque.

[anakhouri]

If she was far enough along when she collapsed that the baby would be viable outside the womb, they would have done a c-section, yes? Since it's not viable yet, and there's a good chance it has brain damage, and the family doesn't want this either...what the hell is going on?

[crashhelmet]

She's in Texas. They're viewing it as an abortion, which they won't allow. So instead, they're going to keep her on life support and do their best to keep the fetus alive long enough to be born and then charge the family for the whole thing.

[Andara Bledin]

Welcome to the world some people want: Where women are nothing more than incubators for young who just happen to share characteristics with the male half of the species. >_<

[s_stabeler]

She's in Texas. They're viewing it as an abortion, which they won't allow. So instead, they're going to keep her on life support and do their best to keep the fetus alive long enough to be born and then charge the family for the whole thing.

I would love to see then try this on someone who is Muslim. ( they are supposed to bury within 24 hours) Easy religious freedom lawsuit.

but I have a more basic problem: charging the family. Just no.if the woman must be kept on life support, it should be up to whoever made the decision (hospital/state) to pay. Or what if they cannot pay? You going to hound them in their grief?

[Panacea]

Ironically, the husband wants to remove life support.

Legally, the husband has not brought up the abortion issue. He has not tried to claim he has the right to abort his baby, as guardian for his wife. That might break the impasse, but Texas would fight it tooth and nail.

Texas has a law that says you can't withhold life saving treatment from a pregnant woman. It's an unnecessary law considering EMTALA; it was designed for just this kind of situation.

And yes, it's grotesque.

I think the family lawyer is getting ready to argue the fetus is not viable and push for a medical abortion, so the hospital can withdraw life support.

[Pixilated]

The report that I read also suggests that the child has "significant" and multiple "aberrations." The lower part of the body is so badly deformed they can't tell the gender, it's almost certain the child is hydrocephalic, and there are problems with the heart. There may be more that I can't remember ATM -- not to mention the issue that the mother was without oxygen for about an hour, so the child would've been too, with all the problems that result from that.

"Grotesque" doesn't even begin to cover this. And yes, the people who made this decision should be the ones to pay the mother's hospital costs and all costs associated with the child, when it's born.

[lordlundar]

I would love to see then try this on someone who is Muslim. ( they are supposed to bury within 24 hours) Easy religious freedom lawsuit.

In Texas? Thrown out in 5 minutes because bring Muslim isn't a good enough reason.

[Greenday]

She's just over three months pregnant, now she's brain dead, and they are keeping her alive in hopes of what? That fetus has no chance.

[s_stabeler]

The report that I read also suggests that the child has "significant" and multiple "aberrations." The lower part of the body is so badly deformed they can't tell the gender, it's almost certain the child is hydrocephalic, and there are problems with the heart. There may be more that I can't remember ATM -- not to mention the issue that the mother was without oxygen for about an hour, so the child would've been too, with all the problems that result from that.

"Grotesque" doesn't even begin to cover this. And yes, the people who made this decision should be the ones to pay the mother's hospital costs and all costs associated with the child, when it's born.

Do we even know if the foetus is still alive or not? because if it was w/o oxygen for an hour, the foetus may well be dead anyway.

[Gravekeeper]

Ironically, the husband wants to remove life support.

The woman likewise did not want to be kept alive on life support should it occur. Basically this fucking ludicrous scenario from a dystopian sci fi novel is contrary to the wishes of everyone involved living and dead alike. But Texas law explicitly trumps the patients wishes as well. Even if they have a standing living will. If Texas wants to be this depraved, they can at least pick up the medical bills for their depravity.

The worst part about this its pretty much a state sanctioned medical experiment. This woman is utterly brain dead. Its not a vegetative state like that Teri Shivo fiasco. This woman's brain stem is dead. Her body is completely incapable of doing anything by itself. Its just a lump of meat. Life support in this case isn't just a matter of a ventilator.

All other functions of her body would cease within a week. Including digestion, kidneys, hormones, blood pressure, immune system, temperature regulation, everything. Which means they're keeping her pumped full of hormones to replace thyroid regulation and kidney function, blood pressure medication and either keeping her in a bubble or pumping her full of antibiotics. As she has no immune system anymore. Her body has no ability to regulate temperature either so she would need be to carefully kept at a normal range. Infections will begin to set in and her organs will deteriorate. It'll be a battle to keep her alive long enough for the child to be brought to term and the child kept healthy within the essentially rotting corpse.

Given the fetus is not viable to begin with this is all just a grotesque medical experiment.

[AmbrosiaWriter]

The judge has ordered she be taken off life support, but only because the lawyers for the hospital admitted that the fetus is "non-viable."

Who knows how this would've gone if the fetus was still viable. :/

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014...-life-support/

[s_stabeler]

to be honest, by the sounds of things, she was on a ventilator and respirator. that means there is a rather more basic problem- the amount of life support was actually insuifficient to keep the baby alive even if it was viable in the first place, making it even more ridiculous. look at what gravekeeper said- it takes a damn lot more than a repsirator to keep a body supporting a foetus.

edit- oh, and to make things even more ridiculopus- there are 12 states where this could happen- in 12 states, if a woman is pregnant, her end-of-life choices are invalidated.

[Pixilated]

Well, thank God for one judge with both sense and compassion.

Gravekeeper, your description of this as a "grotesque medical experiment" is absolutely accurate.

[Teysa]

I was listening to the radio today and a couple of the Republican candidates for Lieutenant Governor are still saying that they should have kept the woman on life support because of the baby. Really?! I'm no medical expert, but doesn't a baby need a living womb to grow in? I'll admit, I'm pretty conservative but there has got to be some common sense and compassion mixed in there too.