Ditto what Sooner7 said.
Dead pregnant woman forced to stay on life support, due to TX State law
by adamah 285 Replies latest social current
-
-
adamah
sooner7nc said-
If the mother's braindead (which isn't DEAD by the way)...
Thanks for the insider information, as I guess that kinda explains alot of what's going on inside JPS....
PS don't you guys follow AMA guidelines down there, or don't you have any neurologists on staff? Or is this part of the plan to secede from the Union (brain death, as certified by a neurologist, IS recognized in all 50 States as legally-dead).
-
sooner7nc
Whatever Adam. Stay where you're at and worry about your own insignificant issues.
-
snare&racket
In the UK brain stem death is how we define death, we look for the clinical signs of the brain being dead.
Sooner7nc suprised me with what he said about the USA.
The medical literature seems to be clear that brain death is indeed death as I would expect, though this article admits the difference in appreciation for the term dead between doctors and the public, but not in the medical field. Also some states are ambigous to the level of brain death, they are content to define as dead.
Not an issue in this case as her brain has ceased to provide lung and heart stimulus and the family. lawyer and hospial have been clear from the outset her brain has died.
..... widespread adoption by the states of the Uniform Determination of Death Act—a joint creation of the American Medical Association and the American Bar Association that defines death as either a permanent loss of cardiopulmonary function or whole brain function. Many critics have since argued that this definition is not broad enough: that permanent loss of all higher brain function (“neocortical death”) should be the criterion for death.4 Most authorities, however—from the American Academy of Neurology to the Catholic Church—accept “whole brain death” as one legitimate definition of death.5,6 In short, a consensus has emerged that “whole brain death” is death.
J Med Ethics 2005; 31 : 641-642 doi:10.1136/jme.2005.011718
-
Ruby456
okay for those of us who are confused about why the state of Texas is in this difficulty, here is a little backgropund - Texas is very republican and wiki tells that
In its 2012 platform, the Republican Party of Texas rejected the teaching of "Higher Order Thinking Skills... critical thinking skills and similar programs," giving as a reason that this sort of teaching has "the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority."
not suggesting that they are stupid or ignorant but trying to work out the connection between politics and religion in this state.
The hospital directive that patients must sign is pretty strange. Can the hospital actually be sued of this woman's life support is turned off?
-
sooner7nc
Ruby, here's the actual section of the RPOT platform (which took me about 60 seconds to find). Some parts of the RPOT platform are deplorable by the way, others not so much.
"We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority. "
Take what you want from the above quote from the party platform but know that the issue in the case of Ms. Munoz isn't about religion, it's about quite possibly saving the life of a human being. Maybe the child will die and maybe he or she will be born with debilitating birth defects but the child deserves a chance. Also, if Mr. Munoz doesn't want to be burdened with a disabled child, as some have posited, then he should have kept his dick out of *Ms. Munoz.
(You may notice that I'm writing Ms. instead of Mrs. This is because "...till death do us part" and she's dead right? )
-
Justitia Themis
Sooner7nc suprised me with what he said about the USA
Sooner was wrong Snare.
However, you are correct. There is consensus in the American medical community that Ms. Munoz is dead by any definition.
Thank you for providing a citation. For those who want to perform further research, here is a quote from a paper I wrote, along with the supporting citation, concerning the disconnect between the public's and the medical field's definition of death, especially in the organ donation setting. Between this citation and Snare's, one should have plenty of authoritative information on defining death.
"Death is defined by state law, which often relies upon the Uniform Determination of Death Act’s bifurcated definition: 1) irreversible loss of all brain function, and 2) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory function, with or without brain death. [1] "
[1] David Rodriguez-Arias & Maxwell Smith, et al., Donation After Circulatory Death: Burying the Dead Donor Rule, 11 Am. J Bioethics 36 (2011).
-
FlyingHighNow
Texas is not completely GOP, though one of my friends, who is a priest and a democrat, says he keeps his political views to himself because his town "Stinks with republicans".
I don't know why people are making this about religion. Has the hospital really made this about religion?
-
adamah
sooner said-
Take what you want from the above quote from the party platform but know that the issue in the case of Ms. Munoz isn't about religion, it's about quite possibly saving the life of a human being. Maybe the child will die and maybe he or she will be born with debilitating birth defects but the child deserves a chance. Also, if Mr. Munoz doesn't want to be burdened with a disabled child, as some have posited, then he should have kept his dick out of *Ms. Munoz.
YUP, that explains TONS about what's going on in TX.
And where did this concept of the fetus deserving a right to live come from, anyway? It SURE isn't found in the Bible....
As far as Erick keeping his dick out of his wife while trying to conceive another child with his wife (!), I'm sure JPS also refuses to treat skiers who broke their legs on the slopes, or car accident victims, telling them "you knew the dangers of skiing or automobiles, you knew the risk!" They'd probably refuse to treat them, if not for that pesky Hippocratic Oath and the State forcing them to treat sinners!
Since YES, I can see why Xians would believe it's entirely reasonable to tell married people to forego sex, just in case the unforeseen pulmonary embolism occurred, since after all, doesn't Jesus advise Xians that some people are better off as sexless eunechs since not everyone is cut out for marriage, since they should "put Kingdom interests first"?
New International Version (NIV)
Matthew 19
8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”
11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”
Ah, the wisdom of allowing 2,500 yr old laws trump the new-fangled fancy and hard-to-understand ones!
Adam
-
FlyingHighNow
And where did this concept of the fetus deserving a right to live come from, anyway? It SURE isn't found in the Bible....
This question is not religious. You are alive because you made it to full gestation, were born and continued living. No one stopped your mother's pregnancy with you, before you were viable. I'm assuming you're glad you're here. Whether you're an atheist or thiest, you have to acknowledge that you wouldn't be here if you hadn't been born alive and viable. So there comes in the question of whether an unborn child has any rights to the chance of viability or to develop to full gestation and life beyond. Don't assume that everyone who thinks the child does have rights, bases this decision on religion.