Dead pregnant woman forced to stay on life support, due to TX State law

by adamah 285 Replies latest social current

• 

  FlyingHighNow

  Pregnant women have died for as long as we have had pregnant women, this is the first time anyone has ever misguidedly, attempted to maintain a fetus in a dead woman.

  If you go back to page 2 of this thread, there are some examples of other women who died during pregnancy and were kept on life support. Check Sammilee's post number 7663.

  Researchers from Heidelberg University in Germany scoured the medical literature for cases of pregnant women who were kept on life support after being declared brain-dead. They were able to find details on 19 such cases that were reported from 1982 to 2010.

  Of particular interest:

  There were also two cases involving fetuses that were 15 weeks old when their mothers died. One of the fetuses died in utero 49 days after its mother suffered catastrophic bleeding in the brain in Italy in 1992. The other remained in utero for 107 days – more than 15 weeks – after its mother suffered a traumatic brain injury in the U.S. in 1989. That baby boy was delivered by C-section at 32 weeks; he weighed 3.4 pounds, had Apgar scores of 6 and 9 (scores lower than 7 indicate a newborn needs medical attention, according to the National Institutes of Health), and was developing normally 11 months after his birth.

  I don't know how much hope there is for this particular baby. We will have to wait to see. But the above two examples show outcomes for babies in similar circumstances and gestational age, to the current baby, at the time of their mothers' deaths.
• 

  Justitia Themis

  (JT, I found this part interesting, referring to 166.049: "There is no case law interpreting this section.")

  Wow...that is bad form, bad form.

  Nevertheless, the government has proffered incredibly weak arguments.

  In sum, they are trying to say the statute is ambiguous so they can get into the Rules of Stautory Interpretation, which even then don't think help them much.

  If a statute is plain, the court cannot move on into the Rule of Construction, such as legislative intent.

  This statute is VERY plain. Every word in a statute is first given its plain meaning. "Plain meaning," or common usage, not necessarily literal meaning. Question: if someone told you their mother was a hospital "patient," would you think the mother was dead? If you answer no, then the statutes doesn't apply to dead people (Munoz).

  If you answer yes, then the statutes is ambiguous and the Canons apply.

  So what Canon do they apply? Legislative intent, with nothing to support their assertion, (no committee notes, floor testimony, etc.)

  Weakest yet is their argument that IF the legislature didn't want the Act to apply to dead, preganant women, if "could have" expressed that intent. Since the legislature never expressly said the statute does NOT apply to dead, pregnant women, it must apply.

  However, that reverses the Canons' presumptions. The Canons presume that lawmakers KNOW how to write laws (since that is their job), and that if they DID or DID NOT include something in a statute, they did so purposefully.

  If one presumes the legislature knows how to write laws, and the legislature did not expressly say that the Act covered dead, pregnant women, then the statute doesn't apply.
• 

  adamah

  JT, thanks for your knowledgable opinion.

  Of course, you're right: 166.049 is not "ambiguously worded" at all, but it's being interpreted questionably, with the hospital even inserting concepts that just aren't even there by making assumptions of legislative intent! Ironically, that's something Xians are quite good at, being imaginative readers who like to insert meanings via liberal use of scriptural eisegesis, etc.

  Two questions from a non-lawyer, if you don't mind?

  JT said- Wow...that is bad form, bad form.

  Indeed, you think the judge will be impressed with their misrepresenting of the facts about prior case law, within the hospital affadavit itself?

  1) What are your thoughts that it might be a "tell" of their strategies, with JPS denying knowledge of prior case law (i.e. the similar case you mentioned where the appeals court reversed its decision after the pt died), knowing the hospital stands a great chance of being handed an adverse judgment, but not wanting to support the plaintiff's inevitable later case against JPS of filing for IIED by handing Munoz inculpatory evidence within their affadavit?

  Even more broadly, could it be they want to give the appearance of fighting on behalf of the fetus, but they really don't want to win (esp after learning of the huge financial burden they potentially face if the fetus survives), so they're somewhat "throwing the fight" by putting up a weak defense?

  On second thought, I suppose they actually DO have a weak defense and are grasping at straws, LOL!

  2) Typically how long before the judge issues a ruling on matters like this? Same day, on Monday, a week, etc?

  Adam
• 

  Justitia Themis

  What are your thoughts that it might be a "tell" to their strategies. . . . not wanting to support the plaintiff's inevitable later case against JPS of filing for IIED by handing Munoz inculpatory evidence within their affadavit?

  Great way to p*ss off a judge!

  Misrepresenting facts to the tribunal is a sanctionable, ethical violation...period.

  So, attorneys can't withhold on-point, applicable case law just because it might disclose their strategies or help the other side.

  Instead, they should cite it, and then try to distinguish it as not applicable for some reason or another.

  Even more broadly, could it be they want to give the appearance of fighting on behalf of the fetus, but they really don't want to win (esp after learning of the huge financial burden they potentially face if the fetus survives), so they're somewhat "throwing the fight" by putting up a weak defense?

  It's hard to say whether they don't want to win or whether they simply have a weak defense. If there is anything in the legislative record, Munoz' attorney will likely cite it eventually. I suspect the legislature never intended this to apply or even discussed it since neither side cites to the record, and Munoz' attorney would have quoted the record instead of using only the law professor's affidavit in his original paperwork.
• 

  adamah

  Thanks for the info, JT.

  THIS JUST IN:

  Judge orders hospital to take dead women off life support by 5PM, Monday (judge states the obvious, saying "Ms. Munoz is dead". Perhaps that's why doctors refer to the apparatus as "life support", and not "death support"?):

  http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/health/241771321.html
• 

  sooner7nc

  I truly hope the family finds peace now and that the Nurses, Doctor's, and Techs that cared for her can get some peace as well.
• 

  Justitia Themis

  I am so, so happy for the family. Finally, they can have a funeral and start trying to pick-up the pieces of their lives.
• 

  adamah

  It's truly an incredibly-sad situation, whichever way you cut it.

  I cannot imagine the grief and frustration the husband, her son and parents must be experiencing, having to deal not only with the loss of a pregnant mother, mourning the loss of a little family that will never be, but then having to fight State law forcing the hospital to alleviate their misery and pain, the ones most-effected by the decision who should've been able to make it (Ms. Munoz was declared brain dead on Nov 28, almost two months ago).

  Let's hope the hospital doesn't drag their feet now and wait for the last possible minute to comply with the judge's order. There are reports the hospital is now admitting the fetus isn't viable, anyway, perhaps to alleviate their consciences, or to serve as an excuse for engaging in further 'medical misadventures' (such as cutting into her dead body without the permission of her husband to try last-ditch heroic efforts to 'save' the fetus).

  (FWIW, the submitted affadavits cite the age at which the fetus experiences pain as starting around 20 weeks....)
• 

  FlyingHighNow

  It's truly an incredibly-sad situation, whichever way you cut it.

  Completely agree with you, Adam.
• 

  snare&racket

  Finally, sense!

  It WAS illegal, was unethical and unnecessary.