A sane conclusion.
But it is still disturbing to think that, if the fetus had been considered "viable," this nightmare might still be going on.
Dead pregnant woman forced to stay on life support, due to TX State law
by adamah 285 Replies latest social current
-
-
Justitia Themis
if the fetus had been considered "viable," this nightmare might still be going on.
I don't think so.
I can't find the actual ruling anywhere online, but it appears the judge said the statute didn't apply because she was dead. He did not say the statute didn't apply because she was deadn AND the fetus was not viable.
-
Comatose
I hope the family sues the hospital for the medical bills amount and some damages if possible. Stupid hospital. Saying they would bill as normal for this. Morons.
-
Band on the Run
I just heard that the hospital is considering an appeal of the lower court's order. The hospital's lawyer's interpretation of the statute is so off-base that I wonder if the lawyer can be sanctioned. Probably not. I am curious why the hospital's governing body would follow their counsel's advice when almost every lawyer in the country has weighed in on how bizarre the interpretation.
There is no baby. A fetus exists. Why is a hospital so drawn into the abortion battles? I am very interested in the story behind the story.
-
Apognophos
Just for the record, I recognize that if the baby was this malformed, then it would probably not have lived, or had any quality of life, so I don't strongly contest this ruling. However, I think this gamble on the hospital's part was worth a try. I am still in disbelief that the husband would say that the baby should die just because his wife did, since he had no reason to be certain at the time that the baby would not develop properly. Medical "miracles" do happen. This just wasn't one of those times.
-
adamah
if the fetus had been considered "viable," this nightmare might still be going on.
JT said- I don't think so.
I can't find the actual ruling anywhere online, but it appears the judge said the statute didn't apply because she was dead. He did not say the statute didn't apply because she was deadn AND the fetus was not viable.
Yeah, it's not clear to me if the hospital's admission of non-viability was motivated by a reaction to the judge's order (since the fetus likely isn't viable at the current 22 wk. 5 days point), or an admission of the clearly-abnormal condition of the infant, or both. Regardless, it seemed to be a way for JPS to save face, as if offering justification to pro-life forces for not continuing to engage in any further heroic life-saving efforts (eg trying to perform a C-section on her before Monday) as if they seemingly realized the Frankensteinian nature (and PR nightmare) of the State forcing dead bodies to be used to create a living vegetable (which only contains human DNA), with NO consideration of the impact on the 'quality of life afforded' by each and all.
JT, here's the judge's terse order uploaded by a local news reporter to her twitter feed:
https://mobile.twitter.com/AmandaNBC5/status/426845429863436288/photo/1
(Click on the photo to magnify)
SNR said- It WAS illegal, was unethical and unnecessary.
Interesting comment on the legality (agreed on the ethics accessment, but the necessity seems to be begging the question, since clearly that's the entire point of the thread). What law do you believe the hospital was violating by NOT respecting the decendent's wishes?
Because in the affadavit submitted to the court, the hospital pointed to Texas Penal Code 19.01(a), saying that ANYONE (including doctors, nurses, etc) who disconnected a pregnant (but dead) body from life support would potentially be facing charges of criminal homicide, since another provision of the Code grants individual rights and protections from the moment of fertilization:
The Texas Penal Code, for example, defines an individual as a human being who is alive, including an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth. Texas Penal Code § 1.07 (a) (26). This means one may commit the offense of criminal homicide by causing the death of an unborn child. Texas Penal Code §19.01(a).
That's the entire point of the need for the judge's ruling (which clarifies the obvious), but these are the kind of nutsy predicaments and game-playing that arises in a State which grants individual rights from the moment of conception, and codifies such an extreme pro-life agenda into their laws. So this ruling will be added to case law (hopefully) to avoid future repeats of the same scenario playing out.
Adam
-
BizzyBee
He did not say the statute didn't apply because she was deadn AND the fetus was not viable.
He didn't have to.
-
Band on the Run
Folks, a baby is born. There is no baby in TX in a dead woman's body. A fetus is not a baby. Fetuses have the potential to one day become a baby but they are not infants or babies. Substituting baby for fetus is the work of ultra right wing conservatives. Is an egg a baby? No.
If I recall correctly from last night, the judge did not discuss viability. The law is easy in this case.
-
snare&racket
Adamah, what is your profession, what is your speciality, what are you trained in?
Seriously, you speak with authority on EVERY topic. I hate intellectual eliteism, but there is a huge difference between qualified and unqualified on these issues.
What is your background?
-
Justitia Themis
He did not say the statute didn't apply because she was deadn AND the fetus was not viable.
He didn't have to.
??? I'm not sure what you're trying to say BB.
You posted that if the baby had been viable, the situation 'might still be going on.' Your statement infers that the fetus's viability factors into this in some manner.
The judgment says nothing about viability. The judge quite correctly constrained himself to the key issue: did the statute apply to a dead, pregnant woman.
In light of this ruling, no hospital will be able to follow JPS's lead and keep a dead, pregnant woman on life support contrary to her family's wishes, regardless of the fetus's viability.
I'm not understanding how you think the fetus's viability, or lack thereof, would have changed the outcome such that 'it might still be going on.'