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

by adamah 285 Replies latest social current

• 

  FlyingHighNow

  I agree, Samswife, that is is very sad for the family.

  From the article you presented:

  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.

  If the baby develops normally and arrives in a healthy state, mentally and phsyically, it's birth will be bittersweet. It's hard to imagine the love that you will feel for a child who hasn't been born. Recently, we welcomed a new nephew who is a forth child. I just couldn't imagine loving this child as much as his older siblings, all of which have wonderful personalities. He is 3 and 1/2 months old today and I am totally smitten. I imagine that this family will fall in love and feel very protective, moments after the child is born.

  I wonder what more liberal states do in the case of a pregnant woman who is on life support, but is braindead, where advanced directive is involved. I'm doubting that Texas is the only state with a law which protects the life of the unborn.
• 

  Justitia Themis

  I'm not familiar with the medical implications of a mother being brain-dead. I didn't think that the baby needed his/her mother's brain to be functioning to develop well

  My apologies. I should have made myself more clear. The mother was deprived of oxygen at the minimum long enough to render her brain dead. Since she was found in the middle of the night, it was likely much longer; hence the baby was deprived of oxygen for that same amount of time. Oxygen deprivation to the fetus is just as damaging to it as it is to the mother.

  However, the information Sammie posted is tangentially related and interesting. But again, those studies only slightly apply because they don’t say whether any of those fetuses suffered the same oxygen deprivation from whatever killed their mothers, as this one did.

  And you're... against this? Why on Earth would parents not be liable for damaging their child in the womb if we have a little thing called social services (or child welfare, etc.) which takes a child away from negligent parents, and if we arrest parents for leaving babies in hot cars even when the baby is not harmed? Good Lord

  Good lord was my sentiment after reading your comment also! In fact, I’m posting it on my fb so that my contingent of lawyer/doctor/ethicist friends can see just how freaky people are out there. The amount of power you would give the state is enough form the basis of a medico-legal horror movie!

  A LIVING, AUTONOMOUS person has the right to control her body. A NON-LIVING POTENTIALITY (fetus) does not have SUPERIOR rights that allows it to OVERRIDE the autonomous mother's rights. The LIVING WOMAN has the autonomous right to smoke, drink, eat too much fat, etc., and it outweighs a zygot/fetus who has the POTENTIAL of developing—someday—into an autonomous person with rights. Social services, etc. becomes involved for children who are LIVING AND AUTONOMOUs, and therefore have rights in themselves. And as a society, we have codified our morals so that those who create an autonomous being (can live outside the womb) must then care for it to a certain minimum. However, even then, that child's rights are not SUPERIOR to the mothers. We don't force women to breastfeed because it is better for babies; instead, we say they must provide adequate nutrition to their child. Here, we are overriding the mother's AND the father's superior rights.

  Ultimately, I suspect our differences come down to when each of us see “life” beginning. We will never agree because there is no compromising with someone who believes life begins as conception.

  I'm amazed by that bit in bold. Did you mean to type that, honestly, or was it a mistake? Last time I checked, a baby is alive too. It has its own heartbeat and developing body.

  That is exactly what I meant; see my above statement. The rights of people who are alive (can live outside the womb) are superior to the rights of whatever is inside that woman, and the money should be spent on the autonomous living.

  I realize, JT, that you're arguing from a legal perspective, but I'm approaching this from a moral angle, as you've probably already noticed.

  The only difference I see between the legal and moral position is one of date-setting. The arguments you are making are very similar to those made by JWs arguing for minor autonomy to refuse blood, i.e, adolescents develop at different rates. Since we can’t say precisely when a minor has adult decision-making capacity, we shouldn’t use 18 (or 21) because it too arbitrary. Then they try to place to burden on medical providers to prove the minor isn’t mature.

  Basically, you are arguing that even a zygot should have the same rights as an autonomous person since we don’t really know “precisely when” each fetus can live outside the womb.

  While both those arguments are true, the purpose of the state and its law are to set “voila” dates, even if they are arbitrary, to facilitate a working, functioning society. So the LAW sets the dates based upon MORALS and medical science.

  This case, however, is much easier. Unplug the mother; deliver the baby. If it is an autonomous person, it will live. It if it not, it will die.
• 

  snare&racket

  Space Madmess, there is debate on when to call someone dead, but brain dead is sufficient and is used the world over.

  If anyone 'dies' we can maintain function of the organs with machines, they are still dead if their brain is clinically permenantly non functional.

  The only difference between this patient and a patient who is pregnant and come into hospital and died, is that this woman has deteriorated on life support. had she arrived in hospital in this state ...'dead'.... She would never have been put on life support.

  Her body is not alive, it can't breathe, it can't sustain itself. It is artificially being maintained by machines. We could do this with everyone that died, but for ethical reasons we don't.

  Her body is simply serving as a vessell for the baby, this has never been done before, the result and outcome are unknown, I can't imagine it will result in a healthy infant for very many physiological reasons. But either way this is all against the will of the deceased, the nex of kin and the family. The only ethical defence is 'the best interests' of the unborn child, and they can't justify that with any evidence.

  Quite a terrible situation for all involved.
• 

  adamah

  Thanks for finding and posting the article on available data from prior cases, sammieswife. Bottom line is, there ARE no firm answers.

  Viola said- I am against abortion except in the case of rape/incest absolute known serious deformity of fetus, or health of mother. This certainly seems to fall under health of mother.

  How so? The mother is already dead....

  Presumably you mean that you're against respecting her wishes NOT to be maintained on life support (if in a coma; certainty not if she's already brain-dead!). YOu're also willing to ignore her wishes, and those of her husband, and take a "let's wait and see" attitude?

  There's then the issue of violating her right to bodily-integrity, too, since performing a C-section is performing surgery on a dead body against the wishes of the pt and family. Are you OK with that, too?

  BTW, I'm wondering where our resident experts on the Bible are, since isn't the Bible supposed to offer guidance on difficult ethical issues such as these?

  I'm curious what the scriptural basis is to argue for the rights of the fetus vs the rights of the mother to be buried after death? What has Jesus whispered in someone's ear about this?

  Although the Bible doesn't speak on abortion, my understanding of the ancient Hebrew view is that the fetus has NO rights until AFTER it is born and takes a first breath, as that's when the soul (Hebrew nephesh) enters the child.

  Here's the modern Jewish view, where a speedy burial is of the utmost importance:

  http://jewish-funeral-home.com/Jewish-burial-customs.html

  Respect is always shown to the deceased as well as toward the mourners. This is one of the reasons why Traditional Jewish funerals are held so soon after death. It is more respectful to inter the body within a reasonable amount of time rather than having an unnecessary delay. Of course, waiting for relatives to come from a far distance is a respectful reason to delay the burial. This is a decision the family should make in consultation with their rabbi.

  Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that the family were Jewish (or Islamic, where a speedy burial is REQUIRED): what right does the State have to delay her burial? Wouldn't that be interfering with free exercise of a religious practice?

  Point is, ALL situations are different, and that's why the State has no business intruding into an intensely personal and private decision that should remain that way.

  You can argue "no one really knows, THEREFORE LET'S do this..." all-day long (where the answer usually is for keeping the body on life support until viability can be tested at 24 wks, etc), but unless the form of the statement is, "since no one really knows, THEREFORE let's allow the family to decide", then I'm going to need to be convinced.

  Adam
• 

  Justitia Themis

  My understanding is that the OT view is that the fetus has NO rights until AFTER it is born and takes a first breath, as that's when the soul (Hebrew nephesh) enters the child.

  Also, if a person injured a pregnant woman and caused her to miscarry, he did not not forfeit his life. Instead, he just had to financially compensate the woman's husband.

  Since the OT adhered to a life-for-a-life, apparently, God didn't feel a fetus was a life.
• 

  sammielee24

  I think it would be interesting to know how many women vs how many men would vote and in what way?

  There is a bit of perhaps a form of logic that many people have that is above and beyond religious or legal aspects of such an incident. Many people would insist even in writing that they do not want to exist on life support, they may put in writing DNR or they may put in a do not keep on life support exceeding a specific number of days...however, if you approach people with the same question of their wishes with this incident as an argument, the answer could change dramatically.

  If given a choice - if you were pregnant and put on life support, and if your baby had a heartbeat - would you wish to remain on life support until such time as the baby could be delivered safely? Would you wish to terminate your pregnancy at the same time you are removed from life support? Would you wish all efforts for the survival of the child be given priority over your life at that point? Those are the sort of questions that might give up different answers than asking someone about the issue while they are not pregnant and might turn out different answers based on gender.

  The only thing I read about the father is that he insists his wife told him before she didn't want to be on life support and he wants her wishes to be respected. He hasn't said anything about the possibility that the baby, his child one presumes, might be born perfectly healthy nor does he ever say how he feels about the child. Only 3 weeks until they should be able to find out if development is normal - might those 3 weeks change his mind or perhaps he does not wish to raise a second child without his wife.

  samswife
• 

  FlyingHighNow

  This really isn't about ancient Israel though. This is about a situation in Texas today. I tried to look into whether the rights of the fetus being protected under advanced medical directive, over the deceased mother's rights or her family's rights. I wasn't able to find any articles about states other than Texas. Someone else may have better success at finding out whether other states similarly protect the unborn fetus. This isn't always about religion. People don't have to be diests or theists to understand the sanctity of life.
• 

  Apognophos

  Oxygen deprivation to the fetus is just as damaging to it as it is to the mother.

  Well, if that's true, then it may well be that the baby's life would not be worth living. I did allow for that as an exception to the rule in an earlier post.

  The amount of power you would give the state is enough form the basis of a medico-legal horror movie!

  I fail to see the distinction between going into someone's home and taking their child because of information about parental neglect or abuse, and punishing someone for abusing their unborn child. The harm done to the unborn child is generally going to be more fundamental than what is done to them after being born simply because it's earlier in development.

  A LIVING, AUTONOMOUS person has the right to control her body. A NON-LIVING POTENTIALITY (fetus) does not have SUPERIOR rights that allows it to OVERRIDE the autonomous mother's rights.

  As you alluded to, this is where we simply cannot come to an agreement, because I can't personally find a distinction between a three year-old child and a three-month old fetus. They are both developing, and they are both homo sapiens. Not for religious reasons, but purely on a scientific level, I cannot see for the life of me why even a fertilized egg is not as fully human as an adult.

  And as a society, we have codified our morals so that those who create an autonomous being (can live outside the womb) must then care for it to a certain minimum.

  My question, then, is why an unborn child, one that is dependent on the womb to continue to live, worthy of less consideration than a born child? Don't we find it more tragic when a child dies than when an adult dies? Why is that? I would suggest that it's because (1) the child was relatively defenseless, and (2) it represents unfulfilled potential. Doesn't this apply even more so to a fetus?

  However, even then, that child's rights are not SUPERIOR to the mothers. We don't force women to breastfeed because it is better for babies; instead, we say they must provide adequate nutrition to their child. Here, we are overriding the mother's AND the father's superior rights.

  Sure, the child's rights don't necessarily outweigh the parents', but doesn't the law ever concern itself with the degree of violation? How much can you violate the rights of a woman who is dead by saving (or trying to save) her baby? How much are the husband's rights violated by keeping his wife alive in a somewhat ghoulish manner? Surely the law recognizes the importance of degree?

  I know that we have a Good Samaritan law on the books, whereby a person can be punished if they did not try to help someone. Is that not an imposition on one person's rights in a minor way, for the sake of another person's right to live? The person who needs saving has a right which trumps that of the person who can save them, if the person who can save them doesn't have to risk his own life to do so.
• 

  Justitia Themis

  I cannot see for the life of me why even a fertilized egg is not as fully human as an adult.

  Really? You can't see the difference between a chicken and an egg? (My attempt at levity in what I think we all agree is a heartwrenchingly sad case)

  I know that we have a Good Samaritan law on the books, whereby a person can be punished if they did not try to help someone

  Not in the U.S. We reject the British duty to render aid, except for those in certain positions (police, fire, doctors). Ironically, those who have no problem forcing a woman to have a child they do not want are some of the staunches advocates that the big, bad state can't compel them to help anyone.
• 

  FlyingHighNow

  Oxygen deprivation to the fetus is just as damaging to it as it is to the mother.

  Well, if that's true, then it may well be that the baby's life would not be worth living. I did allow for that as an exception to the rule in an earlier post.

  The baby's heart is beating though, so we already know that the baby is not as affected as the mother was.