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

by adamah 285 Replies latest social current

• 

  adamah

  Apo said-

  Your reasoning is not ignorant, and your tone isn't the problem. I'm referring to your habit of not listening to people. No matter what they say, you just post the same information again about Texas law. It's like you think we believe that our suggestions are going to be taken by some lawyer in Texas and used to win a case. We're just spouting opinions here, so I don't know why you keep repeating the same information as if this constitutes having an argument. If you can explain why you're copy-pasting your own posts over and over, I would appreciate it.
  
  The term "tone trolling" seems like a two-edged sword, are you sure you want to go there? I could more easily accuse Comatose of tone trolling for complaining that people like me have differing opinions from the ones bemoaning the situation, or accuse you of it for complaining about people making emotional appeals.

  Come on, now: you can level with me. You didn't actually read the definition of tone trolling I linked to, did you? Or if you did, you didn't really understand what the term means, right?

  You don't even HAVE to admit it, as you incriminated yourself by suggesting that calling someone on their "appeals to emotion" is even-remotely similar to "tone trolling", since they're not.

  Do yourself a favor and learn more about the informal logical fallacies, first practicing identifying them in the words of others; THEN, more importantly, scan your posts to ask yourself if you're about to commit one BEFORE you hit submit. Rational thinking and learning informal fallacies is REALLY important for ex-JWs to learn, and especially so for JWs, since the WTBTS are MASTERS at manipulation by relying on (.... wait for it....) informal fallacies.

  Anyway, back to the topic:

  I offered a rational argument for my viewpoint.

  Yeah, and what was it again?

  Apo said- My argument was that (a) life begins at conception, and therefore this is a matter of life-and-death, and thus (b) the rights of the fetus to continue living thus trump the rights of the father and family to not have a relative kept on life support when she is already legally dead. The former rights violation is a matter of life-and-death and the latter is a matter of sentiment, therefore the former violation takes priority.

  Well, that's many of your CONCLUSIONS, and not actually an argument per se, since you forgot to provide PROOF to support those claims.

  For example, you said "life begins at conception". I know it's a pro-life meme, but how do you KNOW that? How does ANYONE prove that, much less claim to "know" that?

  And even before we get that far, we'd need to agree on the definitions of words ('conception' is easy since it's a scientific term), but, eg how do you define "life" in a zygote? Heck, how do you define 'life' in a human, i.e. what in your mind are the properties of human beings that actually make us 'human'?

  For me, one of the most important defining characteristics of humans is their capacity for thought and expression, of interacting with the World; a zygote doesn't live up to that standard. You seemingly value individual organisms that simply share the DNA of the human species, but I place greater value on the well-being of conscious creatures. Thus I value the well-being of human brains and minds, and not just human DNA (which my fingernail contains).

  Adam
• 

  Justitia Themis

  law in Texas . . . which states that if a woman is pregnant, deceased, but her fetus is not deceased, the rights of the fetus over ride the rights of the deceased woman and probably in this case, the wishes of the spouse and family.

  All these many pages of dicussion and some people still do not even understand what the Texas statute says.

  The Texas Advance Directives Act, Section 166.049, provides that "a person may not withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment under this subchapter from a pregnant patient."

  The Texas Advance Directives Act defines "life-sustaining treatment" as that which "sustains the life of a patient and without which the patient will die."

  The family's lawyer has a great argument that the statute doesn't even apply because:

  1) Munoz is dead, so there is no "life-sustaining treatment" to withdraw because there is no longer any life to sustain.

  2) Dead people are not "patients."

  And it appears the lawyers have Texas case law on their side:

  Given the clarity of this statutory language, it is hardly surprising courts have determined it inapplicable after a determination of death. For example, in a similar case in Houston, a Texas court ordered a hospital to continue treatment for a comatose Tammy Martin, who was then 15 weeks pregnant. But the court reversed the order, a few weeks later, once Martin had been declared dead. http://www.latimes.com/opinion/commentary/la-oe-caplan-pope-texas-pregnancy-life-support-20140116,0,3476520.story#ixzz2qi40khRU
• 

  Apognophos

  Come on, now: you can level with me. You didn't actually read the definition of tone trolling I linked to, did you? Or if you did, you didn't really understand what the term means, right?

  I didn't read the definition, no. I've seen you define it here before as 'when someone attacks the style of argumentation instead of the substance of the argument'. I still think you're personally doing that far more than anyone else in this discussion. Even the act of calling someone a tone troll is tone trolling, so it's a self-defeating label. I will not reply to any further comments on this specific subject because I absolutely refuse to waste my time arguing about arguing.

  Do yourself a favor and learn more about the informal logical fallacies.

  I will not be doing that, thanks. I don't need to learn the fancy terms for fallacies in order to see them. For instance, I can see that you missed the point that FHN was making because you got hung up on what you perceived as an "appeal to emotion". Is there a term for the logical fallacy when a person is so eager to find logical fallacies in someone's speech that they miss their argument's actual points in the process? You don't have to answer that, I actually don't care if there is or not.

  Well, that's many of your CONCLUSIONS, and not actually an argument per se, since you forgot to provide PROOF to support those claims.

  There WAS an argument there, predicated on a founding assumption. The founding assumption was the (a) part and the argument was the (b) part. I did also present an argument for (a) in a previous post, but I didn't feel like repeating everything I said earlier. Essentially my argument for (a) was that I cannot see any scientific reason why a fetus or an embryo is not a living human being.

  how do you define "life" in a zygote? Heck, how do you define 'life' in a human, i.e. what in your mind are the properties of human beings that actually make us 'human'?

  "Life" is "animate matter". "Human" is shorthand for "homo sapiens" like "cat" is shorthand for "Felis catus".

  For me, one of the most important defining characteristics of humans is their capacity for thought and expression, of interacting with the World

  Which capacity a baby will eventually possess if it is allowed to continue developing naturally in the womb. How is a potential person worth less than an actual person?
• 

  FlyingHighNow

  The Texas Advance Directives Act, Section 166.049, provides that "a person may not withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment under this subchapter from a pregnant patient."

  Look, if I was in the shoes of the husband or family, I truly do not know how I would feel. I haven't been in this situation.

  Getting back to the law though: in the above quote, the Texas Advance Directive specifically mentions that the patient is pregnant. Why does there need to be a mention of prenancy, if there is no difference, legally, between a brain dead pregnant woman or one who is not pregnant? There is a difference.
• 

  Justitia Themis

  FHN, I don't know how to explain it any more clearly than I did in my post.

  Perhaps some other poster can.

  You're clearly a kindhearted person, but if you can't understand why the Texas court said that the statute applies to a comatose, pregnant woman but not a brain-dead, pregnant woman, I can't really help you.
• 

  FlyingHighNow

  There has to be more to this JT, or the hospital wouldn't put its self at risk in court.
• 

  Justitia Themis

  There has to be more to this JT, or the hospital wouldn't put its self at risk in court.

  It happens all the time FHN. Hospitals are run by people who have personal feelings that cloud their judgment and sometimes even agendas that they seek to promote.

  In my area, Catholic hospitals have been particularly aggressive in promoting their pro-life agendas. A local hospital network entered into an agreement with the Catholics. I studied anti-trust in the health care setting from one of the nations premium healthcare anti-trust lawyers. He actually wrote this agreement and did so to ensure that the hospital would be able to continue to offer tubal ligations. In fact, they brought in accountants so that the money collected from the tubal ligations would not contaminate the Catholic's money in any way. Additionally, the agreement was approved by the local Bishop and Diocese.

  Nevertheless, once the agreement was signed, the Catholics issued a decree saying that any doctor who performed a tubal ligation would be fired. Women who had babies that day (and it still continues) were forced to go home, recover from the baby, find some other doctor to perform their tubal ligation, and go through more anesthesia (and a second surgery if they delivered their babies via C-section).

  Healthcare is a seething battleground for religious agendas right now.

  I'm glad the family filed suit. If they prevail, I hope they turn around and file tort claims against the hospital, including an IIED claim.
• 

  Gypsy Sam

  It's becoming sadly comical how thankful I am, at least weekly, that I don't live in Texas.

  If this were me, I'd want the fetus removed immediately by D&C and after 30 days, disconnect me.
• 

  adamah

  Apo said- Essentially my argument for (a) was that I cannot see any scientific reason why a fetus or an embryo is not a living human being.

  That's a classic argument called "appeal to ignorance", which says that 'since we don't know something for certain (in this case, whether the fetus is or isn't a human being), THEREFORE we should do 'X' (in this case, continue to disregard the wishes if the family).

  Adam said- how do you define "life" in a zygote? Heck, how do you define 'life' in a human, i.e. what in your mind are the properties of human beings that actually make us 'human'?

  Apo said- "Life" is "animate matter". "Human" is shorthand for "homo sapiens" like "cat" is shorthand for "Felis catus".

  Sperm LITERALLY are "animate matter" (motile, i.e. they swim, they MOVE: that's what 'animate' means). Am I committing murder unless I fail to play 'matchmaker' for a million of individual sperm, finding each a suitable egg to set up a happy little home?

  Heck, have you heard of 'Brownian motion', a phenomenon where ALL matter, organic OR inorganic alike, will appear to be moving and quivering when observed under a microscope? It mystified scientists 150 years ago, until someone suggested the movement was due to random atoms in the medium (i.e. water) hitting the object from all sides, causing it to move.

  So, do you want to set the bar a little higher than just 'animate', since it's utterly meaningless, as it stands.

  Adam said- For me, one of the most important defining characteristics of humans is their capacity for thought and expression, of interacting with the World

  Apo said- Which capacity a baby will eventually possess if it is allowed to continue developing naturally in the womb. How is a potential person worth less than an actual person?

  In the same way a potential crime is not possible; a crime must ACTUALLY OCCUR to be prosecuted. The abiity to convict people of crimes they might commit makes for great sci-fi films (eg Minority Report with Tom Cruise and the 'pre-cogs'), but it's completely meaningless in a World where prescient beings don't exist.

  Modern law is premised on giving greater rights to those who get their first, based on the "you snooze, you lose" principle. Whether the Oklahoma land rush, the right to stake a claim on land in California, or the rights of living beings, the default policy is "first come, first served".

  Adam
• 

  adamah

  Thanks for the update on the prior case, JT.

  FHN said-

  There has to be more to this JT, or the hospital wouldn't put its self at risk in court.

  And what risk do you think the hospital is putting itself in, when they can point to an ambiguously-worded law as their defense?

  They're actually playing it ultra-conservative, and likely overly-cautious (over-interpreting the law), since there is no monetary damages to be awarded for following State law, etc, and the husband is seeking an emergency ruling, only. Filing to seek monetary damages would require a separate filing (a cause of action) for the huband to file a claim that the hospital was intentionally misreading the law to cause him and his family emotional distress.

  At this point, though, the husband is forced to find (and pay) a lawyer out-of-pocket to try and force the hospital (JPS) to give up their odd claim that a dead body is a patient, and get the judge to issue an order telling JPS to disconnect his wife, as she wished.

  Who knows what JPS's motivations are, but the obvious suspicious is someone in the hospital is trying to "run down the clock", dragging their feet and covering their ears to buy time for the fetus to make it to wk 24, when viability can first be assessed (and the test says little about it's cognitive state, just the viability of it's body, so it could be born as a vegetable).

  The inaction of JPS IS infliction of emotional distress on the husband and family, but showing 'intent' in court will be another matter, indeed, if the husband files that suit in the future. So at this point, they face little risk by over-interpreting the law (pointing to the law as their justification, trying to avoid violating criminal law by ignoring the Advanced Driective Act). It's a bad law, and needs to be wiped off the books (as the article posted by JT points out, it's likely unconstitutional, but it'll take YEARS in order to work it's way up to the Supreme Court, IF the husband wants to spend the next decade of his life trying to push this issue through the TX legal system).

  Adam