The fetus is 21 weeks now. I believe they can medically determine the health of the fetus at 24 weeks. Why not wait the 3 weeks and find out if everything is fine if the worry is in fact that the child would be born disabled. According to the hospital, there is a normal heartbeat up to this point - the lawsuit may in fact just extend past the 24 week timeframe, thereby allowing the doctors and judges involved to make a more rational decision. As to the womans wishes - one cannot know if her wishes for no life support or DNR were made during times of good health - it is more common for women to want to protect their unborn child under any circumstances than not and one wonders if she would have changed her mind during her pregnancy. Very sad for the family..samswife
sammielee24
JoinedPosts by sammielee24
-
285
Dead pregnant woman forced to stay on life support, due to TX State law
by adamah inthere's an interesting medicolegal issue arising out of tx, a pregnant women who suffered a pulmonary embolism in november and died (when she was 14 weeks pregnant).. however, the body has been kept on life-support all this time (against her and her husband's wishes), due to an ambiguous tx state law (tex hs.
code ann.
166.049) which actually blocks the ability of the patient and family to decide:.
-
-
-
285
Dead pregnant woman forced to stay on life support, due to TX State law
by adamah inthere's an interesting medicolegal issue arising out of tx, a pregnant women who suffered a pulmonary embolism in november and died (when she was 14 weeks pregnant).. however, the body has been kept on life-support all this time (against her and her husband's wishes), due to an ambiguous tx state law (tex hs.
code ann.
166.049) which actually blocks the ability of the patient and family to decide:.
-
-
sammielee24
By Karen Kaplan (LA Times)
January 14, 2014 , 4:47 p.m.
At the center of a dispute over whether a Texas hospital can keep a brain-dead woman on life support is a 21-week-old fetus.
Marlise Munoz was 14 weeks pregnant when her husband, Erick, discovered her lying unconscious on their kitchen floor in the middle of the night. The 33-year-old woman was taken to John Peter Smith Hospital in Fort Worth, “where doctors informed Erick that Marlise had lost all activity in her brain stem, and was for all purposes brain dead,” according to a civil court petition filed Tuesday in Tarrant County.
That was on Nov. 26. In the seven weeks since, the hospital has kept Munoz on life support – against the wishes of her family – in the hope that she may still deliver a healthy baby. The hospital says it is compelled to do so by the Texas Advance Directives Act, which says in part: "A person may not withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment under this subchapter from a pregnant patient."
Erick Munoz, Marlise’s parents and several medical and legal experts agree that the state law doesn’t apply on the grounds that Marlise is not a “patient” because she is dead. As the tragic case of 13-year-old Oakland girl Jahi McMath brought to light, brain death – defined as the “irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem” – qualifies as a legal death.
Erick Munoz has filed suit to force the hospital to remove Marlise from the machines sustaining her body. But if her body is kept going until her baby can be delivered, what are the odds of success? That’s impossible to know, but there is a study that offers some clues.
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.
Twelve of those fetuses were delivered by caesarean section and survived for some period of time after birth. One of the babies, born prematurely after just 25 weeks of gestation, died of an infection at the age of 30 days. Six of the others were developing normally as of the time that case reports about them were written (at ages ranging from 3 to 24 months), though a few of them had suffered from infant respiratory distress syndrome. The condition of the other five babies was unknown.
Another five of the fetuses died in utero, and a sixth died at 19 weeks’ gestation after a miscarriage.
The last fetus was delivered by caesarean section at 32 weeks’ gestation, but whether it survived birth was not known.
Among these 19 cases, there is one fetus that was 14 weeks old when its mother was declared brain-dead – the same age as the fetus in the Munoz case. That 1994 case involved a woman who was killed in a traffic accident in Germany. It’s not clear how long the woman remained on life support, but the fetus died in utero.
Two other cases involved a fetus that was 13 weeks old. One of them, in Ireland in 2004, died in utero eight days after its mother suffered a blood clot in the brain. The other, whose mother was in an accident in Germany in 1993, survived for 38 days before dying as a result of miscarriage.
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.
The fetus in the Munoz case has been developing in utero with a brain-dead mother for 49 days so far. Six of the cases described in the study involved a fetus that remained in utero with a brain-dead mother longer than that. In five cases, the babies were delivered by C-section; one of them died after 30 days and the other four survived. No information was available on the sixth.
All of these cases involved a fetus that was older the Munoz fetus at the time of its mother’s injury.
“The important question is from which gestational age onward should the pregnancy be supported?” the study authors wrote. “At present, it seems that there is no clear lower limit to efforts to support the brain-dead mother and her fetus.”
But the authors of the study cautioned that their data were incomplete and could not be used to determine the likelihood that a fetus could survive after its mother became brain-dead. “The percentage of successful cases cannot be determined, because there are no reports describing failure of intensive maternal support from all medical centers,” they wrote.
The study was published in 2010 in the journal BMC Medicine.
-
285
Dead pregnant woman forced to stay on life support, due to TX State law
by adamah inthere's an interesting medicolegal issue arising out of tx, a pregnant women who suffered a pulmonary embolism in november and died (when she was 14 weeks pregnant).. however, the body has been kept on life-support all this time (against her and her husband's wishes), due to an ambiguous tx state law (tex hs.
code ann.
166.049) which actually blocks the ability of the patient and family to decide:.
-
-
sammielee24
In a nutshell, a cornerstone principle of freedom is that everyone own their OWN BODIES, and have the right to decide what happens to it when alive (i.e. you're able to refuse any medical treatment, for ANY reason, good or bad;
--------
Did she leave a written directive about what she wanted? That's the only way to make any claim that she herself made decisions for her body - to pass on decisions regarding her life or decisions that might affect her or her family. samswife
-
54
Nelson Mandela - comments of what his life meant to you
by MMXIV innelson mandela has passed on.
he was a symbol of hope and peace to many.
has his life and achievements meant anything personal to members of jwn?.
-
-
sammielee24
He eventually did advocate violence as a means to the end but I am not aware of him actively taking part in bombings for instance etc.
----------------------------
Osama bin Laden didn't actively bomb..was he guilty? Charles Manson never killed one person - is he guilty? Castro - freedom fighter or terrorist? The IRA - terrorist group or freedom fighters? Timothy McVeigh - terrorist or freedom fighter? It is all subjective.
Mandela was the face of hope and change - chosen to represent moving forward. It was a good move and a good change for the country to end the violence.
Apartheid was wrong. Terrorism is wrong. In the end, I'm not so certain there couldn't have been another way to arrive at a place of peace and unity but I am glad he achieved a sense of personal peace and hope SA will be able to flourish.
sammieswife
-----
In his book Long Walk to Freedom Nelson Mandela wrote that as a leading member of the ANC’s executive committee, he had “ personally signed off ” in approving these acts of terrorism. This is the horror which Mandela had “signed off” for while he was in prison – convicted for other acts of terrorism after the Rivonia trial. The late SA president P.W. Botha told Mandela in 1985 that he could be a free man as long as he did just one thing: ‘publicly renounce violence’. Mandela refused./////
Bombing victim in Pretoria..
When Mandela was arrested on his Rivonia farm hideout near Johannesburg, the following munitions and bomb-making equipment were confiscated with him and his comrades.
(Read his ‘Rivonia trial’ transcripts)
- 210,000 hand grenades
- 48,000 anti-personnel mines
- 1,500 time devices
- 144 tons of ammonium nitrate
- 21,6 tons of aluminium powder
- 1 ton of black powder
----------------------------------------------------------
Mandela did not have to personally testify at the T&C meetings about his involvement in the acts - both pardons and amnesty were given to various people.
-
54
Nelson Mandela - comments of what his life meant to you
by MMXIV innelson mandela has passed on.
he was a symbol of hope and peace to many.
has his life and achievements meant anything personal to members of jwn?.
-
-
sammielee24
When I think of Mandela - I think of the ANC. When I think of the ANC, I recall quite clearly all the graphic media coverage and photos of the innocent with tires around their necks being burned alive - their offense usually meant they did not support the ANC. Land mines. Bombing. Torture. Thousands were murdered and Mandela admitted to supporting the bombing of at least one church in which hundreds were wounded and innocent people died.
I believe that in the end, he was able to achieve his own sense of peace for his actions and move to transition SA from possible civil war to peace. He did not do it alone - deKlerk and others made it possible but for that transition he should be remembered.
As always, ideology will play a part in the opinion of people. What is that saying? One mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist?
Long Walk to Freedom - Mandela
Inside MK - Mbokodo
A Soldiers Story - Mwezi Twala.
May he rest in peace.
-
-
-
sammielee24
ALBANY, N.Y. (CBSNewYork/AP) – A New York state legislator said it’s time to crack down on the violent “knockout game” in which youths sucker punch innocent bystanders for kicks.
Assemblyman Jim Tedisco, R-Schenectady, said Thursday that his bill would make the violent game a gang assault with a sentence of up to 25 years. Youths would be charged as adults.
“They want to be big shots and big men … so they should have a big law to protect the innocent law-abiding citizens,” Tedisco told WCBS 880. “Clearly, these are not young gentlemen — they’re punks, they’re thugs, they’re cowards.”
Tedisco said his measure is intended to be a deterrent to stop the game in which participants try to punch a stranger so hard they are rendered unconscious, often while other youths record the attack for online sites.
- New York Lawmaker Targets 'Knockout Game' With New Bill
- WCBS 880's Marla Diamond Reports
His bill will also include prison time for convicted accomplices who watch or record the assaults.
State Assemblyman Dov Hikind, D-Brooklyn, has written to President Barack Obama and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, urging federal action against “knockout game” attacks.
There have been seven so-called “knockout” or “polar bear” assaults in the Crown Heights and Midwood sections of Brooklyn since October, police Commissioner Ray Kelly said Wednesday.
The alternate name “polar bearing” comes from the fact that the victims are white.
A string of attacks on religious Jews were also reported in Crown Heights in recent weeks.
A 12-year-old Jewish boy who was a “knockout” victim two weeks ago told CBS 2′s Tony Aiello in an exclusive interview that he’s more interested in an apology than seeing his attackers go to jail.
The yeshiva student, who is devoutly religious, thinks a mandatory moment of silence in public schools would help.
“I think this could have all been prevented,” said the boy, who asked not to be identified.
“The boys and teens would know that there’s always a God watching them, and they wouldn’t only be afraid of the police,” he added.
Last week, the boy’s father told CBS 2 that after his son was struck at random by a group of teenagers, one gave “a hysterial, happy shout: ‘We got him.’”
Leaders in the black community said they share the concerns of their Jewish neighbors and they’re urging parents to talk to their children about the consequences if they take part in the game.
“To go around and harm just anybody on the premise that you want to show your bravado is not to be accepted in our community, in Crown Heights, in Brownsville or anywhere else for that matter,” said Tony Herbert, an activist with the National Action Network. “Keep your hands to yourself. That is stupid.”
The latest known victim was a 78-year-old woman attacked a week ago Saturday in Midwood. The victim’s daughter said her mother was attacked in broad daylight by a young man who walked toward her, balled up his fist and hit her with all his might on the top of her head then ran off.
“She had her purse. She had bags from department stores. There was not even an attempt to take anything from her,” the daughter told CBS 2′s Dave Carlin. ”It was just a wanton act to hurt another human being.”
Kelly said several victims have not reported the incidents because no robbery is involved.
“I would like to urge anyone who has been victimized by this to come forward and let us know,” said the police commissioner. “In order for us to respond, we have to have this information.”
Police patrols have been stepped up in central Brooklyn in response to the incidents.
City Councilman Peter Vallone Jr., D-Queens, the chair of the council’s Public Safety Committee, is urging a serious NYPD response.
“I’ve already written to Ray Kelly. I want to know what we’re going to do about it,” he said. “These kids need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and we need to ensure that this doesn’t keep happening.”
Meanwhile, the Guardian Angels will be on patrol in Brooklyn, where there have been a number of so-called “knockout” incidents in recent weeks.
“People need to know what to look out for,” Curtis Sliwa, founder of the Guardian Angels, told 1010 WINS. They need to get in touch with the police right away, and if it comes to it, let the Guardian Angels knock out the guys looking to play ‘knockout’ before they can do any more damage.”
In Paterson, N.J., police have been looking into an attack on a Bengali student to see if it was part of the ‘knockout’ trend.
“Some black boy hit him in the face,” said a girl who knows the victim.
Back in September, 46-year-old Ralph Santiago of Hoboken, N.J., was killed after his head was slammed into an iron fence. The three arrested, who police said were captured on video, were just 13 and 14 years old.
Videos posted online have shown “knockout” incidents from Washington, D.C., to Pittsburgh to London.
-
65
Disfellowshipped but still forced to pay maintenance or alimony
by Markw1509 incan i ask for your opinion?
i have been disfellowshipped and divorced for a few years.
my ex-wife and my daughter have cut off all contact from me.
-
-
sammielee24
and whether it is right for her to take the money,
--------
From the Watchtower Information Service - Jehovah’s Witnesses endeavor to remain separate from secular society, which is regarded as a place of moral contamination and under the control of Satan the Devil
LOL...yeah..it's okay to shun you if you are 'in the world' because morally you are contaminated. It's okay to take the money from your morally contimanted fingers because after all it's being used for godly purposes aka going door to door - in reality it's just hypocrisy. Is it right morally? That would be up to each individual to decide - right up there with all those Christmas presents, Easter candy and Thanksgiving vacations or that tase of birthday cake. Bear in mind that anyone can go to court and ask for a review of court ordered payments - sometimes temporary payments are made until the spouse earns their own living. If you believe that she is now in a position to support herself fully or that the amount you pay could be significantly reduced, then you can file for a review. Nobody takes care of your interests unless you do - on both sides. sammieswife
-
65
Disfellowshipped but still forced to pay maintenance or alimony
by Markw1509 incan i ask for your opinion?
i have been disfellowshipped and divorced for a few years.
my ex-wife and my daughter have cut off all contact from me.
-
-
sammielee24
In a way I do understand what you are saying.
Yes you are legally obligated to pay your ex because the courts determined you have to.
The morality of taking money off of someone who repulses you to the point that you shun them aka those who are dead to you - is pretty clear. It's kind of like people who profess to hate anyone on welfare and who call them losers or lazy fat slobs, but who quietly put their hand out for any free government money they can get..there's a disconnect they have where they don't see their attitude on one side in relation to their actions on the other.
Let's face it.
If you remarry or are remarried and your worldly wife contributes to the household income, that income is often combined for both of you to live on and meet your financial obligations. A great many ex-JW spouses become further enraged when their previous partners end up in worldly relationships because that is seen as repulsive and further proof of how far you have gone to the dark side. Despite that revulsion and disgust they feel - they don't have a problem keeping their hand out for the cash no matter where it comes from. If you lost your job and your 'worldly' spouse was paying the alimony for you to keep current, would your ex take it or would she be willing to suspend the alimony until you were back on your feet? If she would take it from the worldly spouse - that's your answer. Their moraliy rests inside the religion - once you leave - you yourself are no longer a moral person and so since you really don't exist in any measure to them, they don't see it as a personal issue.
This is the same issue that comes up all the time - those who were in the army and receive pensions do so willingly despite the Society attitude toward military engagement. The same for any job that is with any part of the government - the Society proclaims to remain separate from the world - teach your kids not to salute the flag, not to sing, not to honor anything but the Society - and yet, you have public school teachers getting paid by the government, postal workers and a whole host of others who work for, are engaged in and take money from the government without blinking an eye.
sammiesiwfe
-
41
Mother Forces 5 Year-Old Son To . . .
by Zandor incan anyone here, lay person or professional describe or give insights into the effects the following has on a child?.
when my friend, the middle child of 3 siblings, was five years old, his mother took him by the hand and led him to the house where his father was having an affair with another woman.
she opened the door to confront her husband who was actually in the act of having sex with the other woman, and deliberately exposed her young son to this drama.. .
-
-
sammielee24
To my knowledge, the mother knew the following- the husband was in the other woman's home. The mother KNEW her husband was there cheating (if not actually in the act),
-------
Again. We have no way of knowing what was seen.
You have said more than once that the woman knew her husband was having an affair with a woman who lived in that house - you admit that the woman couldn't have known the husband was actually having sex. That means the intent to force a child to watch sex was not the motive when she went to the house - it may have been a by product of her actions but it is clear it wasn't the intent.
There is a major difference between intent to sexually exploit a child by taking them into home with the sole purpose of exposing them to this action and bringing a child into adult conflict ie verbal confrontation and then accidentally walking in on someone doing something - that could be anything from drinking or taking drugs or dealing in weapons - all which would be a negative impact on a child.
Major difference.
Sorry if you can't comprehend that.
If you believe the mother is guilty of sexual exploitation, if you believe that she knew the exact time and place a sex act was going to occur and that she purposely took her child to that place to expose him to that act, then you should contact the police if you live in a State where there is no statute of limitations. This may mean bringing the father into the picture because if someone opens your door and you keep having sex knowing you are on display, as it seems you infer the father was doing, then there are more than a few people that could be charged with exploitation. sammieswife
-
41
Mother Forces 5 Year-Old Son To . . .
by Zandor incan anyone here, lay person or professional describe or give insights into the effects the following has on a child?.
when my friend, the middle child of 3 siblings, was five years old, his mother took him by the hand and led him to the house where his father was having an affair with another woman.
she opened the door to confront her husband who was actually in the act of having sex with the other woman, and deliberately exposed her young son to this drama.. .
-
-
sammielee24
The opening salvo - allegations that a mother forced her child to go and watch a sex act - a crime in most States - appears to be nothing more than slander.
Sexual exploitation of a minor is a crime. There is no proof whatsoever that this mother had any intent on forcing her child to view a sex act and in fact, it appears that if the child saw anything, it was momentary, fleeting and not intentional. If it was not, then one would have to point at the father and his girlfriend as being complicit in that exploitation and it seems that all the rage is against only the mother.
I agree with backstreet - and there was no reason to respond with anger and name calling. sammieswife
