Posts by Justitia Themis

285

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

by adamah in

there'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:.

Justitia Themis

except to understand that we are human and that all is never as it seems given human complexities.

I think Adam addressed that here Sammie:

But as ALL cases are different, and no outcome is guaranteed, any public policy which tries to force a single answer upon all is destined to create unintended consequences IF it doesn't inherently allow for the flexibility of those most-directly effected by the decision to be able to decide. The family has absolutely NO input (and hence why the father hired an atty and filed to get his wife disconnected by court order), and their rights are being trampled over die to a State law.

In summation: it's complex so the family should decide, not the state.

285

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

by adamah in

there'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:.

Justitia Themis

Nicely done FHN. You derailed the argument into an unrelated appeal to emotion, the very thing of which you accused me.

Just because Adam, as a man, didn't pop out babies doesn’t mean he lacks the sympathy to comment on the matter, whether or not I ever had children is irrelevant, and using more accurate terms (like fetus) is never wrong. (For the record, I have two daughters; one is a tech corporation financial analyst/rising data scientist, and the other is a San Diego prosecutor).

While Agrophonos and I disagree about when life begins, I very much appreciate that he (I assume he) made well-reasoned, logical arguments, which adds to this very important discussion that we, as a society, need to have.

However, indulging you, of course pregnant women refer their fetuses as babies; they carry the child within them and have a personal relationship with it. Physicians defer to their emotional ties and call them babies too. Then, these same physicians refer to the “fetus” in the medical record because that is the correct term. The term wasn’t invented to denigrate but is used to distinguish between “babies” that are inside the womb as opposed to outside! Yes, FHN, your doctors were humoring you, which is part of good patient care. Nevertheless, why are you afraid to use the correct term? Could it be that your arguments lack substance so must appeal to the emotion-laden term “baby”?

So, back to some of the real issues, using correct terms:

State’s rights v. personal/family rights

Who has the right to decide what happens to a dead woman’s body, the state or the next of kin?

If the dead woman is pregnant, should the state be able to force the father to be a single parent?

Do the dead woman’s wishes matter legally, and if so, how much?

If they don’t, should they?

If the medical status of the fetus is unknown, should the state be able to force the father to shoulder the burden of carrying emotionally, financially, and physically for a possibly severely disabled child?

Do the rights of already born, living siblings and their present and future welfare factor into the equation?

Medical Science & Ethics

When does life being?

Is there a difference between allowing a parent to abort a possibly defective fetus based on a genetic testing and allowing a father to remove his wife’s body from life support, thereby allowing a possibly defective fetus to die?

Do the rights of the autonomous trump the rights of unborn, or do the rights of the unborn trump the rights of the autonomous?

Aaaand there are more.

With all these weighty issues, you want to derail the discussion into whether we should use babies v. fetus?

Sorry, but I cannot share the "warm glow of motherhood" experience with you (in a thread about a dead woman, no less)?

Adam, your gallows humor caused me to almost spit out my coffee laughing . . . We should have drinks…

285

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

by adamah in

there'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:.

Justitia Themis

The Good Samaritan Law

Not in the U.S. We reject the British duty to render aid, except for those in certain positions (police, fire, doctors).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law

I didn't want to get this technical, but with the above posting, I feel I must.

Good Samaritan laws protect those who choose to render aid from being sued by the person they rescue who might be hurt during the rescue. The U.S. has Good Sam laws because our public policy is to encourage people to help others.

What Apognophos was referring to was the Duty to Rescue (or render aid), which is a law that penalizes those who can help but refuse. The U.S., however, is NOT enamoured with the idea of forcing people to help.

285

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

by adamah in

there'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:.

Justitia Themis

Respectfully, this sounds like an appeal to the emotions of people who might confuse this case with pro-life or pro-choice

No. If no one knows, as you claim, then this is an experiment, and the father and his son bear the risk of a bad outcome.

There are only two options, which Adam nicely articulated as follows: (paraphrasing) (1) We don't know the condition of the fetus, so the state forces it to be born, or (2) we don't know the status of the fetus, so the father and next of kin to the mother makes the choice.

And part of this case does go to the heart of the pro-life/pro-choice argument which is 'when does life begin.'

if she were alive and wondering about the health of this fetus, would number one call it a fetus

This, on the other hand, IS an appeal the emotion. Fetus is the scientific term, regardless of what the hypothetically alive mother would call it. And I can't even hazard a guess as to why you think it relevant to the discussion.

285

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

by adamah in

there'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:.

Justitia Themis

JT, neither the doctors, nor you or I know if the Texas festus suffered oxygen deprivation.

Well that's why this is a science experiment.

I would argue it is more correct to say that no one knows how MUCH oxygen deprivation was suffered, since the baby has no access to oxygen except from the mother. And the mother was deprived for ~ 8 minutes.

285

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

by adamah in

there'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:.

Justitia Themis

Scroll up and look at my ponderings on the mammalian dive reflex. Also, look at what Samswife posted about babies who were born with similar gestational age, 15 weeks, to braindead mothers.

I saw it and already addressed it.

The research in the piece Sammy posted does not address whether those fetuses experience oxygen deprivation. All it speaks to is the ability of the body of a brain dead woman kept on life support to gestate a fetus, which per the study was pretty lousy.

285

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

by adamah in

there'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:.

Justitia Themis

But you are correct; the fetus is not "as" affected.

However, considering it takes only ~8 minutes of oxygen deprivation to render a person brain dead, seconds clearly matter. So the baby is what, 7 minutes, 6.5 minutes without oxygen? Severaly disabled as opposed to a functioning brain stem?

Why should the father AND his living son have to bear the burden of our scientific experiment?

Sure, the child's rights don't necessarily outweigh the parents'

Yet that is exactly what you are arguing.

The mother didn't want to harm her living family by forcing them to bear the emotional, physical, and financial burden of her being kept on life support. That is her right. You are saying the unborn child's right is superior to her right, so it should be able to OVERRIDE the mother's choice and use her body.

As next of kin, the father has the right to determine whether he wants to bear the emotional, physical, and financial burden associated with keeping his dead wife on life support, and whether he wants to place his living son's future at risk emotionally, physically, and financially by accepting the responsibility for a possibly (likely) disabled child. You are arguing the the unborn child's rights are superior to the father to the point it OVERRIDES his right to make that decision.

285

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

by adamah in

there'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:.

Justitia Themis

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.

That's the issue. A beating heart tells us nothing about cognitive abilities. All it shows is that the reptilian brain is still functioning.

285

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

by adamah in

there'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:.

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.

285

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

by adamah in

there'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:.

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.