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:.
Thanks for the info, JT.
THIS JUST IN:
Judge orders hospital to take dead women off life support by 5PM, Monday (judge states the obvious, saying "Ms. Munoz is dead". Perhaps that's why doctors refer to the apparatus as "life support", and not "death support"?):
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:.
JT, thanks for your knowledgable opinion.
Of course, you're right: 166.049 is not "ambiguously worded" at all, but it's being interpreted questionably, with the hospital even inserting concepts that just aren't even there by making assumptions of legislative intent! Ironically, that's something Xians are quite good at, being imaginative readers who like to insert meanings via liberal use of scriptural eisegesis, etc.
Two questions from a non-lawyer, if you don't mind?
JT said- Wow...that is bad form, bad form.
Indeed, you think the judge will be impressed with their misrepresenting of the facts about prior case law, within the hospital affadavit itself?
1) What are your thoughts that it might be a "tell" of their strategies, with JPS denying knowledge of prior case law (i.e. the similar case you mentioned where the appeals court reversed its decision after the pt died), knowing the hospital stands a great chance of being handed an adverse judgment, but not wanting to support the plaintiff's inevitable later case against JPS of filing for IIED by handing Munoz inculpatory evidence within their affadavit?
Even more broadly, could it be they want to give the appearance of fighting on behalf of the fetus, but they really don't want to win (esp after learning of the huge financial burden they potentially face if the fetus survives), so they're somewhat "throwing the fight" by putting up a weak defense?
On second thought, I suppose they actually DO have a weak defense and are grasping at straws, LOL!
2) Typically how long before the judge issues a ruling on matters like this? Same day, on Monday, a week, etc?
Adam
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:.
For anyone who cares about the actual facts in the case (and is able and willing to read), here's a PDF of the hospital's affadavit:
http://content.foxtvmedia.com/kdfw/pdf/1_23_14_munoz_repsonse.pdf
(JT, I found this part interesting, referring to 166.049: "There is no case law interpreting this section.")
Here's Erick Munoz's full affadavit:
http://content.foxtvmedia.com/kdfw/pdf/1_23_14_Erick%20Munoz%20sworn%20affidavit.pdf
And the affadavit filed by Tom Mayo, one of the co-authors of the law:
http://content.foxtvmedia.com/kdfw/pdf/mayo%20short%20filing.pdf
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:.
Gypsy Sam said- Quality of life does matter and it's painful and upsetting to see the rights to that taken away.
Thanks for sharing your personal experience.
Oh, on this:
Adamah, your points are incredibly interesting, if a bit lengthy and I hope you don't feel I derailed your thread in any way :)
Well, keep it under your hat, but try reading every OTHER word I write, since I include a secret buried message in each post (and it'll cut your reading time in half).
Here's the latest news, where a judge will hear the matter on Friday:
A Tarrant County judge will hear the lawsuit against John Peter Smith Hospital
on Friday, brought on by the family of a pregnant, brain-dead Haltom City woman being kept artificially alive on life support against the family's wishes.
Marlise Munoz, 33, developed a blood clot, and in November, before controversy surrounded her brain-dead condition, Munoz was taken to JPS Hospital, 14 weeks pregnant with her second child.
The hospital disagreed with the family's wishes to have her removed from life support, citing a Texas law that requires a pregnant woman to be kept on life support until the fetus is viable at about 24 to 26 weeks.
Erick Munoz, Marlise's husband, filed a two-page sworn affidavit Thursday.
He begins by stating, "Since my wife's death on November 26th, 2013, I have had to endure the pain of watching my wife's dead body be treated as if she were alive."
He goes on to say he is positive that his wife Marlise is dead and lists several reasons, saying in part, "When I bend down to kiss her forehead, her usual scent is gone, replaced instead with what I can only describe as the smell of death."
He also says, "Her limbs have become so stiff and rigid due to her deteriorating condition that now, when I move her hands, her bones crack and her legs are nothing more than dead weight."
The Tarrant County District Attorney's Office represents JPS Hospital, and its statement to the court directly contradicts Erick Munoz, confirming the unborn baby still maintains a heartbeat.
It states, "His argument is that a dead person cannot receive life sustaining treatment. His position, however, ignores consideration of the unborn child."
One of the co-authors of the law keeping the woman alive thinks the law is being misinterpreted, expressing how he feels in an affidavit .
SMU law professor and medical ethicist Tom Mayo was on the committee that drafted the law that goes to the heart of this case.
"I think the family's wishes should be respected," Mayo told FOX4. "I think that we're in a situation where the law does not drive the outcome that we've seen so far."
According to a statement from the family's attorneys, medical records show the condition of the roughly 22-week-old unborn child as abnormal and deformed.
While Mayo says the condition of the fetus may be an ethical concern on whether to continue life support, other experts say it's likely not a legal one.
"Viability still cannot be determined for another two to four weeks," said attorney Jessica Frankland. "So, really, just because there are health issues, or potential for disability, that does not mean the child is not viable."
The hearing is set to take place in Perry-nominated state district judge R.H. Wallace's courtroom, where there's not much legal gray area.
"If the judge decides she should be taken off life support, any sort of appeal would probably be moot because if she's taken off life support, Mrs. Munoz, obviously the fetus will pass away…nothing can really be done at that point," said Frankland.
The judge has to decide between two competing statutes under Texas health and safety code; one that supports the family's viewpoint, and one that supports the hospital's viewpoint.
The judge will have to make a decision on what the legislature intended.
yesterday evening my wife and i were invited to friends house for new year's eve.
we met them when i was a christian and we have kept in touch.
they had a few other friends there as well, including the new church pastor and his wife.
Cofty, no offense, but I'm not wasting any more time on this thread (as flamegrilled seemingly decided not to do), since you've shown a willingness to flip-flop (AKA moving goalposts) as it suits your purposes, arguably right up there amongst the worst theist offenders (and I was willing to cut them some slack for them, but you? You know better, and it's hard to imagine it's not intentional....).
Where's my evidence of that, you ask? I'm not wasting time searching for and pulling your exact words from 93 pages of posts, but throughout the thread you've said 'the problem of evil' isn't an issue for deists (since the deist viewpoint doesn't contain a loving God, but an impersonal one who couldn't give a flyin' flip about human lives), and you've admitted it's not a problem for the theist (like jgnat) who's willing to sacrifice God's trait of omnipotence (since God lacks the power to intervene).
But suddenly you can't understand the need to consider the theists' basic tenets (which, depending on their denomination, includes a particular-customized theology, eg a Xian Presbyterian is obviously going to have a different approach to theodicy than a JW would, and you'd need to adopt the POV of THEIR belief system to convince them of the errors in their various theodicies).
But to save face, you spew irrelevant dismissive stuff like this:
Cofty said- If JWs have got science and geology worng then too bad for them.
So keep "moving those goalposts", and maybe some won't notice, but I'm allergic to ALL flavors of delusions and irrationalism, whether it's the JW kind, or those who'd topple NOT just the JW's, but dream of toppling ALL Xian theists at their supposed Achille's heel....
(And even worse is this thread is on an ex-JW forum, when it's even-more questionable to take on JW theodicy, since you ironically pick the very 'selling feature' that accounts for their success to date: it's the part of their beliefs that is the most-logical (in an area where the logical barrier to acceptance is already incredibly-low), most-loving for humans, and not coincidentally, the one most-seductive to the emotionally-vulnerable survivors who long desperately to be reunited with their lost loved ones in the New System, to be able to share an eternal life on a paradise Earth with them. Hell, if I didn't know what I know about the Bible and JWs, I'd love to be able to believe in that fantasy, too!).
Adam
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:.
SNR said- Hamsterbait, they had no legal right to put the dead mother on life support.
As you pointed out, they put her on life support before she was pronounced brain-dead. State law forces hospitals to maintain 'pregnant patients' on life support, but fails to mention what to do if they should die while ON life support (the provision mentions coma/persistent vegetative state pts, but doesn't specially mention what to do in case of death).
So they had EVERY legal right (or at least a good defense), since JPS' defense likely would be they were trying to follow the law in 'good faith'. That's the entire point of the thread: the hospital's overly-broad interpretation of TX law over-rides the wishes of the decedent and her husband, taking away the right to decide what happens to her body.
So when SNR says this:
I imagine the legal issue is that of the original desicion. It would not be illegal to turn the machine off now with consent from family and with a doctors opinion of best interest for the fetus.
Have you read anything about the case at hand? JPS' questionable interpretation of the State law has removed that decision from not only the family, but even the treating doctors. It specifically prevents the opinion of the doctors to be considered in the matter, since that's the entire point OF the law.
LisaRose said- I think the hospital is doing this because they are afraid of legal repercussions if they don't. Although this is not the intention of the the law, they are erring on the side of caution and protecting themselves, no matter the cost to the family. In my experience hospitals are mainly concerned with their profits, not morality.
JPS seems to be in a "damned if they do, damned if they don't" situation at this point, since the State faces HUGE lifetime costs for medical care if it survives, as well as a civil suit for violating the rights of the next-of-kin. If they disconnect, they can avoid/mitigate the costs of care, but likely won't, since they are committed to the "right to life" position and not willing to consider "quality of life" of the malformed and cognitively-impaired fetus.
The ironic thing is that right to lifers claim abortion is wrong, since they claim no one should play God. So what do they do? They turn around and play God....
LisaRose said- My heart goes out to the family, who have been forced to stand by and watch while this plays out. I see nothing moral or good in keeping this woman's body on life support against her clearly stated wishes, and that of her family.
Yeah, it must be a living nightmare for them, prolonging a painful situation for months.... If there was ever an "open and shut" case of intentional infliction of emotional distress greater than this one, I can't imagine what it would be....
Adam
it even has what looks like blood flowing from a palm wound.
article.
world-renowned astrophysicist robert jastrow, founding director of nasas goddard institute for space studies, explains the fear of faith many of todays scientists experience.. there is a kind of religion in science, it is the religion of a person who believes there is order and harmony in the universe, and every effect must have its cause; [but] there is no first cause.
Damn etude, great job! More power to you, since correcting the fallacies used by Perry is a Sisypean Task (OK, that's an ad hominem, but actually warranted?)....
Adam
yesterday evening my wife and i were invited to friends house for new year's eve.
we met them when i was a christian and we have kept in touch.
they had a few other friends there as well, including the new church pastor and his wife.
Cofty said-
re Adam post 2282...
Maybe if you asked a JW or ex-JW what the Watchtower theodicy was rather than telling us what it is and getting it all wrong that would be a good start. For JWs it's all about the issue of divine sovereignty. A fictional naked lady ate some fruit and god decided to leave humans to fend for themselves for thousands of years to prove we need him.
Is any rebuttal of this facile nonesense really necessary?
Uh, YES, actually it is.
And the fact you even need to ask that question suggests you don't understand the rules of challenging theodicies, since much like debating presuppositionalists, it REQUIRES the challenger to accept at least THREE assumptions of the believer:
http://www3.dbu.edu/mitchell/theodicy.htm
II. Theodicy Defined
"Theodicy" is a term that Leibniz coined from the Greek words theos (God) and dike (righteous). A theodicy is an attempt to justify or defend God in the face of evil by answering the following problem, which in its most basic form involves these assumptions:
Furthermore, if you want to challenge a person's particular belief system, then you MUST temporarily accept ALL of the premises, beliefs, suppositions, presuppositions upon which these theodicies operate. And since JW theology in fact DOES assert that a "naked lady ate fruit after being tricked by talking snake", then YOU must temporarily accept that belief, since you wish to challenge the logic used in various theodicies that are offered to adherents to explain the question of evil. YOU must accept those premises, or else you're not challenging the THEODICY itself: you're instead challenging the THEOLOGY.
Review, and you'll see I've NEVER said that Xian THEOLOGY made much logical sense, I only claimed that the THEODICIES used with Xianity actually DO rely on sound logic (valid AND sound, when some are perfectly-logical to address why the existence of evil doesn't contradict God's omni-benevolence).
Cofty said- There was no Adam and Eve, no perfection, no fall. This is a fact that is not open to sensible debate so the theodicy fails at step 1.
Nope, and if it were that easy to dismiss theology with the wave of a hand, then you just eliminated all but the very airy-fairy Xians who say Genesis is metaphorical, etc. In fact, you just eliminated all Xians who believe Jesus redeemed mankind from the fall of Adam, PLUS you just toppled all branches of Judaism (who wrote the silly story) and Islamists too, since according to your facile methods you can now declare victory against ALL religions! Congrats, you WON!
Unfortunately, that's called "moving those goalposts". You're getting outside of theodicy and deep into theology (where the former is a SUB-CATEGORY of the latter), so you're off-sides, out of bounds. You agreed to accept the premises under which each of these theodocial mechanisms operate, and should be willing to temporarily-accept the beliefs of specific branch of Xianity that you are challenging (yes, all 35,000 of them).
That's why I asked why the tsunami was such a crisis of faith for you as a JW, since surely you weren't having doubts about the "talking snake" story and the Universal Sovereignty Spiel even BEFORE the tsunami, were you? That's not a problem with theodicies (i.e. being unable to resolve the contradiction between omnibenevolence and a God who fails to intervene), but a loss of faith in the entire kit and caboodle, the whole ball of wax.
Cofty said- Even if we play along with the creationist fairy story it is dishonest. The bible is full of stories of god intervening in human affairs to make life better for his buddies. JWs pray constantly for everything that they want. You can't have a deist god when there is a tsunami and a theist god when you need a new job.
Whether you meant or not, you agreed to accept the theist's starting point when you challenged theodicy, as you need to show WHY they are illogical while operating WITHIN the belief system, agreeing to the basic tenets. (And yes, it's fair for you to point out Bible contradictions to disprove a certain theodicy, since THAT would be challenging the theodicy. However, many are not so much as contradictory, but overlapping, and work in parallel; ultimately it is POINTLESS, since the final judgment call is already claimed as "unknowable" and known ONLY by God (which is the brilliance of the account of Job)).
And OF COURSE the Bible talks out of both sides of it's mouth, eg with Jesus telling his followers to give away all of their Worldly possessions and follow him, vs Job prospering and being blessed with twice as much after passing his test; hell, the entire concept of sacrifice is a contract between believers and God, premised on the great 'return on investment' offered by God, where if you give God a little bit, He'll see that you'll be blessed with much more and in spades. As with theodicy, the Bible also 'shot-guns' on prosperity theology, and as an ex-elder you know all about the need to manage the selfish expectations of the flock, keeping their expectations low.
Whether intentional or not, your claims of killing Xian theodicy is an eyebrow-raiser, since it's actually one of the few parts of the JW theology that they actually improved upon vs their competitors.
Cofty said- Jws do not distinguish between human evil and natural evil. Leaving humans to the consequences of their own actions is one thing, booby-trapping the planet is nasty and vindictive.
Sorry, but flaws in God's creation, long history of earthquakes, fossil evidence, evidence from evolution, cosmology, geology, etc are ALL out of bounds and inadmissable as evidence, since as I stated above, you have to accept the Worldview and doctrines of the JWs (and the booby-trapped Earth was adequately preemptively addressed above by Apo, on the top of this page).
Cofty said- The resurrection hope does not in any way negate the suffering of this life. Any theology that minimises the importance of this life is dehumanising. JW theodicy reduces humans to unwilling pawns in god's pissing match with his nemesis.
Again, it does if you believe it. Which begs the question:
If all of this is so repulsive to you NOW, why did it not bother you WHEN you were inside the Borg?
You don't have to answer that, of course, but obviously SOMETHING changed in your thinking patterns. Were you just dishonest with others, telling them lies to play a role of an elder, or were you honestly and genuinely fooled? Or something else?
THAT'S where YOUR answer lies, and just imagine debating with the JW Cofty on theodicy, and adopting HIS beliefs in order to dismantle the theodicy.
Jgnat said- Now, in one simple sentence, explain how a fully just, loving, and omnipotent God would fail to act before a tsunami.
If it's not clear by now, it's an especially-bad idea to ask a JW that question, as it'll backfire, and only gives them permission to chalk up some time witnessing about the hope of resurrection offered by an 'all-loving' God who'll resurrect the victims into a perfect paradise Earth to be rejoined with their loved ones who survive to greet them (only if they join the JWs, though). They HAVE the answer.
Fact is, the JW approach to theodicy for 'evil' (or ANY kind, since as Cofty said, the JWs don't differentiate when there's no need: dead is dead, and ensures resurrection, both ways) is actually one of their strong suits, and is one of the most highly-refined and emotionally-satisfying answers offered throughout all of Xianity. Why? It allows God to maintain all of the claimed traits (omnibenevolence, omnipotence, and omniscience), when some theists are forced to sacrifice at least one to maintain the logic of their available theodicies.
So maybe it's better not to go there when talking to one's JW family members, except for those who still cling to persecution complexes and enjoy getting beaten about the head, face, and neck, with scriptures and JW literature, LOL!
Adam
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:.
HB asked- Would the medics involved face being charged by the police and put on trial if they switched off the machines and let the fetus die? If so, what charges? Could it ruin their career? Most doctors are caring and compassionate. I am sure there is more to this than bullheaded stubbornness on their part.
A doctor/staff member would risk losing their license, job, career, and possibly face criminal charges if they decided to play God. Only the DA's could answer what the charges would possibly be, but it's an interesting legal question for JT.
And actually to correct a minor point mentioned by SNR, the hospital is following a TX state law that FORCES keeping "pregnant patients" on life support. However, the hospital is seemingly over-interpreting the law, so the family is pushing to obtain a court order that would force the hospital to disconnect her from life support, pointing out the obvious fact that since she already is DEAD, she no longer is the "patient", and there is no life left to support (and the hospital would argue the fetus is the 'life' in question).
The ambiguous clause quoted in the OP is part of a law called the 'Advanced Directives Act', passed by the TX State legislators with the backing of pro-life groups (who are notorious Bible thumpers: after all , this IS Texas, where the first question people asks someone who moves into the neighborhood is, "So, what church do you go to?").
The hospital has dragged their feet for two months now, seemingly buying time until the fetus reaches an age where it would be protected under ANOTHER section of the Act which says abortions are not permitted UNLESS the health of the mother is endangered. But since the mother is already DEAD, the hospital would flip-flop positions, arguing there's no need to disconnect since the mother's health is not in jeopardy (her condition is quite stable now: she is DEAD, with no hope of her condition changing!).
FHN said- I doubt they think it's about God.
No? What are you suggesting, then?
What other grounds can you think of that would justify this situation, say from an ethical or philosophical angle?
SNR brought up the good point that pain receptors typically don't develop until around the 28th week, so how is continuing to delay doing any favors to this fetus, when it'll start to actually be able to sense it's death? How is this painful situation providing any benefit to the family who watch this horror unfold before their eyes, and they are left feeling completely powerless to do anything about it?
Adam
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:.
JT, thanks for the update on the hydrocephalus, heart condition, and deformed lower limbs (for those who don't know, 'hydrocephalus' means an accumulation of cerebrospinal fluid in the head which causes the brain and skull to swell, and is common cause of brain damage with cognitive impairment, etc).
Here's a pix of a child with hydrocephalus:
Sooner said-
I'm a Father and could never even conceive of doing such a thing.
Well, it's a good thing, since you don't have any choice in the matter, since the State you live has taken away your choice and WILL decide for you, if your wife ended up in the same situation!
Here's the options for treatment for fetal hydrocephalus, so surely the State of TX will see to it that the dead body is sent out of the US so the fetus can obtain in-utero treatment (performed by a unethical medical specialist willing to perform the experiment)? Since the State assumed ALL responsibility for the fetus now, they also have an ethical/moral/legal/financial OBLIGATION and the cost will be born by Texas taxpayers (and it shouldn't be more than what, maybe a million $ or so, when all is said and done, JUST for the surgery and transport?).
Of course, if you lived in a State which didn't take the choice away from you (like CA), you wouldn't have to face the temptation to abort a deformed and cognitively-impaired child, so that works out pretty good for you. Living in a Nanny State works out well, but only if you agree with the pre-determined choice.
