Posts by adamah

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:.

adamah

Lisa Rose said- FHN, I agree with you on this 100%. I dont like abortions, but I am pro choice. I am glad I never had to make this choice, both my children were wanted and I was in a position to love and care for them.

I doubt very few people who are pro-choice LIKE abortions, and enjoy the thought of a fetus ripped out of the womb. It's a waste of something very precious, and represents potential for what could've been but will never be. Heck, I hate to look at that picture of a chicken embryo, for the same reason!

But what I hate even more is the idea of others daring to possess the RIGHT to decide for others, when it really should be an intensely-personal decision made by the persons involved. Granted, some women WILL abuse their right and use abortion as a form of birth control, but we cannot allow the rights of the far-greater majority who do responsibly use their rights to be eroded by those who'd point to those who abuse the right.

That's the irony here: Erick and Marlise are paramedics, trusted and licensed by the State of Texas to SAVE the lives of others; but suddenly they become unable to be trusted to make a decision pertaining to themselves (which was made beforehand, based primarily on their experience AS paramedics seeing those people in a coma/PVS without ANY quality of life). So the State decides for them?

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:.

adamah

FHN said-

I also looked up the Mayo Clinic's description of the stages of pregnancy. They, too call the fetus a baby. The fetus doesnt become a non baby just because it has malformation. No matter what you call this Texas fetus/baby, it's been a tough situation. I posted the medicenenet pics and captions to illustrate that yes, a fetus is a baby, whether we like that or not.

Yeah I get that, FHN, and I simply don't know how to explain it any differently than others have already tried, since SURE, a page that is designed for non-medical professional patients (i.e. expectant mothers and fathers) is obviously going to use terms that people want to hear, since they want want to apply it their situation. I could just-as-easily link to pages designed for docs (OB/GYN, etc) that use the more-proper term used within medicine, and for very good reasons.

In fact, use of such language amongst providers is common, primarily because docs understand that such emotional attachments are well-known to effect and impair/color judgment, which can interfere with their ability to do their job. Who do you want to perform your surgery: a caring and empathetic skilled surgeon who understands you as a person, but also has the tendency to freak out and run away when the going get tough (abandoning you in the surgery suite), or a skilled surgeon who remains calm under pressure? Obviously a middle-ground is desirable, as the traits aren't mutually-exclusive.

That need for a level of clinical detachment is why it's considered unprofessional for a doctor to treat his family members: they're too emotionally-attached to the patient, and it potentially clouds their judgment of the care they deliver. Docs are human, and (most) aren't machines.

But ultimately it's 'begging the question', since as Shakespeare said, "A rose by any other name is still a rose". I mentioned that point in a prior post when I said we could call that 'thing' inside the womb ANYTHING WE WANT ('God', 'Satan', hedgebush, etc) and ultimately it's irrelevant to the actual issue in the abortion dabate of WHO gets to decide, the woman or 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:.

adamah

Oh, let's go back to this:

SNR said- from my very first post, I have said they have missaplied the law, therefore it is illegal.

Yeah, that's wrong. You seem to believe 'misapplication of law' is a synonym for 'illegal' (breaking a law): it's not.

I repeatedly asked you to cite WHICH SPECIFIC LAW you felt JPS was breaking (i.e. was illegal) by failing to turn her body over to her next-of-kin, and you didn't answer. You didn't even have to search through the entire Texas Penal Code, since the answer is explicitly provided in the request for relief filed by Erick Munoz (I gave the link to the PDF back on page 1).

Here's the applicable code:

Sec. 42.08. ABUSE OF CORPSE. (a) A person commits an offense if the person, without legal authority, knowingly:

(1) disinters, disturbs, damages, dissects, in whole or in part, carries away, or treats in an offensive manner a human corpse;

(b) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

(c) In this section, "human corpse" includes:

(1) any portion of a human corpse;

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Renumbered from Penal Code Sec. 42.10 by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994. Amended by: Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 1025, Sec. 1, eff. June 18, 2005.

Hence, the general principle of the rights of the next-of-kin to the decedent's remains is codified within this statute, and in Texas, violating the law is a Class A misdemeanor.

So why didn't Erick call the sheriff back in December, reporting JPS for violating Sec 42.08 and demanding the hospital withdraw the body off life support since not doing so is a misdemeanor? The hospital would say, "Not so fast there, pardner (sheriff): unplugging her mightily looks to be homicide, a felony criminal bush-whackin' offense, per this here law which gives the fetus rights from the moment of conception!" (Sorry, couldn't resist adding in some local color with the accent).

Law enforcement officers are NOT judges, and hence why Erick went to court seeking a judge's ruling, and ordering JPS to comply. So if JPS fails to comply with the court order NOW, the hospital faces being charged for violating Sec 42.08 (since they now have no 'legal authority' to do so, and instead additional criminal charges of contempt of court).

(And the issue of who bears the responsibility came up when JT explained how the hospital with 'deep pockets' could've clarified the issue on their own, without forcing the lowly-paid public-servant Erick to obtain a court order instead of dragging their heels.)

And since the DA's office was handling the defense for JPS, I'm sure the hospital was hardly shaking in their boots at the prospect of facing some criminal liability for a Class A misdemeanor. Besides, the plaintiff may still appeal the decision to a higher court, all the way up to the SCOTUS.

In the US, legality or illegality are not conclusively-determined until after the fat lady sings, and certainty not BEFORE the case is even heard by a judge! Instead, we rely on the presumption of innocence ("innocent until proven guilty"). That applies to all cases, not just this one.

SNR said- i am done arguing with you

Well, thanks for sharing your unique perspective and understanding of basic principles of law.

(JT and others, please feel free to correct me on any of this if you see it as questionable or flat-out wrong, as I welcome input. We only learn by allowing for the fact that others just might know something we don't.)

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:.

adamah

FHN, thanks for the photos of a normal pregnancy.

JT already explained how doctors will often play along with the mom's desire to bond with their fetuses by using the words "baby", etc, since that's simply part of offering a caring bed-side manner. Few moms would go back to a 'cold fish' doc who insisted on semantic accuracy, refusing to acknowledge the role of tact when communicating with patients. Instead, most docs realize patients KEEP THEM in practice, giving the provider the PRIVILEGE of treating by placing their trust in their hands (note: managed-care plans and State-run healthcare systems are largely exempted, although pt complaints are always good to avoid!).

However, there's a downside of feeding into the patient's desire to bond with the fetus: some 50% of pregnancies are spontaneously-aborted (i.e. miscarried), and the bonding and attachment likely makes it more emotionally-painful IF something goes wrong (as it did, in this case).

It's also feeding in to those who are pro-life and don't want others to have a choice, those who cannot recognize the issue is much-more complex than they want it to be. That's why this case is a 'teachable moment', serving as a wake-up call as to the folly of thinking ANYONE has all the answers to make decisions for others.

FHN said- Oh my stars, BOTR, you dont answer a rhetorical question to anyone but yourself.

Well, since you admit above it's a rhetorical question, it doesn't even allow a response, much less demand a response!

From http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=rhetorical%20question

S: (n) rhetorical question (a statement that is formulated as a question but that is not supposed to be answered) "he liked to make his points with rhetorical questions"

Adam

11

Fallacies Illustrated

by jgnat in

found today:.

http://twentytwowords.com/2013/09/17/silly-illustrations-of-logical-fallacies-12-pictures/.

a long-time favorite:.

adamah

Thanks for the video on the rationalist delusion, as Haidt's studies confirm that ALL humans are prone to cognitive biases, and all are vulnerable to uncritically accepting those very ideas we'd LIKE to be true, and are pre-primed to believe.

Unless we question the very ideas we'd want to be true (by not ignoring those very alarms that are sounding, "It sounds too good to be true!"), people are only going to be victim to others. The Bible offers that lesson in the VERY FIRST account, with Eve falling prey to the ear-tickling of the talking serpent, telling her what she wanted to hear as the Bible says she coveted the fruit, and desired what it offered).

It's also important to remember that ALL authors are selling books, and if they want to remain successful authors will present what their audience is going to actually pay good $$$ in order to hear.... It's why authors who want to speak truths have to wait until the very end, just before death or retirement to tell their readers what they REALLY think ('swan-song' works, eg Sigmund Freud's "Moses, the Egyptian" was his last book since it was so jarring to his audience).

I always recommend Kahane's and Kavendish's book on logic and contempory rhetoric, since instead on focusing on the egg-headed approach to classical logic, theirs uses a common-sense practical approach to analyzing the fallacies encountered in daily life (eg used by the WTBTS in their mags, or politicians, etc):

http://books.google.com/books/about/Logic_and_Contemporary_Rhetoric_The_Use.html?id=_IIVhDlcCy4C

A free preview is available above, and since the book is used as a college textbook, people should be able to find an older edition on eBay or abesbooks, brick-and-mortal local used book stores, etc on the cheap.

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:.

adamah

JT said-

Judges are human beings too, so lots of things were likely floating around in his head. However, his LEGAL conclusion couldn't be more clear: EVERY section of the law doesn't apply to pregnant, dead women. If he thought it mattered legally, he would have mentioned viability, thereby leaving open the possibility of a hospital doing the same as JPS with a Munoz-type woman with a viable fetus.

Thanks, and that makes perfect sense...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but after a judge gives a ruling, then the specific fact-patterns of the Munoz case don't matter any longer, since the ruling itself is what carries weight? I'm sure there must be some legal principle covering the allowable "wiggle room" for deviations in the fact patterns before a lawyer is unable to cite prior case law (I'm asking, since I'm wondering about the prior case which elicited a "bad form" response from you since the defendant's lawyers failed to mention it in JPS affadavit? There must be some principle analogous to the exclusionary rule for criminal law, except for relevancy of prior case law, or is that an issue to iron out on a case-by-case basis before the judge in the hearing)?

At any rate, all of this points back to the necessity of such legal proceedings, which is a point some seem to have overlooked: such decisions allow for clarification of specific existing legal codes, so in the future a family who is similarly-effected by 166.049 doesn't need to start from ground zero. It's not a matter of simply having the ability to recognize that the hospital's interpretation and inaction was improper (no spit, Sparlock: most everyone here has pointed out that she's dead? It's WHY I started the thread!), but a matter of having the authority of a judge to decide and write a legal opinion that addresses the current case AND which can be cited by others.

Adam

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:.

adamah

Ahh, so I found further details on the agreement to concede non-viability of the fetus which was reached hours before oral arguments were heard.

The signed agreement is here:

http://media.star-telegram.com/smedia/2014/01/24/15/46/1jI4ZN.So.58.pdf

So BB is seemingly correct on the point, and it clears up some of the confusion, since non-viability was considered by the judge as a factor (see text below, in the judge's own words), and if the fetus were viable it possibly could've been used as a factor to reach a different outcome:

http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/2014/01/fort-worth-hospital-acknowledges-pregnant-woman-is-brain-dead.html/

Update at 4:05 p.m.:

District Judge R.H. Wallace listened to an hour of arguments Friday afternoon, and both sides agree that Marlise Muñoz’s fetus is not viable and she is dead. It’s whether she’s been “pronounced” dead that appears to be the sticking point.

“I respect JPS’ arguments in trying to follow the law,” the judge said, “but every section doesn’t apply to someone who is dead.”

Attorneys for John Peter Smith Hospital and Erick Muñoz presented their cases about the right of the fetus to live and the right of the mother to die. But despite Marlise Muñoz being brain dead, the hospital argues, she has never been pronounced dead.

Both sides also agree that the fetus is not viable, and the judge noted that the mother could elect to have an abortion if she were able to make such a decision.

“As I understand the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court that if this fetus were not viable [and] Ms. Muñoz were alive … she could abort the child.”

Wallace has ordered a brief recess, after which he could make a ruling in the case.

Update at 3:07 p.m.: About two hours before today’s hearing, attorneys representing Erick Munoz and John Peter Smith Hospital filed a joint document in which they agree that “at the time of this hearing, the fetus gestating inside Mrs. Munoz is not viable.” It is the first time the hospital has acknowledged what Erick Munoz has maintained all along.

A breakthrough came when the hospital and the Munoz family agreed on crucial facts listed in a court document: that Marlise Munoz, 33, has "met the clinical criteria for brain death since November 28" and that "the fetus gestating inside Mrs. Munoz is not viable."

The woman's husband repeatedly made these claims in his efforts to have her removed from the machines.

SNR said- Buzy bee, no the hospital could only do what they did with the law behind them and the law was CLEARLY refering to a living pregnant women.

Have you ever heard of the fallacy from informal logic called, "begging the question"?

You're doing it right now, since the judge had to rule on the matter in order to show that 166.049 didn't apply. The JUDGE even commented on that issue with the words I put in BOLD RED above.

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:.

adamah

He did not say the statute didn't apply because she was deadn AND the fetus was not viable.

BB said- He didn't have to.

Sure, and the reason (which you didn't state) is once the judge concluded 166.049 didn't apply to dead people, viability of the fetus became irrelevant. That's why viability wasn't mentioned in the ruling (although it must've been in the back of the judge's mind, with the prospect of the State cast in the role of Dr. Frankenstein, morbidly experimenting with cadaviers to save a malformed fetus, against the will of their next-of-kin).

But regardless, the ruling of the high-profile Munoz case is one that gained National attention and hopefully won't likely be overlooked or dismissed (as the Miller case seemingly was).

SNR said- Seriously, you speak with authority on EVERY topic. I hate intellectual eliteism, but there is a huge difference between qualified and unqualified on these issues.

You side-stepped the question, I see?

Adam asked- What law do you believe the hospital was violating by NOT respecting the decedent's wishes?

Please feel free to start a new thread on the topic of 'intellectual elitism vs arrogance of ignorance' if you wish, since we're discussing the ethical, moral and legal implications of the Munoz case in TX. You and I can engage in 'special pleading' on the basis of appealing to our own authority until the cows come home; in the end, only the veracity of the information presented is what matters, and whether the facts supports the claim(s).

Hopefully this thread will be winding down after yesterday's ruling, unless there's any new twists and turns in the matter, such as this:

BOTR said- I just heard that the hospital is considering an appeal of the lower court's order.

(Forehead slap!) You've gotta be kiddin' me....

(EDIT: sorry for the cross-post: I see JT and BB are disussing this already....)

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:.

adamah

if the fetus had been considered "viable," this nightmare might still be going on.

JT said- I don't think so.

I can't find the actual ruling anywhere online, but it appears the judge said the statute didn't apply because she was dead. He did not say the statute didn't apply because she was deadn AND the fetus was not viable.

Yeah, it's not clear to me if the hospital's admission of non-viability was motivated by a reaction to the judge's order (since the fetus likely isn't viable at the current 22 wk. 5 days point), or an admission of the clearly-abnormal condition of the infant, or both. Regardless, it seemed to be a way for JPS to save face, as if offering justification to pro-life forces for not continuing to engage in any further heroic life-saving efforts (eg trying to perform a C-section on her before Monday) as if they seemingly realized the Frankensteinian nature (and PR nightmare) of the State forcing dead bodies to be used to create a living vegetable (which only contains human DNA), with NO consideration of the impact on the 'quality of life afforded' by each and all.

JT, here's the judge's terse order uploaded by a local news reporter to her twitter feed:

https://mobile.twitter.com/AmandaNBC5/status/426845429863436288/photo/1

(Click on the photo to magnify)

SNR said- It WAS illegal, was unethical and unnecessary.

Interesting comment on the legality (agreed on the ethics accessment, but the necessity seems to be begging the question, since clearly that's the entire point of the thread). What law do you believe the hospital was violating by NOT respecting the decendent's wishes?

Because in the affadavit submitted to the court, the hospital pointed to Texas Penal Code 19.01(a), saying that ANYONE (including doctors, nurses, etc) who disconnected a pregnant (but dead) body from life support would potentially be facing charges of criminal homicide, since another provision of the Code grants individual rights and protections from the moment of fertilization:

The Texas Penal Code, for example, defines an individual as a human being who is alive, including an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth. Texas Penal Code § 1.07 (a) (26). This means one may commit the offense of criminal homicide by causing the death of an unborn child. Texas Penal Code §19.01(a).

That's the entire point of the need for the judge's ruling (which clarifies the obvious), but these are the kind of nutsy predicaments and game-playing that arises in a State which grants individual rights from the moment of conception, and codifies such an extreme pro-life agenda into their laws. So this ruling will be added to case law (hopefully) to avoid future repeats of the same scenario playing out.

Adam

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:.

adamah

It's truly an incredibly-sad situation, whichever way you cut it.

I cannot imagine the grief and frustration the husband, her son and parents must be experiencing, having to deal not only with the loss of a pregnant mother, mourning the loss of a little family that will never be, but then having to fight State law forcing the hospital to alleviate their misery and pain, the ones most-effected by the decision who should've been able to make it (Ms. Munoz was declared brain dead on Nov 28, almost two months ago).

Let's hope the hospital doesn't drag their feet now and wait for the last possible minute to comply with the judge's order. There are reports the hospital is now admitting the fetus isn't viable, anyway, perhaps to alleviate their consciences, or to serve as an excuse for engaging in further 'medical misadventures' (such as cutting into her dead body without the permission of her husband to try last-ditch heroic efforts to 'save' the fetus).

(FWIW, the submitted affadavits cite the age at which the fetus experiences pain as starting around 20 weeks....)