Print Page | Close Window

Hospital Forces Woman on Life Support

Printed From: Black Hair Media Forum
Category: Lets Talk
Forum Name: Talk, Talk, and More Talk
Forum Description: In this Forum, the talk is about everything that can be talked about.
URL: http://Forum.BlackHairMedia.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=367449
Printed Date: Oct 20 2018 at 8:51am


Topic: Hospital Forces Woman on Life Support
Posted By: tatee
Subject: Hospital Forces Woman on Life Support
Date Posted: Jan 10 2014 at 1:18pm
because she is pregnant.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/01/10/3146331/texas-family-sue-life-support/" rel="nofollow - Texas Family Will Sue Hospital For Keeping Pregnant, Brain-Dead Woman On Life Support

By http://thinkprogress.org/person/tculp-ressler/" rel="nofollow - Tara Culp-Ressler https://twitter.com/intent/user?screen_name=@Tara_CR" rel="nofollow"> on January 10, 2014 at 11:13 am

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/01/10/3146331/texas-family-sue-life-support/#" rel="nofollow -

"Texas Family Will Sue Hospital For Keeping Pregnant, Brain-Dead Woman On Life Support"



http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/01/10/3146331/texas-family-sue-life-support/#" rel="nofollow - - -
Marlise Munoz, her husband, and their young son

Marlise Munoz, her husband, and their young son

CREDIT: Fox News

The family of Marlise Machado Munoz is http://www.star-telegram.com/2014/01/09/5473242/family-of-pregnant-brain-dead.html?rh=1" rel="nofollow - preparing a legal challenge against a Texas hospital that is forcing them to http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/01/05/3120251/texas-family-life-support-pregnant/" rel="nofollow - keep Munoz on life support because she’s pregnant, even though she has been pronounced brain dead and the grieving family wants to say their goodbyes. An attorney who specializes in family law http://www.star-telegram.com/2014/01/09/5473242/family-of-pregnant-brain-dead.html?rh=1" rel="nofollow - confirmed to the Star-Telegram that litigation will be filed soon, but declined to give more details in order to protect the strategy in the upcoming legal fight.

Munoz was pronounced brain dead in November after losing consciousness unexpectedly. She was 14 weeks pregnant at the time. Munoz’s family members say she would never want to be http://www.dallasnews.com/news/columnists/jacquielynn-floyd/20140103-texas-denies-grieving-family-the-right-to-say-goodbye.ece" rel="nofollow - kept alive by a machine — but hospital officials are still preventing them from removing Munoz from a ventilator. The hospital is citing a decades-old state law that states, “A person may not withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment… from a pregnant patient.” Texas is one of 12 states that http://www.centerwomenpolicy.org/programs/health/statepolicy/documents/REPRO_PregnancyExclusionsinStateLivingWillandMedicalProxyStatutesMeganGreeneandLeslieR.Wolfe.pdf" rel="nofollow - invalidate women’s end-of-life wishes if she is pregnant.

In Munoz’s case, the hospital could actually be applying the law incorrectly.

“I think the Texas law cannot apply to the dead,” Art Caplan, the director of medical ethics at New York University’s Langone Medical Center, http://www.star-telegram.com/2014/01/09/5473242/family-of-pregnant-brain-dead.html?rh=1" rel="nofollow - explained to the Star-Telegram . “I think the hospital is wrong to insist that it does.”

The issue at hand results from a misunderstanding of the http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/inside-the-mind/human-brain/brain-death3.htm" rel="nofollow - medical definition of death. As the http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/10/health/the-science-behind-brain-death.html?_r=1" rel="nofollow - New York Times notes , it’s important to make the distinction between individuals who are “brain dead” — like Munoz — and individuals who are in a “persistent vegetative state.” The most high-profile battles over life support, like the one that centered on http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/31/schiavo/" rel="nofollow - Terri Schiavo , involved people who were in vegetative states. That means they could breathe on their own; although they may have been http://www.nbcnews.com/id/8225637/ns/us_news/t/schiavo-autopsyshows-irreversiblebrain-damage/#.UtATXp5dWSo" rel="nofollow - severely brain damaged , they weren’t considered to be brain dead.

Brain death, on the other hand, is one of the two http://www.uniformlaws.org/ActSummary.aspx?title=Determination%20of%20Death%20Act" rel="nofollow - medical definitions of death. In all 50 states, once a person is declared to be brain dead, they are considered to be deceased. In every state except for New York and New Jersey, hospitals http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/10/health/the-science-behind-brain-death.html?_r=1" rel="nofollow - don’t need to consult families to decide how to terminate care after a brain death diagnosis.

Laurence McCullough, a professor at the Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy at Baylor College of Medicine, http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/09/ethicists-criticize-treatment-brain-dead-patients/4394173/" rel="nofollow - told USA Today that there shouldn’t be any ethical issues about providing care to someone who is brain dead because that patient is now a corpse. Most medical professionals actually believe it is http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/09/ethicists-criticize-treatment-brain-dead-patients/4394173/" rel="nofollow - highly unethical to keep a brain dead person hooked up to ventilators or feeding tubes, because medical interventions shouldn’t be performed on a dead body.

Even when an individual is bread dead, their heart http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/06/health/brain-dead-basics/" rel="nofollow - may remain beating . That can give the illusion of life. In http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/28/health/life-support-ethics/" rel="nofollow - another high-profile controversy currently swirling around this area of medical practice, the family of 13-year-old Jahi McMath is fighting to keep her hooked up to life support even though she is brain dead, because they say her body functions http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/04/us/a-brain-is-dead-a-heart-beats-on.html" rel="nofollow - prove she is still alive . But that heartbeat is http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/10/health/the-science-behind-brain-death.html?_r=1" rel="nofollow - only temporary . With ventilation, the heart can continue to beat for up to a week even without brain function. With more aggressive intervention, it could keep beating for months after brain death. It’s confusing to receive a death certificate for someone whose heart is still beating, but doctors ultimately say that it doesn’t change the fact that they’re not alive any longer.

NYU’s Caplan believes that when it comes to both Munoz and McMath, the cases have been handled very badly. “They’re giving the impression that dead people can come back to life,” he http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/28/health/life-support-ethics/" rel="nofollow - explained . Caplan http://www.star-telegram.com/2014/01/09/5473242/family-of-pregnant-brain-dead.html?rh=1" rel="nofollow - encouraged the Munoz family to sue over the hospital’s interpretation of Texas law.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/01/10/3146331/texas-family-sue-life-support/




Replies:
Posted By: femmemichelle
Date Posted: Jan 10 2014 at 1:23pm
I mean can they not deliver the baby? I would think making sure the baby is OK if the mother is too far gone would be of the utmost importance to the family.




Posted By: femmemichelle
Date Posted: Jan 10 2014 at 1:25pm
Ohhh the baby was 14 weeks. So it's gone??? So why are they keeping her hooked up? How do they plan on maintaining the baby's life if it's only 14 weeks? 


Posted By: yaya24
Date Posted: Jan 10 2014 at 1:26pm
Well, she's going to be on it for a LONG time then until the baby is delivered. She was only 14 weeks pregnant at the time of her diagnosis of being brain dead.

I wonder who will be responsible for paying for that?
(I only skimmed the article).





Posted By: tatee
Date Posted: Jan 10 2014 at 1:29pm
Originally posted by yaya24 yaya24 wrote:

Well, she's going to be on it for a LONG time then until the baby is delivered. She was only 14 weeks pregnant at the time of her diagnosis of being brain dead.

I wonder who will be responsible for paying for that?
(I only skimmed the article).





you know theyre going to send the husband that bill.


Posted By: AwesomeAries
Date Posted: Jan 10 2014 at 1:29pm
If they can keep the baby alive and deliver it safely I don't see why not....



Posted By: blaquefoxx
Date Posted: Jan 10 2014 at 1:29pm
Originally posted by yaya24 yaya24 wrote:

Well, she's going to be on it for a LONG time then until the baby is delivered. She was only 14 weeks pregnant at the time of her diagnosis of being brain dead.

I wonder who will be responsible for paying for that?
(I only skimmed the article).






Posted By: maysay1
Date Posted: Jan 10 2014 at 1:35pm
Originally posted by AwesomeAries AwesomeAries wrote:

If they can keep the baby alive and deliver it safely I don't see why not....



You don't see why keeping a dead person as an incubator for a fetus might be a problem?


Posted By: femmemichelle
Date Posted: Jan 10 2014 at 1:38pm
The thing is that's still her child in there and there's life inside of her. There's no way to ask her, but if I were in that position (God forbid) I'd want to make sure my baby at least makes it out alive......

I know this society has a tendency to treat unborn children as lifeless ragdolls capable of being disposed at the mother's discretion but they received no such permission from her to terminate the baby's life. If it can be sustained I don't see the issue.


Posted By: tatee
Date Posted: Jan 10 2014 at 1:41pm
Originally posted by femmemichelle femmemichelle wrote:

The thing is that's still her child in there and there's life inside of her. There's no way to ask her, but if I were in that position (God forbid) I'd want to make sure my baby at least makes it out alive......

I know this society has a tendency to treat unborn children as lifeless ragdolls capable of being disposed at the mother's discretion but they received no such permission from her to terminate the baby's life. If it can be sustained I don't see the issue.


she told her family her wishes and she didnt want it.




Posted By: maysay1
Date Posted: Jan 10 2014 at 1:49pm
Originally posted by femmemichelle femmemichelle wrote:

The thing is that's still her child in there and there's life inside of her. There's no way to ask her, but if I were in that position (God forbid) I'd want to make sure my baby at least makes it out alive......

I know this society has a tendency to treat unborn children as lifeless ragdolls capable of being disposed at the mother's discretion but they received no such permission from her to terminate the baby's life. If it can be sustained I don't see the issue.


Aside from the fact that the mother did express her wishes to her husband...

At 14 weeks the fetus is not reasonably viable. I could see if we were talking about a woman who was in her 3rd trimester and the baby has a possibility of survival outside the womb.

And let's fast forward to when the baby is able to be delivered. Her body is not going to go into labor...they will have to perform a major surgery (c-section) on a dead woman. No doctor will do that. So then what? The now fully formed fetus (that can now experience pain and trauma) will die inside its dead mother. Let's at least have some compassion for the fetus and the husband who was left behind.


Posted By: Sang Froid
Date Posted: Jan 10 2014 at 1:50pm
Yall be actin' like this medical sh*t is cheap as hell.
"Oh just keep her on life support for ever and rack up millions of dollars that ain't nobody got."
Let her and that "baby" go.


Posted By: harley_quinn
Date Posted: Jan 10 2014 at 1:53pm
That's a sad situation.


Posted By: keepgrowing
Date Posted: Jan 10 2014 at 1:55pm
If this is not what the family wanted then I can see why it is a problem. But in Texas, doctors can override the patient's family life support wishes only if the patient did not have what she wanted recorded and she has no medical power of attorney.

I think this law is unique to Texas.


Posted By: newdiva1
Date Posted: Jan 10 2014 at 2:01pm
That's what he needs to do.  Ask who is going to pay for it.  Let it be known that he don't have what i'm sure will be 6 if not 7 figures to sustain her. I'm sure the hospital will find a way to change their mind.


Posted By: AwesomeAries
Date Posted: Jan 10 2014 at 2:19pm
Originally posted by maysay1 maysay1 wrote:

Originally posted by AwesomeAries AwesomeAries wrote:

If they can keep the baby alive and deliver it safely I don't see why not....



You don't see why keeping a dead person as an incubator for a fetus might be a problem?

If the hospital will pay for it and the family does not have to pay
no. I want the child to live..


Posted By: keepgrowing
Date Posted: Jan 10 2014 at 2:22pm
The hospital won't pay for anything. This will be the husband's responsibility or tax payers. 


Posted By: AwesomeAries
Date Posted: Jan 10 2014 at 2:23pm
Originally posted by keepgrowing keepgrowing wrote:

The hospital won't pay for anything. This will be the husband's responsibility or tax payers. 

I just don't want the child to dieCry



Posted By: liesnalibis
Date Posted: Jan 10 2014 at 3:26pm
Some people act like they really have a personal problem with fetuses. She will still be dead when the child is ready to be born. There is no rush.


Posted By: BrownQtee
Date Posted: Jan 10 2014 at 4:16pm

The baby obviously cannot survive without it's mother, at 14 weeks it is utterly ridiculous for them to propose keeping that woman on life support until it's fully developed. Fukkin wack jobs.



Posted By: indiecat
Date Posted: Jan 10 2014 at 4:25pm
They might take the baby out earlier than full term, I am pregnant, so I am emotional for the baby. the husband and family shouldn't have to pay for anything if the hospital is making decisions for them. if the baby survives though, I'm sure the family will want to be part of its life.


Posted By: QueenBee
Date Posted: Jan 10 2014 at 4:25pm
Being that both are EMT/paramedics, they are aware of what happens when being brain dead. They are unsure how long the mother was without oxygen before getting medical attention thus affecting the development of the baby.  This means this baby may/can be born with birth defects due to the time it was without receive oxygen.  If the baby is born, then it is now the father's  responsibility to raise a child with possible severe mental disabilities.  
 
eta:   Wasn't this posted before? 


Posted By: maysay1
Date Posted: Jan 10 2014 at 4:28pm
I think some people are missing the point.

Keeping the mother on life support results in the death of the baby anyway. She is legally considered a corpse. As such, no doctor will perform any type of medical procedure on her. There will be no natural delivery or c-section...no medical personnel will even touch her.

If the baby makes it to a viable point it will not matter because it cannot deliver itself. It will die in the womb. I don't know what kind of experience that is, but I'm thinking it will be a horrible, torturous death.


Posted By: Joja1107
Date Posted: Jan 10 2014 at 4:35pm
Someone may know a little more but many hospitals won't try and save a baby that is less than 23-24 weeks gestation. It was a law ( i think "baby doe law" or something) that said hospitals had to do everything they could to save the baby at that age. Before that it's not required. I'm unsure why they are in this instance especially against the family's wishes.


Posted By: QueenBee
Date Posted: Jan 10 2014 at 4:38pm
Originally posted by maysay1 maysay1 wrote:

I think some people are missing the point.

Keeping the mother on life support results in the death of the baby anyway. She is legally considered a corpse. As such, no doctor will perform any type of medical procedure on her. There will be no natural delivery or c-section...no medical personnel will even touch her.

If the baby makes it to a viable point it will not matter because it cannot deliver itself. It will die in the womb. I don't know what kind of experience that is, but I'm thinking it will be a horrible, torturous death.
 
This is going to be interesting if they do perform a medical procedure on her considering what is happening with the Jahi (little girl brain dead from tonisillectomy).  Maybe it varies by state.
 
eta:  I guess some states do deliver babies from brain dead mothers.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/brain-dead-mom-gives-birth-to-twins-while-on-life-support/" rel="nofollow - http://www.cbsnews.com/news/brain-dead-mom-gives-birth-to-twins-while-on-life-support/


Posted By: QueenBee
Date Posted: Jan 10 2014 at 4:41pm

A Brain-Dead Mother, a Million-Dollar Baby

Published: Jan 10, 2014

By Sarah Wickline , Contributing Writer, MedPage Today
http://www.medpagetoday.com/posttest_eval.cfm?tbid=43736" rel="nofollow -
http://www.medpagetoday.com/OBGYN/Pregnancy/43736#" rel="nofollow">
For best viewing, click the bottom right corner for full screen.

The case of a pregnant woman in Texas kept on life support against her family's wishes has captured the nation's attention as ethical debates swirl, but there is another compelling aspect to this story: The fetus she is carrying may be the first real http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0405159/" rel="nofollow - - Marlise Munoz, 33, has been on life support at John Peter Smith Hospital in Fort Worth, Texas, since late November , when she was declared brain dead following oxygen deprivation related to a possible blood clot in her lungs. The patient's medical details have not been released.

At the time of her legal death, she was 14 weeks pregnant. Her advanced directive, and the wishes of her husband and family, call for removal from life support. However, http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/HS/htm/HS.166.htm" rel="nofollow - - Medical ventilation can run $1,500 per day , according to a 2005 study, and long-term ICU can run about $5,000 per day. But Munoz's unique situation could mean even higher costs, said http://payerprovider.com/experts/adam-powell/" rel="nofollow - - baby would have about a 50% chance of survival . By the time she reaches 112 days, at which point she would be 30 weeks pregnant, the bill would be $560,000, and the baby would have more than a 92% chance of survival.

Then there's the cost of a C-section, roughly $4,500 for physicians' fees alone, according to the https://www.healthcarebluebook.com/page_Results.aspx?id=107&dataset=MD&g=Cesarean%20Section" rel="nofollow - - Brian S. Carter, MD , a neonatologist at Children's Mercy Hospital in Kansas City, Mo., told MedPage Today that the neonate could spend anywhere between 2 to 4 months in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), http://www.medpagetoday.com/Pediatrics/GeneralPediatrics/12192" rel="nofollow - - NICU costs generally run more than $3,500 per day . After 2 months, the NICU bill would be roughly $210,000, and by 4 months, it could reach $420,000. Carter suggested the baby would spend roughly 2 months in the NICU if the birth occurred at 28 weeks, but it would look more like 4 months if the birth was closer to 24 weeks.

That means a grand hospital bill total of anywhere from $439,500 to $984,500.

Powell suggested that the http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/MedicalEducation/43509" rel="nofollow -

Munoz was a paramedic and her husband is a firefighter. The fact that Munoz worked -- presumably for more than 18 months -- means the child will be eligible for Social Security death benefits until the age of 18. Her salary is unknown, but if it were $45,000 per year, the combination of payments to her husband and their child would be about $3,000 per month. That's $36,000 per year for 18 years or a total of $648,000.

Taken together, even a conservative estimate of the costs exceeds $1 million, and could be more than $1.6 million.

The Clinical Outlook

Keeping the mother's body stable and avoiding life-support-related infections throughout the pregnancy will be the key to a good fetal outcome, say clinicians, but there is considerable risk for brain damage from the initial injury.

http://obgyn.duke.edu/faculty/details/0087363" rel="nofollow -

http://medicalcenter.osu.edu/patientcare/findadoctor/Pages/profile.aspx?provid=17347" rel="nofollow -

Prasad noted that if the providers were to determine that the NICU environment could provide more stability than the womb, a pre-term birth might be the best course of action.

Carter told MedPage Today that the medications given to Munoz in the emergency department to resuscitate her would also have benefited the fetus. But, that the impact of the maternal incident itself is what poses the http://www.medpagetoday.com/Pediatrics/GeneralPediatrics/12192" rel="nofollow -

Carter said the infant is at high risk of cerebral palsy.

Heine agreed. "The real issue has to do with the event that caused her to go on life support. That damage is really hard to predict. We think that 80% to 90% of all cases of cerebral palsy are due to in utero events."

"About 20% of cardiac output goes to the utero-placental unit and serves the fetus, so a maternal event such as has been described for this woman can't help but impact the fetal development in a negative fashion, and I would be very concerned about the impact that it has specifically on fetal brain development," Carter said.

The Ethical Debate

Several ethicists question the humanity of keeping a brain dead woman on life support against the family's wishes; however, others believe that protecting what is technically a viable fetus is the humane course.

http://www.bu.edu/news/faculty-experts/george-annas/" rel="nofollow -

Professor http://www.utexas.edu/law/faculty/ws2234/" rel="nofollow -

"I doubt the law applies to a deceased woman who was pregnant at the time of her death," Sage said.

"As an ethical matter, this case is unusual because the family seems to be asserting that the mother would not have wanted care to be given to the fetus after her death, but the hospital refuses to honor that choice," Sage continued.

Annas agreed, "Extraordinary means to preserve the life of a nonviable fetus against the wishes of the family should probably never be used, at least not longer than a few days, and then only if a healthy infant is the probable result."

"The issue is much more difficult when the pregnant woman is dead, because the dead have no constitutional rights and no claim to liberty or autonomy. They do, however, have a "right" to have their dead bodies treated with respect, and this, I think, should limit the time that physicians can use their dead body against their likely wishes," Annas said.

"There is a pretty robust legal and ethical consensus around the right of a patient, or their representative, to refuse medical care," http://www.bioethicsinstitute.org/people/alan-regenberg" rel="nofollow -

According to http://www.einstein.yu.edu/faculty/11848/patricia-tia-powell/" rel="nofollow -

"A judge should intervene to require an examination of the patient to determine whether or not she meets criteria for brain death," Powell recommended.

Even if Munoz had an iron-clad advanced directive prior to her health incident, she did not have one updated after knowledge of her pregnancy, rendering the directive unusable under the circumstances, said Texas Medical Association spokesperson Robert Tenery, MD.

"The fetus was deemed viable at the time of admission," Tenery, former chair of the American Medical Association's Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, told MedPage Today. As there is no way to know about brain damage at that stage, viability was determined via heartbeat, which was strong enough to thwart decisions to remove life support.



Posted By: maysay1
Date Posted: Jan 10 2014 at 4:42pm
Originally posted by QueenBee QueenBee wrote:

Originally posted by maysay1 maysay1 wrote:

I think some people are missing the point.

Keeping the mother on life support results in the death of the baby anyway. She is legally considered a corpse. As such, no doctor will perform any type of medical procedure on her. There will be no natural delivery or c-section...no medical personnel will even touch her.

If the baby makes it to a viable point it will not matter because it cannot deliver itself. It will die in the womb. I don't know what kind of experience that is, but I'm thinking it will be a horrible, torturous death.
 
This is going to be interesting if they do perform a medical procedure on her considering what is happening with the Jahi (little girl brain dead from tonisillectomy). 


I don't know any doctor that would. My brother and his wife are doctors and he said he'd be crazy to do something like that. Aside from ethically being against it, you could never practice medicine again. That woman's husband would sue for all he had and he would never be able to get malpractice insurance again.




Posted By: keepgrowing
Date Posted: Jan 10 2014 at 4:49pm
So I just saw the law that they must keep a pregnant woman on life support, but she is brain dead....Man I know the hospital is going through some major stress right about now. This is a difficult case. 


Posted By: keepgrowing
Date Posted: Jan 10 2014 at 4:59pm
This case is difficult. The fetus has a slim chance of surviving. Technically, this should not have been ok, but it happened in Texas which is the only reason it was ok. According to medical ethics, the fetus is a function of the mother until viable at 24 weeks so this shouldn't have been ok. If the family wanted life support from the poor woman to be removed, it should have been removed. But they evoked another law, who knows how old that law is, to make this slide. They are prolonging the inevitable and wasting medical resources while doing so. 


Posted By: Senior Detective
Date Posted: Jan 10 2014 at 5:01pm
pro-lifers are crazy as hell


Posted By: femmemichelle
Date Posted: Jan 10 2014 at 5:02pm
She could have a 92% chance of survival. It would cost $500,000+, though.


Posted By: liesnalibis
Date Posted: Jan 10 2014 at 5:03pm
So it's an issue to remove a living baby from a dead woman but it's okay to cut her open and weigh her organs and test her blood after she's dead solely for research and record keeping purposes. Okay.


Posted By: keepgrowing
Date Posted: Jan 10 2014 at 5:11pm
That 92% is for a baby born at 30 weeks to a healthy alive woman. 


Posted By: femmemichelle
Date Posted: Jan 10 2014 at 5:16pm
Originally posted by keepgrowing keepgrowing wrote:

That 92% is for a baby born at 30 weeks to a healthy alive woman. 

"So what will this extended hospital stay cost?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15942342" rel="nofollow - - Adam C. Powell, PhD , a healthcare economist at Payer+Provider in Boston.

At $5,000 per day, Munoz's hospital bills would be $350,000 after 70 days, or 24 weeks into her pregnancy, when the  http://umm.edu/health/medical/pregnancy/labor-and-delivery/what-happens-if-my-baby-is-born-prematurely" rel="nofollow - Then there's the cost of a C-section, roughly $4,500 for physicians' fees alone, according to the  https://www.healthcarebluebook.com/page_Results.aspx?id=107&dataset=MD&g=Cesarean%20Section" rel="nofollow - Once the child is born,  http://www.childrensmercy.org/Clinics_and_Services/Clinics_and_Departments/Neonatology/Faculty_and_Staff/?doc=17402" rel="nofollow - - depending upon how many weeks he or she is premature ."


Where does it say that? They're discussing the costs the father would incur as a result of everything that has happened thus far.



Posted By: femmemichelle
Date Posted: Jan 10 2014 at 5:17pm
It's a sad situation. It is my belief that all life should be preserved and anything medically necessary that must be done to save a life must be done.

If the family wants to terminate the pregnancy, then the hospital should definitely foot the bill.



Posted By: FarraFace
Date Posted: Jan 10 2014 at 6:04pm
I mean, it's Texas. They don't give a damn about that woman, her wishes or her rights. She gon be plugged in til that baby weighs 7lbs.

But now if someone were to point out  that that 'losing consciousness unexpectedly' story sounds fishy and that an autopsy might reveal foul play and raise they possibility that they could send a Mexican/Hispanic/Latino/Chicano/whatevuh to prison the chair/chamber...well, they'd probably yank that cord out the socket so fast the plug would hit the yanker in the face. IJS

eta: Cuz she look white and they would charge him with killing her and the unborn child.


Posted By: tropical-punch
Date Posted: Jan 10 2014 at 9:29pm
so is the baby still growing and developing?


Posted By: melikey
Date Posted: Jan 10 2014 at 9:54pm
So people are cool with using dead bodies to grow babies? Disgusting.


Posted By: BBpants
Date Posted: Jan 10 2014 at 9:54pm
Confused

Take that woman off life support. This whole story is sick.


Posted By: keepgrowing
Date Posted: Jan 10 2014 at 10:30pm
Originally posted by femmemichelle femmemichelle wrote:

Originally posted by keepgrowing keepgrowing wrote:

That 92% is for a baby born at 30 weeks to a healthy alive woman. 


"<span style=": rgb251, 251, 253; line-height: 1.4;">So what will this extended hospital stay cost?</span>
<p style=": rgb251, 251, 253;">[URL=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15942342" rel="nofollow]Medical ventilation can run $1,500 per day[/URL], according to a 2005 study, and long-term ICU can run about $5,000 per day. But Munoz's unique situation could mean even higher costs, said [URL=http://payerprovider.com/experts/adam-powell/" rel="nofollow]Adam C. Powell, PhD[/URL], a healthcare economist at Payer+Provider in Boston.

<p style=": rgb251, 251, 253;">At $5,000 per day, Munoz's hospital bills would be $350,000 after 70 days, or 24 weeks into her pregnancy, when the [URL=http://umm.edu/health/medical/pregnancy/labor-and-delivery/what-happens-if-my-baby-is-born-prematurely" rel="nofollow]baby would have about a 50% chance of survival[/URL]. By the time she reaches 112 days, at which point she would be 30 weeks pregnant, the bill would be $560,000, and the baby would have more than a 92% chance of survival.

<p style=": rgb251, 251, 253;">Then there's the cost of a C-section, roughly $4,500 for physicians' fees alone, according to the [URL=https://www.healthcarebluebook.com/page_Results.aspx?id=107&dataset=MD&g=Cesarean%20Section" rel="nofollow]Healthcare Blue Book[/URL].

<p style=": rgb251, 251, 253;">Once the child is born, [URL=http://www.childrensmercy.org/Clinics_and_Services/Clinics_and_Departments/Neonatology/Faculty_and_Staff/?doc=17402" rel="nofollow]Brian S. Carter, MD[/URL], a neonatologist at Children's Mercy Hospital in Kansas City, Mo., told MedPage Today that the neonate could spend anywhere between 2 to 4 months in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), [URL=http://www.medpagetoday.com/Pediatrics/GeneralPediatrics/12192" rel="nofollow]depending upon how many weeks he or she is premature[/URL]."

<p style=": rgb251, 251, 253;">

<p style=": rgb251, 251, 253;">Where does it say that? They're discussing the costs the father would incur as a result of everything that has happened thus far.



The stats are for healthy women with relatively normal pregnancies. They neglected to state that in the article.


Posted By: india100
Date Posted: Jan 10 2014 at 10:50pm
Do we know if she express  her wishes before she became pregnant ? I witness many PT request to stay on life support to save the baby . I sign papers if something would go wrong during my pregnancy to save my baby if possible . Something sounds fishy with the father . I would think unless his baby had no chance of making it , the man would cherish his child after loosing the mother . On the other hand the man could be 'telling the truth . I have witness cases like this . Really tragic . Cry


Posted By: jonesable
Date Posted: Jan 10 2014 at 11:00pm
Sure.
I don't care about taxes.

No I don't have a problem with her body being used as an incubator.
This the same board that said fetuses are just leeches or what ever else y'all said.
So let it leech.

Don't care let it have a chance.

What does she care?


Posted By: coconess
Date Posted: Jan 10 2014 at 11:13pm
insurance will pay for a portion of the bills. 

either way im in the middle.. im fine with her being an incubator or fine with them pulling the plug.

but i dont like how the hospital or texas law gets to decide.. yet wont pay for it. 




Posted By: ms_wonderland
Date Posted: Jan 11 2014 at 12:32am
the thought of keeping a baby inside a dead body for that long is so gross.


Posted By: Sang Froid
Date Posted: Jan 11 2014 at 12:35am
Originally posted by coconess coconess wrote:

insurance will pay for a portion of the bills. 

either way im in the middle.. im fine with her being an incubator or fine with them pulling the plug.

but i dont like how the hospital or texas law gets to decide.. yet wont pay for it. 



Insurance gone be like bitch please.
They pay for what they feel like paying for.



Posted By: joileprincess
Date Posted: Jan 11 2014 at 2:54am
I see this a cruel to the mother, the "baby" and the family. I'm not even sure how they are getting away with calling the fetus viable. At 14 weeks it is well below the age of viability and I am sure that it is under 500 grams. They must apply this law to all pregnancies with no regard to how far along she is which is just stupid and unreasonable.

Does the hospital intend to assist beyond the birth of the baby? Or are they only concerned with using her as an incubator?


Posted By: newdiva1
Date Posted: Jan 11 2014 at 4:10am
Originally posted by Sang Froid Sang Froid wrote:

Originally posted by coconess coconess wrote:

insurance will pay for a portion of the bills. 

either way im in the middle.. im fine with her being an incubator or fine with them pulling the plug.

but i dont like how the hospital or texas law gets to decide.. yet wont pay for it. 



Insurance gone be like bitch please.
They pay for what they feel like paying for.

 
 
 
this.  insurance is talking that good sh*t now but if/when that comes out they gone find some addendums and section c part 3 type sh*ts that states this, that and the third....which is why he will be responsible for 70% of the costs.  watch.


Posted By: newdiva1
Date Posted: Jan 11 2014 at 4:13am
Originally posted by joileprincess joileprincess wrote:

I see this a cruel to the mother, the "baby" and the family. I'm not even sure how they are getting away with calling the fetus viable. At 14 weeks it is well below the age of viability and I am sure that it is under 500 grams. They must apply this law to all pregnancies with no regard to how far along she is which is just stupid and unreasonable.

Does the hospital intend to assist beyond the birth of the baby? Or are they only concerned with using her as an incubator?
 
 
I honestly believe it's just to use her as an experiment. This has never happened before...at least not to my knowledge.  I'm sure the scientifical community is curious as to how this baby will turn out.  And to top that I refuse to believe that the hospital will assist should this baby be born with some retardation.  I mean he can take the child to the hospital for therapy etc like any other parent but he will be footing the bill.
 
I also think that they are going hard because should this baby make it (retarded or not) ...it will be a feather in the cap of the pro-lifers and they can use this example some type of way against pro-choice arguements.
 
IMO.


Posted By: ms_wonderland
Date Posted: Jan 15 2014 at 3:43am
^^ I agree with this.

The family has filed a lawsuit against the hospital.  This is cruel to do to the family.


Posted By: Lady ICE
Date Posted: Jan 15 2014 at 3:49am
Originally posted by harley_quinn harley_quinn wrote:

That's a sad situation.
Originally posted by AwesomeAries AwesomeAries wrote:

Originally posted by keepgrowing keepgrowing wrote:

The hospital won't pay for anything. This will be the husband's responsibility or tax payers. 

I just don't want the child to dieCry

sad indeed.Disapprove


Posted By: melikey
Date Posted: Jan 24 2014 at 7:48pm


Judge Orders Pregnant Texas Woman Off Life Support

http://abcnews.go.com/" rel="nofollow">ABC News By SYDNEY LUPKIN | ABC News – 2 hours 12 minutes ago
  • http://gma.yahoo.com/photos/judge-orders-pregnant-texas-woman-off-life-support-photo-233242347.html" rel="nofollow">
    Why Texas Fetus Might Have Had Abnormalities Before Mother Was Brain Dead (ABC News)

    ABC News - Why Texas Fetus Might Have Had 'Abnormalities' Before Mother Was Brain Dead (ABC News)

  • http://gma.yahoo.com/_xhr/mtf/panel/" rel="nofollow - http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fgma.yahoo.com%2Fjudge-orders-pregnant-texas-woman-off-life-support-233240042.html&t=Judge%20Orders%20Pregnant%20Texas%20Woman%20Off%20Life%20Support%20-%20Yahoo" rel="nofollow - 1
  • < ="http://plat.twitter.com/widgets/tweet_.#_=1390614505732&count=horizontal&count=http%3A%2F%2Fgma.yahoo.com%2Fjudge-orders-pregnant-texas-woman-off-life-sup-233240042.&id=twitter_tweet__0&lang=en&original_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fgma.yahoo.com%2Fjudge-orders-pregnant-texas-woman-off-life-sup-233240042.&related=GMA%2CYahoonews%2CYahoo&text=Judge%20Orders%20Pregnant%20Texas%20Woman%20Off%20Life%20Sup%20-%20Yahoo&=http%3A%2F%2Fgma.yahoo.com%2Fjudge-orders-pregnant-texas-woman-off-life-sup-233240042.&via=Yahoonews" allowtransparency="true" border="0" scrolling="no" ="twitter-share- twitter-count-horizontal" title="Twitter For Websites: Tweet " id="yui_3_9_1_1_1390614322255_644" style="width: 110px; height: 20px;">
  • http://gma.yahoo.com/_xhr/social/share/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgma.yahoo.com%2Fjudge-orders-pregnant-texas-woman-off-life-support-233240042.html&text=Judge%20Orders%20Pregnant%20Texas%20Woman%20Off%20Life%20Support%20-%20Yahoo&action=inshare" rel="nofollow -
  • < border="0" ="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" ="0" ="0" width="100%" id="I1_1390614505846" name="I1_1390614505846" ="https://apis.google.com/u/0/_/+1/fast?usegapi=1&bsv=o&size=medium&annotation=bubble&hl=en-US&origin=http%3A%2F%2Fgma.yahoo.com&=http%3A%2F%2Fgma.yahoo.com%2Fjudge-orders-pregnant-texas-woman-off-life-sup-233240042.&g=3p&jsh=m%3B%2F_%2Fscs%2Fapps-static%2F_%2Fjs%2Fk%3Doz.gapi.en.Rz70jOhN_T0.O%2Fm%3D__features__%2Fam%3DIQ%2Frt%3Dj%2Fd%3D1%2Frs%3DAItRSTNRVCvprcTaUUsmklEvs301tf64Mg#_methods=onPlusOne%2C_ready%2C_%2C_%2C_resizeMe%2C_renderstart%2Concircled%2Cd%2Ce&id=I1_1390614505846&parent=http%3A%2F%2Fgma.yahoo.com&pfname=&rpctoken=10333872" -gapiattached="true" title="+1" style=": static; top: 0px; width: 90px; margin: 0px; border-style: none; left: 0px; visibility: ; height: 20px;">
  • Print

A judge today ordered a Texas hospital to remove a brain-dead pregnant woman from life support by 5 p.m. Monday.

Marlise Munoz, a 33-year-old paramedic, had been on life support since a suspected pulmonary embolism rendered her brain dead in November. Because she was 14 weeks pregnant at the time, John Peter Smith Hospital in Fort Worth said it was bound by state law from removing her from life support until Munoz miscarried or a baby was born.

Munoz's family said she never wanted to be on life support, and they sued to have her removed from it on Jan 14, arguing that the law didn't apply to her because she was legally dead.

Judge R. H. Wallace Jr. agreed. "Mrs. Munoz is dead," the ruling reads.

Munoz's entire family was crying when the judge ruled in their favor, Jobin Panicker, a reporter from WFAA, ABC's Dallas affiliate, tweeted from the courtroom.

The case has sparked a heated debate about whether a woman who is medically dead should be kept on life support for the duration of her pregnancy for the sake of her fetus. Although Munoz’s mother told ABCNews.com that this is not about abortion for them, the case has also garnered attention from both sides of the abortion debate.

"It's very frustrating because we know what our daughter wanted, and we're not about to honor that because of this law," Munoz’s mother, Lynne Machado told ABCNews.com in December, before deciding to contest the law.

On Wednesday, the family’s lawyers announced that the 22-week-old fetus was “distinctly abnormal,” with water on the brain, a possible heart condition and lower extremity deformities.

Texas law states that "a person may not withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment under this subchapter from a pregnant patient," but the judge determined it doesn’t apply to Munoz because she is already legally dead. In Texas, death is legally defined as “the "irreversible cessation of the person's spontaneous respiratory and circulatory functions," according to the Munoz family’s legal filing.

According to the suit, the hospital has interpreted the law in a way that "makes no sense and amounts to nothing more than the cruel and obscene mutilation of a deceased body against the expressed will of the deceased and her family."

They also questioned whether the law was constitutional, but the judge did not make a ruling on this.

Because John Peter Smith Hospital is a local public hospital, the Tarrant County District Attorney's office represented it. On behalf of the hospital, the office filed its response to the suit last week, in which it denied all allegations.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/grieving-start-pregnant-woman-off-life-support-family/story?id=21328927" rel="nofollow - Read about how Christmas was Munoz's favorite holiday and a confusing time for her family.

The family's heartbreak began on Nov. 26, when Munoz got out of bed in the middle of the night because her 14-month-old son, Mateo, began to cry, Machado said. When the baby continued to cry and Munoz didn't return, Munoz's firefighter husband got up too. That's when he found Munoz on the kitchen floor. She was not breathing and had no pulse. Her skin had taken on a bluish color, Machado said.

Doctors suspect she had a pulmonary embolism, or a blood clot in the lungs, but they won't know until an autopsy can be performed, Machado said.

"It's hard to reach the point where you wish your wife's body would stop," Erick Munoz told ABC News' Dallas-Fort Worth affiliate WFAA-TV.

Machado initially said family members wouldn't fight the law until after her daughter was finally taken off life support because she thought the hospital's hands were tied by the law, and didn't blame the doctors for the situation. But they want the public to know that this can happen.

Although Internet commenters have made the family's situation into an abortion rights issue, Machado said the family has shared its story to educate the public about a law it never knew existed.

"Hopefully, no family has to go through this hell we've had to go through," she said.



Posted By: carolina cutie
Date Posted: Jan 24 2014 at 7:50pm
I know it wasn't considered but I wonder if the fact that the fetus was recently found to be severely deformed had any effect on the ruling.


Posted By: Sang Froid
Date Posted: Jan 24 2014 at 7:56pm
Good.
RIP now.


Posted By: Ladycoils
Date Posted: Jan 24 2014 at 8:01pm
Yes, Carolina I think it helped that the fetus had deformities. The family would have had grounds to sue the hospital for not terminating the pregnancy given the conditions off the fetus and the cost that would be associated with caring for the child if birth to term.


Posted By: india100
Date Posted: Jan 24 2014 at 8:03pm
Originally posted by carolina cutie carolina cutie wrote:

I know it wasn't considered but I wonder if the fact that the fetus was recently found to be severely deformed had any effect on the ruling.
I saw the breaking news a few hours ago CC. The husband lawyer made that claim about the baby . I am waiting for the hospital statement . I am against killing the baby if nothing is wrong . I really thought from day one , hubby killed the woman . He was to quick to end her and the baby life .


Posted By: Katrenia
Date Posted: Jan 24 2014 at 9:01pm
The family may still get a bill and I hope they continue to sue the hospital if they do.

After the woman was declared brain dead in Nov. I doubt health ins. would continue to cover the fees. Health ins. doesn't cover the dead. 
So if this new ruling states that the hospital was in error of the law then her heath ins. would have terminated at the time of her death. The baby would not have been viable outside the womb so when mom dies so would the baby.

If the hospital went out on a limb and misinterpreted the law, they should be held financially responsible from the time of woman's Nov. death.


Posted By: purple.chuckz
Date Posted: Jan 24 2014 at 9:10pm
Her poor family. That hospital has a huge lawsuit coming their way. 


Posted By: purple.chuckz
Date Posted: Jan 24 2014 at 9:12pm
If you respect her right to life, you also better respect her right to die in a dignified matter.
The family's lawyers aren't psychic, which means that there were medical procedures done to determine what condition the fetus was in. 




Posted By: NARSAddict
Date Posted: Jan 24 2014 at 9:18pm
Was the hospital affiliated to a religion?


Posted By: Tbaby
Date Posted: Jan 24 2014 at 9:56pm
The hospital is a county hospital (public).  The family lawyers do say the child has deformities, and the hospital legally can't comment on that due to health privacy laws.

Sad situation all around.



Posted By: india100
Date Posted: Jan 24 2014 at 10:37pm
Originally posted by purple.chuckz purple.chuckz wrote:

If you respect her right to life, you also better respect her right to die in a dignified matter.
The family's lawyers aren't psychic, which means that there were medical procedures done to determine what condition the fetus was in. 


I know that after working as a nurse for many years . Like Tbaby said , the hospital can't speak on the babies health . The husband hired independent people to come to that conclusion . I saw a panel talk tonight about a Doctor that plans to tell the truth either way behind a black screen . I will remain skeptical of that husband . JMO


Posted By: JasmineE02
Date Posted: Jan 24 2014 at 11:31pm
Her body was literally breaking down.  This case really bothered me because it was so incredibly grotesque.  I can understand a husband not wanting to watch his wife practically decay right before his eyes, especially against her wishes.  Even her family knew what she wanted.  There were no arguments from the people who probably knew her best.  Her father said she felt like a mannequin when he touched her.  I can't imagine going through that. 


Posted By: QueenBee
Date Posted: Jan 25 2014 at 12:13am
Saw on local Houston news that the hospital has until Monday 5 pm to remove her from life support, however, the hospital planned on filing an appeal.

Talks of getting an attorney (guardian ad liteum) for the fetus. This is going to be interesting as to how it pans out.


eta: Also, how long was the wife on life support before the husband/family decided to respect her wishes?

Where in the article does it states that he immediately said take her off or that he waited 3 days before saying take her off? I am just curios at to the timeframe when he indicated he wanted to respect his wife's wished and have her removed?   


Posted By: newdiva1
Date Posted: Jan 25 2014 at 5:26am
Originally posted by carolina cutie carolina cutie wrote:

I know it wasn't considered but I wonder if the fact that the fetus was recently found to be severely deformed had any effect on the ruling.
 
 
 
U know that's what is was.  Ain't nobody in Texas have a change of heart because it was the right thing.


Posted By: yurika975
Date Posted: Jan 25 2014 at 8:28am
Why are some saying the hubs tried to murder the wife when this happened? Is there some back history?


Posted By: ms_wonderland
Date Posted: Jan 25 2014 at 9:03am
Originally posted by JasmineE02 JasmineE02 wrote:

Her body was literally breaking down.  This case really bothered me because it was so incredibly grotesque.  I can understand a husband not wanting to watch his wife practically decay right before his eyes, especially against her wishes.  Even her family knew what she wanted.  There were no arguments from the people who probably knew her best.  Her father said she felt like a mannequin when he touched her.  I can't imagine going through that. 

same here...this was just disgusting...how can you be pro life but disregard the life of the human carrier?  there is something incredibly dark about keeping a dead body alive for months to birth something living.  if i were a part of that family i would be consumed in nightmares.  they should've let Jesus take the wheel.


Posted By: purple.chuckz
Date Posted: Jan 25 2014 at 9:12am
Originally posted by india100 india100 wrote:

Originally posted by purple.chuckz purple.chuckz wrote:

If you respect her right to life, you also better respect her right to die in a dignified matter.
The family's lawyers aren't psychic, which means that there were medical procedures done to determine what condition the fetus was in. 


I know that after working as a nurse for many years . Like Tbaby said , the hospital can't speak on the babies health . The husband hired independent people to come to that conclusion . I saw a panel talk tonight about a Doctor that plans to tell the truth either way behind a black screen . I will remain skeptical of that husband . JMO


HIPAA applies in a court of law? They may not be able to talk to the media, but they certainly can talk to the judge. 

A covered health care provider or health plan may disclose protected health information required by a court order, including the order of an administrative tribunal. However, the provider or plan may only disclose the information specifically described in the order. 

A subpoena issued by someone other than a judge, such as a court clerk or an attorney in a case, is different from a court order.  A covered provider or plan may disclose information to a party issuing a subpoena only if the notification requirements of the Privacy Rule are met.  Before the covered entity may respond to the subpoena, the Rule requires that it receive evidence that reasonable efforts were made to either:

  • notify the person who is the subject of the information about the request, so the person has a chance to object to the disclosure, or to
  • seek a qualified protective order for the information from the court.


Posted By: nitabug
Date Posted: Jan 25 2014 at 11:52am
14 Weeks...let that go.


Posted By: Lilaca
Date Posted: Jan 25 2014 at 12:39pm
This thread just reminded me that life's not fair. 

I really hope there is an afterlife


R.I.P  to the woman!


Posted By: Lilaca
Date Posted: Jan 25 2014 at 12:43pm
Originally posted by ms_wonderland ms_wonderland wrote:

Originally posted by JasmineE02 JasmineE02 wrote:

Her body was literally breaking down.  This case really bothered me because it was so incredibly grotesque.  I can understand a husband not wanting to watch his wife practically decay right before his eyes, especially against her wishes.  Even her family knew what she wanted.  There were no arguments from the people who probably knew her best.  Her father said she felt like a mannequin when he touched her.  I can't imagine going through that. 

same here...this was just disgusting...how can you be pro life but disregard the life of the human carrier?  there is something incredibly dark about keeping a dead body alive for months to birth something living.  if i were a part of that family i would be consumed in nightmares.  they should've let Jesus take the wheel.
IA...

Literally they would have been visiting a corpse... poor fam!Cry


Posted By: QueenBee
Date Posted: Jan 28 2014 at 1:00am

Texas family grieves after brain-dead pregnant woman is taken off life support



Erick Munoz, husband of Marlise Munoz, is escorted out of court by his attorney Heather L. King (right) on Jan. 24, 2014 in Fort Worth, Texas. / AP Photo/Tim Sharp

3 Comments /
   43





Shares /
   12





Tweets /
Stumble





/
   Email
More +






















FORT WORTH, Texas -- A public battle over the fate of a brain-dead, pregnant Texas woman and her fetus ended quietly and privately as she was taken off life support and her family began preparing for her burial.

John Peter Smith Hospital in Fort Worth complied Sunday with a judge's order to pull any life-sustaining treatment from Marlise Munoz, who was declared brain-dead in November, but kept on machines for the sake of her fetus.

Munoz was removed from the machines shortly afterward and allowed to die. The fetus, which was at 23 weeks' gestation, was not delivered.

The hospital's decision brought an apparent end to a case that inspired debates about abortion and end-of-life decisions, as well as whether a pregnant woman who is considered legally and medically dead should be kept on life support for the sake of a fetus, per Texas law. Anti-abortion activists attended Friday's court hearing and spoke out in favor of trying to deliver the fetus.

Whether the Munoz case leads Texas to change the law remains unclear. In recent years, the Legislature has enacted several new anti-abortion restrictions, including setting the legal guideline for when a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks - a milestone Marlise Munoz's fetus passed about three weeks ago.

Munoz's husband, Erick Munoz, sued the hospital because it would not remove life support as he said his wife would have wanted in such a situation. The couple, both paramedics, was familiar with end-of-life issues, and Erick Munoz said his wife had told him she would not want to be kept alive under such circumstances.

But the hospital refused his request, citing Texas law that says life-sustaining treatment cannot be withdrawn from a pregnant patient, regardless of her end-of-life wishes.

Judge R.H. Wallace Jr. sided Friday with Erick Munoz, saying in his order: "Mrs. Munoz is dead."

Erick Munoz found his wife unconscious in their Haltom City home on Nov. 26, possibly due to a blood clot. Doctors soon determined that she was brain-dead, which meant she was both medically and legally dead by law, but kept her on machines to keep her organs functioning for the sake of the fetus.

Shortly after the hospital announced its decision not to fight the judge's order, his attorneys announced that she had been disconnected from life support about 11:30 a.m. Sunday.

"May Marlise Munoz finally rest in peace, and her family find the strength to complete what has been an unbearably long and arduous journey," they said in a statement.

Munoz told The Associated Press this month that he wanted to move forward with caring for the couple's infant son and relatives stricken by the tragedy.

Larry Thompson, a state's attorney who argued on behalf of the hospital Friday, said the hospital was trying to protect the rights of the fetus as it believed Texas law instructed it to do. The hospital's attorneys cited a section of the Texas Advance Directives Act that reads: "A person may not withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment under this subchapter from a pregnant patient."

"There is a life involved, and the life is the unborn child," Thompson told the judge.

Legal experts told the AP that the hospital was misreading the Texas Advance Directives Act and that the law isn't an absolute command to keep a pregnant woman on life support.

The case has been noted by Republican Texas Gov. Rick Perry and the two leading candidates running to replace him, but none of them has called for any new laws yet or action as a result of the case.

Republican Attorney General Greg Abbott, through a spokesman, said the case was a "heartbreaking tragedy" and that "Texas strives to protect both families and human life, and we will continue to work toward that end."

Texas Sen. Wendy Davis, a Democrat from Fort Worth, said through a spokeswoman that any decision like this "should be made by Mrs. Munoz's family, in consultation with her doctors."


Posted By: BrownQtee
Date Posted: Jan 28 2014 at 9:13am
Originally posted by ms_wonderland ms_wonderland wrote:

Originally posted by JasmineE02 JasmineE02 wrote:

Her body was literally breaking down.  This case really bothered me because it was so incredibly grotesque.  I can understand a husband not wanting to watch his wife practically decay right before his eyes, especially against her wishes.  Even her family knew what she wanted.  There were no arguments from the people who probably knew her best.  Her father said she felt like a mannequin when he touched her.  I can't imagine going through that. 

same here...this was just disgusting...how can you be pro life but disregard the life of the human carrier?  there is something incredibly dark about keeping a dead body alive for months to birth something living.  if i were a part of that family i would be consumed in nightmares.  they should've let Jesus take the wheel.
I agree with this. Something straight out out of a sci-fi movie. Just goes to show how extreme and warped alot of American's are.



Print Page | Close Window