This disturbed me

[chaoslord29]

I can understand your desire to try and parse this out.  However, I submit that it if wasn't for the "grander societal problem" of the right-wing astroturf groups getting bad legislation passed, this situation would not exist.  Thus, the specific case we are discussing may have a unique set of circumstances, but it is part and parcel of the bigger issue.

You're right, but what I'm saying is that the bigger issue is not part and parcel of this situation. It's no use complaining that if the pro-life movement hadn't gotten the law passed, none of this would be an issue. There's a way to illuminate the context of Texas state law and the effect pro-life interest groups have on it without assigning blame.

I agree suing the hospital is a suboptimal outcome.  Far better to drive the right-wingers out of office.  If they want a society that blends religious fanaticism with a lack of social services and government control, let them relocate to Somalia.  Then we can take back the United States and progress into the 21st century.  Getting the government out of our bedrooms and intimate personal decisions, for starters.

Driving the "right-wingers" out of office still does not help Mrs. Munoz or her family and it's even less productive to suggest they emigrate somewhere you know perfectly well they won't because whatever other failures they might have, they're still Americans, and often outspokenly patriotic at that. You want to take America into the 21st century? Dumping those you consider to be misguided and ill-intentioned by the way side and relegating them to the past isn't the way to do it.

Until you're prepared to convert these people rather than dismiss or condemn them, you're not actually part of the solution, you're just perpetuating partisan incivility and discord.



In keeping with Oniya's suggestion however, I must reiterate my claim that the optimal solution in this case is that Mrs. Munoz's family postpone their bereavement until such time as the viability of the fetus can be determined, at which point they may join in celebrating a new life coming into the world, despite the moral ambiguity of its incubation, and/or go forward with the grieving process anyway.

[Iniquitous]

And you are ignoring the fact that they do not WANT the fetus. Why the insistence on forcing them to accept what they have made clear they do not want. Sheesh.

As for Marlise being a patient... how can a dead person be a patient? How do you rationalize medical procedures for a corpse? How do you rationalize charging monies for services rendered to a dead person? Every interview with those that work with ethics has said the hospital is in the wrong. It has even been reported that the state of Texas recognizes brain stem death as being legally dead. Which, if you bother to read the court filings is what the doctor told Mr. Munoz was the diagnosis for his wife.

She's a corpse and the hospital is trying to play the waiting game till 24 weeks on the hope that the fetus will be viable despite the fact they are violating the 14th Amendment. Not too mention whether the fetus will even be physically and mentally healthy.

[Rogue]

Please stop referring to her as a corpse.  This is an insult to my profession and to those of us that still care for people in her condition.  We bath her, we turn her, we watch over her and we fight for her whether you agree with the battle or not.  When the power fails and the lights go out we are the ones who turn manual cranks to keep them breathing.  Nurses at Baptist Hospital nearly gave up their careers and their lives for people in her condition.  Calling her just a corpse is an insult to families that keep their loved ones on life support and fight to do so vehemently.  She is more than a corpse to the people that still care for her and she will not be a corpse until the machines are turned off and her heart stops beating.  I am asking for this as a courtesy.

To be honest Pumpkin, were she someone who wanted to remain on life support, I would never call her a corpse. I'd simply say she's biding her time in hope of new technology or to save her life. Certainly not a corpse. On the topic at hand, this woman is someone who would prefer to be a corpse. As such calling her one I don't believe is an insult to your profession, but to the law forcing those of you who have to take care of such people who do not want such treatment. As soon as the baby is born (assuming it gets to that point) the person in question will in fact be a corpse.

I doubt the family will pay a penny in regard to these medical costs.  As I pointed out before, this is a public hospital which means funds are already set aside for non-payment cases such as these.  I highly doubt this is the most expensive case the hospital has done where there is no payment forthcoming.

Regarding the hospital paying, this goes back to one of my other points, which is that someone would have to pay. While I had focused it on the government, not the hospital, it is still in fact the government paying. Public hospitals receive their funding from the government. That funding is limited. It takes away from other people who want to use that funding to survive, not people who are wanting to die but can't because of a law that spits in the face of her rights.

And you are ignoring the fact that they do not WANT the fetus. Why the insistence on forcing them to accept what they have made clear they do not want. Sheesh.

As for Marlise being a patient... how can a dead person be a patient? How do you rationalize medical procedures for a corpse? How do you rationalize charging monies for services rendered to a dead person? Every interview with those that work with ethics has said the hospital is in the wrong. It has even been reported that the state of Texas recognizes brain stem death as being legally dead. Which, if you bother to read the court filings is what the doctor told Mr. Munoz was the diagnosis for his wife.

She's a corpse and the hospital is trying to play the waiting game till 24 weeks on the hope that the fetus will be viable despite the fact they are violating the 14th Amendment. Not too mention whether the fetus will even be physically and mentally healthy.

Thank you!

[chaoslord29]

And you are ignoring the fact that they do not WANT the fetus. Why the insistence on forcing them to accept what they have made clear they do not want. Sheesh.

I'm not ignoring that fact, I just think that it's not up to them. The reason I'm pro-choice in the first place is that I think only the mother has the right to decide if she wants to have an abortion and given that Mrs. Munoz never made it clear that she does, and is no longer in a state to do so, I certainly don't think the family has a right to abort the fetus for her.

As for Marlise being a patient... how can a dead person be a patient? How do you rationalize medical procedures for a corpse? How do you rationalize charging monies for services rendered to a dead person? Every interview with those that work with ethics has said the hospital is in the wrong. It has even been reported that the state of Texas recognizes brain stem death as being legally dead. Which, if you bother to read the court filings is what the doctor told Mr. Munoz was the diagnosis for his wife.

She's a corpse and the hospital is trying to play the waiting game till 24 weeks on the hope that the fetus will be viable despite the fact they are violating the 14th Amendment. Not too mention whether the fetus will even be physically and mentally healthy.

She's legally dead when either the attending physician denotes the time of death, or else a court rules as such themselves, not before. The court filings only indicate that the next of kin believes her to be dead based on what they say the doctor told them. No official statement by the hospital has been made, and court filings aren't evidence, they're just the pretense for the claimant.

The hospital is playing the waiting game because they want to make sure they abide by state law, because the District Attorney filing suit on behalf of the state or an investigation by the State Assembly is a whole lot worse than whatever legal proceedings the next of kin cares to level at them. As for violating the fourth amendment, if Mrs. Munoz is dead, as you claim her to be, how can she be protected under it? Do privacy rights transfer to next of kin at time of death? No, only property rights, and if Mrs. Munoz's body is just property, then I'm willing to say it: "Possession is nine tenths of the law." The Hospital has 9 of those tenths and even if the fetus inside is just a one tenth of a life itself, that doesn't leave a lot room for the Munoz's to make a claim.

[Hades]

I'm not ignoring that fact, I just think that it's not up to them. The reason I'm pro-choice in the first place is that I think only the mother has the right to decide if she wants to have an abortion and given that Mrs. Munoz never made it clear that she does, and is no longer in a state to do so, I certainly don't think the family has a right to abort the fetus for her.
She's legally dead when either the attending physician denotes the time of death, or else a court rules as such themselves, not before. The court filings only indicate that the next of kin believes her to be dead based on what they say the doctor told them. No official statement by the hospital has been made, and court filings aren't evidence, they're just the pretense for the claimant.

I strongly disagree with this part.  The mother is in no condition to make the decision on whether to terminate the pregnancy or not, I agree.  In which case, like other medical decisions when the patient is unable to decide for themselves, the choice falls to their next of kin or whoever has been invested with that power if not a spouse or family member.  The husband in this case clearly knows that taking his wife's body off the machines that are keeping the semblance of life still going means that the fetus will also die, and he has made his desires clear even taking that into consideration.

For the state to now step in and say that he cannot follow his wife's stated wishes of not being kept on life-support for the sake of possibly take responsibility for a child he does not want is at best cruel and I would argue immoral and unethical. 

[Iniquitous]

She has the right to decide what is done with her body in the event of her death. Not the state. Her husband and family have the legal right, in lieu of her being able to, to make all medical decisions concerning her body - up to and including removing life sustaining machines.

Texas overstepped it's bounds with this ridiculous law. The government has no business being involved in end of life decisions. It certainly has no right overruling Marlise 's  desire to not be kept on machines.

You can argue that she is still alive if you want but if the doctors told her family her brain stem is dead... guess what. She's dead. Wait for a doctor to say 'time of death' all you want. Fact is she died on Nov 26th 2013 in the middle of the night.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

As I cannot ask for and receive a simple courtesy of a word being altered, then I will bow out of this discussion.

[chaoslord29]

I strongly disagree with this part.  The mother is in no condition to make the decision on whether to terminate the pregnancy or not, I agree.  In which case, like other medical decisions when the patient is unable to decide for themselves, the choice falls to their next of kin or whoever has been invested with that power if not a spouse or family member.  The husband in this case clearly knows that taking his wife's body off the machines that are keeping the semblance of life still going means that the fetus will also die, and he has made his desires clear even taking that into consideration.

For the state to now step in and say that he cannot follow his wife's stated wishes of not being kept on life-support for the sake of possibly take responsibility for a child he does not want is at best cruel and I would argue immoral and unethical.

But this isn't just some medical condition, he's not having her put on a regimen of medications, or some other form of treatment which might save her life; The husband would be actively deciding that in lieu of his wife's explicit will being known, the fetus she carries should be aborted. I must protest as the whole basis for a woman's right to abortion is her sole and sovereign ability to dispose of her body as she sees fit.  It is that sovereignty which is the reason no one can tell a woman she can't have an abortion, and on that same sovereignty no one can tell her that she has to have an abortion. It works both ways.  As long as Mrs. Munoz is alive, and her will regarding an abortion cannot be clearly established, no one can prematurely decide terminate her pregnancy on her behalf. If you're denying that, then I must ask by what other right you would establish the right to an abortion which would allow for this specific exception?

Supposing of course that she is not alive, and let us presume once more for the sake of argument that brain death is near enough to dead, the next of kin's only rights to the deceased are property rights. Literally, her body becomes property and is released to the custody of the next of kin following positive identification and medical examination by the state. Generally, this is an expedited process and doesn't require a waiting period except for transport of the body, but the state does have the right to withhold the body under certain conditions, usually related to criminal investigations or matters of health and safety. To my mind, that means if the state decides it's a matter of public concern for that the body should be used for the health and safety of the fetus at the discretion of the hospital, then they have a perfectly good legal basis to do exactly that.

Either way you cut this, Mr. Munoz's rights as next of kin cannot supercede the right's of his wife to sovereignty over her own body, or else the state's discretionary rights to release custody of a corpse to the next of kin.

She has the right to decide what is done with her body in the event of her death. Not the state. Her husband and family have the legal right, in lieu of her being able to, to make all medical decisions concerning her body - up to and including removing life sustaining machines.

Texas overstepped it's bounds with this ridiculous law. The government has no business being involved in end of life decisions. It certainly has no right overruling Marlise 's  desire to not be kept on machines.

You can argue that she is still alive if you want but if the doctors told her family her brain stem is dead... guess what. She's dead. Wait for a doctor to say 'time of death' all you want. Fact is she died on Nov 26th 2013 in the middle of the night.

I will reiterate the points I made above to directly address your claims that A) "Her husband and family have the legal right, in lieu of her being able to, to make all medical decisions concerning her body - up to and including removing life sustaining machines." & B) She's dead.

A) If Mrs. Munoz is still technically alive (no declaration of death, no death certificate, no legal ruling, etc.) then no one has the rights to make decisions regarding the termination of her pregnancy. Her body is sovereign, and her husband deciding that she should have an abortion is every much a violation of her rights as would be the state of Texas saying she can't have an abortion if she were still conscious. As her will in regards to an abortion cannot be explicitly established via advanced directives or her express testimony, no one can decide to have the abortion for her.

• I believe you claimed earlier that terminating her life support does not amount to an abortion, but that is fundamentally flawed logic and has no legal grounds to stand on. Killing a pregnant woman in many cases is considered double-homicide, at best manslaughter if you can cast reasonably cast doubt on whether you knew the victim was pregnant. Mr. Munoz knows that terminating life support will terminate the pregnancy, he cannot claim ignorance, and considering that her death would result in the death of an unborn fetus, it is still an abortion.

B) Mr. Munoz's rights as next of kin to the body of his wife are not absolute. In every state in the union, local and state governments have the right to delay release of the body on the basis of health & safety. Now generally this is only applied in cases where there is some sort of criminal investigation or else the body is contaminated, or requires further medical examination, but what else would you call this case than the hospital declaring the "body" requires further medical examination given that there is a fetus still inside of it. Under this interpretation, we need not even invoke the unjust Texas Law which you so vehemently oppose, only say that the health & safety in question is that of the fetus.

[Hades]

But this isn't just some medical condition, he's not having her put on a regimen of medications, or some other form of treatment which might save her life; The husband would be actively deciding that in lieu of his wife's explicit will being known, the fetus she carries should be aborted. I must protest as the whole basis for a woman's right to abortion is her sole and sovereign ability to dispose of her body as she sees fit.  It is that sovereignty which is the reason no one can tell a woman she can't have an abortion, and on that same sovereignty no one can tell her that she has to have an abortion. It works both ways.  As long as Mrs. Munoz is alive, and her will regarding an abortion cannot be clearly established, no one can prematurely decide terminate her pregnancy on her behalf. If you're denying that, then I must ask by what other right you would establish the right to an abortion which would allow for this specific exception?

Supposing of course that she is not alive, and let us presume once more for the sake of argument that brain death is near enough to dead, the next of kin's only rights to the deceased are property rights. Literally, her body becomes property and is released to the custody of the next of kin following positive identification and medical examination by the state. Generally, this is an expedited process and doesn't require a waiting period except for transport of the body, but the state does have the right to withhold the body under certain conditions, usually related to criminal investigations or matters of health and safety. To my mind, that means if the state decides it's a matter of public concern for that the body should be used for the health and safety of the fetus at the discretion of the hospital, then they have a perfectly good legal basis to do exactly that.

Either way you cut this, Mr. Munoz's rights as next of kin cannot supercede the right's of his wife to sovereignty over her own body, or else the state's discretionary rights to release custody of a corpse to the next of kin.

I personally believe a woman should have free and open access to abortions up to the point that the fetus becomes viable to survive on it's own if it became necessary to do an early delivery.   And by free, I mean without hurdles or obstacles rather than at no cost.  Though her financial and other circumstances certainly could warrant either reduced or no-cost treatment.   

But the point of contention I think between us is that I do not consider Mrs. Munoz to still be alive.  She is brain dead, which in ever state is considered to be legally dead.  Without the machines she's hooked up at the moment, her heart would not be beating, she wouldn't be breathing and no other bodily functions would be taking place.  If I were still a religious man, I would argue that her soul had already departed and the only thing left was the physical shell waiting to be returned to the earth from whence it came.  As an atheist, I will argue that medically she's already dead and it's simply a artificial mimicry of life on that hospital bed.   The fetus is not viable outside of the womb at the moment, and so by my personal standards stated above the woman should be able to have an abortion if she were capable of making that decision.  As she's incapable of making any decisions now, the decision falls to her husband.

And because of that, I believe that the state should not have the authority to override a woman's request concerning life support measures, nor a husband's right to make decisions concerning the fetus she carries.  Nor do I believe that the law supports the hospital's or Texas' position as it is written, though I concede readily that I have no legal training or studies and so could be completely wrong in that regard.  But given that medical ethics professions have also said that the law is being improperly applied here, I'm inclined to go with my impression for the moment.

[Blythe]

I just thought I'd toss in my two cents after doing some reading on this.

I think this case would be less morally conflicting if Ms. Munoz had actually written out a DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) directive, which she did not. I'm aware that there is Texas law would have still overrode it, but it would be less morally ambiguous if she actually had that DNR directive.

As is stands, assuming her family is correct that Mrs. Munoz did not want to be on life support (particularly if she's legally brain dead), I'm all for removing her from it. The fetus is not viable, and I think keeping her on that life support just because she was pregnant is a pretty heinous violation of her rights under the 14th Amendment (violation of equal protection; pregnant women are being unfairly singled out with the laws in Texas and their rights not respected).

[chaoslord29]

I personally believe a woman should have free and open access to abortions up to the point that the fetus becomes viable to survive on it's own if it became necessary to do an early delivery.   And by free, I mean without hurdles or obstacles rather than at no cost.  Though her financial and other circumstances certainly could warrant either reduced or no-cost treatment.   

But the point of contention I think between us is that I do not consider Mrs. Munoz to still be alive.  She is brain dead, which in ever state is considered to be legally dead.  Without the machines she's hooked up at the moment, her heart would not be beating, she wouldn't be breathing and no other bodily functions would be taking place.  If I were still a religious man, I would argue that her soul had already departed and the only thing left was the physical shell waiting to be returned to the earth from whence it came.  As an atheist, I will argue that medically she's already dead and it's simply a artificial mimicry of life on that hospital bed.   The fetus is not viable outside of the womb at the moment, and so by my personal standards stated above the woman should be able to have an abortion if she were capable of making that decision.  As she's incapable of making any decisions now, the decision falls to her husband.

And because of that, I believe that the state should not have the authority to override a woman's request concerning life support measures, nor a husband's right to make decisions concerning the fetus she carries.  Nor do I believe that the law supports the hospital's or Texas' position as it is written, though I concede readily that I have no legal training or studies and so could be completely wrong in that regard.  But given that medical ethics professions have also said that the law is being improperly applied here, I'm inclined to go with my impression for the moment.

We're in agreement regarding access to abortions, and I'm not actually contesting whether Mrs. Munoz is alive or dead. I'm willing to argue either side and believe I can find reason to keep her on life support (at least temporarily) either way.

Let's stick with the secular (as it happens, I'm an atheist as well) and continue with the idea that she is dead. Where we are in contention is that you seem to assert some sort of grounds on which the husband can make the decision for his wife regarding the termination of her pregnancy. There are some medical proceedings that next of kin can make on behalf of them but there are plenty that they can't and given that the right to an abortion is asserted on the grounds of a woman's absolute right to privacy and sovereignty over her body, I would say this falls under the category of the latter, wouldn't you?

Furthermore, if she is in fact dead, I point again to the well established legal practice of withholding bodies for further medical examination for reasons of criminal investigation or health & safety.

I just thought I'd toss in my two cents after doing some reading on this.

I think this case would be less morally conflicting if Ms. Munoz had actually written out a DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) directive, which she did not. I'm aware that there is Texas law would have still overrode it, but it would be less morally ambiguous if she actually had that DNR directive.

As is stands, assuming her family is correct that Mrs. Munoz did not want to be on life support (particularly if she's legally brain dead), I'm all for removing her from it. The fetus is not viable, and I think keeping her on that life support just because she was pregnant is a pretty heinous violation of her rights under the 14th Amendment (violation of equal protection; pregnant women are being unfairly singled out with the laws in Texas and their rights not respected).

Legally perhaps, you have a case, but morally I assert the right to abortion based on a woman's absolute right to sovereignty over her own body, and thus there is no moral grounds for anyone to perform an abortion in her stead.

[Iniquitous]

But this isn't just some medical condition, he's not having her put on a regimen of medications, or some other form of treatment which might save her life; The husband would be actively deciding that in lieu of his wife's explicit will being known, the fetus she carries should be aborted. I must protest as the whole basis for a woman's right to abortion is her sole and sovereign ability to dispose of her body as she sees fit.  It is that sovereignty which is the reason no one can tell a woman she can't have an abortion, and on that same sovereignty no one can tell her that she has to have an abortion. It works both ways.  As long as Mrs. Munoz is alive, and her will regarding an abortion cannot be clearly established, no one can prematurely decide terminate her pregnancy on her behalf. If you're denying that, then I must ask by what other right you would establish the right to an abortion which would allow for this specific exception?

Supposing of course that she is not alive, and let us presume once more for the sake of argument that brain death is near enough to dead, the next of kin's only rights to the deceased are property rights. Literally, her body becomes property and is released to the custody of the next of kin following positive identification and medical examination by the state. Generally, this is an expedited process and doesn't require a waiting period except for transport of the body, but the state does have the right to withhold the body under certain conditions, usually related to criminal investigations or matters of health and safety. To my mind, that means if the state decides it's a matter of public concern for that the body should be used for the health and safety of the fetus at the discretion of the hospital, then they have a perfectly good legal basis to do exactly that.

Either way you cut this, Mr. Munoz's rights as next of kin cannot supercede the right's of his wife to sovereignty over her own body, or else the state's discretionary rights to release custody of a corpse to the next of kin.

I will reiterate the points I made above to directly address your claims that A) "Her husband and family have the legal right, in lieu of her being able to, to make all medical decisions concerning her body - up to and including removing life sustaining machines." & B) She's dead.

A) If Mrs. Munoz is still technically alive (no declaration of death, no death certificate, no legal ruling, etc.) then no one has the rights to make decisions regarding the termination of her pregnancy. Her body is sovereign, and her husband deciding that she should have an abortion is every much a violation of her rights as would be the state of Texas saying she can't have an abortion if she were still conscious. As her will in regards to an abortion cannot be explicitly established via advanced directives or her express testimony, no one can decide to have the abortion for her.

• I believe you claimed earlier that terminating her life support does not amount to an abortion, but that is fundamentally flawed logic and has no legal grounds to stand on. Killing a pregnant woman in many cases is considered double-homicide, at best manslaughter if you can cast reasonably cast doubt on whether you knew the victim was pregnant. Mr. Munoz knows that terminating life support will terminate the pregnancy, he cannot claim ignorance, and considering that her death would result in the death of an unborn fetus, it is still an abortion.

B) Mr. Munoz's rights as next of kin to the body of his wife are not absolute. In every state in the union, local and state governments have the right to delay release of the body on the basis of health & safety. Now generally this is only applied in cases where there is some sort of criminal investigation or else the body is contaminated, or requires further medical examination, but what else would you call this case than the hospital declaring the "body" requires further medical examination given that there is a fetus still inside of it. Under this interpretation, we need not even invoke the unjust Texas Law which you so vehemently oppose, only say that the health & safety in question is that of the fetus.

It is not an abortion. The insistence of calling a natural death an abortion is an affront to every woman who has ever had a miscarriage or still birth. The fetus at 14 weeks gestation is NOT viable thus with the mother's death it dies. See that? It's natural. It is how nature intended it to be.

This holding game in the hopes that this fetus is viable is sickening. They've turn Mrs. Munoz into an easy bake oven and for no reason other than they can. For a bunch of cells that may or may not form into a viable living person.

And for the record, there has been something of a study done on brain dead pregnant women. Of the 19 cases that could be found... 12 were delivered.  Of those 12 one was born by c section just after 25 weeks gestation. It died at the age of 30 days. 6 others were born  and survived but some of them had developed infant respiratory distress syndrome. The other five babies were unknown. Another of the five died in users and a sixth died at 19 weeks' gestation after a miscarriage. Among the 19 cases there was one fetus that was 14 weeks' gestation -same gestational age as Marlise ' s fetus at the time of her death - and it died in utero.

So, again. Odds do not look to be in favor of this fetus. I mean hell. For all we know it is the machines that are keeping the fetus' heart beating at this point.

Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3002294

[chaoslord29]

It is not an abortion. The insistence of calling a natural death an abortion is an affront to every woman who has ever had a miscarriage or still birth. The fetus at 14 weeks gestation is NOT viable thus with the mother's death it dies. See that? It's natural. It is how nature intended it to be.

This holding game in the hopes that this fetus is viable is sickening. They've turn Mrs. Munoz into an easy bake oven and for no reason other than they can. For a bunch of cells that may or may not form into a viable living person.

And for the record, there has been something of a study done on brain dead pregnant women. Of the 19 cases that could be found... 12 were delivered.  Of those 12 one was born by c section just after 25 weeks gestation. It died at the age of 30 days. 6 others were born  and survived but some of them had developed infant respiratory distress syndrome. The other five babies were unknown. Another of the five died in users and a sixth died at 19 weeks' gestation after a miscarriage. Among the 19 cases there was one fetus that was 14 weeks' gestation -same gestational age as Marlise ' s fetus at the time of her death - and it died in utero.

So, again. Odds do not look to be in favor of this fetus. I mean hell. For all we know it is the machines that are keeping the fetus' heart beating at this point.

Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3002294

It's no good arguing what "nature intended it to be" since nature never intended the development of internal medicine, surgery, or anything beyond hermal remedies (for that matter I as a secular individual could take issue with the idea of "nature" "intending" anything). In a state of nature, Mrs. Munoz would likely have died years before from any number of infectious diseases we have developed innoculations for, or else from infection, fever, or any number of other ailments treatable only with the advantage of modern medicine. Seeing as how we have these advantages, I see no reason why we shouldn't use the means available to 'cure' her pregnancy via an attempt to deliver the child after sustaining her on life support for a modicum of time.

You're the one arguing that she's dead, so I don't see why you should take issue when there's perfectly legal grounds for the state to withhold release of the body to the next of kin on the basis of health and safety. We don't even need to broach on Texas's law regarding termination of a fetus if the attending physician or some law enforcement agency says the "corpse" requires further medical analysis and we are not prepared to release it at this time. The Munoz's are of course free to then file with a judge their legal claim to the body, but seeing as how that takes time and money, they'd be better off economically just to wait it out anyway, rather than pay the cost of tackling the hospital's legal retainer.

As for the viability of the fetus, it would be discriminatory to decide who gets the potential to live and who is condemned never to be born based on some abstracted odds from a handful of medical case history. Any statistical game worth playing requires case samples upwards of several hundred (and ideally several thousand) before there can be established a law of averages or statistical trend. Take it from a political scientist and analyst, 19 cases is a lousy sample size for even the perspective of the social sciences, let alone establishing medical policy or biological data.

[Sabby]

Please stop referring to her as a corpse..

Why? She's dead. emotional pleas don't change this.

[Oniya]

Because of a modicum of respect for the living?  And in this case, I'm not referring to Mrs. Munoz's friends and relations.

[chaoslord29]

Why? She's dead. emotional pleas don't change this.

Professional courtesy and decorum for the debate. Body is the politically correct term especially in the field of medicine, until official declaration of death, autopsy, interment, desiccation, etc.

As it was explained to me, corpse is a pejorative term belittling the efforts made by doctors, nurses, care-givers, medics, and all those who attempt to preserve life until such time as all traces of it have left the body. Or more poignantly, soldiers don't carry corpses back from the field of battle, they bring back the bodies of their friends and comrades, until such time as it is determined that they are in fact 'corpses' preferably some point after they have made some sort of peace with the notion.

If you're looking to dismiss emotional pleas however, why not start with Mrs. Munoz's family and next-of-kin? Can their claim to her mortal remains while it functions as a perfectly serviceable incubator for the fetus be construed as anything else? Isn't their attachment to it simply the product of sentiment and a less secular frame of mind/belief system? If you're in the camp firmly of the opinion that Mrs. Munoz is dead is already dead, I don't see it as a particularly compelling argument to have her taken off life-support, especially not when some good might yet come from her (to use the vernacular) corpse's use by the hospital and fetus.

[Sabby]

Professional courtesy and decorum for the debate. Body is the politically correct term especially in the field of medicine, until official declaration of death, autopsy, interment, desiccation, etc.

Thank you, seems I misunderstood the objection as something other then inaccurate terminology. Apologies.

If you're in the camp firmly of the opinion that Mrs. Munoz is dead is already dead, I don't see it as a particularly compelling argument to have her taken off life-support, especially not when some good might yet come from her (to use the vernacular) corpse's use by the hospital and fetus.

Honestly, I have no issue with a deceased body being used in such a way. When I die, I'd love for every part of me to go on and do some kind of service, and if this means my friends and family need to bury and grieve over a framed picture, then so be it.

However, the two things that alter this situation for me is the wishes of the family and the chances of the fetus.

[MKz]

I may sound harsh, but i believe that there are some rules that every living being should follow and never break regardless of technological advancement. So i will say i think that by the rules and logic of this world (without the pink glasses of humanism) if a pregnant woman dies, the baby should die too (if he is still in the age when he cannot survive outside of the womb that is). Overall i think the decision should be left to the family alone and the government should have no word in it whatsoever.

[chaoslord29]

Thank you, seems I misunderstood the objection as something other then inaccurate terminology. Apologies.

You have my apologies as well if I was too flippant in my explanation, and thank you as well for the understanding.

Honestly, I have no issue with a deceased body being used in such a way. When I die, I'd love for every part of me to go on and do some kind of service, and if this means my friends and family need to bury and grieve over a framed picture, then so be it.

However, the two things that alter this situation for me is the wishes of the family and the chances of the fetus.

We're of a common mind there it would seem, but I really don't see that the wishes of family factor into it, when any delay in releasing Mrs. Munoz to their custody (whether as a body or to rendered thusly) is merely temporary, whereas the fetus's potential for life is only absolutely null, if life support is terminated now. Whatever the odds of the fetus being healthy and viable, I think they must still out weigh the certainty of death in the opposite scenario, and any potential grief it might cause the family (since the grief is wholly intangible, and is not unique to either outcome).

I may sound harsh, but i believe that there are some rules that every living being should follow and never break regardless of technological advancement. So i will say i think that by the rules and logic of this world (without the pink glasses of humanism) if a pregnant woman dies, the baby should die too (if he is still in the age when he cannot survive outside of the womb that is). Overall i think the decision should be left to the family alone and the government should have no word in it whatsoever.

You say that "by the rules of logic and reason" but I'm wondering what precisely that reasoning is? Are you appealing to a state of nature in which the mother's death would almost certainly result in the death of a fetus? As I believe I made clear to Iniquitous Opheliac, that is a loosing battle on all counts.

If your argument is that their are certain inviolable principles in the face of technological advancement, I must ask that you enumerate them, as whether or not your claim are 'harsh' is not the issue, but whether they can be logically established as a reasonable grounds for moral judgement and practically applicable in society.

As for what the government can and can't do in this situation, I must reiterate that the government is perfectly within legal precedent to withhold release of a body (or else to protect the sovereignty of the person's rights) in contradiction to the wishes of the family for reasons of health and safety. The family's wishes in this case are intangible, personal beliefs, grounded in grief and sentiment, and while I have no doubt that I might feel similarly in their situation, they cannot be relied upon to make an objective decision regarding the potential life of the fetus, and seeing as how said fetus's life purely objective (it will either prove viable, or expire within the next several weeks) it would seem that the government (really the Hospital) is simply preventing any rash decisions from being made.

[Rogue]

Because of a modicum of respect for the living?  And in this case, I'm not referring to Mrs. Munoz's friends and relations.

As I stated, if the person wants to live, I would never call them a corpse. In this specific case, this lovely lady wants to be dead and, were it not for the law, she would be. As such, the people taking care of her are taking care of a corpse. I'm sorry that this is offensive. I don't think I ever referred to her as a corpse until Pumpkin brought it up actually.

Professional courtesy and decorum for the debate. Body is the politically correct term especially in the field of medicine, until official declaration of death, autopsy, interment, desiccation, etc.

As it was explained to me, corpse is a pejorative term belittling the efforts made by doctors, nurses, care-givers, medics, and all those who attempt to preserve life until such time as all traces of it have left the body. Or more poignantly, soldiers don't carry corpses back from the field of battle, they bring back the bodies of their friends and comrades, until such time as it is determined that they are in fact 'corpses' preferably some point after they have made some sort of peace with the notion.

If you're looking to dismiss emotional pleas however, why not start with Mrs. Munoz's family and next-of-kin? Can their claim to her mortal remains while it functions as a perfectly serviceable incubator for the fetus be construed as anything else? Isn't their attachment to it simply the product of sentiment and a less secular frame of mind/belief system? If you're in the camp firmly of the opinion that Mrs. Munoz is dead is already dead, I don't see it as a particularly compelling argument to have her taken off life-support, especially not when some good might yet come from her (to use the vernacular) corpse's use by the hospital and fetus.

Once again, until Pumpkin brought it up, I didn't even think about using the term. However, in a debate where they are not taking part, where we are dealing with the fact that a human's right to be dead (and a corpse) is being infringed upon (as silly as that is to say but in all seriousness), why not allow those who side with the person and family in question use the word corpse?

This is all for the sake of debate however. I will continue to refer to her as the woman as I had prior to this.

[Iniquitous]

Again.

The fetus is not a person. It is a lump of tissue that is rather parasitic right now and cannot survive outside of the womb. A womb that cannot sustain it if not for the machines. It has no rights. It has no legal protection. It should NOT be given rights and legal protection.

The mother made it clear what her wishes were if she was to ever end up in a situation like this. Pull the damn plug. The mother does have legally protected rights. The husband, as the next of kind, has made it clear that he does not want the fetus. He has made it clear what his and his wife's wishes are. Pull the damn plug. He has legally protected rights as her next of kin.

They are choosing to ignore the living people with legally protected rights over a non person with no rights, no voice, no legal protection. And the argument that this fetus should be given a chance to become a person is invalid. Life sucks, shit happens, it's brutal and cruel. Some things are simply NOT meant to be. Pull the plug and stop keeping both the thing's heart and Marlise's beating.

[Rogue]

OHhhhhh.... She was referring to the Fetus.... >.< Oops.

[Oniya]

OHhhhhh.... She was referring to the Fetus.... >.< Oops.

Actually, I was referring to the very living person who made a rather simple request on the board. (The fetus - whether you believe it a living person or not - is most assuredly a relation of Mrs. Munoz.)

[Rogue]

Actually, I was referring to the very living person who made a rather simple request on the board.

Oh. As I said, I would follow the request.

In that mindset, my questions still stand.

[chaoslord29]

Again.

The fetus is not a person. It is a lump of tissue that is rather parasitic right now and cannot survive outside of the womb. A womb that cannot sustain it if not for the machines. It has no rights. It has no legal protection. It should NOT be given rights and legal protection.

The mother made it clear what her wishes were if she was to ever end up in a situation like this. Pull the damn plug. The mother does have legally protected rights. The husband, as the next of kind, has made it clear that he does not want the fetus. He has made it clear what his and his wife's wishes are. Pull the damn plug. He has legally protected rights as her next of kin.

They are choosing to ignore the living people with legally protected rights over a non person with no rights, no voice, no legal protection. And the argument that this fetus should be given a chance to become a person is invalid. Life sucks, shit happens, it's brutal and cruel. Some things are simply NOT meant to be. Pull the plug and stop keeping both the thing's heart and Marlise's beating.

I'm not saying the fetus is a person, I'm not saying it has rights, and I'm not saying it is definitively alive.

I'm saying that it has the potential for rights, and that the next-of-kin's rights to dispose of the body are not absolute. Mr. Munoz's rights are established either through property rights to her body as a corpse which the state has every right to intervene in as a matter of public health and safety, or he has certain rights to make decisions in regards to his wife's medical treatment, which do not extend to terminating a pregnancy. To be clear, you can't pull the plug without terminating the pregnancy, that is inescapable, however you want to define that as 'natural' or (not) an abortion.

If you're saying that the argument that the fetus should be given a chance is invalid because "Life sucks, shit happens, it's brutal an cruel" then tell me why that doesn't apply more to those of us to whom life has been shitty and sucky and brutal and cruel, than the fetus who may very well wind up having a perfectly pleasant existence. Saying that somethings are simply "NOT meant to be" is not an argument, not unless you can flesh out what exactly it is you're appealing to in terms of 'meaning' (state of nature, moral absolutes, etc.).

Furthermore, I can argue from moral grounds exactly why a fetus has the right to potential for life, on the same basis that I assert a moral absolute against the killing of any living person: the potential for that person to do good with what remains of their life. That is to say, it is wrong to kill a living person because that person has not yet fulfilled the potential of the remainder of their life, and it is wrong for you to decide in their place to prematurely terminate their existence. This moral standard can be just as readily applied to a fetus since it has the same potential for a live yet unfulfilled, and it's termination would be equally immoral.

That said, there are of course other practical matters of survival and security which take precedence ahead of an absolute standard for the right to life (in the already living or a fetus), which is why legally we make a distinction between killing in at time of war, killing in self-defense, manslaughter, and of course, abortion.

So, to my mind, you have to provide either some practical reason why we shouldn't wait for the fetus to prove viable/terminal, or else some moral reason justifying the termination of life that would apply to a living person and not a fetus.