You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 10, 2016, 04:59:40 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: This disturbed me  (Read 8971 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Pumpkin Seeds

Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #125 on: January 10, 2014, 05:39:19 PM »
She will not be living on life support.  The pregnancy will reach a conclusion, she will be taken off and both are done.  My opinion is not more important than theirs, so please stay focused on the question.  I am saying, why is their decision more important than the one she made to carry the baby ?  Does their closure demand her to sacrifice her other desire to carry the child to term ?

What if, when the grief has subsided, the husband suddenly realizes that he could have allowed his child to live by simply doing as the doctors suggested and letting her stay on life support for a few more months ?  Maybe the doctors are right and some time should pass so they can determine the viability of the fetus and present more options to the family. 

Offline IStateYourName

Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #126 on: January 10, 2014, 08:19:20 PM »
Because her husband knew her wishes better than any one of us, and he is sure this is what she wanted. And her parents also are sure this is what she wanted.

So who are we, a bunch of strangers, to say they are all wrong and that we in fact know better than them what this woman, someone we do not know and have never met, would have wanted.

This is the point I've been making all along.

This is none of the State's business.  I for one am tired of the government trying to play the role of everyone's mommy and daddy.  As I said earlier, if you don't like abortion, don't have one.  If you think people should be kept alive on machines for the rest of their vegetative body's natural life, then say so in your own living will that that's the way you want to be treated.  Mind your business, not your neighbor's.

Offline Serephino

Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #127 on: January 10, 2014, 08:30:49 PM »
Or... what if every time he looks at that child he is reminded of all he had to go through?  It's like a child conceived from rape constantly reminding the mother of that trauma.  I can't say that's what will happen, but no one has seemed to think about that.  No, he doesn't have to keep the child, but as someone stated earlier, in 18 years the child could show up on his doorstep. 

As much as I am generally against abortion, I am against what that state is doing even more.  Of course, it wouldn't be an abortion because the mother is dead.  Had things been a little different, had it taken longer for the paramedics to get there, this wouldn't even be an issue.  The fetus would be dead along with her.  It's a sad thing, but it's a fact.  When a pregnant woman dies, so does the unborn child.  This family just wants to mourn and be left alone.  Now they have to watch the body of someone they love be kept in a hospital bed, seemingly alive when there is no hope.  It all has to be prolonged.  That does harm the family. 

It doesn't matter that she wanted to have the baby.  I'm pretty sure she wanted to live longer too, but unfortunately that didn't happen.  Now doctors are playing God and a corpse is an incubator.  It should be her husband's choice since her body should have become his property, and it is his baby too.  Has anyone thought of the health of a baby being kept alive like this?  I'm not entirely sure on this, but I've heard that it isn't good for either baby or the mother's body.  Pregnancy is a huge and dangerous strain for a live woman.  What if they can't sustain the fetus past like 24 weeks?  I think it could survive then, but the chances are damned slim, and very unlikely without problems.  Maybe the husband did the research and decided the risks weren't worth overriding what he knew his wife wanted.

Offline IStateYourName

Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #128 on: January 10, 2014, 08:37:31 PM »
How is it not an abortion? Because in a state of nature the fetus would have died to? Does that mean that babies not born naturally (delivered via c-section) are not technically 'alive'? I think Macbeth might disagree with you.

The mother is already on life-support and has received some of the most advanced medical care known to man so it's no good appealing to what would otherwise have happened naturally. None of this is natural, and their are perfectly 'natural' means of inducing abortion anyway.So in essence, it's the next-of-kin who are trying to force the issue and terminate one or both lives now, and the hospital who is saying, "Hey, why don't we just take a step back, and see if this doesn't shake down to everyone's satisfaction anyway, either in a miscarriage, or with a perfectly healthy baby being delivered?"

From what I've read, she expressed a desire not to be kept alive on machines if she was in a situation where there was no hope of recovery.  Therefore, what should have happened is her wishes carried out.

Unfortunately, she lives in Texas, where religious fundamentalists have done an end run around the U.S. Constitution to get their interpretation of what their Sky Daddy® wants for humanity imposed on others by force.  The hospital is being made under state law to keep her alive because said fundamentalists want the State to be our mommies and daddies (so long as it does so enforcing their agenda).

That is the core issue: people who are not content to apply their moral code to their own lives and attempt to persuade others by example, but who instead co-opt the State to force it onto others.  I am perfectly fine with people who believe there is a God and who want to live their lives according to some interpretation of some holy book.  But just like I wouldn't co-opt the State to bulldoze their church even though I think it's silly to spend a Sunday morning praying to a non-existent God, I expect them to likewise butt out of the lives of others.  And to be fair, some theists do just that.  But some don't, and that's the problem here.

Quote
I just don't see the (tangible) harm in letting the parents and husband stew for a couple months when there are plenty of parents of soldiers and disaster victims who go their whole lives never knowing.

I don't see anything wrong with someone stealing your boat.  After all, millions of people have never owned a boat.
I don't see anything wrong with someone walking up to you and clocking you in the face.  After all, thousands of people have been beaten by baseball bats and lead pipes and maces.
I don't see anything wrong with someone burning down your house.  Suck it up--there are millions of homeless people in the world.
See the problem with this line of thought?  Just because a tortious act or other trespass or violation of civil rights has happened to others, and you would still be better off than some others after it was done to you, doesn't justify it now, does it?


Quote
Either the child will die, prove nonviable, or be proven to be healthy over the course of the next few months and no matter which way it works out Mr. Munoz and the Machados (her parents) still get a corpse out of the deal.

Irrelevant.  In a week or so you'd heal if someone punched you in the nose, but that doesn't make it right.

Offline Iniquitous

Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #129 on: January 10, 2014, 10:37:56 PM »
Point blank.

The husband and family do NOT want this child. Period.

If they did, they would be all for this despite what the woman wanted.

With that said, why on earth would you force someone to accept a child that they have made absolutely plain that they do not want? Because your morals say it is the right thing to do? Because, somehow, you believe that this child WILL, without a shadow of doubt, do some good for humanity/the planet/whatever?

Yes, Mrs. Munoz wanted a second child. But guess what, she died. That kind of overrides the whole wanting to have another child. You know, people in hell want ice water too - they don't get it and Mrs. Munoz doesn't get a second child. Now, for whatever reason, Mr. Munoz has decided he does not want this child. HIS rights in this matter should be respected. Since the corpse is HIS property now (or rather should be if not for this inane law) then he should have the say on whether the fetus is allowed to use his wife's corpse as an incubator.

Quote
Marlise Muñoz has had no brain function since November, when she collapsed from a blood clot in her lungs. Her wish was not to be kept artificially alive. Her parents and husband want to let her body die, and her brain-dead condition conforms to the definition of death under Texas law.

She's dead. No doubts. No ifs, ands or buts about it.

Quote
But another Texas law involves the 14-week-old fetus in her womb when she was admitted to John Peter Smith Hospital in Fort Worth. The fetus still registers a heartbeat, although it’s unclear whether it also suffered the same brain-destroying oxygen deprivation that ended Muñoz’s life and whether additional, irreversible damage was inflicted by the electric shocks and drugs administered to revive Muñoz’s body.

It is not just the lack of oxygen that poses a threat to the fetus. It is the drugs, the electricity from the defibulator. Chances of this fetus coming out of this whole and capable of life (aka being viable) is slim.

Quote
At issue is a 1989 Texas law that blocks doctors from denying “life-sustaining treatment” to pregnant, terminally ill patients. There is no life to be sustained in Muñoz’s case, nor does she qualify as terminally ill. Her family members deserve the closure they seek so they can work through the pain of loss without this agonizing delay.

Been saying this all along. She's dead - there's nothing to save.

Quote
Her body should not be kept going by artificial means only to serve as a human incubator. To do so represents a perversion of motherhood and the natural life-death cycle.

Yes yes yes. Talk about the sanctity of life all you want, but YES, this is a perversion.

Quote
Some might think this is an abortion issue. It is not. Sometimes, pregnant women die and take their fetuses with them to the grave. It is horrific to contemplate, but the natural process in this case is to let them go.

source: http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/20140109-editorial-let-marlise-munoz-die.ece

Good news is the husband has apparently hired legal counsel. With any luck, this travesty will be over soon.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2014, 10:47:40 PM by Iniquitous Opheliac »

Offline elone

Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #130 on: January 11, 2014, 12:29:08 PM »
It is clear that the state of Texas is trampling all over the rights of these people. Of course these same folks want to keep government out of our lives unless it is for their own greed or God's will.

I would suggest a work around. Put her in an ambulance and drive her to another state that has laws more favorable to their wishes.

Do you think the state or hospital would prevent her transport?

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #131 on: January 11, 2014, 01:01:43 PM »
Depending on where in Texas she is, that's a heck of a drive.  Airlift would probably be necessary if she's anywhere in the central or southern region.

Offline Iniquitous

Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #132 on: January 11, 2014, 02:51:23 PM »
Houston area. Would need to be an airlift.

Offline Pumpkin Seeds

Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #133 on: January 11, 2014, 02:53:14 PM »
Would need a medically necessary reason to justify transport.

Offline Iniquitous

Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #134 on: January 11, 2014, 02:59:35 PM »
With any luck the husband's lawyer will be able to get the courts to force the hospital to turn off the machines. No brain activity since November is pretty cut and dry... she's gone.

Offline Pumpkin Seeds

Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #135 on: January 11, 2014, 03:02:42 PM »
Who said there was no brain activity since November?

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #136 on: January 11, 2014, 03:04:58 PM »
I just remember friends of mine saying it took a full day of driving to get out of Texas from where they were.  Mind you, they had a specific destination (and had to drive east as a result), but tying up a medical transport for even half of that would be a stretch.

Offline Pumpkin Seeds

Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #137 on: January 11, 2014, 03:25:59 PM »
First I would like to point out that referencing an editorial as fact is a poor choice.  An editorial is by its very nature an opinion, specifically of the editor.  The editor does not possess a medical background in this case nor a legal one.  So information presented from the editor still requires source reference to be taken as fact, otherwise this is simply opinion.  Notice the editor does not reference a source for information regarding the medical condition and brain activity of the patient.  The hospital has made public statements that they are unable to divulge medical information as the husband has not authorized them to do so.  This would be a violation of federal law.  So the editor does not know this and presenting this as fact is misleading.

To prove the point about a lack of medical background, the editor mentions the electrical current as damaging to the fetus.  A simple examination of AEG quick facts shows that “Defibrillation does not transfer any significant electrical current to a fetus, so it is safe to use on a pregnant woman.”  Since the same crash cart is supplied to a medical/surgical floor as a labor and delivery unit, I can assume this to be factual.  I will also provide a link from the textbook Critical Care Obstetrics which references the safe use of defibrillation on a pregnant woman.  There is little evidence to suggest that acute use of resuscitation drugs on a pregnant woman would cause damage to the fetus as most evidence of damage has come from long term use.  I would also add that this editor is performing a great injustice by spreading misinformation about medical treatment.

http://books.google.com/books?id=Jw8Fl5XF4McC&pg=PA100&lpg=PA100&dq=ACLS+drugs+effect+on+fetus&source=bl&ots=nQn_ranLsK&sig=l-vz1OsLKoA2W40C1ijdkIuNjXI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ybPRUtqiFIHhoASKh4LABQ&ved=0CFIQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=ACLS%20drugs%20effect%20on%20fetus&f=false

As for nothing to save there is a fetus to save.  Regardless of your personal views on the importance of a fetus, the woman in question felt a desire to keep the child.  That was her choice and if her choice was to keep the child, then her wishes should be honored with the same gravity as the desire to be taken off life support.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2014, 03:30:23 PM by Pumpkin Seeds »

Offline Iniquitous

Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #138 on: January 11, 2014, 04:57:17 PM »
And again, she is dead. That desire to have a second child died with her. By forcing this issue the hospital is forcing the husband and family to accept this child they have made clear they do not want.

Her death nulled the desire for a second child. Her desire to not be kept on machines is now what it relevant and it is being ignored.

Offline Pumpkin Seeds

Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #139 on: January 11, 2014, 05:18:06 PM »
You have yet to answer how her death nulled that desire and wish.  Her death does not invalidate her wishes and desires to be honored as you so adamantly claim.

Offline Sabby

Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #140 on: January 11, 2014, 05:28:09 PM »
Well, let's look at her wishes.

1. I want to be taken off life support.
2. I want to keep my baby.

One of these is impossible to honor. She cannot have a child. She can bear one, perhaps, but the child will not be her charge. It will be the charge of her next of kin.

So should they honor the defunct wishes of a corpse, forcing the consequences on her grieving family, or allow the fetus to die before it develops into a living child who will more then likely suffer a low quality of life, if it survives for long at all?

Offline IStateYourName

Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #141 on: January 11, 2014, 07:06:26 PM »
You have yet to answer how her death nulled that desire and wish.  Her death does not invalidate her wishes and desires to be honored as you so adamantly claim.

I'm not going to claim to know what was inside her head right before she died.  But I think we have to consider the decent to strong possibility that she wanted to have a second child and raise that child, as its mother.  That she did not want to merely birth a baby like an incubation machine from Brave New World, but to actually...be a mother.  She can't.  Not anymore.  It's tragic, and I still believe the State needs to butt out of this family and its private, personal decision in this intimate matter.

Offline Iniquitous

Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #142 on: January 11, 2014, 07:22:34 PM »
Really? You are going to actually ask how death nulls a desire that only someone living can do? Can a corpse raise a child? No. Can a corpse be a mommy? No. Point blank.. she is dead. Thus she cannot be a mother to that fetus.  Cannot raise it. Thus,  her desire to have a second child is defunct. At the point that her brain died that desire became something of the past and the immediate desire to not be kept on machines became the primary wish to be respected. Why? Because she is no longer capable of having a second child. Her body is not a hosting site for a fetus and it should not be used as one.

Offline Pumpkin Seeds

Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #143 on: January 11, 2014, 07:43:30 PM »
Her body is capable of doing so and women have delivered children while on life support, while brain dead.  So she can give birth to this child and this has been done.  So her wish to give birth to this child can be maintained.  Would her father be able to get rid of the child if the mother was certain to die in child birth but decided to keep the child anyway?  Certainly not.  So her state of being after child birth is not a factor in this decision.

Offline IStateYourName

Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #144 on: January 11, 2014, 07:47:22 PM »
Her body is capable of doing so and women have delivered children while on life support, while brain dead.  So she can give birth to this child and this has been done.  So her wish to give birth to this child can be maintained.  Would her father be able to get rid of the child if the mother was certain to die in child birth but decided to keep the child anyway?  Certainly not.  So her state of being after child birth is not a factor in this decision.

See my post a few posts up about the ability of a person to subsequently recover from a violation of their rights being irrelevant to whether the rights violation is immoral.

If I steal $100 from you, the fact that you get paid again next Tuesday and thus can replace the funds is irrelevant.  I have no right to your $100, even if you win the lottery tomorrow.  Similarly, the state of Texas has no right to use this woman's body as an incubator to satisfy religious fundamentalists.

Offline Pumpkin Seeds

Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #145 on: January 11, 2014, 07:57:38 PM »
I am asking that you do not violate her right to continue to have a child that she and her husband chose to have.  Both of her wishes can be honored.  The removal of life support at this stage is simply for the family to feel better. 

Also if you remove a 100 dollars from me, then I am 100 dollars less despite being paid.  Because once paid tomorrow, I am still without that 100 dollars.  A better example would be if you stole a 100 dollars from me tonight and gave it back to me tomorrow, would I be able to claim theft.

Offline IStateYourName

Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #146 on: January 11, 2014, 08:06:55 PM »
I am asking that you do not violate her right to continue to have a child that she and her husband chose to have.  Both of her wishes can be honored.  The removal of life support at this stage is simply for the family to feel better. 

Also if you remove a 100 dollars from me, then I am 100 dollars less despite being paid.  Because once paid tomorrow, I am still without that 100 dollars.  A better example would be if you stole a 100 dollars from me tonight and gave it back to me tomorrow, would I be able to claim theft.

Except that this isn't being to done follow her wishes, which we can't verify one way or the other.  It's being done by the State, driven by religious fundamentalists who apparently think the separation of church and state doesn't apply to them.

If she had a living will which stated explicitly that she would want to be kept alive in a scenario like this--that even if dead, she would want to try and carry a baby to term--I would say keep her going and do just that.  But her wishes were not to be kept alive by machine.  That is confirmed.  She also wanted to have a child--but what is not clear is whether she would want that even if she wasn't alive to raise it.

I understand that people in this thread (including you) are not motivated by religious fundamentalism.  And there is merit in the arguments you and other have made.  But it's not your decision, nor the State's decision, to make.  Not our life to live, not our call.  That's part of what freedom is. 

Offline Kythia

  • Noooo-one Fights like Kythia no-one bites like Kythia
  • Dame
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2012
  • Gender: Female
  • No one chain smokes Marlboro lights like Kythia
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #147 on: January 11, 2014, 08:07:32 PM »
See my post a few posts up about the ability of a person to subsequently recover from a violation of their rights being irrelevant to whether the rights violation is immoral.

But there is no violation of her rights.  She's dead.  She has no rights.  The next of kin has no rights over the body until its released to him (think of, say, an autopsy).  And even then their rights are severely constrained.  People have talked in terms of "property" but that's not quite accurate.  The state (I use in the sense of nation/government rather than explicitly a US state) makes many many rules regarding what can be done with a corpse making it clear its not strictly property.  Compare and contrast with my table, which I can ignore, leave to rot, give away, have sex with, eat, etc.  None of which I can do with the corpse of my next of kin.

At the end of the day, though, I don't really see the issue:  She didn't want to be kept alive on machines...she's not.  She's dead.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #148 on: January 11, 2014, 08:11:32 PM »
Actually, most people leave the corpses of their next-of-kin to rot.  Embalming only goes so far... [/morbid irreverence]

Offline Kythia

  • Noooo-one Fights like Kythia no-one bites like Kythia
  • Dame
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2012
  • Gender: Female
  • No one chain smokes Marlboro lights like Kythia
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #149 on: January 11, 2014, 08:12:02 PM »
Actually, most people leave the corpses of their next-of-kin to rot.  Embalming only goes so far... [/morbid irreverence]

Cremations are way more common over here.