You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 05, 2016, 12:44:02 PM

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 8944 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline lilhobbit37

Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #250 on: January 17, 2014, 11:12:02 AM »
Just a note, the entire debate is based on heresay so those who are saying that only the opposing arguments are invalidated by it need to reexamine their evidence.

Offline chaoslord29

Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #251 on: January 17, 2014, 11:20:44 AM »
Just a note, the entire debate is based on heresay so those who are saying that only the opposing arguments are invalidated by it need to reexamine their evidence.

That's not what I'm saying. Nobodies' arguments are invalidated by the fact that our arguments are founded on hearsay (although I'm certainly willing to accept accredited news sources as evidence for our purposes). Arguments are invalid because of a flaw in reasoning. Arguments are unsound when they are founded on something less than a factual basis.

Seeing as how we don't have all the facts, I'm not saying that everyone's arguments are instantly wrong, I'm just saying that it can weaken an otherwise logically valid position if it were to turn out, say, that Mrs. Munoz is comatose but not brain dead.

As I said before though, I'm perfectly willing to entertain for the sake of argument that she is brain-dead, since that seems to be the preferred grounds for debate by the 'pull-the-plug' party. I only ask the same consideration for those of us on the opposite side.

Offline IStateYourName

Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #252 on: January 17, 2014, 11:46:39 AM »
I'm sorry, which articles have you been reading? Everything to date has asserted only that the parents and husband believe that their daughter was described to them as "brain-dead". Whether or not doctor's have thoroughly examined her, we have no information to go on but the family's word, which is purely hearsay.

I am asserting that it's not productive to presume Mrs. Munoz's condition as brain-dead with no hope of recovery, except for the sake of argument in a worst-case-scenario. In essence, since we have no actual evidence as to the truth of Mrs. Munoz's condition, I feel the burden of proof must lie with those who claim that she is definitively brain-dead and therefore "dead".

There's healthy skepticism, and then there's just not wanting to accept the truth.

If anyone would be in a position to know her condition, it would be her husband (who has power of attorney, and has certainly been briefed in detail by the hospital) and her parents (who doctors also have likely conferred with).  And I can't imagine this woman has been laying in a hospital bed for weeks without being thoroughly examined by doctors.  "What's this woman doing hooked up to all these machines?" "Oh, I don't know, she's been there since Christmas, sometime this month, someone will get 'round to looking her over" doesn't seem plausible, now, does it?

So unless you can come up with a pretty convincing explanation of why you believe this woman's husbands and parents are engaged in some sort of conspiracy to lie about her condition, or hard evidence which directly contradicts their testimony, I move that we accept the testimony of her husband and parents as factual.

Offline Iniquitous

Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #253 on: January 17, 2014, 11:47:13 AM »
Quote
First, Erick Muñoz’s attorneys said late Thursday they have received medical records from the hospital showing that his wife Marlise is indeed brain dead.

Quote
The hospital confirmed to our Jeffrey Weiss today that the records were turned over Tuesday.

source: http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/2014/01/judge-steps-aside-in-case-involving-husband-suing-fort-worth-hospital-to-remove-wife-from-life-support.html/

Debate solved. She's dead. Which means the hospital and the state have butted their noses into an end of life decision they shouldn't be involved in.

Offline IStateYourName

Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #254 on: January 17, 2014, 11:48:51 AM »
As I said before though, I'm perfectly willing to entertain for the sake of argument that she is brain-dead, since that seems to be the preferred grounds for debate by the 'pull-the-plug' party. I only ask the same consideration for those of us on the opposite side.

More than hearsay.  A court case has been filed.  This requires corroborating evidence.  Testimony from expert witnesses.  If the husband and family are lying about the basic facts of this case, they are risking considerable legal consequences at this point.

Offline chaoslord29

Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #255 on: January 17, 2014, 11:59:08 AM »
source: http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/2014/01/judge-steps-aside-in-case-involving-husband-suing-fort-worth-hospital-to-remove-wife-from-life-support.html/

Debate solved. She's dead. Which means the hospital and the state have butted their noses into an end of life decision they shouldn't be involved in.

Ah, thank you Iniquitous, that does clear the matter of her condition up nicely.

The debate however is far from over. I have already cited examples of perfectly legitimate conditions of when the State is free to intervene in end-of-life procedures. In fact, seeing as how said procedures are in fact determined by the state in the first place, it would seem to me that they are more or less able to reinterpret the execution thereof with relative impunity.

Of course, I'm not saying the next-of-kin has no rights in the matter, just that those rights are far from inviolable, being founded on certain cultural sentimentality and the notion that a 'body' is the property of next-of-kin.

Let me try putting it a bit more constructively though, on what basis or to what moral absolute are you appealing, when you assert the next-of-kin's right to take custody and dispose of the deceased party?

@IStateYourName
Seeing as Iniquitous was able to provide suitable evidence to assert Mrs. Munoz's condition, I see no reason to continue that line of argumentation.

However, I resent that you're assertion that I was suggesting anything but healthy skepticism. I was certainly not implying any sort of conspiracy by the family, only that in their grief, they may very well have misinterpreted their daughter's condition. Or at least, that's what I would say if I were in their position. Regardless, the grounds for the continued debate are settled. She is brain-dead, by all accounts.

Offline IStateYourName

Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #256 on: January 17, 2014, 12:10:57 PM »
However, I resent that you're assertion that I was suggesting anything but healthy skepticism. I was certainly not implying any sort of conspiracy by the family, only that in their grief, they may very well have misinterpreted their daughter's condition. Or at least, that's what I would say if I were in their position. Regardless, the grounds for the continued debate are settled. She is brain-dead, by all accounts.

The point I was making is that skepticism ought to be based on a concrete, tangible belief that an assertion is false.  And the four basic possibilities in this case were:

1) The husband and family were not informed of the woman's condition and were making stuff up as they went.
2) The husband and family were misinformed of the woman's condition, and were inadvertently relaying erroneous information
3) The husband and family were correctly informed of the woman's condition, and were accurately relaying that information
4) The husband and family were correctly informed of the woman's condition, and were deliberately lying (e.g., she was not brain-dead but the family were falsely claiming she was).

1 could be ruled out, as the husband at the very least has a legal right to know and would have asked, as would the family.
2 defies credulity, as it is difficult to imagine medical professionals would not speak clearly on a matter of this importance.
3 makes the most sense, and is the default assumption, which leaves
4 which seems to be the only remotely plausible alternative to 3.

Hence, I was asking if you had any evidence to support 4.  I was not claiming you were affirmatively asserting 4--but it was the only possibility besides 3 that made any sense.

Offline Iniquitous

Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #257 on: January 17, 2014, 12:23:28 PM »
Ah, thank you Iniquitous, that does clear the matter of her condition up nicely.

The debate however is far from over. I have already cited examples of perfectly legitimate conditions of when the State is free to intervene in end-of-life procedures. In fact, seeing as how said procedures are in fact determined by the state in the first place, it would seem to me that they are more or less able to reinterpret the execution thereof with relative impunity.

Of course, I'm not saying the next-of-kin has no rights in the matter, just that those rights are far from inviolable, being founded on certain cultural sentimentality and the notion that a 'body' is the property of next-of-kin.

Let me try putting it a bit more constructively though, on what basis or to what moral absolute are you appealing, when you assert the next-of-kin's right to take custody and dispose of the deceased party?

@IStateYourName
Seeing as Iniquitous was able to provide suitable evidence to assert Mrs. Munoz's condition, I see no reason to continue that line of argumentation.

However, I resent that you're assertion that I was suggesting anything but healthy skepticism. I was certainly not implying any sort of conspiracy by the family, only that in their grief, they may very well have misinterpreted their daughter's condition. Or at least, that's what I would say if I were in their position. Regardless, the grounds for the continued debate are settled. She is brain-dead, by all accounts.

Let's try this.

IF the death had been because of an infectious disease that was a danger to society, I can see the state/hospital refusing to release the body. (I.E. something that would cause an outbreak/pandemic) - that is not the case here.

Were it not for the pregnancy, the hospital would have done exactly what the family wanted without a second question. Wouldn't have mattered that Marlise made the mistake of not putting it in writing. Her husband would say "she did not want to be kept on machines." Okie dokie, machines turned off. End of story.

The deciding factor that has made this such an unholy mess is that Texas has decided that it has the right to dictate in cases where a woman is pregnant. Meaning, the state has decided that a woman's body is not her own domain. She does not have the right to make end of life decisions for herself should the unthinkable happen and she die while pregnant. The state has stripped it's female citizens of the right to decide on their own. This is assuming the hospital is reading the law correctly. After all, the law states life sustaining treatment to pregnant patients. A dead person is not a patient, nor are brain dead patients able of recovering.

The refusal to follow the wishes of the next of kin, who are legally the only ones able to make the decision to pull the plug, is disturbing and disgusting. It isn't a matter of turning the body over to them. It is the fact that THEY are the ONLY ones legally able to make this decision and the hospital is ignoring them. Whether because it it is protecting it's ass or whether it's because they think they have the right to make the fetus their patient doesn't matter to me. The hospital is in the wrong here.

As for the matter of the fetus. They have NO way of knowing if the fetus is viable right now. Can't determine brain waves on a fetus. Can't really go by the heart beat because the machines could very well be keeping it's heart going, just like it is Marlise's. This whole waiting game to be able to test is disrespectful to the next of kin who want the machines turned off so they can mourn both in peace. All this hospital has done is force this family into limbo.

Call me callous if you want but I am of the belief that if whatever deity you believe in wanted this child to be born, Marlise wouldn't have died.

Offline chaoslord29

Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #258 on: January 17, 2014, 12:54:20 PM »
Let's try this.

IF the death had been because of an infectious disease that was a danger to society, I can see the state/hospital refusing to release the body. (I.E. something that would cause an outbreak/pandemic) - that is not the case here.

Were it not for the pregnancy, the hospital would have done exactly what the family wanted without a second question. Wouldn't have mattered that Marlise made the mistake of not putting it in writing. Her husband would say "she did not want to be kept on machines." Okie dokie, machines turned off. End of story.

Agreed on both counts. Obviously pregnancy is not an infectious condition, however, I think you must admit that it establishes legal basis for refusing to allow immediate release/disposal of a body. Criminal investigations are the other general case where this is applicable and while no crime has been committed here (I'm certainly not going to assert that abortion is a crime, and have already made it clear I believe the Texas Law to be unjust), it does establish that the State may intervene in matters of a more individual nature, not just where there is risk of pandemic and mass hysteria.

Quote
The deciding factor that has made this such an unholy mess is that Texas has decided that it has the right to dictate in cases where a woman is pregnant. Meaning, the state has decided that a woman's body is not her own domain. She does not have the right to make end of life decisions for herself should the unthinkable happen and she die while pregnant. The state has stripped it's female citizens of the right to decide on their own. This is assuming the hospital is reading the law correctly. After all, the law states life sustaining treatment to pregnant patients. A dead person is not a patient, nor are brain dead patients able of recovering.

The refusal to follow the wishes of the next of kin, who are legally the only ones able to make the decision to pull the plug, is disturbing and disgusting. It isn't a matter of turning the body over to them. It is the fact that THEY are the ONLY ones legally able to make this decision and the hospital is ignoring them. Whether because it it is protecting it's ass or whether it's because they think they have the right to make the fetus their patient doesn't matter to me. The hospital is in the wrong here.

I believe you have a contradiction there. What is 'Life-Support' if not a life-sustaining treatment? Brain-death may represent the death of the individual uniqueness that is Marlise, but given that the machines are in fact sustaining the continued function of all other semblances of life, I fail to see how you can construe her as anything but alive in the most fundamental biological sense of the term. Certainly there's been no legal declaration of death so are you then appealing to some more metaphysical sense of the term? If so, by what basis do you assert it to take precedence over the biological and legal sense?

Regardless, in order for Mr. Munoz as next of kin to have the rights to decide to remove his wife from life support, she must still be in the legal sense 'alive'. In which case he does not have the right to determine the termination of her pregnancy in lieu of her explicit wishes. Note the phrase I use there, "termination of pregnancy" whether or not we call it an abortion, or natural death, her pregnancy is being terminated, and it is firmly established that her husband has no more right to presume the right to do so than the State of Texas.

Assuming though, for the sake of argument, that Mrs. Munoz is legally dead, then Mr. Munoz's only rights to Marlise's mortal remains are established as tentative property rights to dispose of her body according to tradition and the deceased's wishes. In that case, I assert that the State has sufficient reason to delay release of the body into his custody on the basis of continued medical examination of the pregnancy until such time as the viability of the fetus can be established and all possible legal ramifications thereof can be cleared.

Quote
As for the matter of the fetus. They have NO way of knowing if the fetus is viable right now. Can't determine brain waves on a fetus. Can't really go by the heart beat because the machines could very well be keeping it's heart going, just like it is Marlise's. This whole waiting game to be able to test is disrespectful to the next of kin who want the machines turned off so they can mourn both in peace. All this hospital has done is force this family into limbo.

Call me callous if you want but I am of the belief that if whatever deity you believe in wanted this child to be born, Marlise wouldn't have died.

Call me callous, but I'm of the belief that no deity or other immaterial belief has anything to do with this, and it's pointless to speculate about what is 'meant to be'. Call me callous again, but I don't see why being disrespectful to the next-of-kin in order to give a new life a chance is so much to ask, let alone a violation of rights. As far as I'm concerned, it's just an extended stay in the hospital waiting area as they're daughter undergoes a particularly long term form of treatment in an attempt to save the fetus, or else no different than what any other family goes through waiting for a family member with a terminal illness.

The only difference being that they cannot make the decision to refuse treatment for her, because there is another life on the line and it can't be established if Marlise wouldn't have wanted to try and save it.

Offline Iniquitous

Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #259 on: January 17, 2014, 01:09:12 PM »
Quote
I believe you have a contradiction there. What is 'Life-Support' if not a life-sustaining treatment? Brain-death may represent the death of the individual uniqueness that is Marlise, but given that the machines are in fact sustaining the continued function of all other semblances of life, I fail to see how you can construe her as anything but alive in the most fundamental biological sense of the term. Certainly there's been no legal declaration of death so are you then appealing to some more metaphysical sense of the term? If so, by what basis do you assert it to take precedence over the biological and legal sense?

There can be no doubt that once the brain has ceased to function, I.E. no brain waves, then death has occurred. There is no coming back. Whatever it was that made you you is gone.  There is no miraculous return from the dead.  At this point, the only thing the machines are doing is forcing the blood to pump through the body (I.E. the heart to beat) and the lungs to put oxygen in that blood. This is not equivalent of "life". It is, for lack of a better term, putting the body in stasis to hold off decomposition. Do I think she is "alive"?

Nope. Her body is being forced to not decompose by machines.

As for no "legal" declaration of death. Back to this again. The medical records of Marlise declare her brain dead. Texas is one of the states that legally recognizes brain death as being legally dead. Ergo, Marlise is as dead as dead gets.

Offline Sabby

Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #260 on: January 17, 2014, 01:15:03 PM »
I have to agree. This isn't life support. See, life support is holding out for treatment. This is just keeping a dead body warm. And yes, as others have put it, that body is being used to incubate a human fetus that is unable to survive without it.

This whole topic is just a melting pot of confronting grey >.< we really cannot come to a consensus on what constitutes life, when it begins, the morality of abortion, the suspected quality of the childs life... I'm really not sure there's anything to be achieved in this conversation beyond clarifying our views on it.

Offline vtboy

Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #261 on: January 17, 2014, 01:31:12 PM »
Here's a hypothetical scenario for those who think it is OK for the state to keep Ms. Munoz's heart beating, contrary to her expressed pre-morten wishes, in order to give her fetus a shot at life.

Let's say Ms. Munoz's condition is exactly as has been described -- she is brain dead, and on life support -- but she is not pregnant. Just as her family is about to carry out her expressed wishes and pull the plug, a severely injured woman is brought into the hospital. The woman is carrying a three month old fetus which she very much wants to bring to term and raise. Due to the severity of her injuries, however, the fetus is certain to die unless it is removed from her womb and transplanted in poor Ms. Munoz's. For argument's sake, let's further assume the transplant is medically possible (I have no idea whether it is or not) and that, with it, both fetus and mother will thrive.

Does the family get to say "no"? If it does, what distinguishes this situation from the one in which the fetus is Ms. Munoz's?   
« Last Edit: January 17, 2014, 01:38:17 PM by vtboy »

Offline Iniquitous

Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #262 on: January 17, 2014, 01:43:24 PM »

Let's say Ms. Munoz's condition is exactly as has been described -- she is brain dead, and on life support .....

That IS what her condition is, though I do not call it life support since she is not alive. Proof was posted that she is, in fact, brain dead.

Offline chaoslord29

Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #263 on: January 17, 2014, 01:49:29 PM »
There can be no doubt that once the brain has ceased to function, I.E. no brain waves, then death has occurred. There is no coming back. Whatever it was that made you you is gone.  There is no miraculous return from the dead.  At this point, the only thing the machines are doing is forcing the blood to pump through the body (I.E. the heart to beat) and the lungs to put oxygen in that blood. This is not equivalent of "life". It is, for lack of a better term, putting the body in stasis to hold off decomposition. Do I think she is "alive"?

Nope. Her body is being forced to not decompose by machines.

As for no "legal" declaration of death. Back to this again. The medical records of Marlise declare her brain dead. Texas is one of the states that legally recognizes brain death as being legally dead. Ergo, Marlise is as dead as dead gets.

Okay, I'll concede that she's effectively dead. In which case, the husband's only rights to the body are property rights. Why should said property rights take precedence over the matter of weeks it will take to confirm if the fetus is in fact viable? Why does Mr. Munoz deserve to "expedite shipping" of his wife's body into the ground when there's every chance someone might actually benefit from it's use as an incubator? Something I add, that his wife might very well have wanted to have done in life.

I'm not saying his rights don't matter, I'm going to be callous and say that his 'feelings' don't matter. Not when their may very well be another human being's life at stake. He has a right to his feelings. He has a right to express those feelings. He does not have the right to prioritize those feelings ahead of the fetus's chance at life. Not when the only other factor in the matter is time.

I have to agree. This isn't life support. See, life support is holding out for treatment. This is just keeping a dead body warm. And yes, as others have put it, that body is being used to incubate a human fetus that is unable to survive without it.

This whole topic is just a melting pot of confronting grey >.< we really cannot come to a consensus on what constitutes life, when it begins, the morality of abortion, the suspected quality of the childs life... I'm really not sure there's anything to be achieved in this conversation beyond clarifying our views on it.

There's always room for productive debate so long as both sides are willing to admit they might be wrong and remain open to the claims and reasonable arguments of the opposing side. Those are all the grounds required for debate, and I certainly feel I have taken those considerations into account (In fact, I have been convinced of a number of matters which have forced me to change my position since the beginning of the debate).

Anyone else willing to entertain reasonable doubt, and open to being convinced by otherwise compelling argumentation?
Here's a hypothetical scenario for those who think it is OK for the state to keep Ms. Munoz's heart beating, contrary to her expressed pre-morten wishes, in order to give her fetus a shot at life.

Let's say Ms. Munoz's condition is exactly as has been described -- she is brain dead, and on life support -- but she is not pregnant. Just as her family is about to carry out her expressed wishes and pull the plug, a severely injured woman is brought into the hospital. The woman is carrying a three month old fetus which she very much wants to bring to term and raise. Due to the severity of her injuries, however, the fetus is certain to die unless it is removed from her womb and transplanted in poor Ms. Munoz's. For argument's sake, let's further assume the transplant is medically possible (I have no idea whether it is or not) and that, with it, both fetus and mother will thrive.

Does the family get to say "no"? If it does, what distinguishes this situation from the one in which the fetus is Ms. Munoz's?   

The family would be perfectly within their rights to refuse on the distinction that Mrs. Munoz's body is sovereign to herself and she at no point expressed a wish or desire to carry someone else's child.

By contrast, in the situation at hand, she is carrying her own child and expressed a pre-mortem wish to carry that child to term, and we cannot establish whether she would have prioritized said desire to continue incubating the fetus (by whatever means necessary) ahead of her apparent desire not to be kept on life support. To that end, I assert no one else has the right to prioritize one head of the other and we must wait until the fetus either miscarries or proves viable.

Let me posit another hypothetical to help illustrate that point. Say Mrs. Munoz had a no living will but had expressed a desire not to be kept on life-support and so the hospital did exactly that, only to discover post-mortem, that she had been pregnant. Would Mr. Munoz then be within his rights to sue the hospital for wrongful termination of his wife's pregnancy without her express wishes?

Offline lilhobbit37

Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #264 on: January 17, 2014, 02:04:13 PM »
No, nor would he. His wife died. You wouldn't use her as an organ donor without her wishes, you shouldn't use her as an incubator either.

The state doesn't have full property rights to a body as you say. They can't harvest organs even if those organs could save other lives of people who are already living and breathing and could continue to do so if they had the organs.

They need your express permission that when you die you wish that.

In this case, it is quite clear what ms. Munoz wanted. And the state has no more right to ignore that than they do to ignore whether or not she was an organ donor.

You say if she is dead she has no rights but that isn't correct. She has the right for her end of life wishes. If her end of life wish was to not remain on life support it should be granted. Pregnancy or not.

Offline chaoslord29

Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #265 on: January 17, 2014, 02:15:13 PM »
No, nor would he. His wife died. You wouldn't use her as an organ donor without her wishes, you shouldn't use her as an incubator either.

The state doesn't have full property rights to a body as you say. They can't harvest organs even if those organs could save other lives of people who are already living and breathing and could continue to do so if they had the organs.

They need your express permission that when you die you wish that.

In this case, it is quite clear what ms. Munoz wanted. And the state has no more right to ignore that than they do to ignore whether or not she was an organ donor.

You say if she is dead she has no rights but that isn't correct. She has the right for her end of life wishes. If her end of life wish was to not remain on life support it should be granted. Pregnancy or not.

But aren't you ignoring her wishes to carry the child to term? Those are as clearly established (via friends and family) as her wish not to remain on life support for an extended period of time, and we can't know how she would have decided to prioritize one above the other herself.

The State doesn't have full property rights to the body no, but given that they're not harvesting organs or tissue and, as Inquitous put it, keeping the body in effective 'stasis', the Munoz's will still receive the body in exactly the condition they would have if Marlise had expired in any other way; minus one fetus.

So unless it's they're wish that she be buried with the fetus still inside of her, I don't see that simply allowing her to expire is in fact the explicit fulfillment of their or Mrs. Munoz's wishes. Effectively, the hospital (not the state) is saying, "We can't give you a body yet because there's this thing inside of it and we can't know whether that thing is alive or dead or whether we'd have to kill it or whatever in order to give you your daughter's body without it. You'll have to wait it out."

Offline lilhobbit37

Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #266 on: January 17, 2014, 02:16:30 PM »
But they shouldn't have to and in any state except that small handful, they wouldn't have to.

Offline chaoslord29

Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #267 on: January 17, 2014, 02:26:31 PM »
But they shouldn't have to and in any state except that small handful, they wouldn't have to.

I'm willing to admit that the law is unjust (in fact, I would love to see it repealed), but in this particular case it may just have created a situation where some good can come of it all. Potentially.

What do you think though lilhobbit37? Would Mr. Munoz be within his rights to sue the hospital for wrongful termination of her pregnancy had they simply disconnected her from lifesupport without a second thought?

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 #268 on: January 17, 2014, 02:30:05 PM »
What do you think though lilhobbit37? Would Mr. Munoz be within his rights to sue the hospital for wrongful termination of her pregnancy had they simply disconnected her from lifesupport without a second thought?

Unlikely to happen.  Even with a DNR, the family gets the 'I'm sorry, there's nothing more we can do' talk.

Offline lilhobbit37

Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #269 on: January 17, 2014, 02:32:42 PM »
I'm willing to admit that the law is unjust (in fact, I would love to see it repealed), but in this particular case it may just have created a situation where some good can come of it all. Potentially.

What do you think though lilhobbit37? Would Mr. Munoz be within his rights to sue the hospital for wrongful termination of her pregnancy had they simply disconnected her from lifesupport without a second thought?

I already answered that. I said no he wouldn't and he wouldn't sue anyways because he has made it clear that is exactly what he wants.

Offline chaoslord29

Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #270 on: January 17, 2014, 02:49:04 PM »
I already answered that. I said no he wouldn't and he wouldn't sue anyways because he has made it clear that is exactly what he wants.

Oh, I'm sorry I thought you were answering vtboy's hypothetical.

Let me rephrase then, would it be immoral, if not illegal for them to have done so? Without express permission of the mother?

Unlikely to happen.  Even with a DNR, the family gets the 'I'm sorry, there's nothing more we can do' talk.

Unlikely, yes, but would he be within his rights, or perhaps more pertinently, would he have the moral highground in that situation (unfortunate as the result might be).

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 #271 on: January 17, 2014, 02:56:36 PM »
Are we assuming a written DNR, simple 'hearsay' knowledge of a DNR, or neither?

Offline lilhobbit37

Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #272 on: January 17, 2014, 02:59:12 PM »
No because it has been made clear that is what she wanted. Pregnancy should not change her end of life choices unless she had otherwise made that known. Her husband and parents are all in agreement that this is what she would want and to keep claiming their bereavement makes them unable to make a call about it is unfair.

Yes they are grieving. But they have had the state of mind to begin a legal battle which includes attorneys which tells me that they are capable of critical thinking to handle the situation. They are perfectly capable of making this decision and should be allowed as they would if she had not been pregnant.

Offline chaoslord29

Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #273 on: January 17, 2014, 03:34:46 PM »
Are we assuming a written DNR, simple 'hearsay' knowledge of a DNR, or neither?

Hearsay knowledge, since that's what's most relevant to the case. As in, there's hearsay to support she didn't want to remain on life support and hearsay that she wanted to have the child.

No because it has been made clear that is what she wanted. Pregnancy should not change her end of life choices unless she had otherwise made that known. Her husband and parents are all in agreement that this is what she would want and to keep claiming their bereavement makes them unable to make a call about it is unfair.

Yes they are grieving. But they have had the state of mind to begin a legal battle which includes attorneys which tells me that they are capable of critical thinking to handle the situation. They are perfectly capable of making this decision and should be allowed as they would if she had not been pregnant.

But she did make that known, in that she expressed a desire to have a second child and to all appearances was making every effort to carry this child in the time she had. Also, I think the fact that they're filing suit indicates nothing but indignation (justified or not). You don't have to be a reasonable person to try and sue somebody (you're less likely to win, but it's not a prerequisite). Perhaps though it is unfair to their feelings to just assume the family is emotionally compromised, but it is also, you have to admit, closer to an objective evaluation. After all, if they want to claim objectivity, they have to be willing to set aside their feelings. Not saying the family has to make the most objective choice in this matter (or that the State should force them to) but I would like it at least recognized that their is a potential, optimal, objective best outcome for this situation.

I feel like any decision by the husband and family as to what Mrs. Munoz "would have wanted" is necessarily a presumption and while it might generally be within their rights to make that presumption, the pregnancy does in fact change the issue from a harmless observance of tradition and sentiment to a potentially harmful contravention of conflicting moral principles.

Offline vtboy

Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #274 on: January 17, 2014, 03:49:29 PM »
Let me posit another hypothetical to help illustrate that point. Say Mrs. Munoz had a no living will but had expressed a desire not to be kept on life-support and so the hospital did exactly that, only to discover post-mortem, that she had been pregnant. Would Mr. Munoz then be within his rights to sue the hospital for wrongful termination of his wife's pregnancy without her express wishes?

It is unclear to me from your question whether you are asking whether Mr. Munoz would have the right to sue on behalf of his deceased wife's estate or on his own behalf as father of the fetus. In either case, I doubt he would. 

First, though unwritten, Ms. Munoz's instruction was presumably unqualified -- i.e., "pull the plug," not "pull the plug unless I'm pregnant." The best indication of what she wanted is what she actually said. Inference from the fact of her pregnancy is, at best, dicey and clairvoyance should not be required of the hospital.

Second, Mr. Munoz's wishes regarding loss of the fetus are probably legally irrelevant. A hospital's duties generally run to its patient. If Ms. Munoz unequivocally directed termination of life support no matter what the consequence for her fetus, I suspect Mr. Munoz would have little say in the matter and, thus, no right to sue on his own behalf for its demise.   

Third, Ms. Munoz is beyond any sort of mental or physical suffering, and really can't be said to still have any further interest in the matter. Even if she had instructed the hospital to keep her on life support after death for the benefit of the fetus, she would suffer no cognizable injury from the hospital's botching her direction and, accordingly, no malpractice claim would pass on to her estate. 

Finally, although nothing in Texas law would surprise me, I suspect most jurisdictions do not recognize a cause of action for malpractice or battery or wrongful death on the part of a fetus (though some have criminalized fetal homicide in certain circumstances).     
« Last Edit: January 17, 2014, 03:51:18 PM by vtboy »