Texas law keeps "unresponsive", pregnant woman on life support against her will

Be specific and cite the relevant statutes and case law.

 

jim crow?

For a second there, I thought you were trying to hide behind the law.

 

What in the world are you blabbering about?

 

This is absolutely insane. I really have no idea how to feel about this one, I really don't. What a rough situation to be in....I just feel bad for the husband and the rest of the family.

 

No, decisions are usually left with those who are the next of kin - and in this case that has been overridden

 

Then it's not her 'will' since she had no consciousness, it's her family's will, and since they're not hosting the baby via their own resources, the 'enslavement' argument is invalid

As it should be.

 

I wasn't aware that men could get pregnant.

Again his wife has 'no will', since she is braindead, and therefore has no consequences. Even you can see the absurdity of that statement though you pretend not to

Yes, we know how the NSDAP felt about the disabled.

That's correct, he should be under no legal obligation to support the child

- - - Updated - - -

Then as long as the 'negro' race isn't in danger of extinction, there should be no problem with slavery

 

A braindead body kept 'alive' by machines is not a 'woman' - all it is is an incubator

By that same 'logic', then an embryo is a 'baby' (even before it's developed a brain) just because 'it's a form of life composed of human cells'.

The duplicity here would be funny if it wasn't so sickening - in defense of 'taking the woman off life support' they cite that she's braindead (and therefore no longer has human consciousness), but in defense of killing her baby, they simultaneously claim that she "has a will" (which could only be true if she isn't braindead, meaning she could not be taken off life support).

Seems like some have no problem 'changing the rules' back and forth, so long as they get the conclusion which results in homicide either way

- - - Updated - - -

No it's a very bad state to be a sociopath in.

Thankfully these lawmakers aren't (though we can't say the same about some on the pro-death side, now can we?)

 

Cricket, I finally have to ask: do you actually BELIEVE what you post here, or do you just post contrary garbage to stir the pot?

 

Then since Jews who survived Auschwitz would 'live a life of pain and trauma' from the memories, it'd have been better if they'd all been gassed,

I take it you believe this too, right? You'd have to be a hypocrite not too

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah

Sometimes when I'm bored, but not today

Unless this unborn baby is in an embryonic stage (and does not yet have a brain, and therefore a consciousness) then it has a right to life, but from the sound of the article, it's not.

If the woman is 'legally braindead' and therefore can be taken off of life support without consent, then she obviously has 'no will', so no harm is done in allowing the child to survive (except to the radical pro-abortion agenda), and since her family is not 'incubating' the child themselves, they have no say over it at all - saying otherwise would be as insane as saying an underage girl's parents should 'get to decide' if she has a baby (by denying her abortion altogether)

 

I wish in these cases we would get more information. I never understand these stories.

What do the doctor's think? What are the babies chances of being normal? What are the risks?

There really is not enough information to have a real discussion here.

 

I think it's a no-brainer - basically some are arguing that the "woman's family" should have a right to end a child's life (and at the stage of development the fetus is, it's clearly a child - I don't see anyone debating that, just offering absurd arguments to deflect from the issue). Tell me how that's any more sane than a family being able to 'force' their underage daughter to give birth, by denying her access to abortion or the 'morning after pill'? Why is this even a debate?

Apparently the brain dead woman "doesn't have will" when it comes to her own life (meaning her family could just take her off life support), but when it comes to taking the unborn child's life all of a sudden she "does have will". Such hypocrisy, and putting a political agenda over human life is just disgusting.

 

I post what's on my mind always at the given time - sometimes though I have to admit, I get the feeling after the fact that I'm a little misinformed on some stuff, that's been urking me lately

 

I agree with this line of thought, however are you sure that she is braindead? Or just unresponsive. Also, I think 3-4 month old foetus still doesnt have brain developed enough to have any sentience and thus right to life. So in the end I am leaning towards allowing the wishes of the family in this particular case.

 

What do you mean, they are not "hosting the baby via their own resources"?

Do you have any evidence the family will NOT receive a bill for the 6 months of intensive care until the baby is born, and whatever comes after that?

 

it's a good question, who gets the bill., does the insurance company? the husbands family? or does the hospital get the bill as they made the choice....

wonder if he canceled his insurance what they would do?


.

 

The fetus is about 18 weeks, which is BEFORE viability, and it remains legal for a woman, or if she is mentally incapable, her legal guardians as defined by law (husband first, then next of kin) to make the decision.

 

kinda ironic law considering if the baby is born and the parents have no money, the hospital can pull the plug without the parents permission in Texas

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,151448,00.html


.

 

Your last option that the "does the hospital get the bill" is quite amusing!

In lieu of Obamacare insurance with unlimited payouts, indeed, the hospital, doctors, medical suppliers, labs etc. may very well END UP with the bill, which means other paying patients and the taxpayers will be paying this one,

But the family will certainly be getting the 7 or more figure bills, pushing them into poverty and/or have to declare bankruptcy which will have a very good chance that this baby if it is actually born alive and healthy, will end up on the dole, needing food stamps, medicaid, Social security Disability and everything else.

THAT's the time of preferred opportunity for the Righties to cut off the kid from any help!

 

You fortunate - more fortunate than you hopefully will ever know NOT to have known this situation

I have been an ICU nurse for more years than I care to recount and unless you have been there and through a bedside vigil where the outcome is hopeless you can never know the soul tearing angst that these relatives go through

And unless you know what that situation is like you cannot judge

 

It is far far far more complicated than that - and this is where the laws are wrong. You cannot enact a black and white law in a world of grey and not expect it to be challenged

 

Some are making some rather bad assumptions here. Perhaps because his name sounds Hispanic some assumptions are being made that he's either illegal or poor....or both????
Both Erick Munoz and his wife are paramedics/firefighters and therefore BOTH make darn good money and have darn good health insurance. He found his wife on the kitchen floor that morning because he heard his 14-month old crying. He administered CPR and called 911 immediately.

 

Human life is human life - if the unborn child has a consciousness, and the 'brain dead woman' does not - the former's right trumps the latter, nothing left for debate (which doesn't just involve de-humanizing babies)

 

That's not the way the thread represented it - I'm fine with early term abortion (before the embryo has developed a brain, and therefore has a consciousness) - but if the fetus is viable or becomes viable then saying 'the relatives get to decide if her baby lives/dies" is absolute insanity.

- - - Updated - - -

According to the posts here she is brain dead, but I'm starting to wonder if some posters here aren't even reading the article

 

Perhaps you should petition the AMA to adjust the Hippocratic Oath.