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

Did you really need to explain this to anyone? WTF do you think Grok could offer besides his opinion? Do you worry he possesses mind control powers, and can simply take over anyone's body at whim?

Just how the hell is the fact that the baby is still alive NOT the primary issue here? It's the only reason this is even a story.

 

Not sure how the liberal mind operates in the way that it does, but this is really simple: we discuss and determine our opinion of best courses of action based upon the information provided.

And like I said to tecoyah: do you think that any of us here are deciding anything?

Our opinions are just that - and they're formed from the information at hand. You are talking about medical records that would reveal some bit of information that would tangibly alter our opinions, but at this point the story explains that nothing more definitive about the condition of the baby can be determined until mid February.

So I'm not getting why your panties are in a bundle. This child could be just fine. This child has to have a shot at life because of that, and that will remain my opinion until and unless some information which would alter my opinion surfaces.

 

He should look into moving her to a state that does allow her wishes to be carried out. As a last resort he should kill her by any means necessary. It's what she wanted. (*)(*)(*)(*) big government.

 

Hypocrisy. You're logging in and passing judgement yourself.

The knowledge we have of this story is what has been provided us. If there is something about this story which is substantially important, the reporter damned well should have included it. You are clucking without knowing if there IS anything else important which should or would alter our view.

Most importantly, however, you have absolutely no way of knowing at this time that this baby isn't going to make it if allowed to be nourished in the mother's womb for the necessary period of time. There is clearly no further harm which can befall the mother, and - as mothers are wont to do - the mother was carrying this child when this tragedy took place.

So why would we think that the mother would want to end the life of her unborn child? Would the mother want to end the life of her OTHER child if she died? Derp?

This last line is utter bullsht. Conservatives give more to charities that feed 'starving children' than pathetic liberals. That's a fact that has been established countless times on this forum.

- - - Updated - - -

uh...she's already dead. We're talking about a child.

Regardless: Texas has laws protecting unborn children. She cannot be moved at this point.

 

No, not the State. Generally speaking, the hospital itself writes off the cost. My grandfather was - and my uncle is - chief of staff of large hospitals.

 

the kind thing, the ethical and moral thing to do is NOT pass judgement on the family. Discuss the law and implications by all means but please this family is going through enough grief

 

I
That I could live with happily but that is not what is happening here. Instead we are getting charges of "heartless murderer" thrown about - and as for the personal attacks on anyone who DARES disagree with that

And like I have been trying to advocate - I have no issue with people discussing the actual law, finding out from those with expertise what might be some of the circumstances and considerations here - but that is not what is happening. Instead you have harsh and unnecessary judgements upon people in a circumstance you cannot even begin to understand unless it has happened to you.

Which at best is very incomplete

hmmmm - but what I posted earlier about the degree of impact of the brain injury is what is more important - it is not as simple as keeping the ventilator going

And you have enough expertise to know this???

Mate I have nursed more brain dead patients than many have had hot dinners and it is very very taxing on the family in a way you cannot understand unless you have been there

- - - Updated - - -

Then ask them what it costs per diem for a hospital bed and who ultimately pays

 

Unless a husband of such a brain dead woman authorizes keeping her body alive as she is truly dead once Higher Brain Functions cease.....and the husband asks this to be done to allow a fetus to develop to the point it can be removed by c-section and be viable.....UNLESS a husband requests this....a woman should be taken off life support so her body can die.

AboveAlpha

 

Am I???

Ooooh! Gee and here I was thinking that America had privacy laws in relation to medical information. No, you know nothing about the stability of the body that is left - how much base functioning has been affected. It is one thing if there is any degree of brain stem functionality left - another if there is no temperature control. (Been there where we have to initiate extraordinary means to stop the body temperature falling to room temperature - the body temp HAS to be a a set level ((varies)) before testing can be carried out)

No I don't - and neither do you which is why it should be left to the medical staff and the patient's relatives

The mother is gone.

Tell me - let us do one of the "fairness tests" here. Each brain dead donor can save multiple lives (kidneys, liver, heart, lungs etc) so why not have it that all brain dead patients MUST be organ donors?

 

Very good, very good, but doesn't address the persuasive argument that a bias such as your own precludes youself from the objective discussion.
Pray tell, starving children , what's this, a justification for your poor decision making processes?

Your insults, I can ignore!

Regards
Highlander

 

Where am I doing that?

Secondly: are you more worried about this guy's feelings, or the life of a baby?

 

That is moot here. The story was very clear: we will not know more about the child's condition until mid-February. It has already been established that the child has a normal heartbeat.

That's incorrect. We know enough that the body is still supporting a child with a normal heartbeat. What are you worried about? That the body will not be able to support a growing fetus?

Okay...so how does this lack of knowledge on your or anyone else's part support the idea of killing the baby now?

It has been left to the medical professionals OVER the relatives; it's precisely why there's a FIGHT. The professionals CLEARLY believe that there is a possibility of saving a child here.

That doesn't answer my question.

Because organs are not sentient beings. I am shocked that you are attempting to equate a fetus with a kidney.

 

All brain dead patient must be organ donors. Why.

You take some weird arguments into the discussion.
You fight to destroy life, yet where you have no rights, you want to remove body parts of people who are really yet to die.
No balance.

Highlander

 

So.... the state doesn't have an obligation to protect an innocent fetus????

The alternative is asking the state to terminate the fetus and I don't see that happening.....

Once they find out whether the fetus is viable or not, they'll pull the fetus out and honor the wishes of the mother.

 

It is not s baby - and yes I am concerned about the family's feelings - the entire family

They are going through enough they do not need people on the net second guessing them

 

States aren't really in the abortion business. It's sad that NO ONE seems to care about the innocent lifeform inside the mom.....

It's too bad that's not one of you guys in there.

 

And I am telling you that is not the only factor here. Look there have been enough brain dead patients around the world to establish what happens - we KNOW that in a percentage of cases the heart will go into asystole - irreversible. We know that a percentage the organs begin to fail and the body literally rots to death on the end of the ventilator (yes disgusting image and I saw it once and please NEVER AGAIN.

Now inside that corpse whose functions are failing one by one is a foetus which may be able to compensate but probably will not and may end dying slowing inside a slowly dying body

?

And how the (*)(*)(*)(*) would you know? A body is more than a functioning heart - WAAAAY more. AND THIS IS MY POINT. The body MAY or may not support the foetus - you do not and cannot know that.

Heaven save me from people who think they know medicine from watching "General Hospital" shakes head - the heart is still beating!! How bloody simplistic can you get?

My knowledge of this case has nothing to do with it. I am saying leave it to those who DO know

Actually no- the medical professionals are saying they cannot override the law. And again all you really have are journalist reports

Live with it

No but the people who are to receive the organs are sentient beings - and actual as opposed to potential. It is THEIR lives you would be saving - not just one but many people plural. Why not fight to save all those people as well and make a law ensuring all brain dead patients are donors.

If this were your wife/child/parent would you accept them being involuntary organ donors???

- - - Updated - - -

I will put it to you then

Organ donation saves many lives - would you accept your loved one being "kept alive" until they find a match for the organs - even if that were weeks away?

 

You are again jumping around the questions with platitudes and emotional blackmail.

The fact remains, 1. If the baby is viable, protect,until birth or longest gestation period.
2. Protect and nurture. 3. Support life. Everything else comes there after.

Organs have nothing to do with the discussion. But a useful red herring.

Highlander

 

Apples to oranges.

1.The prognosis for a healthy fetus is A LOT better than an organ translant patient......

2. You're asking the state to terminate an innocent lifeform. If there's no organ match..... the state isn't terminating your life....

3. That's not how organ translants work.....They don't keep you alive for weeks waiting for a match.... If you're a potential donor? It's a matter of hours before they have the proper tests ran and are ready for organ removal. They like to have it all done BEFORE you expire because once the organ loses blood flow??? .....

 

If you think you are qualified to claim that this isn't a baby, then you'll have to pinpoint for me exactly when it becomes a baby.

Go.

 

Not in this case and you are comparing one life to multiple lives

Huh??? NO - try re-reading my post

And every so often we do not have a match - been there had that happen. Try living in a country where the indigenous population do not match outside their own people. Could be the possible recipient is searched for outside the immediate vicinity - lots of reasons. Usually if we do not have a match as sad and as worrying as that is we let the patient go - for the relatives sake. And that is my point - we will pass up a potential donor where there is no current matches for the relatives sake - and in the process knowing that we might have condemned someone who would benefit - we do not know if the perfect match for that donor would not be added to the register the next day - so why not keep them alive "just in case"?

- - - Updated - - -

At birth - before that it is foetus and at most potentially a baby

 

The article says nothing about what she would have wanted regarding the child, so I don't see how anyone can presuppose that this is against her will. After the birth I guess they will unplug her.

 

Okay....so the father of this child, and husband of this woman had no say at all in this?

Sucks to be him, he gets to watch his wife rot, and has no idea how messed up his kid will be....if it lives to be born. I can barely imagine the pain this man, and the family must be going through right now. But hey, if the state says you must suffer, you suffer. If the fetus "Might" be saved, then no one else has any rights anymore...they are irrelevant.

 

There's only ONE life in at stake and that's the fetuses which you believe the state should terminate so the family can "feel better".

Again, you're asking the state to terminate the fetuses life because THAT is what happens when you take the mother off life support DUH.

The state isn't in the abortion business but that's what you expect the state to order because the families "feelings" are more important than a potential human being.....That's pretty sick.

WOW..... You're attempting to compare a non-match on an organ to intentionally ending the life of a viable fetus?????????

Like I already stated..... APPLES to ORANGES and a pretty sick comparison I might add. Like I posted, it's too bad you're not in that stomach advocating for your own death to spare a family some grief.......

 

I wasn't aware that the child was suffering from any complications. Is there a second article you are reading, or maybe you're a med student of some kind?