http://news.yahoo.com/hospital-considers-judge-39-order-pregnant-woman-181423396.html
QuoteHospital executives in North Texas were conferring Saturday with the district attorney's office to determine their next step following a judge's ruling that they must disconnect life support for a pregnant, brain-dead woman, according to a hospital official.
John Peter Smith Hospital spokeswoman J.R. Labbe said "discussions are ongoing" as administrators weigh the order issued a day earlier by Judge R. H. Wallace Jr. The hospital is owned by Tarrant County and is being represented in the contentious case by the DA's office.
Wallace agreed with a request by Erick Munoz to have life support removed for his wife, Marlise Munoz. She was 14 weeks pregnant with the couple's second child when her husband found her unconscious Nov. 26, possibly due to a blood clot.
The judge's ruling could give Erick Munoz a long-awaited chance to bury his wife and move forward to care for their son and his relatives. It would also mean the fetus would never be born.
Wallace gave the Fort Worth hospital until 5 p.m. CST Monday to remove life support. Labbe declined to elaborate Saturday on what the hospital's next step might be — whether to appeal the judge's order or comply with it. The hospital previously has said it has a legal duty to protect the fetus.
Both the hospital and the family agree that Marlise Munoz meets the criteria to be considered brain-dead — which means she is dead both medically and under Texas law — and that the fetus could not be born alive this early in pregnancy. But while the hospital says it's obligated to protect the fetus, Munoz contends his wife would not have wanted to be kept in this condition. And his attorneys have said medical records show the fetus is "distinctly abnormal."
The case has raised questions about end-of-life care and whether a pregnant woman who is considered legally and medically dead should be kept on life support for the sake of a fetus. It also has gripped attention on both sides of the abortion debate, with anti-abortion groups arguing Munoz's fetus deserves a chance to be born. Several anti-abortion advocates attended Friday's hearing.
Hospital officials have said they were bound by the Texas Advance Directives Act, which prohibits withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment from a pregnant patient. But in his brief ruling, Wallace said that "Mrs. Munoz is dead," meaning that the hospital was misapplying the law. The ruling did not mention the fetus.
The hospital has not pronounced her dead and has continued to treat her over the objections of both Erick Munoz and her parents, who sat together in court Friday.
Larry Thompson, a state's attorney representing the public hospital, told the judge Friday that the hospital recognized the Munoz family's pain and rights, but said it had a greater legal responsibility to protect the fetus.
"There is a life involved, and the life is the unborn child," Thompson said.
As Wallace gave his ruling, Erick Munoz embraced his wife's parents and one of his attorneys. Munoz declined to comment as he left court Friday. But he told The Associated Press earlier this month, in a phone interview sitting in the hospital room, that he and his wife were both paramedics who knew they didn't want to stay on life support this way.
Munoz described in a signed affidavit filed Thursday what it was like to see her now: her glassy, "soulless" eyes; and the smell of her perfume replaced by what he knows to be the smell of death. He said he's tried to hold her hand but can't.
"Her limbs have become so stiff and rigid due to her deteriorating condition that now, when I move her hands, her bones crack, and her legs are nothing more than dead weight," Munoz said.
Jessica Hall Janicek and Heather King, Erick Munoz's attorneys, accused the hospital of conducting a "science experiment" and warned of the dangerous precedent her case could set, raising the specter of special ICUs for brain-dead women carrying babies.
"There is an infant, and a dead person serving as a dysfunctional incubator," King told the judge.
King and Janicek did not say what they would do next, pending a potential appeal by the hospital, and they didn't respond to phone messages left for them Saturday.
The hospital said in a statement that it "appreciates the potential impact of the consequences of the order on all parties involved" and was deciding whether to appeal.
The hospital argued in a court filing Thursday that there was little evidence of what state lawmakers and courts thought of this issue, but recent laws passed by the Republican-controlled Legislature to restrict abortion made it clear that they wanted to preserve a fetus' rights.
The Advance Directives Act "must convey legislative intent to protect the unborn child," the hospital said in its filing. "Otherwise the Legislature would have simply allowed a pregnant patient to decide to let her life, and the life of her unborn child, end."
Not much is known about fetal survival when mothers suffer brain death during pregnancy. German doctors who searched for such cases found 30 of them in nearly 30 years, according to an article published in the journal BMC Medicine in 2010.
Those mothers were further along in pregnancy — 22 weeks on average — when brain death occurred than in the Texas case. Birth results were available for 19 cases. In 12, a viable child was born. Follow-up results were available for six, all of whom developed normally.
Generally when tv dramas have this plot it is when family members want to "monstrously" keep the woman on support till the baby comes to term.
The woman said she didn't want to be kept on life support, her husband says don't keep her own life support... There should be no debate here.
And that's even before we get to the fetus being unviable anyway and the husband being the only one who really matters with regards to whether he wants another kid now.
God doesn't care about trivialities like viable fetus or whether or not the father wants a disabled, retarded reminder of his dead wife. ALL FETUSES MUST BE SAVED!!
Gee, I wonder why we have a crisis of spiraling healthcare costs in this stupid fucking country.
QuoteAnd his attorneys have said medical records show the fetus is "distinctly abnormal."
I bet it's got a poem or two in it. Carry on.
Apparently the hospital has now complied with the order.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 26, 2014, 02:32:39 PM
QuoteAnd his attorneys have said medical records show the fetus is "distinctly abnormal."
I bet it's got a poem or two in it. Carry on.
Her name would be: Abby.
Anyway, don't Mess With Texas. His Will Be Done.
Quote from: sbr on January 26, 2014, 02:18:09 PM
God doesn't care about trivialities like viable fetus or whether or not the father wants a disabled, retarded reminder of his dead wife. ALL FETUSES MUST BE SAVED!!
From the medical side, it really has less to do with that than it does with providing the medical staff with yet another case to tinker and toy with in their amoral STEM vacuum devoid of any consideration to personal ethics, so it can provide Clinical Example #17 for the Gynecologic Surgical Services Vice Chair's presentation on
"Creatinine Reception Uptake Ratio Parameters in Brain Dead Wet Fetuses" at next year's American Association of Brain Dead Wet Fetus Physicians and Surgeons convention, the AABDWFPS Con and Expo '14 to be held in San Diego, where you can score all the really cool pens and tote bags in the Exhibit Hall within walking distance from the Marriott Marquis & Marina.
I always love how Seedy's rants. Emphasis on love.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 26, 2014, 03:46:01 PM
Quote from: sbr on January 26, 2014, 02:18:09 PM
God doesn't care about trivialities like viable fetus or whether or not the father wants a disabled, retarded reminder of his dead wife. ALL FETUSES MUST BE SAVED!!
From the medical side, it really has less to do with that than it does with providing the medical staff with yet another case to tinker and toy with in their amoral STEM vacuum devoid of any consideration to personal ethics, so it can provide Clinical Example #17 for the Gynecologic Surgical Services Vice Chair's presentation on "Creatinine Reception Uptake Ratio Parameters in Brain Dead Wet Fetuses" at next year's American Association of Brain Dead Wet Fetus Physicians and Surgeons convention, the AABDWFPS Con and Expo '14 to be held in San Diego, where you can score all the really cool pens and tote bags in the Exhibit Hall within walking distance from the Marriott Marquis & Marina.
Maybe, but this was a state law that doesn't allow the hospital to pull the plug on a pregnant patient. The Texas legislators who wrote and passed that law don't believe in the science your rant is based on.
Quote from: garbon on January 26, 2014, 04:28:51 PM
I always love how Seedy's rants. Emphasis on love.
Right, because I'm so incredibly off the mark.
Quote from: sbr on January 26, 2014, 06:32:41 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 26, 2014, 03:46:01 PM
Quote from: sbr on January 26, 2014, 02:18:09 PM
God doesn't care about trivialities like viable fetus or whether or not the father wants a disabled, retarded reminder of his dead wife. ALL FETUSES MUST BE SAVED!!
From the medical side, it really has less to do with that than it does with providing the medical staff with yet another case to tinker and toy with in their amoral STEM vacuum devoid of any consideration to personal ethics, so it can provide Clinical Example #17 for the Gynecologic Surgical Services Vice Chair's presentation on "Creatinine Reception Uptake Ratio Parameters in Brain Dead Wet Fetuses" at next year's American Association of Brain Dead Wet Fetus Physicians and Surgeons convention, the AABDWFPS Con and Expo '14 to be held in San Diego, where you can score all the really cool pens and tote bags in the Exhibit Hall within walking distance from the Marriott Marquis & Marina.
Maybe, but this was a state law that doesn't allow the hospital to pull the plug on a pregnant patient. The Texas legislators who wrote and passed that law don't believe in the science your rant is based on.
I was not challenging your statement.
Do all of you have to be lawyers all the time?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 26, 2014, 06:46:25 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 26, 2014, 04:28:51 PM
I always love how Seedy's rants. Emphasis on love.
Right, because I'm so incredibly off the mark.
The totes are generally lame.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 26, 2014, 06:49:33 PM
Quote from: sbr on January 26, 2014, 06:32:41 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 26, 2014, 03:46:01 PM
Quote from: sbr on January 26, 2014, 02:18:09 PM
God doesn't care about trivialities like viable fetus or whether or not the father wants a disabled, retarded reminder of his dead wife. ALL FETUSES MUST BE SAVED!!
From the medical side, it really has less to do with that than it does with providing the medical staff with yet another case to tinker and toy with in their amoral STEM vacuum devoid of any consideration to personal ethics, so it can provide Clinical Example #17 for the Gynecologic Surgical Services Vice Chair's presentation on "Creatinine Reception Uptake Ratio Parameters in Brain Dead Wet Fetuses" at next year's American Association of Brain Dead Wet Fetus Physicians and Surgeons convention, the AABDWFPS Con and Expo '14 to be held in San Diego, where you can score all the really cool pens and tote bags in the Exhibit Hall within walking distance from the Marriott Marquis & Marina.
Maybe, but this was a state law that doesn't allow the hospital to pull the plug on a pregnant patient. The Texas legislators who wrote and passed that law don't believe in the science your rant is based on.
I was not challenging your statement.
Do all of you have to be lawyers all the time?
I do. -_-
What - you think my account name is an accident? :contract:
I always thought you got your name and occupation lines mixed up.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 26, 2014, 06:49:33 PM
Quote from: sbr on January 26, 2014, 06:32:41 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 26, 2014, 03:46:01 PM
Quote from: sbr on January 26, 2014, 02:18:09 PM
God doesn't care about trivialities like viable fetus or whether or not the father wants a disabled, retarded reminder of his dead wife. ALL FETUSES MUST BE SAVED!!
From the medical side, it really has less to do with that than it does with providing the medical staff with yet another case to tinker and toy with in their amoral STEM vacuum devoid of any consideration to personal ethics, so it can provide Clinical Example #17 for the Gynecologic Surgical Services Vice Chair's presentation on "Creatinine Reception Uptake Ratio Parameters in Brain Dead Wet Fetuses" at next year's American Association of Brain Dead Wet Fetus Physicians and Surgeons convention, the AABDWFPS Con and Expo '14 to be held in San Diego, where you can score all the really cool pens and tote bags in the Exhibit Hall within walking distance from the Marriott Marquis & Marina.
Maybe, but this was a state law that doesn't allow the hospital to pull the plug on a pregnant patient. The Texas legislators who wrote and passed that law don't believe in the science your rant is based on.
I was not challenging your statement.
Do all of you have to be lawyers all the time?
The question for is this: Who is more morally and ethically bankrupt? Doctors, Texas legislators or lawyers?
Doctors.
Quote from: garbon on January 26, 2014, 04:28:51 PM
I always love how Seedy's rants. Emphasis on love.
How Seedy's rants what? :unsure:
:yawn:
I'll admit to my mistake in forming that first sentence.
Quote from: Barrister on January 26, 2014, 07:26:02 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 26, 2014, 06:49:33 PM
Quote from: sbr on January 26, 2014, 06:32:41 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 26, 2014, 03:46:01 PM
Quote from: sbr on January 26, 2014, 02:18:09 PM
God doesn't care about trivialities like viable fetus or whether or not the father wants a disabled, retarded reminder of his dead wife. ALL FETUSES MUST BE SAVED!!
From the medical side, it really has less to do with that than it does with providing the medical staff with yet another case to tinker and toy with in their amoral STEM vacuum devoid of any consideration to personal ethics, so it can provide Clinical Example #17 for the Gynecologic Surgical Services Vice Chair's presentation on "Creatinine Reception Uptake Ratio Parameters in Brain Dead Wet Fetuses" at next year's American Association of Brain Dead Wet Fetus Physicians and Surgeons convention, the AABDWFPS Con and Expo '14 to be held in San Diego, where you can score all the really cool pens and tote bags in the Exhibit Hall within walking distance from the Marriott Marquis & Marina.
Maybe, but this was a state law that doesn't allow the hospital to pull the plug on a pregnant patient. The Texas legislators who wrote and passed that law don't believe in the science your rant is based on.
I was not challenging your statement.
Do all of you have to be lawyers all the time?
I do. -_-
What - you think my account name is an accident? :contract:
To be honest, I would like to know what the legal basis for the federal judge's ruling was. Seems that he's at least implicitly saying that the provisions of the Texas law are unconstitutional, but I have no idea on what basis he arrived at that.
I would like to know who pays for the hospital bills as well, because it sounds totally awesome. Not only you lose your significant other, you also get bankrupted by lawyer and medical fees.
Quote from: dps on January 27, 2014, 01:31:59 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 26, 2014, 07:26:02 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 26, 2014, 06:49:33 PM
Quote from: sbr on January 26, 2014, 06:32:41 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 26, 2014, 03:46:01 PM
Quote from: sbr on January 26, 2014, 02:18:09 PM
God doesn't care about trivialities like viable fetus or whether or not the father wants a disabled, retarded reminder of his dead wife. ALL FETUSES MUST BE SAVED!!
From the medical side, it really has less to do with that than it does with providing the medical staff with yet another case to tinker and toy with in their amoral STEM vacuum devoid of any consideration to personal ethics, so it can provide Clinical Example #17 for the Gynecologic Surgical Services Vice Chair's presentation on "Creatinine Reception Uptake Ratio Parameters in Brain Dead Wet Fetuses" at next year's American Association of Brain Dead Wet Fetus Physicians and Surgeons convention, the AABDWFPS Con and Expo '14 to be held in San Diego, where you can score all the really cool pens and tote bags in the Exhibit Hall within walking distance from the Marriott Marquis & Marina.
Maybe, but this was a state law that doesn't allow the hospital to pull the plug on a pregnant patient. The Texas legislators who wrote and passed that law don't believe in the science your rant is based on.
I was not challenging your statement.
Do all of you have to be lawyers all the time?
I do. -_-
What - you think my account name is an accident? :contract:
To be honest, I would like to know what the legal basis for the federal judge's ruling was. Seems that he's at least implicitly saying that the provisions of the Texas law are unconstitutional, but I have no idea on what basis he arrived at that.
The women was dead, thus no longer a "patient."
Quote from: sbr on January 27, 2014, 02:34:51 PM
Quote from: dps on January 27, 2014, 01:31:59 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 26, 2014, 07:26:02 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 26, 2014, 06:49:33 PM
Quote from: sbr on January 26, 2014, 06:32:41 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 26, 2014, 03:46:01 PM
Quote from: sbr on January 26, 2014, 02:18:09 PM
God doesn't care about trivialities like viable fetus or whether or not the father wants a disabled, retarded reminder of his dead wife. ALL FETUSES MUST BE SAVED!!
From the medical side, it really has less to do with that than it does with providing the medical staff with yet another case to tinker and toy with in their amoral STEM vacuum devoid of any consideration to personal ethics, so it can provide Clinical Example #17 for the Gynecologic Surgical Services Vice Chair's presentation on "Creatinine Reception Uptake Ratio Parameters in Brain Dead Wet Fetuses" at next year's American Association of Brain Dead Wet Fetus Physicians and Surgeons convention, the AABDWFPS Con and Expo '14 to be held in San Diego, where you can score all the really cool pens and tote bags in the Exhibit Hall within walking distance from the Marriott Marquis & Marina.
Maybe, but this was a state law that doesn't allow the hospital to pull the plug on a pregnant patient. The Texas legislators who wrote and passed that law don't believe in the science your rant is based on.
I was not challenging your statement.
Do all of you have to be lawyers all the time?
I do. -_-
What - you think my account name is an accident? :contract:
To be honest, I would like to know what the legal basis for the federal judge's ruling was. Seems that he's at least implicitly saying that the provisions of the Texas law are unconstitutional, but I have no idea on what basis he arrived at that.
The women was dead, thus no longer a "patient."
And which clause of the constitution is that in?
Is dps agitating for zombie rights?
Quote from: dps on January 27, 2014, 07:03:16 PM
Quote from: sbr on January 27, 2014, 02:34:51 PM
Quote from: dps on January 27, 2014, 01:31:59 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 26, 2014, 07:26:02 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 26, 2014, 06:49:33 PM
Quote from: sbr on January 26, 2014, 06:32:41 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 26, 2014, 03:46:01 PM
Quote from: sbr on January 26, 2014, 02:18:09 PM
God doesn't care about trivialities like viable fetus or whether or not the father wants a disabled, retarded reminder of his dead wife. ALL FETUSES MUST BE SAVED!!
From the medical side, it really has less to do with that than it does with providing the medical staff with yet another case to tinker and toy with in their amoral STEM vacuum devoid of any consideration to personal ethics, so it can provide Clinical Example #17 for the Gynecologic Surgical Services Vice Chair's presentation on "Creatinine Reception Uptake Ratio Parameters in Brain Dead Wet Fetuses" at next year's American Association of Brain Dead Wet Fetus Physicians and Surgeons convention, the AABDWFPS Con and Expo '14 to be held in San Diego, where you can score all the really cool pens and tote bags in the Exhibit Hall within walking distance from the Marriott Marquis & Marina.
Maybe, but this was a state law that doesn't allow the hospital to pull the plug on a pregnant patient. The Texas legislators who wrote and passed that law don't believe in the science your rant is based on.
I was not challenging your statement.
Do all of you have to be lawyers all the time?
I do. -_-
What - you think my account name is an accident? :contract:
To be honest, I would like to know what the legal basis for the federal judge's ruling was. Seems that he's at least implicitly saying that the provisions of the Texas law are unconstitutional, but I have no idea on what basis he arrived at that.
The women was dead, thus no longer a "patient."
And which clause of the constitution is that in?
What? :lol:
This has nothing to do with constitutionality, it has to do with idiots in Texas.
From the article in the OP
QuoteHospital officials have said they were bound by the Texas Advance Directives Act, which prohibits withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment from a pregnant patient. But in his brief ruling, Wallace said that "Mrs. Munoz is dead," meaning that the hospital was misapplying the law. The ruling did not mention the fetus.
Hospital said they couldn't kill fetus by taking patient off of life support.
Judge said don't be stupid the ex-patient is now dead, that law no longer applies to her; now pull the fucking plug.
Quote from: sbr on January 27, 2014, 07:18:03 PM
Quote from: dps on January 27, 2014, 07:03:16 PM
Quote from: sbr on January 27, 2014, 02:34:51 PM
Quote from: dps on January 27, 2014, 01:31:59 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 26, 2014, 07:26:02 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 26, 2014, 06:49:33 PM
Quote from: sbr on January 26, 2014, 06:32:41 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 26, 2014, 03:46:01 PM
Quote from: sbr on January 26, 2014, 02:18:09 PM
God doesn't care about trivialities like viable fetus or whether or not the father wants a disabled, retarded reminder of his dead wife. ALL FETUSES MUST BE SAVED!!
From the medical side, it really has less to do with that than it does with providing the medical staff with yet another case to tinker and toy with in their amoral STEM vacuum devoid of any consideration to personal ethics, so it can provide Clinical Example #17 for the Gynecologic Surgical Services Vice Chair's presentation on "Creatinine Reception Uptake Ratio Parameters in Brain Dead Wet Fetuses" at next year's American Association of Brain Dead Wet Fetus Physicians and Surgeons convention, the AABDWFPS Con and Expo '14 to be held in San Diego, where you can score all the really cool pens and tote bags in the Exhibit Hall within walking distance from the Marriott Marquis & Marina.
Maybe, but this was a state law that doesn't allow the hospital to pull the plug on a pregnant patient. The Texas legislators who wrote and passed that law don't believe in the science your rant is based on.
I was not challenging your statement.
Do all of you have to be lawyers all the time?
I do. -_-
What - you think my account name is an accident? :contract:
To be honest, I would like to know what the legal basis for the federal judge's ruling was. Seems that he's at least implicitly saying that the provisions of the Texas law are unconstitutional, but I have no idea on what basis he arrived at that.
The women was dead, thus no longer a "patient."
And which clause of the constitution is that in?
What? :lol:
This has nothing to do with constitutionality, it has to do with idiots in Texas.
From the article in the OP
QuoteHospital officials have said they were bound by the Texas Advance Directives Act, which prohibits withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment from a pregnant patient. But in his brief ruling, Wallace said that "Mrs. Munoz is dead," meaning that the hospital was misapplying the law. The ruling did not mention the fetus.
Hospital said they couldn't kill fetus by taking patient off of life support.
Judge said don't be stupid the ex-patient is now dead, that law no longer applies to her; now pull the fucking plug.
Let me rephrase this--if it's merely a matter of applying the state law correctly or not, it's not an issue for the federal courts. So what's the rational for getting this to the federal courts in the first place?
Wait, where did you get the idea it was a federal court? I assumed you knew what you were talking about until I actually looked.
Quote from: dps on January 27, 2014, 07:43:49 PM
Quote from: sbr on January 27, 2014, 07:18:03 PM
Quote from: dps on January 27, 2014, 07:03:16 PM
Quote from: sbr on January 27, 2014, 02:34:51 PM
Quote from: dps on January 27, 2014, 01:31:59 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 26, 2014, 07:26:02 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 26, 2014, 06:49:33 PM
Quote from: sbr on January 26, 2014, 06:32:41 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 26, 2014, 03:46:01 PM
Quote from: sbr on January 26, 2014, 02:18:09 PM
Failure to crop quotes is not protected speech.
See Yi Admiralty v. 1730 Uncropped Quotes, 21 Lang. 488 (2004).
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on January 27, 2014, 08:09:12 PM
Failure to crop quotes is not protected speech. See Yi Admiralty v. 1730 Uncropped Quotes, 21 Lang. 488 (2004).
And punishable under Party Directive #4 of the Languish Political Directorate. So the whole spectrum's covered.
Seriously, though. Enough with the infinity posts.
Quote from: sbr on January 27, 2014, 07:53:44 PM
Wait, where did you get the idea it was a federal court? I assumed you knew what you were talking about until I actually looked.
Well, crap. I would have sworn the article in the OP said that Wallace is a federal judge. Huh. Yeah, well, then obviously my legalistic objection here is withdrawn. :Embarrass: