Hospital considers judge's order on pregnant woman

[Razgovory]

Doctors.

[DontSayBanana]

I always love how Seedy's rants. Emphasis on love.

How Seedy's rants what?

[garbon]

I'll admit to my mistake in forming that first sentence.

[dps]

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?

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.

[Iormlund]

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.

[sbr]

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?

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."

[dps]

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?

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?

[garbon]

Is dps agitating for zombie rights?

[sbr]

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?

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? 

This has nothing to do with constitutionality, it has to do with idiots in Texas.

From the article in the OP

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.

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.

[dps]

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?

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? 

This has nothing to do with constitutionality, it has to do with idiots in Texas.

From the article in the OP

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.

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?

[sbr]

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.

[Capetan Mihali]

Failure to crop quotes is not protected speech.  See Yi Admiralty v. 1730 Uncropped Quotes, 21 Lang. 488 (2004).

[CountDeMoney]

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.

[dps]

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.