There's a brain-dead corpse whose family is being forced

[malaise]

to let the hospital use her as an incubator.
My question is who is paying for this madness. She has been brain-dead for the past nine weeks.

[peace13]

1. Does insurance cover health care costs for dead people?

This is gonna get real messy. This case is one of the saddest things! The poor woman missed out on such much and now they are dragging her through hell on earth!

[LisaL]

4. The woman is dead. The fetus apparently isn't.

I would think insurance has to pay.

[uppityperson]

13. They do not know if the fetus is any more alive than the woman.

[LisaL]

17. If it isn't alive, then there is nobody to support on life support.

Hospital would have unplugged the woman a long time ago.

[uppityperson]

20. And that is the problem. They didn't unplug anyone from mechanical support.

[jeff47]

27. They don't know if the fetus is alive or not.

They can not tell one way or the other.

The hospital decided this means they get to overrule the family and keep the corpse's blood flowing.

[LisaL]

46. You never heard of women whose fetus died in utero?

At the moment the fetus at the very least appears to be alive.
They can do tests on it to see how it's developing. They might not be able to tell how intelligent its going to be, but at least they should be able to tell if it has a brain.

[jeff47]

58. No, at the moment they do not know if the fetus is alive or not.

They can do tests on it to see how it's developing.

Nope. It's too small for such tests. So they have no idea if it's currently alive.

What the hospital is doing is keeping the woman's corpse functional so that the fetus could get large enough to run those tests, if it survived.

But hey, what are a woman's wishes and her family's wishes compared to a fetus that is most likely dead.

[LisaL]

66. It's at 21 weeks gestation.

There are a few cases of premature babies suriviving at that age.

[jeff47]

70. Their mothers were not dead. They were not deprived of oxygen for an hour. (nt)

[Hekate]

72. Micropreemies are likely to be severely damaged due to brain bleeds and the like

At five and a quarter months they are not ready to be out of the womb in any sense of the word. Keeping the corpse of the mother artificially breathing when the fetus was still only a couple of inches long was a grotesque idea in the first place. It does not get any less grotesque with the passage of time.

"There are a few cases of" -- you keep saying this, over and over. "There are a few cases of" brain-dead women giving birth. "There are a few cases of" micropreemies who survive. Having a severely damaged baby "survive" is not the miracle you are looking for. And then there's the conflation of comatose and brain-dead that you seem to make: it is not the same condition.

As for fetal heartbeats: anencephalic babies have heartbeats too, right up to the point where they are delivered, at which point they die fairly quickly.

Texas legislators enacted a law having to do with a religious fantasy, that compels doctors and nurses to engage in science fiction incubation. What's your motiveation?

[Drew Richards]

92. 21 weeks now...it was only 14 weeks when this travesty of human rights began....

[kestrel91316]

98. Those few that survive are devastatingly disabled. ALWAYS.

Birth before 7 months is almost always a horrible catastrophe FOR THE CHILD.

[Hekate]

106. Thanks Kestrel, but that particular poster has an agenda and is not listening.

On some level, she must be really enjoying the attention.

[CreekDog]

164. that poster wanted to keep Terri Schiavo on life support too.

[enlightenment]

144. Apparently, there are

two surviving not quite 22 week premmies - one born in the 1980s and the other in 2006. Both are apparently healthy - but their mothers were also healthy - a very big difference from this situation.

[LisaL]

153. But nobody wants this particular fetus to be removed at 21 weeks.

Father is suing to have the hospital to pull the plug on his brain dead wife. If plug is pulled fetus will die at that time.
Hospital plans on continuing keeping her on life support until such time the fetus becomes viable.
So there are no plans by anyone to remove it now at 21 weeks.

[uppityperson]

154. Why do you continue saying fetus is alive? Proof of that? And is it ethical to go against what

the woman and her husband and family want? Is it ethical to keep the body on mechanical support when she said not to and he says not to?

[LisaL]

157. There is no proof its dead.

If it wasn't alive hospital wouldn't need to keep the mother's body on life support.
The whole reason they (the hospital) not pulling the plug is because of the fetus.
What would be the point of keeping the body on life support if the fetus was also dead?

[uppityperson]

158. There is no proof it is alive. Is it ethical to keep mechanical support on someone against their and

their family's wishes?

[Hekate]

170. Well, well. That is indeed relevant.

[enlightenment]

159. LisaL,

Let me be clear, so there is no confusion. I do not agree with your position. I do not believe that the potential - and I emphasize potential - life of the fetus trumps the right of the mother, who did not want extraordinary measures taken to maintain her life. I was simply pointing out that there have been two cases of 21-week premmies surviving without severe issues.

[pnwmom]

137. Not ones who were deprived of oxygen for well over an hour at 14 weeks.

I've never seen a case like this one, and neither have you.

[WillowTree]

103. Nonsense. A fetal heartbeat can be detected long before 21 weeks.

[jeff47]

111. Fetal heartbeats can be detected in fetuses that fail to develop a brain at all.

A heartbeat is not proof that the fetus is actually alive.

[LisaL]

112. If it doesn't have a brain, then it's not going to live.

[jeff47]

116. Nope. Which is why you can't use a heartbeat to prove the fetus is alive.

But more to the point, at 14 weeks a woman is free to abort her baby for any reason. None of this bullshit about "viable".

Instead, pro-lifers believe women are just incubators, so being dead isn't an impediment to fulfilling their only purpose. And we get horrific abominations like this case.

[LisaL]

120. Nothing to suggest this woman was thinking about abortion.

When she was alive, that is.

[jeff47]

129. Except she did discuss when to "pull the plug" with her husband.

And pulling the plug now easily fits into her wishes.

More to the point, you are presuming that you know her wishes better than her husband and all the rest of her family. They're all outraged at this situation.

And that is an utterly terrible thing for you to do. Even when you think women are just walking incubators.

[CreekDog]

165. the very, very long list of men's rights posts you've compiled makes it not surprising

that you so quickly dismiss any concern for the rights of the woman in this case.

[hedgehog]

62. "Tests are done daily on the fetus, and results show a normal heart beat."

http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/With-pregnant-wife-unresponsive-on-life-support-husband-hopes-to-fulfil-her-wishes-236654371.html

[jeff47]

63. With a fetus, a heartbeat doesn't necessarily mean it's alive.

For example when a fetus fails to develop a brain, it's heart still beats.

This fetus could have nothing left in it's not-yet-developed skull, but still have a heartbeat.

[LisaL]

68. Well it sure doesn't mean it's dead.

Unless tests show otherwise.

[jeff47]

69. Because we should demand families pay

$5,000 per day for a hospital to act against their wishes, and the wishes of their now-dead loved one.

Because there's only an almost-zero chance that a fetus is viable, instead of a completely-zero chance.

Because freedom.

[uppityperson]

82. Yes or no? Is it ethical to force her to stay on mechanical support even though she and her family

do not want it?

[Drew Richards]

95. Tests? Tests? Again there are not tests at 14 weeks and still none at 21 weeks...IT was deprived

Of oxygen for possibly up to an hour...chances are there is NOTHING VIABLE LEFT...its just a rudimentary nervous system with a Micro heart... And partial skeletal structure... a piece of meat and the FAMILIES DECISION should trump ANYONEs on a fetus only 14 weeks gestating.

[hedgehog]

104. You state that there is no possibility of the fetus becoming a healthy child,

and tie this with your statement that the family's wishes should be honored. What would you say if it was proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that a healthy child would be born if the mother's body is kept on life support another two months?

[Drew Richards]

107. That is a strawman no starter...the fetus was only 14 weeks when this started and the plug

Should have been pulled...so my answer to you is what the fuck does two more weeks have to do with this woman, her corpse, and the families decision and rights, have to do with anything.

If I get your view of things the fetus has more rights and in loco prentis the hospital and the state MORE than this poor woman, her corpse or her husband....sick. Im gonna be sick.

Oh Oh I see you want it to get to the magic voodoo 24 weeks so that it then cannot be legally aborted in Texas...great great....blech.

[LisaL]

119. 24 weeks isn't a magic number in TX.

It's 20 weeks gestation in TX.

[Drew Richards]

126. I just finished reading the 2013 Texas abortion law before posting...abortion in Texas is LEGAL up

to 24 weeks.

Show me I'm wrong go pull up the law as I did...

But never mind this is just a side track by you on the fact that, the patient had rights, the family had rights and that greasy mass of cells dont have rights that supersedes theirs...at least not in normal sane land...maybe in bat shit crazy land but not in the rest of the known sane parts of the world.

[LisaL]

127. I am afraid you are not up to date on TX abortion law.

"A new Texas law will continue prohibiting abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy even as the U.S. Supreme Court allowed a similar Arizona law to be overturned."

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2014/01/texas-abortion-ban-unaffected-by-supreme-court-shut-down-of-similar-arizona-law.html/

[Drew Richards]

139. I see you are correct the supremes decided not to recind in a 5 4 decision...but again what

Does this matter except they now have a case to fight not to allow an abotion in this case...

I dont know if you are playing devils advocate or are seriously deficient...and dont give a shit about the woman her body and the families right to decide or are you perhaps part of that death cult that call themselves right to lifers?t

[pnwmom]

136. When the husband found the woman, she had already turned blue. Her own father

said the doctors told him that she had been without oxygen for well over an hour.

So your example has nothing to do with this case. A healthy child cannot be born under these circumstances.

But, to answer your question, I think just as a woman has the right to choose, her family should have the right to make this decision -- not the hospital or the state.

[pnwmom]

135. The father of the woman said the oxygen deprivation was "well over" an hour.

So it's even worse.

[pnwmom]

133. The mother has a normal heart beat, too, and she's definitely dead.

The fetus is either massively damaged from more than an hour without oxygen, or dead.

[LisaL]

149. If the fetus is dead then the woman can be unplugged.

So far the hospital hasn't said anything about fetus being dead.

[uppityperson]

151. Is it ethical to force life support on someone who has said, whose family says, no?

[pnwmom]

155. The woman can and should be unplugged because SHE is dead.

It should be up to the family and the family alone whether the corpse is used in a medical experiment to see what happens when a fetus that has been oxygen deprived for more than an hour, then subject to electroshocks and drugs, is maintained in a corpse for months.

[pnwmom]

132. The mother has a normal heart beat, too, and she's definitely dead.

The ventilator that's keeping her oxygen circulating is probably the reason for the fetal heartbeat as well.

[jeff47]

22. The fetus isn't insured.

The woman was. And all her prenatal health care (and thus the fetus's health care) was billed to her.

[LisaL]

32. But using that logic, if she was 9 months pregnant but brain dead, insurance can refuse

to pay for a c-section. Even if the fetus was perfectly heatlhy.

[jeff47]

34. Yep, it can.

Welcome to the wonderful world of health insurance.

[LisaL]

35. Well isn't it great.

[jeff47]

36. Realistically, the hospital would probably avoid billing for the c-section

in order to avoid the massively horrific publicity.

Since the mother is dead, there wouldn't be much cost - don't have to worry about anesthetic, blood loss, infection, and so on.

[LisaL]

52. I would think hospital would bill the insurance and insurance would have to pay to avoid the

horrific publicity.

[jeff47]

53. Insurance companies regularly kill people. I don't think they'd care. (nt)

[Drew Richards]

99. Thats not how it works most of the time but yes they can refuse...insurance companies make

A determination on the viability of the fetus and take the families preference in their decision normally...

If its viable and near term insurance will cove the csection under the deceased policy as long as that policy does NOT lapse between the time of decision and time of csection....

[MissMillie]

30. I tried to add my son to my health insurance b4 he was born

The insurance company wouldn't let me.

[The Stranger]

168. The fetus is not a legal person -- a "life in being."

So he/she/it cannot have insurance, hold insurance, or be insured.

[pnwmom]

130. Nope. And she was declared dead, according to the lawsuit. n/t

[polly7]

2. I've been watching this and pretty much horrified.

Besides the obvious craziness of it all, how impaired might that fetus be if she had gone without breathing for any length of time before being found ... I read somewhere it could have been for up to an hour before her husband woke? I can't even imagine the agony her family is going through. Just awful.

[malaise]

8. That's a logical question n/t

[Solly Mack]

3. The uh, uh, ...let's call them people*... doing the forcing should pay.

(*because I know no one wants to know that I have a more favorable opinion of the cheese-like substance inside a sebaceous cyst than I do those who would force a dead body to incubate a fetus)

[LisaL]

5. I know of a number of cases where families did want pregnancy to continue.

So it's not always a "forced" situation. Who should pay if family does want pregnancy to continue?

[malaise]

7. Brain-dead is dead

This is beyond madness.

[LisaL]

9. The mother is dead. The fetus isn't.

So fetus should be ignored even in cases where family wants pregnancy to continue?

[malaise]

10. That's the families' business

You seriously think a 12 week fetus that went without oxygen for a long time is viable.
Please spare me.

Take her off the machine - that is her family's wish.

[LisaL]

12. If brain dead is dead, how is it the family's business?

Using that logic, even if woman is near full term but brain dead, hospital would have a right to turn off life support.
Regardless of what family wants.

[uppityperson]

40. Is it ethical to keep her on mechanical support? She and her family said they didn't want it. Is it

ethical to do that?

Don't turn it around to "is it ethical to take her off". Simply answer this easy question. Is it ethical to force her to stay on mechanical support even though she and her family do not want it?

Yes?
No?

[uppityperson]

55. Yes or no? Is it ethical to force her to stay on mechanical support even though she and her family

do not want it?

Yes?
No?

[uppityperson]

59. Did you miss this question? I know it can be confusing to keep the discussions straight.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4336488

[uppityperson]

60. If the family wishes to uphold her wishes, it is the family's business. wtf?

That is the issue here. Is it ethical to disregard the family's wishes?

[Drew Richards]

100. Are you really this dense or are you just baiting people to get your jolly's off.

[Hekate]

105. Hard to tell, isn't it? She's everywhere and incredibly persistent. nt

[LisaL]

113. Everywhere? And that's concerns you how?

Are you going to tell me what I can and can not post?

[Hekate]

160. Try answering the points I made in #76--or anybody else's. Skip the canned speech; we've seen it...

You only have one thing to say, and facts are not getting through.

But you carry on -- it's a free country.

[uppityperson]

123. Persistent in never answering a question.

[uppityperson]

15. Why do you say the fetus isn't in the same state as the woman? Heart beats in both.

[LisaL]

18. Did anybody verify that fetus is brain dead? No.

To establish brain death, specific tests need to be done.

[uppityperson]

24. Did anyone verify that the fetus has a functioning brain? No. Does anyone beyond you think

the fetus did not suffer health issues as the woman did? No.

[LisaL]

33. I have no clue what kind of health issues the fetus suffered (if any).

Neither does anyone else at this time.

[uppityperson]

39. Yet you claim "The fetus isn't" braindead. Since you have no clue, how can you claim that?

[LisaL]

42. I said it isn't dead.

Or at least doesn't appear to be dead.
Obviously tests can be run to see if its brain appears to be normal.

[uppityperson]

45. What do you base "it doesn't appear to be dead" on?

[LisaL]

48. It has a normal heart beat.

[uppityperson]

49. You mean like the woman has a normal heart beat?

[LisaL]

51. What evidence do you have this fetus isn't alive?

Normally when fetus has a heart beat its assumed to be alive.
Should we assume all fetuses are dead even if they have a heart beat?

[uppityperson]

54. You mean like the woman has a normal heart beat?

Normally when woman has a heart beat shes assumed to be alive.
Should we assume all women are dead even if they have a heart beat?

[LisaL]

56. No we shouldn't.

[uppityperson]

57. Should be assume all fetuses with a heartbeat are alive?

"Normally when fetus has a heart beat its assumed to be alive."

Normally when woman has a heart beat she is assumed to be alive.

[ljm2002]

84. The fetus was at 21 (update: 14) weeks when the mother died...

...which is within the legal allowed time for an abortion. Therefore, there is no reason her dead body should be used as an incubator against the family's wishes. The family wished the pregnancy to be terminated along with their beloved family member's life. What possible legal basis can there be for the hospital to go against their wishes?

IOW: there is NO need for ANYONE to prove that a fetus is brain dead before they can have an abortion (within whatever time constraints are in place, typically 24 weeks or before). Therefore there is NO need for ANYONE to prove that this fetus is brain dead in order to terminate the pregnancy and allow the woman's body to be laid to rest.

There is really no excuse for this and I am appalled to see someone on DU defending it.

[PeaceNikki]

87. Actually, it was only 14 weeks.

"In the Texas case, 33-year-old Marlise Munoz was 14 weeks pregnant when her husband found her unconscious and administered CPR before calling 911. It remains unclear what happened to her, but the family suspects she suffered a blood clot in one of her lungs."

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-pregnant-brain-dead-woman-20140114,0,3663042.story#ixzz2qVujkcCv

[ljm2002]

90. Thank you for the correction...

...I have updated my post title also.

[uppityperson]

97. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[Starry Messenger]

109. ++++++++++

[CreekDog]

167. they were pulling the same stuff with Terry Schiavo

and post men's rights nonsense almost continually here at DU.

i don't know what their agenda is, but i know that their agenda isn't ours.

[Solly Mack]

11. I did say the people doing the forcing, yes? And unless the dead woman doing the incubating agreed

and that can be proven - then it is always being forced by someone. There's a difference between being forced (what I was addressing) and the family (which would have to include the wishes of the woman or it isn't a family choice) choosing it (your contribution).


So, by obvious extension, if the family, and by family one hopes people also include the woman, agree that in such an event to continue the fetal development, then the family should pay.

[LisaL]

14. Family should pay?

How are they going to be able to? You do realize the costs, don't you?

[Solly Mack]

21. Damn. I didn't realize I'd have to run through bullshit today.

Let me go get my waders.


Whatever ax you have to grind, I'm not a whetstone.

Whatever need you have for playing(?) at being obtuse isn't a need I have to fill.

Play your silly game elsewhere....and it has to be a game or you wouldn't be making such inane responses.

[LisaL]

23. Sorry. I guess you are just too smart for me.

[jeff47]

25. No one offers health insurance to fetuses.

So yes, the family is going to have to pay.

[rbixby]

28. Let me guess

for profit hospital?

[jeff47]

31. No idea.

Non-profit hospitals still happily bill.

[ljm2002]

81. But this is not one of them. n/t

[Drew Richards]

93. Duh who you think

[malaise]

6. Never have I seen such a violation of a family's rights

This is fucking crazy.

[uppityperson]

16. Seriously.

[Solly Mack]

19. Should the fetus come out impaired, I'm sure all those well intentioned *people

will call it God's will.

[CrispyQ]

26. All the while voting to shred the safety net for the disabled & impoverished among us.

Maybe it's always been mean & hateful, but it didn't seem that way when I was younger.

[Solly Mack]

29. Exactly! But they'll count that forced birth as a 'moral' (coughcough) victory.

[SoCalDem]

75. and then walk away as the Dad is forced to care for an impaired child for life

or refuse to, and be shamed as as uncaring person.

It's a terrible thing that happened, and everyone probably thinks they are doing the proper thing, but the young father is the one who will ultimately be the loser if the baby is impaired...and of course the financial costs will be extreme

[Solly Mack]

78. Yep.

[KT2000]

71. I wonder who is doing the forcing

the husband does not want this. The hospital is forcing it but that is based on their interpretation of the law. Who is advising them on that interpretation and what connections to they have to the anti-abortion groups the started this law in the first place.

This is nothing more than human experimentation without consent. That in itself is a crime.

[Solly Mack]

73. The hospital claims it is only following the law and if that is the case

then the state is doing the forcing.

I also wondered about who sits on the hospital board and is giving advice.

I know of this man. Read it about him on DU. (IIRC)

http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2014/01/10/hospital-in-marlise-munoz-case-represented-by-anti-choice-lawyer-family-to-sue/

http://www.star-telegram.com/2014/01/09/5474256/marlise-munoz-and-the-politics.html

[malaise]

83. That should be my relative

IT is beyond crazy - and these criminal ReTHUG RW morons talk about the privacy and their rights.

Fugg em!

[Solly Mack]

86. Downright morbid.

[KT2000]

88. I'm going to be sick

Thank you for the information.
This is politics then.
If this is not definitely grotesque to those "upholding the law," and they end up with a viable baby with tolerable health issues, this is just the beginning. I can imagine the day that dead women will be put on life support to incubate babies for the infertile. There's money to be made and sicko ant-iabortion folks to make happy!!

[Solly Mack]

91. You're welcome.

The whole thing is just plain sickening.

[srican69]

37. All this will be a walk in the park - if the fetus becomes viable but on being born is

severely brain damaged and has to live like a vegetable for the next 70 years ...


who pays for that ???

[magical thyme]

38. "brain-dead" is just as dead as "cardiac dead." just sayin'...

and insurance companies don't pay for "treatment" of dead people. So don't expect they'll be paying.

[LisaL]

43. Cardiac dead wouldn't be able to "incubate" a fetus.

So how is it the same?

[magical thyme]

65. Legally they are both dead. brain dead only can incubate a fetus with mechanical and other support.

Take away the mechanical and outside support, and the body is dead along with the person.

[LisaL]

67. Using that logic, it's perfectly fine to turn off life support from a full term pregnant woman.

If she is brain dead, even if fetus is perfectly normal.

[PeaceNikki]

74. um... a full term baby can be removed and survive. viability is an important point in this.

i thought that was obvious.

[Hekate]

76. Nonsense. What is your motivation in this continuing argument? Life begins at conception?

Any termination is too early? No termination ever? Any tiny heartbeat must be considered "viable"? Should women be checked for pregnancy every month?

When conception takes place, of course there is life happening: cells are dividing. But it's not a baby and won't be for a long, long time. Are you aware that up to 20% of known pregnancies are miscarried, but that the number is probably much higher because so many occur very early? If this is all God's Will, let me know; it sure does seem to be Mother Nature's way.

Where exactly are you going with this? You willfully choose to misunderstand, despite repeated explanations, what "dead" means. I've seen dead, from my aged mother, who was ready to go, to my 6 month old granddaughter who died of SIDS. Neither one of them deserved to be hooked up to a respirator for however long it took for the last cell to decay and for general rot to set in (which is what Jahi's doctors mean by "deteriorate&quot . I've seen dead. Have you?

[PeaceNikki]

77. Thank you and I am sorry.

I'm so sorry for your losses and thank you for making important points. Can you imagine the horror that this family goes through every hour of every day?

It must be a nightmare to watch someone you love treated that way.

[uppityperson]

124. Whoosh. I am thinking you are a one handed typist. eom

[liberal_at_heart]

85. The decision should always be made by the family, not the hospital.

[LisaL]

141. If the person is brain dead, the laws say hospital has a right to turn off life support.

Without permission from the family.
Dead is dead, after all.

[uppityperson]

146. Is that ethical?

[pnwmom]

134. With a full term pregnant woman, or even a woman at 24 weeks, a baby can be delivered

by c-section. There is no reason to turn her corpse into an incubator.

It's not the same.

[LisaL]

140. It can be, but why?

After all if the woman is legally dead she isn't a patient.
Why bother, then, removing an infant from a dead body?

[pnwmom]

156. I don't think they should bother removing the fetus from the body.

I think they should unplug the woman's corpse, intact, and turn the dead body and dead fetus over to the family to dispose of.

[CreekDog]

166. then why are you proposing doing that?

[TroglodyteScholar]

94. Legally, I'm pretty confident you are WAY off

Last edited Thu Jan 16, 2014, 12:59 AM - Edit history (1)

I can't recall any stories of a Death Certificate being issued for someone who's still in the hospital....

Edit: I should know better than to use ambiguous wording in this kind of thread--my bad.

[LisaL]

118. They just issued one for Jahi McMath.

Even though she is in the medical facility somewhere attached to life support.

[uppityperson]

125. "the" medical facility? She's not in a hospital.

[LisaL]

128. And? I don't know where she is, but she is somewhere attached to life support.

[uppityperson]

131. " can't recall any stories of a Death Certificate being issued for someone who's still in the...

hospital"

You said they did, for Jahi McMath. But she isn't in a hospital.

[LisaL]

138. It was issued when she was still at the hospital.

She hasn't been moved yet when death certificate was issued.
It has December 12 as her date of death.

[uppityperson]

142. They didn't "just issue it". She HAS been moved. And, to be fair, lots of death certs are issued

to people in hospitals after they die.

[LisaL]

147. She was still at the hospital when death certificate was issued.

"The Alameda County Coroner issued a death certificate Friday for Jahi McMath, a 13 year old teen left brain dead after a tonsillectomy on December 9th, despite the family’s efforts to keep her on a ventilator and move her to a care facility out of state."

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2014/01/03/death-certificate-issued-for-jahi-mcmath-even-as-doctor-lined-up-to-insert-breathing-feeding-tubes/

[uppityperson]

148. Exactly. They did "just issue it" like you wrote. Is it ethical to keep someone on mechanical suppor

support even though they said they didn't want to, and the family says to not do so?

[uppityperson]

143. Is it ethical to force life support on someone who has said, whose family says, no?

[malaise]

163. More than that

The hospital sent her to the morgue before she was moved.

[Drew Richards]

121. Wot? Wait you never heard of anyone signing a death certificate to have someone pop awake on

The morgue table? I think I have heard of a few. Just messing with ya

[uppityperson]

145. Actually many death certs are issued to people who die in hospitals.

[herding cats]

41. It's a sad situation.

There is no provision in the Texas law to cover the cost. Which means the estimated cost of $5000 a day for life support (probably more in this case since the person is clinically dead) is assumed to be the responsibility of the family. The question has been asked by reporters in the past as to who is responsible for the bills and not once did the hospital say they were. Which leads me to assume it will be billed to the family.

There's also the adverse effects on the fetus by the prolong loss of oxygen when the mother died. This isn't a situation where the mother was alive but critical when she was placed on the life support. She was already dead and they were trying to revive her but were unable to do so. Her husband states she was unconscious and unresponsive, her face blue from lack of oxygen when he found her. Her prolonged loss of oxygen was severe enough to kill her brain, how can that have not caused damage to the fetus' development?

[ryan_cats]

44. I thought the hospital was going to check the fetus this week?

I thought the hospital was going to check the fetus this week? Since the fetus went through the same lack of oxygen as the mother, it seems it would be injured as well. Their logic is the fetus was only several weeks old and still had time to develop but the last I'd heard on this was that the hospital was going to check the fetus heartbeat, do an ultrasound and an amniocenteses but I haven't heard anything.

Contrast this with the teenegaer who had surgery in the San Francisco area who the doctors say was brain dead and was actually a corpse so they didn't feed her and only kept the respirator on her going against the families wishes who wanted her fed to see if her brain activity would increase as the brain swelling went down. In fact, the family took their daughter to another facility and I haven't heard anything since.

So, the first one the family doesn't want her kept alive but the hospital is doing so against the families' wishes and the second case, the family wants to keep their daughter alive to see if there's any hopes and again the hospital is going against the family.

This is why it's nice to have an advance directive when you go to the hospital.

Each case is a heart breaker and if the baby is born but severely disabled, who is going to pay for the babies care?

[LisaL]

47. Yes, they were planning to do tests soon.

I am not sure if it's this week but in the near future hospital was going to carry out more detailed tests.

[Cerridwen]

50. Back in December, a local publication

included information for helping the family with the expense. The link is here: http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/With-pregnant-wife-unresponsive-on-life-support-husband-hopes-to-fulfil-her-wishes-236654371.html

In an article at cnn yesterday

Notably, officials at the Fort Worth, Texas, hospital where 33-year-old Marlise Munoz is have not publicly declared her dead (though they have not disputed her husband's assertions either). Erick Munoz -- like his wife, a paramedic by training -- said the doctors told him Marlise "had lost all activity in her brain stem," and an accompanying chart stated she was "brain dead," according to his lawsuit. {emphasis added}

[Drew Richards]

108. WAIT...I GOT AN IDEA. IF they wont declare her dead then technically shes alive and a patient

doesn't that mean he should be able to legally transfer her to another hospital..say out of state?

And say fuck you to the hospital?

god I hope he has a lawyer and has thought of this...

[stg81]

61. Family argues a legally dead person is not a "patient", therefore statute does not apply

You cannot provide "life sustaining care and treatment" to a body that is legally dead

[malaise]

89. And they are correct

This is crazy

[HockeyMom]

79. A corpse incubating a fetus

Excuse me, but the organs cannot be used without PERMISSION before being donated, but a CORPSE can be used as an incubator? Total disrespect for the DEAD. Living or dead don't matter, only the unborn. What happens after birth, these people could care less.

[LisaL]

117. In US they can not.

There are countries where consent is presumed.

[ljm2002]

80. Not only that...

...but it is likely the fetus suffered damage when she went without oxygen for a prolonged period of time. So, the hospital wants to force the birth of a damaged baby just because it can be done -- and then guess who gets to deal with the child's problems for the foreseeable future? Hint: not the hospital, nor any of its staff.

But even if there were no issue of fetal damage, it is still the decision of the family, not the hospital. Legally the fetus is not a person, not yet, and it seems to me there is no legal reason why this should be allowed to continue.

How horrifying for the family, to have been dealing with such a terrible tragedy to begin with, and now her dead body will be forced to give birth and the family will have had no say in it. Uuuggghhh.

[kestrel91316]

96. The very second that child is delivered, the husband needs to file a wrongful birth lawsuit

to cover lifetime care for what is NOT going to be a normal child.

[jmowreader]

110. I agree with you, but who would the defendant be?

My preference would be the Texas legislature for passing this horrific law.

[kestrel91316]

152. The hospital. And the state of Texass.

[Th1onein]

101. Please stop with the dehumanizing language.

Whatever she is, she is still someone who is loved by her family.

[malaise]

102. Her family insist that she is dead n/t

[Th1onein]

115. Yes, but I doubt her family is calling her a corpse.

[malaise]

161. Fact - every dead person is a corpse

A dead body is a corpse. People do not pass away - they die - we all pass from life to death.

[Th1onein]

169. No one is denying that fact. But when you're talking about a family member's loved one....

it's not a nice thing to say about them. All of the other facts you are stating are self-evident, and quite unnecessary, at this point.

[jeff47]

114. Her family says she's dead.

In fact, that is the basis for the lawsuit they filed to stop this horror show.

They want to lay her to rest because they love her, and want to follow her wishes.

[Barack_America]

150. She became "dehumanized" when she died.

This is her family's entire point.