Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Family of dead, pregnant woman is suing Texas for using her body as an incubator. [View all]KitSileya
(4,035 posts)58. If so, I am mistaken, but it wouldn't have mattered.
Her pregnancy would have automatically invalidated her living will in 12 states in the US. That both her husband and her parents have stated that she told them she didn't want to be on life support should be enough.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
336 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Family of dead, pregnant woman is suing Texas for using her body as an incubator. [View all]
pnwmom
Jan 2014
OP
A number of prominent ethicists say that they are misinterpreting the state law.
pnwmom
Jan 2014
#116
It's not, but the *idea* of a baby is the important thing. We're not dealing with sane people here -
nomorenomore08
Jan 2014
#305
Incubator is right. So sad to hear this is how we treat women in this day and age.
bettyellen
Jan 2014
#2
The family needs to get ready for the Death Threats that will come from the Pro-LIfers. n/t
freshwest
Jan 2014
#3
Okay, so they have gotten the death threats already... This is sick. I'm wondering how the child
freshwest
Jan 2014
#13
So why did other brain dead women manage to produce normally developing children?
LisaL
Jan 2014
#43
There's no indication that woman suffered a lack of oxygen that Marlise had
riderinthestorm
Jan 2014
#107
You use and article as proof yet say the article is wrong. And that is ethical?
uppityperson
Jan 2014
#117
The article says 3, you claim it is credible, yet is wrong "More than 3, despite what the article...
uppityperson
Jan 2014
#149
Again, this article just quotes associated press on a brain dead pregnant woman.
LisaL
Jan 2014
#159
"More than 3, despite what the article said." So, is the article credible or wrong?
uppityperson
Jan 2014
#161
There is a critical difference that you're ignoring. This woman didn't stop breathing for an hour
pnwmom
Jan 2014
#130
She was kept on life support much longer than two days after she was declared brain dead.
LisaL
Jan 2014
#228
Lisal I don't understand what you're saying. Are you arguing that it's okay to ignore the
OregonBlue
Jan 2014
#293
Yup. They are careful to never answer a direct question but indeed, do advocate non-self determinati
uppityperson
Jan 2014
#307
Why won't you answer the question. Are you okay with the State using this woman as an incubator?
OregonBlue
Jan 2014
#333
Suppose fetus is born quasi-"normal" but requires constant care for rest of its life.
MH1
Jan 2014
#115
No, all we know is that the fetus has a heartbeat, like the mother. The mother has a heartbeat
pnwmom
Jan 2014
#133
Having a heartbeat isn't equivalent to being alive. You don't speak for the hospital.
pnwmom
Jan 2014
#148
If the fetus wasn't alive the hospital wouldn't have to keep the mother's body on life support.
LisaL
Jan 2014
#158
1. A fetus is not a person. 2. they have no clue if the fetus' brain works. nt
DevonRex
Jan 2014
#175
Any cases where the mother's skin was already starting to feel "rubbery" six weeks before
pnwmom
Jan 2014
#119
Link to a baby being delivered from a decaying corpse? And not the one you say is credible but wrong
uppityperson
Jan 2014
#167
No, I did not make that claim. Another swing and a miss. I quoted you so you did say that. Whoosh!
uppityperson
Jan 2014
#192
Have you ever cared for a brain dead individual on a ventillator? I have.
w8liftinglady
Jan 2014
#329
And who, if a baby were somehow produced with massive damage, would pay for its care? n/t
pnwmom
Jan 2014
#134
I know this is a weird question and I ask it cause I'm not always the smartest person in the world
Arcanetrance
Jan 2014
#6
The fetus must still be developing, that's easy to check. But they won't know
TwilightGardener
Jan 2014
#8
They're judging by heartbeat, last I heard. But the heart can be beating and the brain dead. There
freshwest
Jan 2014
#12
It's horrific. It should be up to the family. The state should not have the power
TwilightGardener
Jan 2014
#15
I agree... But the state regards the fetus as a Person with all due rights until born. If the GOP
freshwest
Jan 2014
#17
She is dead, TwlightGardener. Brain-dead is still dead. Her heart is only beating
pnwmom
Jan 2014
#140
I do draw a distinction between brain death and actual death (heart stops, all cells die).
TwilightGardener
Jan 2014
#146
Her father says her skin is already feeling rubbery. Isn't that dead enough for you?
pnwmom
Jan 2014
#150
The ventilator doesn't make a heart beat. It forces oxygen into the lungs, but the heart
TwilightGardener
Jan 2014
#157
I agree, calling them corpses or remains is not needed. They are a body, but still a person deservin
uppityperson
Jan 2014
#151
Yes, I have worked with a lot of people who have died, who were dying. Some on mechanical support
uppityperson
Jan 2014
#178
Congratulations for not giving me the "what about evil people" line but instead going for fetuses
uppityperson
Jan 2014
#187
I remember when Kennedy died the media refered to him as a corpse and that
Auntie Bush
Jan 2014
#217
You can frame it in terms of the husband's right. He has the legal right to control
pnwmom
Jan 2014
#139
It isn't. The earliest possible date at which this fetus would be termed viable is at 24 weeks.
pnwmom
Jan 2014
#113
Yikes, I assumed she was much further along. I guess the state's plan is to wait
TwilightGardener
Jan 2014
#118
fetal viability the ability of a fetus to survive outside the uterus with artificial aid. Not devel
uppityperson
Jan 2014
#125
No worries, it shows that legal and medical terms and how we use them in daily life all can
uppityperson
Jan 2014
#129
They plan to test her in February at 22 or 24 weeks and then decide what to do.
pnwmom
Jan 2014
#143
The record time for a brain dead pregnant woman being on life support is 107 days.
LisaL
Jan 2014
#164
Machines are not keeping her heart beating. They are keeping her lungs breathing, and since the
kestrel91316
Jan 2014
#194
If her brain stem is dead, then her heart isn't beating either -- not on its own.
pnwmom
Jan 2014
#195
The heart does not beat independently of the brain STEM. The brain STEM controls automatic
pnwmom
Jan 2014
#203
Yes, it will beat independently. Briefly. If you stop the vent, O2 levels will drop and the heart
uppityperson
Jan 2014
#206
Yup, briefly, until the oxygen level drops and the heart nerves die. The brain stem does control
uppityperson
Jan 2014
#213
False again. The heartbeats are generated entirely by the sinoatrial node.
kestrel91316
Jan 2014
#207
The fact that the heart can be made to beat while on mechanical breathing support
pnwmom
Jan 2014
#209
I was using the term "make" loosely. But the fact remains that a functioning brain stem
pnwmom
Jan 2014
#215
The vent oxygenates the blood. It doesn't make the heart beat. But once the vent is stopped, the
uppityperson
Jan 2014
#204
Thank you. Correct. When oxygen levels drop too far, the cells in the sinoatrial node
kestrel91316
Jan 2014
#208
It can be confusing because while it may not make the heart beat, stopping it then causes the heart
uppityperson
Jan 2014
#211
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha. OK, now I understand, you are just joking around! And we took you
uppityperson
Jan 2014
#232
You are. Is it ethical to do this against the wishes of the woman and the family?
uppityperson
Jan 2014
#243
It is "awesome" to have a state over ride the parent's wishes. As for the rest, what the fuck
uppityperson
Jan 2014
#24
wow, such ignorance and disrespect toward women's autonomy is sad to see at DU
bettyellen
Jan 2014
#40
These articles indicate otherwise. If someone does, the state can ignore it. Is that ethical?
uppityperson
Jan 2014
#66
No, the body is a corpse. It isn't being kept artificially alive. It has only been given
pnwmom
Jan 2014
#145
The difference between coma, vegetative state and brain death is "some brain activity."
LisaL
Jan 2014
#220
No, I don't. The father has reported that her skin feels like that of a mannequin,
pnwmom
Jan 2014
#222
There is almost no chance that a fetus that was oxygen deprived at 14 weeks for an hour
pnwmom
Jan 2014
#135
It is not up to me to bet. Only the family should be able to make this decision.
pnwmom
Jan 2014
#191
Of course it’s an experiment. The fact that it isn’t entirely without precedent
pnwmom
Jan 2014
#229
The medical team of the Texas woman said that they thought it was an hour OR MORE.
pnwmom
Jan 2014
#244
As far as I know medical team said nothing. They aren't allowed to talk because of privacy laws.
LisaL
Jan 2014
#246
The medical team is talking to the husband, and he is telling the press what they said.
pnwmom
Jan 2014
#258
Here is the father saying "they" (I presume the medical team) doesn't know how long the
LisaL
Jan 2014
#261
They don't know exactly how long she was without oxygen. But the hospital told the family
pnwmom
Jan 2014
#263
Backing up, how do they know the fetus is "alive"? And you still miss the BIG issue
uppityperson
Jan 2014
#317
THAT is the problem. Even if she did, they would not allow it. Her family wants to stop the machines
uppityperson
Jan 2014
#310
It's unethical to keep body alive with no hope of recovery even when this body is pregnant?
LisaL
Jan 2014
#22
It's unethical to do this against the family's wishes. Is it that difficult of a concept to understa
uppityperson
Jan 2014
#26
Is it unethical to turn the ventillator off if the family insisted it should be on?
LisaL
Jan 2014
#27
It depends on if the person is totally dead or only part way dead. I am not comfortable turning
uppityperson
Jan 2014
#28
"totally dead" is not a legal concept, hence can have different meanings. IMO, family wishes
uppityperson
Jan 2014
#31
Yes, those are my definitions, obviously. You still didn't answer what's your opinion, ethically?
uppityperson
Jan 2014
#39
Did you miss this? Waiting for you to answer about ethics, your opinion and maybe you missed it
uppityperson
Jan 2014
#68
^^^ This^^^ I wish LisaL would respond to this. Thanks for weighing in w8liftinglady nt
riderinthestorm
Jan 2014
#334
Withdrawing this post! I addressed it to the wrong person, am so embarrassed. n/t
Judi Lynn
Jan 2014
#33
Did you reply to the right person as I fully support the family? It is unethical to keep
uppityperson
Jan 2014
#34
No problem, they are something. that makes sense, about their anti-abortion stance.
uppityperson
Jan 2014
#57
She had a DNR and a living will that is being willfully disregarded simply because she was pregnant.
KitSileya
Jan 2014
#42
A living will is not a regular will, but advance directives. Educate yourself here..
uppityperson
Jan 2014
#54
According to some news reports, she did. Are you ok with ignoring family wishes, IF it was written?
uppityperson
Jan 2014
#71
Since news media says she did, why do you keep saying she didn't? Credible link for your statement?
uppityperson
Jan 2014
#88
No, you are going by what NYDaily News reports, I am going by what NY Times reports.
uppityperson
Jan 2014
#99
Is it ethical to force life support on someone who has said, whose family says, no?
uppityperson
Jan 2014
#155
I already posted a directo quote from the husband that they never got around to it.
LisaL
Jan 2014
#87
Is there anything which kept you from noting the family itself is suing to take her off
Judi Lynn
Jan 2014
#55
Judging by McMath threads, most on here don't have a problem with turning life support off
LisaL
Jan 2014
#251
I'm not talking about anyone else but you. You a pretty big fan of laws...
Gravitycollapse
Jan 2014
#253
My poll says otherwise. You have never answered, will you? I doubt it. Want to vote?
uppityperson
Jan 2014
#255
I'm not surprised that the hospital's lead attorney is a well known right-to-lifer. n/t
Gormy Cuss
Jan 2014
#74
I don't think their willingness to accept fate or God's will (whatever you call it)
kestrel91316
Jan 2014
#196
Because she's dead, I anticipate her insurance company declining to pay squat after her date of deat
kestrel91316
Jan 2014
#198
In 12 states, including Texas, a living will is set aside by law if the patient is pregnant.
KitSileya
Jan 2014
#92
My understanding if testing shows fetus isn't vialbe hospital can turn off the ventillator.
LisaL
Jan 2014
#67
I think the family should have been able to unhook her from the very beginning,
pnwmom
Jan 2014
#219
This is why the right is fighting so hard on these cases, even though they're so rare.
pnwmom
Jan 2014
#267
Another Science Experiment propagated by a Religious Nut Job State Government
warrant46
Jan 2014
#180
This is like a HORROR story/movie. Only, it's real. I can't believe the hospital would go against
BlueCaliDem
Jan 2014
#141
Really? Is it a good thing thing that a hospital could potentially be removed from the community?
Lost_Count
Jan 2014
#154
No, but all the persons running the hospital need to be removed and sued/prosecuted/
kestrel91316
Jan 2014
#200
How about we make the state of Texas sponsor the upbringing of the unborn baby?
MrMickeysMom
Jan 2014
#168
That is a sicko way to treat someone after declared dead( and their family wishes )
lunasun
Jan 2014
#205
I don't blame them. I would slap a lawsuit on their ass so fast their heads would spin.
Tuesday Afternoon
Jan 2014
#240
The mother was a paramedic who had strongly made her wishes known to her parents and husband.
pnwmom
Jan 2014
#265
You are arguing that the fetus is a person with all the rights of a citizen.
KitSileya
Jan 2014
#306
I am not saying that, I am playing Devil's advocate and engaging in moral relatavism.
Sirveri
Jan 2014
#322
I guess playing devil's advocate with real persons just doesn't appeal to me.
KitSileya
Jan 2014
#327
The state owes no duty to a non-viable fetus because it has no existence independent of its mother.
pnwmom
Jan 2014
#318
The SCOTUS position on abortion was that women had the choice because of the right
pnwmom
Jan 2014
#332
While I like the right to privacy established by the 14th, I prefer the 13th amendment defense.
Sirveri
Jan 2014
#335
She is dead, so they're not even keeping her alive. It's not possible to keep her alive.
pnwmom
Jan 2014
#273
She is brain dead. Her heart is kept beating because she is getting oxygen from the ventilator
KitSileya
Jan 2014
#302
But according to the article, the hospital is "keeping her alive". It is what it is.
WillowTree
Jan 2014
#313