Skip to comments.Pregnant, brain-dead woman's husband sues hospital
Posted on 01/14/2014 12:21:36 PM PST by Morgana
DALLAS (AP) The husband of a brain-dead, pregnant Texas woman on Tuesday sued the hospital keeping her on life support, saying doctors are doing so against her and her family's wishes.
The lawsuit filed in state district court asks a judge to order John Peter Smith Hospital in Fort Worth to remove life support for Marlise Munoz, a North Texas woman who was 14 weeks pregnant when her husband found her unconscious on Nov. 26. Her family says the exact cause of her condition isn't known, though a blood clot is a possibility.
The hospital has said a state law prohibits life-saving treatment from being denied to pregnant patients.
(Excerpt) Read more at bigstory.ap.org ...
Oh heavens, what a quandary. Fourteen weeks doesn’t sound good for that baby. Praying that all will turn out as the good lord intends.
If the baby is still viable then the father is being cruel to want it dead.
Wonder if the baby is his??? So disturbing.
IF the mother is fed, oxygenated, and kept warm, the child will continue to builds its body for life int he air world. At around thrity or thirty four weeks the child can be birthed and thrive. THAT is not what this father wants, apparently. And there is always the miniscule possibility that the woman will ‘awaken’ and the husband may be responsible for her comatose state.
Contrary to what some of the “experts” are quoted as saying, this woman is NOT “dead.” “Brain-death” is an extremely misleading term, invented by the usual suspects for there anti-life convenience.
Possibly the woman will not recover, but she is not “dead” if all her systems are working.
As for the condition of the baby, it is evidently still alive as well, although unclear in what condition. It would be wrong to kill mother and child for the husband’s convenience, although it is unknown on the evidence given whether or not either of them will survive.
God’s will be done. Prayers for them.
“Wonder if the baby is his???”
Who cares? He can go on Muary and prove it’s not then get out of paying child support.
He can leave the baby at the hospital under “Save Haven” laws even if it is his and still not have to pay if that is what he’s worried about.
Either way he does not have to freaking kill the baby! Plus in the time it takes the baby to grow/develop/deliver that gives the mom a snowballs chance in hell to maybe recover. I said “maybe”. She may or maynot but at least she might. Give her at least that much time.
Yes, the physical conditions can be taken care of. I wonder, though, about that maternal heartbeat, the other more subtle qualities of mothering that are transmitted into the baby in utero. Like love. Poor little one needs our prayers.
Erik and family will probably get millions for this to cover medical bills for the wife and lifelong problems of the baby.
14 weeks on November 26 so it is around 21 weeks now.
approaching 22 weeks
That baby could be delivered with good chances if mama makes it another 6 weeks, as ANY mother would want in this situation
Family talking abut her “not wanting to be kept on life support”- balderdash
That is different than talking about “what if you were pregnant and the baby had a chance to be born ....before we let you go”
Family does NOT deserve that child, for sure
I’m very curious as to why the hospital hasn’t complied with the husband’s desires. They don’t appear to be a religious hospital.
Is it really about their interpretation of the law or is there disagreement about the woman’s actual status as dead?
The hospital and staff can’t speak so their side of the story is not available.
If she was 14 weeks on November 26th, then the baby is 22 weeks now - just a few more weeks and a healthy baby can be born. Why do they want to kill it? I think someone should look closely at the husband with regard to what happened to the wife...
in this case mom is dead. She meets the medical and legal criteria. She is gone. The fact that she can be supported with a vent and pressors does not make her any less death. In the exact same way that organs may be kept alive for organ transplant.
In this case as the argument is made to try to keep the organs alive I think it is morally correct and in fact imperative to try to keep baby alive. However the odds are overwhelming against. The moms body will deteriorate just as the poor innocent young woman deteriorated even while her corpse was being ventilated and artificially augmented.
Finally, viability is at or about 24 weeks. Getting baby to 27 weeks would be impressive and 30 weeks a miracle. If it came to pass once fetal lung maturity were confirmed c section should occur. There is no medically responsible way to even consider trying to get to 40 weeks.
Just to be clear as I have no doubt some will try to twist my words: mom is dead, it is morally consistent with modern medical practice to attempt to get baby to viability. In my opinion the abortion right activists who are pushing for something else are totally ignorant as to the medical science.
“but she is not dead if all her systems are working.”
All her systems are not working.
I personally think it should be the Dad’s choice, and eitther decision is ok.
I can’t imagine this is good for the baby. I don’t know why the hospital is making the call.
I am sure you have your check in the mail to pay the $1 miillion dollar tab?
Sure is. Thanks for setting me straight about the length of pregnancy. Good on the hospital for keeping the mother alive.
This is an interesting case, to be sure. Apparently, Texas law prohibits the removal of life support from a pregnant woman. Yet doctors have declared her brain dead so she isn't really on life support but rather being used as an incubator for her baby. Fighting against this are both the woman's husband and her family. Munoz also argues that his wife, a former paramedic, had clear end-of-life instructions that stated she would not have wanted to remain on life support.
Are you privy to some inside knowledge you're not sharing with us or are you just pulling this speculation out of your ass?
Yes, the doctors can argue that she will never recover, but that’s a difficult argument to make, since there have been numerous cases where such patients have, after many months, recovered.
And it is simply a LIE to say that she is “dead.” Her heart is still beating, her blood is circulating, her lungs are deriving oxygen from the air (whether or not she can breathe without assistance). That’s not dead. Dead is when all life ceases, and the cells begin to decay. To claim otherwise is to use Orwellian duckspeak.
So, whether or not the mother is capable of coming back, I don’t know. But it remains possible. And it also remains possible that she can be kept ALIVE until her baby is old enough to exit the womb, by C-section if necessary.
The article states that MAYBE the baby was deprived of oxygen while the mother had what might have been a stroke. But they don’t seem to know that. The baby is still alive, and may be capable of living a normal life, given a chance. So, we want to kill it because it MIGHT not be entirely normal? Without even trying to find out?
Which is why I wonder what is up. The Tx law doesn’t actually apply to a declared dead person. So is the hospital being extra cautious or is she not really dead. Generally, hospitals aren’t big on racking up exorbitant end of life care costs that may never get paid for, especially against the wishes of the family.
Since the hospital and staff can’t speak, the only ones saying she is brain dead seem to be those who want to remove life support and the media. But I haven’t actually seen any reports or quotes from the hospital acknowledging the woman is considered brain dead.
It’s all very curious.
Troll somewhere else, dweeb.
You keep revealing that much ghoul in yourself and you won’t feel comfy at FR.
Whereas those who claim knowledge in which they have no apparent expertise are indeed comfortable on these threads.
A cogent argument...name calling instead of addressing a valid point. One ought not raise the voice when the argument should be reinforced.
What little pricks (small thorns, only small thorns) like you seem to believe is that Freepers cannot see through your little flawed syllogism, to see the agenda behind your spittling. Your little worshipper tried to gas up an argument that is not even called for. Are you trying to rescue your little dog?
I am not afraid to stand by my words so let's try this...you are an ignorant and willfully stupid jerk when it comes to medical issues. It is a legitimate questions are you privy to something we do not know be use your statement is in direct conflict with a reported story. No one tried to gas up an argument you pathetic worm, all he did was ask you a question because you made direct statements in contradiction to the facts of what has been reported. Of course you can't make a cogent argument do you resort to what all who have no argument to make do...you name call and obfuscate. You are a bully of the highest order and a lousy debator at that. Go on and convince yourself of your intellectual superiority with your attempt at five thousand dollar words, but your statements are laughable. Get a better thesaurus or dictionary but if you want to enter a name calling event please understand that I won't engage you because frankly it would not be a victory worth my time. I would feel bad about defeating a third grade intellect.
I made a comment based upon my faith that a woman in this lady's condition is not beyond God's miraculous healing. Your little dog then made a remark typical of your ilk and you have jumped in to defend your little dog. Fine, amuse yourself. Most folks will not bother to read the post I made to which your little dog spewed his little spittlegeist. You can have a ball playing little god now. Have at it. Condescension is so transparent ...
“... you made direct statements in contradiction to the facts of what has been reported.” Point them out, or be exposed as the thug you are.
“There is the minuscule possibility she will awaken”...not if she is brain dead. You describe situations in previous encounters where people are comatose, not brain dead, that awaken. This assertion is in direct contradiction to the facts. “The possibility the husband is responsible”. For a blood clot and stroke? Your words. Not mine. Your assertions contrary to the facts of what is reported. Bully is bad enough, being a stupid, ignorant name calling bully is worse. Again as in all of our previous encounters I stand on reported fact and you stand on hyperbole and misstatement. Just because God raised Lazerus doesn’t mean that Lazerus wasn’t dead as a door nail. In fact it adds to the miraculous awe of God don’t you think? He can raise the dead, you are conscripting the power of God to human by saying if we can only keep someone I’ve once dead than God can fix it. Your arguments fail, and you are a valid, ignorant imbecile.
Your posting history is interesting, from a psychological profile perspective. It would be interesting to read what your assertions were in the Terri Schiavo case, but I don't want to wste the time to go that far back in your ravings at FR. Besides, you will give us some yarn if it suits your thuggish purposes. Were you living in Florida when the state was starving and dehydrating Terri to death?
You claim to be a Physician (from what country have you brought your medical bona fides?), so I find it interesting that you would dismiss the possibility of a blood clot being cause by physical trauma, just to give the husband cover from my faint speculation.
As I said in this case I think the law is good that forbids the termination of life support on a pregnant woman who is brain dead. I also think it is an incredible long shot that baby will make it but it is worth that chance as the baby's life hangs in the balance. However once the baby is delivered, there is no hope for the dead mother and support should be withdrawn as she is dead. There is no hope of recovery. However to even accuse the father of causing the blood clots is irrational as this type of trauma would be very easily seen on physical diagnosis. I can't wait to hear your next uninformed opinion of how I and the rest of medical science has of wrong and you are the sole purveyor of the truth. Also please list your bona fides as you have yet to make them known.
BTW, you might note that I did not try to assert what your thoughts on the Schiavo case were. Oh, and I am not nor have I ever been, a Physician. But I do have an excellent imagination accompanying an excellent education, which have served me well in my novel and non-fiction works.
Have nice day
Balderdash.. you are just another “internet” presumed to be doctor.. because you say so. If Catholic a disgraceful one at that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.