Posted on 01/27/2014 8:10:12 AM PST by Morgana
A Texas hospital decided not to appeal a judge’s decision late Friday to allow a husband’s bid to remove his “brain dead” pregnant wife from life support, an action that would end the life of his own unborn child.
Following the decision, Marlise Muñoz, 33, was taken off machines at a Fort Worth hospital about 11:30 a.m. Sunday and her body was released to her husband, Erick Muñoz. The husband’s attorney released a statement saying the family “will now proceed with the somber task of laying Marlise Muñoz’s body to rest, and grieving over the great loss that has been suffered.” Erick Munoz’s statement made no mention of his unborn child, who has now died as a result of removing Marlise from life support.
marlisemunoz3Earlier Sunday, a statement from John Peter Smith Hospital indicated it would not appeal, despite pleas from pro-life advocates to save the life of the unborn baby, who was 22 weeks and 5 days old
“From the onset, JPS has said its role was not to make nor contest law but to follow it,” the statement read. “The hospital will follow the court order.”
Larry Thompson, a state’s attorney who argued on behalf of the hospital Friday, said the hospital, before the judge’s decision, was trying to protect the rights of the fetus as it believed Texas law instructed it to do. The hospital’s attorneys cited a section of the Texas Advance Directives Act that reads: “A person may not withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment under this subchapter from a pregnant patient.”
“There is a life involved, and the life is the unborn child,” Thompson told the judge.
On Sunday afternoon, about 40 people gathered near the hospital for a prayer vigil. Operation Rescue president Troy Newman, who coordinated the prayer vigil, told LifeNews he’s saddened by what’s transpired.
“We are grieved that the JPS hospital has removed life support from Marlise Munoz and her baby. As the term “life support” implies, Marlise’s body was alive and supporting a thriving pregnancy at the time support was withdrawn,” he said. “It is despicable that dehumanizing and deceptive language was used to refer to Marlise as a “corpse” and her baby’s condition as “incompatible with life” in order to elicit public support for putting them to death.”
Newman added: “A human being does not lose their God-given human beauty or dignity just because they are disabled or incapacitated. This case just goes to show how far we have slipped into the abyss of a Culture of Death and how intolerant we have become of those who are seen as “inconvenient.” We strongly believe that the order that led to the termination of life support is in complete contradiction to Texas law that was enacted to protect pre-born babies just like the Munoz child. The courts have failed this baby, the attorneys who should have defended Texas law have failed this baby, and the hospital has failed this baby. May this tragedy serve as a wake-up call to our society, lest others wrongly fall victim to this dehumanizing utilitarian view of life and death.”
Marlise Munoz collapsed in her home last November from an apparent blood clot in her lungs when she was 14 weeks pregnant with her second child. Her husband and other family members have asked the John Peter Smith Hospital in Ft. Worth to remove Marlise from life support after they were told she was “brain dead.” Ending life support would also end her unborn baby’s life.
Erick Munoz, who said a doctor has told him his wife is brain dead, had filed a lawsuit against JPS Health Network. The judge ordered the hospital to remove life support by 5 p.m. Monday.
According to AP, Republican Attorney General Greg Abbott, through a spokesman, said the case was a “heartbreaking tragedy” and that “Texas strives to protect both families and human life, and we will continue to work toward that end.”
Texas Sen. Wendy Davis, a Democrat running for governor, sided with Erick Munoz’s decision to remove life support and kill is unborn baby, saying, any decision like this “should be made by Mrs. Munoz’s family, in consultation with her doctors.”
The designation of “brain death” is a controversial one and presents moral and ethical issues, especially when the life of a baby is involved. There are many cases where babies have survived after the mothers have experienced similar situations to that of Marlise Munoz. There is a very strong possibility that Marlise’s baby could survive, given a little more time.
“We feel great compassion for the family of Marlise Munoz and her pre-born baby. No one ever wants to be in their difficult and tragic situation,” said Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue. “Marlise wanted this baby, and as long as there is a chance that he or she can be saved, we support John Peter Smith Hospital in their bid to follow the law and protect this baby’s life.”
“The public has been given the erroneous impression that Marlise is a dead and decaying corpse. This assumption is completely false. Marlise’s heart continues to beat and she continues to nourish her pre-born baby. A rotting corpse cannot do that,” said Newman. “As for the baby, we have information that diagnostic tests have not been done on the baby to support allegations that there are developmental anomalies, but even if the baby does have health issues, that baby still does not deserve to be killed.”
Abortion groups like NARAL have coldly sided with Marlise’s husband in calling on the hospital to kill Marlise and her baby.
“Some people want to decide who lives and who dies based on their personal criteria. If that was allowed, none of our lives would be safe. We simply cannot murder sick or inconvenient people just because we don’t want the hassle of caring for them. That is a dangerous road that will only end up unjustly depriving vast numbers of people of their right to life, just as we have seen with the issue of abortion,” said Newman.
So you prefer the feds messing in state courts.. They already have to much power.
On threads like these, such a vague attribution leads to misunderstandings and quickly to flame wars, especially when there are the occasional agenda driven posters working these threads. Thanx for the clarification.
Leftist lawyers obviously stay awake all night scouring the countryside for these rare, tragic cases to advance their agenda. Sick and sad.
Before anybody else makes any claims about how an unborn child can or can’t be supported by a brain-dead mother, let us consult some authoritative medical source (and no, I haven’t read the whole thing yet):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3002294/
One life ends, another begins: Management of a brain-dead pregnant mother-A systematic review.
Abstract.
Background
An accident or a catastrophic disease may occasionally lead to brain death (BD) during pregnancy. Management of brain-dead pregnant patients needs to follow special strategies to support the mother in a way that she can deliver a viable and healthy child and, whenever possible, also be an organ donor. This review discusses the management of brain-dead mothers and gives an overview of recommendations concerning the organ supporting therapy. (SEE LINK FOR REST)
Well obviously all of us are better able to diagnose this woman and treat her then the doctors in that hospital where she was actually laying.
Thats the thing, the only solution to this is for the government to have full and total control and our families to have no input.
If you don’t trust your spouse to make the right decision perhaps you have other issues to deal with.
“Do you know how far developed a human brain is at 13 weeks? Do you know how long the brain continues to grow and organize during development? Your assertion assumes things which are not assumable.”
Do you know.....”Can a human body that has suffered severe brain damage sustain an unborn child from a nutritional standpoint? Can her body send the proper nutrients to the unborn child? Can artificial feeding of the brain-dead female suffice to ensure a healthy baby? I do not know and neither does anyone else.”
Also, I do not remember making an ‘assertion’. I remember only asking questions. ;-)
Reagan was Gov if you recall. Not of this state, but he was a gov.
If only we had 100 more Ronald Reagans. If only.
It was a Star Trek reference.
Really complex episode.
Good point, if the woman was brain dead because of the clot I’d say the chances of the baby being alive were pretty slim.
Hopefully the doctors took that into account.
The headlines stated “the baby was killed” and that is the truth. Cutting of the baby’s life support (his mother) killed him. A living child, who was not brain dead, was just killed. So what part of “THOU SHALL NOT KILL” do those of you who claim to be believers in God, not understand?
driftdiver wrote: Well obviously all of us are better able to diagnose this woman and treat her then the doctors in that hospital where she was actually laying.
Doctors use sources like the one I linked, i.e. studies from other doctors having used scientific methods to come up with treatment plans.
As far as I’ve read, no doctor involved in the case has made any public statements about how the baby was doing before life support was disconnected; they’re restricted by HIPAA. Everything quoted was from lawyers and family.
I posted the link mainly to address the “rotting corpse” hyperbole, which is just mindless parroting of some quotes attributed to the husband, and the unsupported statements that the unborn child was stewing in toxic dead-mommy slime, like in some zombie movie.
Instead of flailing around with mindless conjecture, we should look at non-interested, non-vested, professional sources. Don’t you agree?
“Instead of flailing around with mindless conjecture, we should look at non-interested, non-vested, professional sources. Don’t you agree?”
I see what you did there. good one ole chap
is there a family dispute here? husband and wife were still together, her parents are onboard with the husband.
The original author of the law says it does not apply in this case.
The only reason this is in court is due to the hospital trying to play games with the law because somebody at the hospital does not like the law.
I think we should just let the family mourn its loss(s).
The bottom line, in my honest opinion, is that the government is being positioned as the final arbiter for life and death as the obamacare fascism is being erected. There are much larger issues overshadowing the issues penetrated with this story.
Not of this state, but he was a gov.
************
You are correct and that’s the point, Reagan had no jurisdiction over the
appointment made in 2010. For that matter neither did Bush. It was a State of
Texas appointment for the sitting Gov.
I’m not sure what the solution is to a situation like this as there will always be
someone not in agreement. My preference is to keep the issue as close to home as
possible. But the laws must be followed or changed as prescribed.
Take care.
In this case, it was the government who mandated that she be kept on life support and the family who took issue with that. I am trying to understand who a woman who is dead can sustain the life of an unborn infant re: provide the nutrients the baby needs to grow and survive.
By the way the concept that a dead body may not be able to properly support a baby is not hyperbole, whatever the insulting word games you want to play.
we should be focusing on the womb transplants that just happened in sweeden (switzerland?). Imagine a father being able to sue for custody of a womb and fetus which is going to be aborted anyways.
THAT will have real change on the abortion debate.
This case was a undevelping fetus which was not going any further. Battles must be selected, we should not fall into unforced errors.
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.