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).
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.