Posted on 01/24/2014 6:54:06 PM PST by Morgana
Providing life support to an otherwise dead person is playing God.
And pulling the plug with a viable baby is not?
She’s not dead Einstein, a corpse can’t support a baby.
Doesn’t this father have another child? I wonder how that child will feel about him when he or she realizes he killed their sibling. Especially since that would be that child’s only full brother or sister.
This article says nothing about the baby’s current state. From what I heard it doesn’t sound good. What if the baby has no chance of surviving and is suffering now? Horrible situation.
If this “Husband” really wanted this child, he would want her kept alive so that she has a lasting legacy, instead he wants the child killed..what a despicable human being
the baby is as dead as the mother.... keeping a body ‘going’ doesn’t mean that decay hasn’t set in....too many folks here do not understand the human body and how it functions. They think they do but they don’t.
the baby is not ‘living’....you apparently are uninformed about what happens to one’s body at death...even IF the machines keep pumping air into your lungs and try and force blood through your veins. Ignorance is no reason to make ridiculous statements.
exactly... and such provision does not revive the dead and rotting body it merely delays the inevitable and allows the family to maintain an illusion of hope
Oh she’s dead and so is the baby....
You’re a liar. You are trying to put out false information to suit your agenda.
The woman is on life support. She is brain dead. Due to the accident the baby is severely deformed physically and mentally and would not survive outside of the mother. The FAMILY has made the decision to cut life support to the mothers BODY. My suggestion is to help the family PAY for the medical bills of the womans family and if the child is C-sectioned, help pay for the childs obvious lengthy medical bills.
Her parents have also been fighting in court to let her go. She and her husband both signed living wills never desiring to be in this position, and her parents have been traumatized (according to their lawyer) by the fact that they couldn't grant her clear wishes.
This isn't a case of a husband trying to bump off his wife, screwing up the job, and then removing life support to finish the job. She likely (according to reports) had a pregnancy complication (blood clots) that killed her. My mother-in-law has a disorder that causes blood clotting, and had several miscarriages as a result. My husband inherited the major form of that disorder, and almost died from blood clots in his lungs on his 30th birthday. Our daughter has the minor form of that disorder, and she will always be at risk of death from pregnancy (progesterone aggravates the disorder) without knowledge of the disorder and special treatment.
In the days of the Israelites, she would have died and her baby would have died -- both souls would have had some rest and "gone home". But the fact that we can keep a dead body warm enough to incubate another body somehow makes this murder? I'm pro-life, I'm anti-abortion. But I have told my husband, family, and friends publicly that if I were to ever end up in this state to please let me go and let my baby go. I have no doubt that the Lord would welcome myself and my child with open arms, without either of us having to suffer further.
What is so wrong about letting the Lord welcome this little one, who has already suffered so much, too? If we believe that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord, then why can't we allow some compassion into the discussion? If her husband hadn't found her until she had already developed rigor mortis, we wouldn't even be discussing it right now.
So we're going to take a grieving husband, who already has the responsibility of raising a child on his own, and saddle him with millions of dollars of medical bills -- because a hospital said "we are going to ignore the patients wishes because we don't want to be sued"? When we put that decision in the hands of the hospital, then it's also in the hands of the government. Do you really think the government (in light of ObamaCare) won't abuse that to decide to pull the plug on people who actually are alive, because of cost concerns?
What happened to dignity, and individual rights / responsibility? Why can't I tell my family what I want and then fully expect that my wishes will be carried out?
I have no agenda. You are apparently ignorant about the human body and how it functions and what happens when the brain stem is gone.
Being rabid in your position does not make it correct.
The baby is not alive? it’s not growing?
This is the first I had heard this. Then what is the point of the court case?
“the hospital and the Munoz family agreed on crucial facts listed in a court document: that Marlise Munoz, 33, has “met the clinical criteria for brain death since November 28” and that “the fetus gestating inside Mrs. Munoz is not viable.”
This was the basis of the judge’s decision today
Thank you for a wonderfully well reasoned and beautifully written explanation of a very difficult situation. You have said much more cogently than I what needs to be said
“the hospital and the Munoz family agreed on crucial facts listed in a court document: that Marlise Munoz, 33, has “met the clinical criteria for brain death since November 28” and that “the fetus gestating inside Mrs. Munoz is not viable.””
This is what the judge used today to order the removal of ventilators and respirators from this woman
“the hospital and the Munoz family agreed on crucial facts listed in a court document: that Marlise Munoz, 33, has “met the clinical criteria for brain death since November 28” and that “the fetus gestating inside Mrs. Munoz is not viable.””
The case was brought by the hospital and many in Texas have said on more than one occasion that the hospital was abusing the law. I do not know if someone at the hospital has an agenda or not. Asking me why someone else files a suit doesn’t make sense I am not their lawyer (or a lawyer at all)
Perhaps someone is trying to establish some type of precedent. I don’t know
“not viable” because he/she too young is a FAR DIFFERENT thing than saying the baby is “not alive”
A FAR FAR DIFFERENT THING
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.