Judge Allows Husband’s Bid to Cut Pregnant Wife From Life Support, Kill His Unborn Child

Life News ^ | Steven Ertelt

[Morgana]

A judge allowed a Texas 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.

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.

munozSo far John Peter Smith Hospital officials have refused to follow the family’s request, citing a Texas law that prohibits hospitals from removing life support from pregnant women.

Erick Munoz, who says a doctor has told him his wife is brain dead, has filed a lawsuit against JPS Health Network. But, the judge in the case sided with the state law and hospital.

The judge ordered the hospital to remove life support by 5 p.m. Monday.

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.”

Newman added after the ruling:

We are appalled by Judge Wallace’s order to terminate life support for Marlise Munoz and her baby. The order is the equivalent of signing a death sentence for Baby Munoz. We utterly reject the false notion that Marlise’s body is a rotting corpse, which is impossible since a decaying body cannot support the life of a baby for weeks, as Marlise has.

Killing people because they are disabled is wrong, and dangerously devalues all life. We condemn in the strongest terms this order to fatally discriminate against this disabled mother and her baby, especially in light of the fact that there are people standing by to adopt the baby knowing that the child will have special needs.

Even if the Munoz baby has suffered disabilities due to Marlise’s condition, numerous people have expressed an interest in adopting the Munoz baby regardless of whether he or she has special needs.

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.

Writing at LifeNews, Calvin Frieberger says abortion activists are upset.

As Newsbusters’ Katie Yoder documents, pro-aborts far and wide are seething with rage over this. But curiously, that’s despite the fact that almost none of their token justifications are present. Delivery will no longer affect Marlise’s well-being, and as Cox points out, whatever end-of-life wishes she had told Erick almost certainly didn’t account for the remote possibility that ending her life would also end her son or daughter’s, in what is presumably a desired pregnancy.

That means a man is presuming to make a woman’s reproductive decision for her—with the full backing of the supposed “reproductive rights” champions. Apparently the outcome of a dead baby is all that matters.

[Gabz]

I wish to thank you, from the bottom of my heart, for you eloquent and meaningful comments on this thread.

Thank you.

[DB]

Amen.

[Gabz]

That said, some of the comments directed to other FReepers are un-hinged.

And you speak from experience.

[MD Expat in PA]

Thank you. You and I share the same view on this. IMO, this would be something quite different if the mother had died at a point during her pregnancy at 25 weeks (the lower limit for fetal viability) or even at 21 weeks when fetal viability, while very unlikely, might still be possible and she (her dead, brain dead body) was only kept artificially “alive” just long enough to deliver a live baby. But she died while pregnant at 14 weeks. Keeping a corpse alive under a poorly written law in this case and a further misinterpretation of the original intent of the law, only to “deliver” a dead child many months after her death, is IMO unethical and grotesque.

[jcbjjtbt]

Amen again, you’ve said many things well... Experience is much wiser than opinion.

[gas_dr]

You know you are cruel. You are so narrow minded in your judgment that you resort to name calling and emotional response. You said something beyond belief to another member of this community who shared her insight and experience to better the conversation. Calling any of us the death lobby is knee jerk reactionary and just plain BS. The next time you stand at bedside and work hours to resuscitate a human being, you will have standing to talk, however you clearly have no idea what you are talking about and making judgments about others and calling us the death lobby without sufficient knowledge or understanding makes you an ignorant fool. You and your inhuman comments give the other side the fodder they need to disparage us, and you single handedly do more to harm the cause of the pro life movement by being such a judgmental ass than anything else.

Your clinical credentials, please? Cyphergirl is a good and decent person based on her posts who shared something incredibly personal and this is what your response is? You deserve the scorn and derision that only the cruel should receive.

[Pajamajan]

Maybe you are not part of the death lobby, I'll give you that- But I'm seeing death lobby tactics being used on this thread.

What is suspect is that I quoted from the article that tests may not have been done to determine if the baby is deformed-But, you post that the baby is horribly deformed and suffering- That's a typical tactic used by the abortion-euthanasia crowd.

[chargers fan]

My wife and I had a discussion with this when we were putting together our wills. After seeking counsel we were told that in situations like this there is a difference between suicide (where someone unable to function without a machine is given a drug to kill them) and removing life support, which essentially at that point leaves it up to God. Of course, I’m sure someone can take my post to the extreme (I’ll expect a “Well if you get in a car accident and break every bone in your body you’d stay away from a hospital and leave it all up to God”) but I’ll assume most folks here are rational.

[Pajamajan]

The article says that the “tests” to determine if the baby is horribly deformed and suffering may not have been done, it also, rightly says- that the woman is not a corpse-otherwise the baby would be dead, or , are you, as some others on this thread, saying that the baby is dead?

[Jedidah]

Thank you both for your reasoned comments.

In this sad case, neither the mother nor the severely deformed baby can live.

There is no moral reason to artificially keep either of them “alive” and make this tragedy even harder than it already is on her husband and parents.

[Yaelle]

You and the others you mentioned I think have the most true look at this terribly tragic situation.

I think this “law” is not fair to families where a woman dies in early pregnancy. This is not ok, to gestate a baby so very poorly inside a brain dead corpse. I can see it as one last act of maternal love if the mom dies around 30 weeks and they put her on life support for two weeks. But surely not at 14 weeks, holy moly.

This should be decided on a case by case basis and the family should have some rights as well. Not just the state.

Unborn babies deserve to grow inside a living mother. This wasn’t for a week or two, this was for 6 months. Not such a good situation. There are millions of other situations where the unborn should be fought for and saved, but this is an extreme example where there isn’t a way to decently save the baby. And note: they did not save the baby - it wasn’t viable due to the mother’s brain death.

[Pajamajan]

Hungarians Welcome Baby Born to Brain Dead Mother

I am very uncomfortable with hearing the terms "dead", "corpse", and "rotting corpse" being used to refer to people who are still alive-even if its via artificial means- this appears to be latest attempt of the death lobby to diminish and devalue human life, in order to further their agenda.

After all these years, that I am still completely outraged by the gross, cruel, unjust murder of Terri Schindler. I have very little patience/ tolerance for the opposing side.

They tend to lie, and twist, and confuse the point. They usually have no interest in checking the facts, running tests, at least considering giving the person a chance to live, exc... They have an agenda. Their goal is to end lives.

[freebilly]

The article says that there are “allegations” that the baby had developmental issues, but that no tests were run to diagnose the baby’s condition and verify the allegations.

[Pajamajan]

Someone asked on Lifesite news, if there is a life insurance policy on this woman. That is a good question.

[Nifster]

Thank you for the kind words. I too am heartbroken by this tragedy. May you too stay strong. Some are blind and cannot see.

[John Valentine]

In fact, she was dead, and as a result, even with the animated corpse on life support, the baby could not develop properly.

The situation was heart-wrenchingly tragic, no doubt, but artificially prolonging the agony is unconscionable.

[Mckenzie14]

Thank you!

[Jane Long]

First, my heart goes out to you for all that you've shared. I can personally relate to much of what you've had to deal with.

This situation is difficult, at the very least. There is a baby who is living, whose heart did not stop with the mother's end of "brain life". For what ever reason, the baby's heart continued to beat, rather than he/she dying at the time of the mother's brain death.

Yes, in the days of the Israelites both mother and child would not be living, after this amount of time had passed. Nor would there have been penicillin given for infections or neonatal care for premature infants. We've many miraculous advancements, since the "days of the Israelites".

All I ask is this: What is the harm in offering this baby a chance to live? There are even families standing by, waiting to adopt this child knowing he/she may likely have disabilities and challenges.

We don't know the viability of this child...only God knows that. All we can do is give him/her every fighting chance to live.

I think (or hope) we can all agree that this situation is heartbreaking, on many levels. And, that we can respectfully agree to disagree on what would be the proper way to handle this very delicate situation. Prayers go out to this family and all who are personally involved.

[luvie]

I believe that God, the Judge of us all, should make the
only ultimate decision here, not human minds that are
finite in scope and experience.

[wardaddy]

I’m with you as is my wife...mother of five

Folks here get real real real mean over this

Without reading all the facts

And issue armies on both sides exploit it

Mom is technically dead

Baby gravely damaged and with 27 weeks normally to go

So choice is keep dead woman on support 4.5 months so baby that likely wont survive can be born

Or pull plug

I give decision to the family....