Posted on 01/24/2014 6:54:06 PM PST by Morgana
The judge said not viable
He did not say viability was due to gestation age.
Two different things again.
The pro life group is fishing for a case to set precedent in Texas on this sort of dilemma
They won’t win.
JFTR....anti abortion here....not pro life
““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”
However:
Not much is known about fetal survival when mothers suffer brain death during pregnancy. German doctors who searched for such cases found 30 of them in nearly 30 years, according to an article published in the journal BMC Medicine in 2010.
Those mothers were further along in pregnancy - 22 weeks on average - when brain death occurred than in the Texas case. Birth results were available for 19 cases. In 12, a viable child was born. Follow-up results were available for six, all of whom developed normally.
You are well on point. I’ll note this brain death happened @ 14 weeks and since then the fetus has been living in a toxic stew due to dead mothers inability to regulate the many chemicals/hormones in her body. Among other things, the poor dead mother is likely diabetic due to the failure of her pituitary gland.
Yes there are documented cases of babies gestating in a dead mother, but I doubt there are any that started at 14 weeks.
the key point in your apples and oranges comment is that THIS case involved a woman who was around 10 weeks pregnant.... a critical time of baby development.
Doesn’t matter what you or I think. this case is over
Just a sad case all around.
Like the family said after the ruling, “We didn’t win anything here.”
It's much easier to feign outrage against the father and judge, calling them despicable murderers, than to try and understand basic human anatomy and physiology.
This is the first I had heard this.
It helps to look outside Life News when trying to learn the facts of these types of cases.
“the key point in your apples and oranges comment is that THIS case involved a woman who was around 10 weeks pregnant.... a critical time of baby development.
Doesn’t matter what you or I think. this case is over”
What you are missing here is the baby is now 22 weeks old, not 10 weeks. What should have happened back then as opposed to what should happen now is a different subject. And the analogy isn’t apples and oranges, as the baby is now close to viable, and the track record from German studies is that many of these babies pull through. Which leaves me back to my initial comment, how truly deformed or non viable is the baby in reality?
As the baby would be adopted out if viable, than the husband should not have an objection to waiting a few more weeks. Then, if a viable baby is delivered, his wife will be allowed to die. A matter of a few weeks’ wait doesn’t make it or break it for the husband and his family. It’s not like he has to wait a lifetime for his wife’s physical death to take place. I’d err on the side of potential baby viability, over speeding up the wife’s physical death over only a 3 week wait.
“Doesn’t matter what you or I think. this case is over”
Not if appealed. It may or may not be, but if so, that changes the equation.
??? Not one of the fetus at 14 weeks survived. Not one.
“Not one of the fetus at 14 weeks survived. Not one.”
The baby is now 22 weeks, not 14 weeks.
The brain death occurred when the fetus was at 14 weeks.
“I’ll note this brain death happened @ 14 weeks and since then the fetus has been living in a toxic stew due to dead mothers inability to regulate the many chemicals/hormones in her body. Among other things, the poor dead mother is likely diabetic due to the failure of her pituitary gland.”
I understand your concerns. Again, we don’t know if it is a toxic stew in there or not. The doctors should know. The doctors need to come clean and in detail about the state of the baby and the state of the mother’s interior environment. Than an objective decision could be made, one way or the other. Otherwise, my instincts tell me to give the baby a chance, if it only means a few weeks to a month’s wait. That’s not a long wait before pulling the plug on the mom. Of course, now the courts are in on this too.
than = then above. Typo
The Link from my post 72 is about a baby born to a brain dead mother who was 15 weeks pregnant at time of brain death. Her baby was born at 27 weeks and developed normally.
Were the tests to determine if the baby has abnormalities done , or not done?
If they were not done, why are they saying they were done?
This is what's so odd about this case.
Why do the facts keep changing?
The basic question is: Does this baby have rights as a human being seperate from his/her mother?
Does he/she deserve the right to live?
What tests have been done on the baby?
Where are they?
It's when the facts keep changing that I start suspecting sone people posting have more than what may, or may not be best for mother and child as their primary concern.
As a recovering attorney, I find it remarkable that the press and lamestream media very often fail to adequately identify the judicial perps who commit these atrocities. In this matter, even worse, it is the normally reliable Life Site News that is making the omission.
Note also that the decision to pull the plug on mother and therefore on the baby provides only one business day before it must be carried out. Perhaps Judge Wallace wants to discourage appeals from Judge Wallace's decision. What thorough judicial tyranny!
If Wallace will not stay his/her own death sentence meted out to mother and baby long enough to allow for appeal, then the appellate court over him ought to do so. One part of the standard would be the potential harm to the respective parties. The, ummm, "baby daddy" would have to suffer some brief additional time for mommy and baby to live or the hospital and its personnel would be drafted by his/her judicial majesty and required to kill both of them. Sounds like the very definition of a no brainer!
Don’t bother responding...some people can’t be reasoned with. See #59 and #66.
Agree. Family decision. Keeping this woman's corpse animated for months to see what if anything survives within her would be a macabre unnatural medical experiment.
Maybe there was never any chance of a positive outcome for the baby. We don't have the information reasonably to form an opinion. One problem is that it's difficult to trust medical personnel: many are pro-death.
Mr. Munoz wanted his wife and baby terminated immediately, weeks ago. Maybe he was in shock, but nothing in the reportage has indicated a desire for his child to survive and be born.
And his attorney says, ... “pregnant women die every day.”
They die in car accidents. They die of heart attacks. They die from head injuries,” she said. “And when they die the fetus dies with them. That is the way it has always been and the way it should be.”
Dead "fetus" is "the way it should be."
We have been through 40 years of unrelieved emotional flapdoodle (term coined by Mark Twain) to the effect that, if anyone anywhere finds an unborn baby inconvenient, let's all have a good cry and then murder the baby to make the emotional "feel" better. Next up, likewise, the elderly, the sick, the retarded and the handicapped. Margaret Sanger's vision of her ideal world has no place in a conservative's ideal world. Also, Margaret Sanger and her co-conspirators in murder of the inconvenient never suggested that they even believed in God much less had a relationship with God. Her murderous spirit has so permeated our society that even some conservatives, and some otherwise Godly conservatives, reflexively express Sanger's views on what is desirable public policy.
When a relative is in irreversible proximity to death from a degenerative condition such as a terminal cancer, heroic measures are not required BUT the provision of nutrition, hydration, oxygen and other palliative care is not in the category of "heroic." "Pulling the plug" or refusing nutrition or hydration or oxygen is in another category, particularly when the primary patient is a pregnant woman and, necessarily, the unborn is also a patient.
Finally, when a state enacts contrary laws that allow for the killing of the innocent, other principles apply. The unborn child, SCOTUS or no SCOTUS, is an individual human being and a person under the constitution and entitled to the equal protection of the laws under Amendment 14 to the US Constitution. SCOTUS which has imposed its infernal agenda since 1973's Roe vs. Wade and its evil progeny has a back asswards approach to such social issues and bears the guilt for a minimum of 55 million slaughtered and shares that guilt with the individual doctors and "family" decision makers who have decided to kill, usually for their own reputations or convenience. Maybe Obozo is our initial punishment for this unspeakable state of affairs.
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.