Texas keeps pregnant, DNR patient on life support.

Dec 22, 2013 06:49

FORT WORTH -- Erick Munoz sat quietly as he thumbed through several photos of his family ( Read more... )

womens rights, pregnancy, babies, health care, euthanasia, texas, women

Leave a comment

Comments 70

shoujokakumei December 22 2013, 15:20:56 UTC
So the living corpse of this woman is being used to incubate a fetus against the wishes she expressed while alive and against the wishes of her husband?

Man, fuck Texas. This would override a fucking legally signed DNR? Who the fuck came up with that stupid-ass shit? I want to hit whoever he is in the balls with a 2x4 with rusty nails stuck in it.

Reply

qara_isuke December 22 2013, 15:23:48 UTC
Incubate a fetus that at best will be severely brain damaged, and they currently don't even know is viable.

Yeah, it......it really is so messed up on so many levels.

Reply

lovelokest December 22 2013, 15:46:18 UTC
But BABIES. Of course, once they're out of the womb, who cares. Then they're just blights and drains on society.

Reply

leviicorpus December 22 2013, 16:05:48 UTC
EXACTLY. It's fucking vile and inhumane.

Reply


anolinde December 22 2013, 15:45:14 UTC
Oh man, this is a tough situation. Is it possible the wife would have made an exception in case of pregnancy? Ie, "I don't want to be kept alive by machines, but if I'm pregnant and four months of life support will ensure our baby's survival, then and only then is it okay for that short period of time"? I can see something like that happening if a pregnancy is far along... but since there are so many variables at hand, how could you possibly legislate this issue?

Reply

thelilyqueen December 22 2013, 16:14:57 UTC
I think if she had said anything to suggest that, it'd still be a hell of a thing to go through but her husband would at least have the comfort of doing what she wanted. He seems pretty clear she wouldn't want this, especially when the fetus they're keeping her alive for may effectively be dead already.

Reply

vivid_corners December 22 2013, 16:33:50 UTC
My opinion is that the state wouldn't know what she wanted any better than her family, who seems to have a good idea. It's really none of their business. And I think the fact that they've made it a law to ignore a DNR in favor of saving a fetus shows pretty clearly that it's not about what the individual wants anyway.

Reply

mutive December 22 2013, 17:41:22 UTC
That's my feeling. Almost certainly, it's her family who knows her wishes and is honoring her memory as best they can. If they (esp. her husband, who is her next of kin) thinks she would *not* want to be kept on support, that's his call. (Not the call of strangers who aren't having to watch their loved one kept in some gruesome semblance of life *or* who are going to be stuck making agonizing decisions about their child.)

Reply


lovelokest December 22 2013, 15:51:17 UTC
This is a tricky and heartbreaking situation.

My heart goes out to their son. It must be so confusing and scary for the little guy to see Mom being pregnant, kept alive by machines, knowing she'll never wake up again and not knowing if their little brother of sister will make it :(

Reply

qara_isuke December 22 2013, 16:03:49 UTC
God, I know. I cannot imagine how confusing and scary it must be, when even Daddy cannot make sense of things.

Reply


leviicorpus December 22 2013, 16:04:10 UTC
That law is FUCKED. It's disgusting that they're keeping this woman on life-support even though both she and her husband are against it, all because she's pregnant.

Reply

qara_isuke December 22 2013, 16:16:50 UTC
There's something chilling about the line quoting the fine print on the DNR form, stating that if they are diagnosed as pregnant the form is void. Which......could just as easily mean if you are 2 months pregnant and something horrible happens, the state can legally keep your body on machines against your wishes as an incubator.

Reply

ntensity December 23 2013, 05:19:12 UTC
(not that I agree with this nonsense law in the first place but...) why can't they replace that line on the form with an additional choice for the event of a DNR while pregnant? Seems just as easy as a little fine print saying their wishes will be invalidated. :/

Reply

qara_isuke December 23 2013, 05:30:40 UTC
B-but.....then a woman might check that she STILL DOESN'T WANT to be put on life support! And we cannot have that!

Reply


mickeym December 22 2013, 16:14:36 UTC
I'm both horrified and saddened by this whole thing.

I've sat here for about ten minutes now, trying to sort through things in my head, and figure out what I wanted to say, and I keep coming up with a blank.

I feel so bad for the whole family. And I'm wondering, what happens when they test the fetus at 24 weeks. Are they testing to determine if it's viable? If it's brain-damaged? (How could they even test for that while the baby is in utero?)

I'm also thinking about the enormous hospital bills that have to be growing exponentially, that this poor guy is likely going to have to deal with, on top of everything else. Yes, he probably has insurance, but these days that doesn't necessarily mean anything.

Ugh. What a totally screwed up situation. Who the HELL thought that was a good law to institute?? Maybe that guy ('cos I'm sure it was a guy who came up with it) should go spend a month or two with this family.

Reply

shadwing December 22 2013, 16:29:09 UTC
I seriously wonder if anybody thought of that, the ENORMOUS bills forcing a burden on an already shattered family all because 'BABIES!'

I feel the state should be picking up the tab, if their law forces this then they should be paying for it!

Keeping this woman alive for MONTHS is IMO vile, I can see the logic (maybe) if the child was closer to full term and there was a better chance of a live viable birth, but at 14 weeks? The kid is still in development!

Reply

mickeym December 22 2013, 16:41:18 UTC
I can see the logic (maybe) if the child was closer to full term and there was a better chance of a live viable birth, but at 14 weeks? The kid is still in development!.

Exactly! And even if the life support mom's on includes everything necessary to allow the fetus to continue growing and developing...I keep wondering how that could be? Especially if there was oxygen deprivation for however long it was between when the pulmonary embolism happened, and she was discovered.

And Jesus, at 14 weeks? The skeleton hasn't even completely formed. It's still cartilage.

Reply

shadwing December 22 2013, 18:33:16 UTC
I mean she's got to be on a feeding tube, and it's hard enough to make sure a person has all the proper nutrients they need on enteral, its a constant stream of blood tests and check ups to make sure all is well.

A Pregnant woman? Whose not able to give feedback on her condition, or her babies condition? Dear lord...how can they be sure baby is getting what it needs? Oh gods...this is so horrifying...

Reply


Leave a comment

Up