Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: MP-Ryan on December 24, 2013, 01:26:52 am
-
http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/With-pregnant-wife-unresponsive-on-life-support-husband-hopes-to-fulfil-her-wishes-236654371.html
Erick is talking about the moment he saw his wife, Marlise, unconscious on the living room floor at around 2 a.m. Nov. 26. As a paramedic, Erick rushed in to do CPR and later called 911.
Marlise Munoz, who was 14 weeks pregnant at the time, was taken to JPS in Fort Worth. Family members say doctors suspected she suffered a pulmonary embolism, but didn't know with complete certainty.
"You just never think it's going to be you," Erick said.
Marlise has been on life support since that day in November. Erick tells News 8 she has not regained consciousness and is "simply a shell." Tests are done daily on the fetus, and results show a normal heart beat.
Both Marlise and Erick are paramedics in the Tarrant County area, and both have had serious conversations about what to do if the worst happens. Marlise's mother told News 8 that conversation started when Marlise lost her brother tragically four years ago.
"We knew what her wishes were," Erick said. His wife told him she never wanted to be kept alive by machine.
Marlise was taken to the emergency room at JPS in the early morning of Nov. 26. Later in the day, the family was informed by doctors that they would provide any life-saving measures because she was pregnant. The family was told the hospital was taking that measure because of state law in Texas' Health and Safety Code.
"Section 166.049 Pregnant Patients. A person may not withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment under this subchapter from a pregnant patient," the code reads.
Even more, in a health directive form found under the Health and Safety Code, it reads, "I understand under Texas law this directive has no effect if I have been diagnosed as pregnant."
The chances of this child being healthy are infinitesimally small, and, moreover, in any civilized legal jurisdiction, this man would have the legal right to terminate a pregnancy in the course of seeing to the wishes of his dead wife.
Seriously, Texas... I hear your politicians talk about how bad the nanny-state is all the time, but this is the goddamned literal definition of the term.
-
Nononono, you don't understand. It's only a nanny state when it does something we don't like. When it does something good, it's enlightened intervention for the greater good.
This level of hypocrisy is just so ****ed up.
-
Assuming she is already braindead, then dead people dont have rights and their bodies should be used as life support if the need arises. I dont see the harm in it. Her body is used as property because our bodies without working brains are really on that level, and needs of living people should certainly override the past wishes of braindead ones.
Now dont get me wrong, I do think that abortion should be allowed in this case, however my justification is because the baby is still not very developed so its not really wrong to terminate the pregnancy for any reason. In this situation Id choose to abort over the risk of bringing an unhealthy baby to term, too. So I dont agree with this, however its not that much big of a violation of any rights, IMHO.
-
Assuming she is already braindead, then dead people dont have rights and their bodies should be used as life support if the need arises. I dont see the harm in it. Her body is used as property because our bodies without working brains are really on that level, and needs of living people should certainly override the past wishes of braindead ones.
Now dont get me wrong, I do think that abortion should be allowed in this case, however my justification is because the baby is still not very developed so its not really wrong to terminate the pregnancy for any reason. In this situation Id choose to abort over the risk of bringing an unhealthy baby to term, too. So I dont agree with this, however its not that much big of a violation of any rights, IMHO.
Then if the government decided to take all of your properties on death, regardless of your written will and testament, that's not a violation of rights?
-
Also there's the matter that regardless of what you think about the afterlife, following proper final wishes, funeral arrangements, etc, of the deceased has a profound effect on the emotional well-being of those still living that cared about the person. Or rather, not following them tends to be extremely harmful to the grieving process.
-
Then if the government decided to take all of your properties on death, regardless of your written will and testament, that's not a violation of rights?
Well, if it is needed to save a baby.. then surely human live > property
Also: whether she is legit braindead or merely unresponsive could be of importance, its not clear from the article. First of all we need to determine if there are two patients or one..
-
Then if the government decided to take all of your properties on death, regardless of your written will and testament, that's not a violation of rights?
Well, if it is needed to save a baby.. then surely human live > property
Also: whether she is legit braindead or merely unresponsive could be of importance, its not clear from the article. First of all we need to determine if there are two patients or one..
She was 14 weeks pregnant, Texas's restrictions regarding abortion start at 15 weeks (not forbidding it, just adding restrictions). Does the husband/family have no say on whether the pregnancy should come to term or not?
-
Then if the government decided to take all of your properties on death, regardless of your written will and testament, that's not a violation of rights?
Well, if it is needed to save a baby.. then surely human live > property
Also: whether she is legit braindead or merely unresponsive could be of importance, its not clear from the article. First of all we need to determine if there are two patients or one..
Your argument was that dead people don't have rights. A will is a legally binding document. If dead people don't have rights then the dead person's will cannot count for anything -- including property rights and the transferal thereof.
That being said (and I'd like someone with more knowledge on the subject to check me on this), I'm relatively certain that at three-four months into the pregnancy the 'child' is completely screwed no matter what happens.
-
To be honest this is not a case that gets my normal hairs on end. the person is effectively dead, they are keeping her alive against what was her will when she was alive, but just for a while, she won't stay pregnant forever. She is not in a condition to care one way or another, so I don't honestly care what happens to her. If they want to err on the side of svingg the baby's life, fine. The typical arguments in favor of abortion don't really work here, because the mother has no will of her own. The only input I think that is important from the father is if they want to raise the kid if it somehow survives or not.
This is a weird edge case, I don't think typical rules should necessarily apply, and I don't think decisions made here should have any bearing over more typical circumstances.
-
Thing is, there's a very important reason why Organ Donors use an opt-in system. And whilst I am in two minds as to whether it should be opt-in or opt-out, if a preference has been stated about the mortal remains after death, it should be respected.
If this child is only 14 weeks developed at point of death, what are its actual odds of survival? I suppose that's the mitigating factor here, IF there's any real chance of saving the child then I can at least see the States' point even if I don't necessarily agree with it.
-
I think that if the mother is only brain-dead, the child could survive. Afterall, pregnancy doesn't require any conscious input from the mother. I'm not a doctor, though. But if the doctors see the point in keeping her on life support, if there's a slightest chance of saving the child, they might have a point there. If they pulled it off, that would really be testament to how advanced modern medicine is.
-
What also confuses me is that I presume from a legal standpoint, the child is now being considered a separate organism from the mother, otherwise the mothers' status would be something only Schrodinger could explain. But the legal upper limit for unrestricted abortion in the US is around 20-24 weeks, so the child was at least a month from that date.
I suppose the problem is an impossible one in a way, it's centered around that question of 'when does a fetus become a human?', but legally speaking, this isn't really a baby yet so if it boils down to purely a matter of law, I'd actually say the mothers wishes take precedence.
-
Thing is, there's a very important reason why Organ Donors use an opt-in system. And whilst I am in two minds as to whether it should be opt-in or opt-out, if a preference has been stated about the mortal remains after death, it should be respected.
In Texas it is opt-in, but there are countries where it is opt-out and even the wishes of the family to not donate can be disregarded. And I dont think it is a bad idea at all, if it helps to save lives. So I disagree that there is some important reason for opt-in system.
There were some cases of braindead women succesfully continuing pregnancy on life support:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/brain-dead-mom-gives-birth-to-twins-while-on-life-support/
She was 14 weeks pregnant, Texas's restrictions regarding abortion start at 15 weeks (not forbidding it, just adding restrictions). Does the husband/family have no say on whether the pregnancy should come to term or not?
I do agree that before the abortion limit abortion should be allowed for any reason, even in this case. I just dont see it as a particularly important issue, since nobody is really harmed if it is not allowed here. So its kinda stupid and inconsistent, but not malicious.
-
@666maslo666
True, but there is still that option to opt-out. The mother had stated that she did not wish to be kept alive by machines, so it really boils down to the child and what it is considered as under law. Sadly, the one person who could clear this up beyond doubt is dead.
The irony is, I can see where this is coming from, it's kind of a re-phrasing of the 'Reasonable Doubt' concept, that it is better to save a life and be wrong than take a life and be wrong, but I also think that it is legally risky.
-
Regarding the odds of a healthy child developing: the mother's condition was due to acute anoxia - loss of oxygen. Fetuses are even more sensitive to loss of oxygen than adults; the chances that this child is developing normally are exceedingly low. If it isn't brain-dead already, it's likely to have severe medical complications. And you can bet that the people who are going to have to raise that child (if it survives) and pay those medical bills aren't the ****ing hypocrites that have drafted laws that force the medical profession to refuse to comply with the family's wishes.
Regarding Texas law and abortion: Texas has made some recent changes to its abortion-related laws that make it one of the most difficult states to obtain a legal abortion in. That's the culture in which this case is developing.
The dad/husband is a paramedic - he knows exactly what the risks are, and he wanted to terminate life support to the mother (simultaneously ending the pregnancy) when it became clear his wife is functionally dead because of her wishes and the way she died. That should be respected. But in Texas, if you're pregnant, the State owns you until you aren't. Then it could give a **** what happens to you or your child.
The "god-fearing" types posting in that newspaper's comments keep talking about miracle and God's will, which makes me even more irate - without the interference of modern medicine and a legal landscape that claims ownership over physical people, both mother and unborn fetus would have died long since.
This story would be significantly different had the woman died at 36 weeks gestation; but she didn't. She died at a point in the pregnancy which is well below the viability threshold.
-
How can you be so sure that the fetus doesn't have a chance here? If it was as bad as you say, it'd be declared dead by now and the case would be closed. The doctors, I think, know what they're doing. They know all the details, and are probably more competent in those matters than a paramedic due to their specialization. If they're convinced they can save the child, I think they should try. Besides, the mother is not in a vegetative state, she's brain-dead. Thus, she's not really being "kept alive" by the machinery. The child is.
-
How can you be so sure that the fetus doesn't have a chance here? If it was as bad as you say, it'd be declared dead by now and the case would be closed. The doctors, I think, know what they're doing. They know all the details, and are probably more competent in those matters than a paramedic due to their specialization. If they're convinced they can save the child, I think they should try. Besides, the mother is not in a vegetative state, she's brain-dead. Thus, she's not really being "kept alive" by the machinery. The child is.
The doctors, in this case, are legally hamstrung. We don't know what they think is right or wrong in any sense.
-
I think that what this ultimately comes down to is whether someone's dying wishes are more important than a potentially viable fetus. Likelihood not withstanding, is it really more important to respect those wishes immediately and therefore absolutely terminate any chance of viability, or is it more important to see whether the fetus could possibly survive?
That's significantly more prickly of an issue than "just" abortion or "just" keeping someone on life support.
I honestly have trouble knowing which side I come down on, though it does occur to me that life support can be immediately terminated once the fetus is born and finally determined whether it will survive, not whether it might survive. In a scenario where one option kills whatever little hope there is, and the other does not, I find it morally irresponsible to not at least attempt to bring the fetus to the point of birth before removing life support.
-
No what everything comes down to is $$$$$. Every day that person is kept in the hospital is tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars for that hospital. Even if it wasn't a state law getting the hospital to remove life support would be damn near impossible as long as there was any chance of survival for the mother or the fetus. Once on machines it doesn't really matter if you have a living will stating you don't want to be kept alive by them. What matters is the doctors opinion of if there is any chance of recovery. Who determines if there is a chance? The hospitals doctors. Will they ever say there isn't one without clear evidence of total death? No they work for the hospital and would be looking for another job real fast. Since the hospital will have no problem having their doctors say there is a chance the hospital will not remove the patient from support since they are making money.
Bottom line unless your DOA don't expect that living will to mean jack **** once they put you on machines.
Now you may say this case is totally different because of the involvement of a fetus and that particular law and I somewhat agree except for the money part. The only thing keeping this woman alive is going to do is run up bills for the father who will not only have lost his wife but have to deal with trying to support his other child after loosing just about everything he has probably to bankruptcy. If the fetus does go to term and is born there is very little chance it will be healthy so then the father will have to try to support a special needs child with no money.
-
Bottom line unless your DOA don't expect that living will to mean jack **** once they put you on machines.
At least ideally, this is patently false: there are legal statues in most states that recognize the authority of advanced health care directives, and any hospital which did not respect them would open themselves up to all sorts of legal hell.
The point that seems to be getting lost in this discussion is that the woman did not have any sort of formal DNR order on record at the time of the incident. (Granted, even if she had, the provision in the state law would have mandated this course of action anyway, but bear with me for a moment.) More to the point, even if she had discussed an aversion to prolonged life support with her husband in the past, there are no guarantees that she would feel the same way in the case of being pregnant. I feel pretty sure there are many women out there ordinarily opposed to extraordinary life-sustaining measures who would be very willing to be subjected to them if it meant allowing her child to make it. I think the intent of the provision, as clumsily as it may have been executed, was to make that provision clear to women up-front if they were to create a formal advance directive.
Regardless, if the medical details about the case are accurate, it unfortunately sounds as though the fetus is almost certainly brain-dead, and that at this point prolonging life support is little more than an extended cruelty to the family. Their best bet now may be to just hold tight until the fetus is able to be properly tested for brain functions, and then hope for a court order to remove support if the tests come back negative.
-
There is a big difference between a DNR and a living will that states you don't want to be kept alive by machines. A DNR comes into play if you are already on support or there is little to no hope of recovery and you go into cardiac arrest. A living will states that you don't want to be kept alive on machines if there is no hope of recovery. It only takes one doctor to state that there is any kind of hope for them to keep you on machines once you are put on them. Believe me I've been through the horror of that legal loop hole when my Father passed.
-
Some updates: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/08/us/pregnant-and-forced-to-stay-on-life-support.html?_r=0
Some legal and medical experts saying the law doesn't actually apply in this case; family hasn't contacted a lawyer though.
-
This also does not seem to me as a clear cut case. The reporters seem to have decided their own mind though and that is quite evident from the piece.
-
“The Texas Legislature can’t require doctors to do the impossible and try to treat someone who’s dead,” Mr. Caplan said. “I don’t think they intended this statute the way the hospital is interpreting it.”
I certainly disagree with this part. The law prohibits, with varying degrees of strictness, medical officials from cutting off life support to a pregnant patient. The intent of such law is clear to everyone, it is to protect the life and health of the foetus. When the patient is dead, the intent doesnt change one bit and in fact becomes even more acute due to the fact that we no longer have to balance between the rights of two living persons because there is at most only one.
Critics of the hospital’s actions also note that the fetus has not reached the point of viability outside the womb and that Ms. Munoz would have a constitutional right to an abortion.
This is a good point, however I am not sure this still falls under abortion law if she is dead and the abovementioned law doesnt seem to differentiate according to viability (which may even be unconstitutional IMHO).
-
Problem is though her rights are irrelevant at this point. What we have is a ~100ish pound mass of human flesh that was once a person, that has a small portion of it that might yet become a person. Neither one of the 'persons' in this case actually exist at the moment so nothing that is done to that mass of flesh is a violation of anyone's rights, for the time being. But treating it with the goal of having that potential person become viable seems to me like the nobler course of action, I don't see a downside, other than a hypothetical political one which I think would likely backfire.
-
There have been arguments in this thread that it would make a difference whether the unborn child was likely to be healthy or not. Although that viewpoint is understandable, it presents us with a mayor drawback: Euthanasia. This is something completely unrelated to whether it should be generally allowed to abort or not. It relates to whether the right of someone disabled to be alive is any less to someone healthy. This is a far more serious question than it seems. Dogs are put down, when they're too old or sick, horses have been shot throughout the centuries. And well, 70 years ago the German fascist regime did euthanise the sick, disabled and some of the old, without discriminating whether they were jews, arians or whatnot. The question about euthanasia has a lot of political and emotional value, but the heart of the question remains a philosophical one.
Regarding the situation and the state of the law, I don't think the thing in Texas could have played out any different than it did. Although - and I have no idea about the general US law - I ask myself what the charge would be, if the husband just went there and would shut off the machines. To my understanding, neither the mother nor the unborn child are considered a person at this point.
-
I wondered about that one myself. I'm sure some Texas blowhard would try to find something to charge him with though.
-
No seriously, the only charge I can realistically think of would be unlawful abortion and maybe manipulating hospital property (the machines). Anything else would be ludicrous.
-
Yeah, but you're in Texas. Want to take the odds of rolling the dice against the jury you could get on this case?
-
Texas has foetal homicide laws (I am not sure if there is some trimester limit), so he very well could be charged with that.
-
I don't want to live on this planet anymore. (Hence I play so much Freespace, it appears)
-
I think a number of people miss the point:
Under US federal law, people have the right to terminate a pregnancy. It is questionable if this Texas law is compliant with Roe Vs Wade; I suspect not.
Furthermore, a principle of common law is that an individual has the right to decide about their care and end-of-life treatment, and those decisions are to be respected and followed even after they are dead. In this case:
1. The dead woman did not want to be kept 'alive' on machines.
2. Her husband knows her wishes and wanted life support terminated.
3. Her family (parents) knew her wishes and wanted life support terminated.
However, the State of Texas has enacted a law that states that a person's rights concerning end-of-life care are suspended if they are pregnant, regardless of their wishes and their Supreme Court decision-guaranteed right to safe access to abortive treatment.
There's the noble sentiment that perhaps a fetus could be brought to viability and isn't that worth keeping her physiologically alive - that's utterly and completely irrelevant (even if it were possible, and we have no idea if that's the case). Under American law (and law in most democracies) people have the right to decide when to terminate treatment and to have those wishes respected and followed, even if pregnant (abortion is legal); Texas disagrees and the hospital in particular. Not that any of them with give a rat's ass about what happens to the child if and after it is born.
Though in this case, the family is hurting their stance by failing to consult with legal counsel.
The point is, the state has suspended the rights of an actual person - who has now died - in favour of a fetus which is NOT a person and never was under American law, and in doing so is causing emotional, psychological, and financial hardship to the family. That is all-around wrong. Government violations of Constitutionally-guaranteed rights are ALWAYS bad.
-
Every sperm and egg cell has the potential to create a viable living human being ... what's up next in Texas? Could you at least be consistent and charge every human being who lets a sperm or egg cell "go to waste" with murder as well ...
Amazing how a former religious imperative still manages to mess up peoples lifes even in this century - in a supposedly secular state.
-
Supposedly. That's the only word in need of highlighting, also applying to a vast majority of issues all over the world.
-
The point is, the state has suspended the rights of an actual person - who has now died - in favour of a fetus which is NOT a person and never was under American law
I would argue she is not a 'person' anymore, and so her wishes are now moot.
-
Furthermore, a principle of common law is that an individual has the right to decide about their care and end-of-life treatment, and those decisions are to be respected and followed even after they are dead. In this case:
1. The dead woman did not want to be kept 'alive' on machines.
2. Her husband knows her wishes and wanted life support terminated.
3. Her family (parents) knew her wishes and wanted life support terminated.
As I noted before, though, the unfortunate wrinkle here is that we have no idea if the woman's views on end-of-life issues were different in the case of her being pregnant. Indeed, state law on the matter nonwithstanding, it doesn't seem she had any sort of advance directives prepared in any case; I don't know how much legal weight word of mouth "she wouldn't want this" declarations actually carry. And as for the right to have an abortion, I don't know that the right has ever been extended to situations where the woman herself isn't making the choice, or indeed capable of doing so. It's a very complicated situation no matter how you slice it.
-
I'm wondering if it would be possible to transfer the patient to a different hospital that just happens to be outside of the state....
-
The point is, the state has suspended the rights of an actual person - who has now died - in favour of a fetus which is NOT a person and never was under American law
I would argue she is not a 'person' anymore, and so her wishes are now moot.
It's like you didn't read the entire part of the post before that outlining why her wishes are not legally moot.
As I noted before, though, the unfortunate wrinkle here is that we have no idea if the woman's views on end-of-life issues were different in the case of her being pregnant. Indeed, state law on the matter nonwithstanding, it doesn't seem she had any sort of advance directives prepared in any case; I don't know how much legal weight word of mouth "she wouldn't want this" declarations actually carry. And as for the right to have an abortion, I don't know that the right has ever been extended to situations where the woman herself isn't making the choice, or indeed capable of doing so. It's a very complicated situation no matter how you slice it.
It's actually not that complicated; in the absence of advance directives, common law defers decision-making to next-of-kin, who all happen to be agreed on the matter.
What would complicate this is if her husband and parents had conflicting accounts; as it stands, they do not. Moreover, as the fetus is not a human child under American Constitutional law (Roe V Wade is a Constitutional decision), the consequences on it are irrelevant. The abortion notion is mentioned only to demonstrate how ludicrous the situation is; if the woman was alive, she could make her wishes known regarding whether to abort or not. As she is not, the decision to terminate her 'life' support (and that of her fetus) lies with her family... except in Texas, where apparently only the Articles of the Constitution that they like actually count.
In no circumstances is it OK for a government to violate the rights of its citizens, especially when the citizen can no longer speak up on his/her own behalf. That's why I titled this thread the way I originally did - the State of Texas apparently claims ownership over this woman and her fetus, regardless of her or her family's wishes, and contrary to established law on the matter. State law cannot override the US Constitution or Supreme Court decisions, yet that is precisely the premise the hospital is operating under.
-
Last night in the wee hours of the morning the guy that wrote this law was on TV being interviewed. According to him the law ceased to apply the moment she was declared brain dead. So even the guy who started the whole thing says it's being misapplied.
-
In no circumstances is it OK for a government to violate the rights of its citizens, especially when the citizen can no longer speak up on his/her own behalf. That's why I titled this thread the way I originally did - the State of Texas apparently claims ownership over this woman and her fetus, regardless of her or her family's wishes, and contrary to established law on the matter. State law cannot override the US Constitution or Supreme Court decisions, yet that is precisely the premise the hospital is operating under.
Right, but in this case the 'citizen' in question does not exist. It is a lump of non-sentient flesh that happens to still be metabolizing, it is not a person, the state of Texas is 'claiming ownership' over meat. You are not going to get anywhere with me until you somehow convince me that an unthinking lump of flesh is a person deserving of rights. Back in the past when the 'it' was a 'she', I totally agree with you, but at this point, I really have a hard time getting upset over this, and I really think this is not a good battle to fight.
-
Even if I buy your argument that she is just a piece of meat, she is a piece of meat that belongs to the family. Surely you would have a problem with the government making an unconstitutional seizure of your property?
-
I'm willing to believe the government in this instance when they say they'll give it back in a couple of months, and I don't really think it is going to deprecate in value in that time. so I don't really see much harm in this particular instance. though in general I agree with your premise.
-
Even if I buy your argument that she is just a piece of meat, she is a piece of meat that belongs to the family. Surely you would have a problem with the government making an unconstitutional seizure of your property?
If it is required to save or protect a human life, then absolutely not. Now in this case I think the foetus is still a piece of meat, too. But if it was few months older, then I would certainly support this action.
-
...
-
Also there's the matter that regardless of what you think about the afterlife, following proper final wishes, funeral arrangements, etc, of the deceased has a profound effect on the emotional well-being of those still living that cared about the person. Or rather, not following them tends to be extremely harmful to the grieving process.
I know it's rude to repeat oneself, but I just wanted to recall attention to the above. Bob : THIS is the harm. What something like this does to the people left behind.
While the source of conflict is different I've seen this in play first hand. One of my friends SO was rendered brain dead due to an accident. Because they hadn't married yet (he was going to propose two days after the accident), her final wishes that were discussed in detail with him were completely trampled upon when her parents decided to do something else entirely : instead of a quiet burial with everything intact, they donated her organs and cremated her (so basically the opposite of both of her requests). It... didn't go well.
I don't think it would have gone well in any case, but sitting there knowing you can't provide the last thing you can possibly give the most important person in the world to you does not help the grieving process very much. It went badly and he's been messed up for a long time now.
Especially in this case they seem very unsure whether the baby can survive like this, i think the harm to the family far far outweighs any potential gains.
-
Even if I buy your argument that she is just a piece of meat, she is a piece of meat that belongs to the family. Surely you would have a problem with the government making an unconstitutional seizure of your property?
If it is required to save or protect a human life, then absolutely not. Now in this case I think the foetus is still a piece of meat, too. But if it was few months older, then I would certainly support this action.
Do you even realize how deep the hole you are digging with this comment really is?
You could save a lot of lives by using all those perfectly healthy organs for transplants you know, surely those lives would be worth more than a single fetus that likely won't be healthy anyways - just a "piece of meat", in your own words, right? :coughs:
And while we're at it, those stem cells certainly could be put to good use and save a ton of lives later on as well.
Hey ... and why stop there when other people are starving. You want all that perfectly fine meat to rot in a grave!? While people are starving!?
I mean really... you would rather spend lots of money artificially keeping that dead woman's body alive, while it could be used to help all those other people who are dying?
You monster! Think of all the human live's that are lost only because the state does not make use of ALL the bodies after someone dies!
:eek2:
-
:eek2:
they can have her organs (etc) after the baby.
-
When you're saying that the state should take a persons organs regardless of their wishes, you're either trolling or so far away from ethical behaviour that your opinion can pretty much be discounted.
-
so far away from ethical behaviour that your opinion can pretty much be discounted.
That's too much. Try telling that to someone who needs a transplant and perfectly good organs that their previous owner no longer need are being eaten by worms or burning in cremators. You can't tell me they're better off there than in the body of a living person who needs them.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want to try and force people to give them up after they die, but only because it would be more bother than it's worth trying to make it happen than any ethical concerns. The person is dead. They don't need any of that stuff anymore. Give it to people who do, not to the worms or to the flames.
-
Surely that should be an argument you make to the person who is about to die, not an imposition you force upon them after death regardless of what they wanted.
-
Surely that should be an argument you make to the person who is about to die, not an imposition you force upon them after death regardless of what they wanted.
When they're dead, they don't need them anymore. You don't build a new house for every new person. Someone else needs it and gets it. How absurd would it be if every house after it's owner died was just left to fall into disrepair?
-
When you're saying that the state should take a persons organs regardless of their wishes, you're either trolling or so far away from ethical behaviour that your opinion can pretty much be discounted.
I'm personally perfectly fine with the state taking your organs. If I'm dead, I'm not gonna need them and I'll be too dead to care anyway. And what is my family going to do with them? Absolutely nothing. They are going to rot and do no good to anyone, when they could have saved lives.
So I'd either be for a opt-out system (in by default), with benefits for not opting out, or "your organs are mine, period" (unless there is a very good reason why not).
-
My post was related to the state saying "**** you, we're talking your organs whether you like it or not. We don't care what reason you give, they belong to us." I find it hilarious that someone like Bobb thinks the state should have the power to do that given his usual anti-authoritarian stance.
I have no problem with an opt-out system. In fact I'd probably be in favour of it.
-
If she is braindead then we should make the best use of her body to help actual living people, including dismantling her for organs and using her as a life support. It is unethical to not do so! And we should do it regardless of the wishes of the family because in a life and death situation there are more important matters than what happens to the body.
Oh, and many countries including mine have opt out systems that only allow the person in question to opt out while alive (and only a very small number of people do), ignoring the wishes of the family. So in practice for what I described above is what happens for 99% of patients and it works fine.
Its fine if you disagree with using dead bodies to save the living, but please dont say that I am digging some big hole or that it is somehow deeply unethical. Thats complete nonsense. In fact, if you are OK with sacrificing human life just to keep a dead persons empty shell, a dead object, intact, then it is most likely you who is unethical, if anyone is.
-
If there is a serious ethical issue here, then it is the fact that the law apparently allows actual living people to be forcibly kept on life support as living incubators for a foetus. Now that could lead to many issues and human rights abuses!
However, what happens to the body after the brain dies is not really very important from an ethical perspective, in my opinion.
-
I'm amazed at the sheer number of people lining up to say that they believe that people should have no right to decide what to do with their body after they die.
-
Well, lets look at it logicly.
They are dead, so it won't matter.
The dead won't care or know for that matter (unless you believe in the afterlife).
Only the living might, but any sensible living person should see the greater value in saving lives.
Unless their religion prohibits taking organs out (which is rare), there is no real reason to keep the organs.
Now it would be nice if after I'm dead, I'm burried in the family tomb. But I don't need my good organs for that. And if I end up beign burried in some ditch...meh. I'm dead. My body is worm food anyway.
-
I'm amazed at the sheer number of people lining up to say that they believe that people should have no right to decide what to do with their body after they die.
Indeed. Some people don't seem to care when and how their rights are violated.
Though I am quite curious how any one of them would feel if they had a family member who expressed a strong desire NOT to have their body maintained on life support and experienced a case where their local government refused to allow them to be taken off support despite that person's wishes. Something tells me an awful lot of feelings might change if this was their wife/daughter/sister/mother/grandmother/etc.
-
When you're saying that the state should take a persons organs regardless of their wishes, you're either trolling or so far away from ethical behaviour that your opinion can pretty much be discounted.
So to the point, we have two propositions:
1. using a braindead woman as a brood machine with questionable chance of success, against her explicit wishes and those of her family - "to save/protect human life, i.e. the fetus, which may not even be healthy".
2. taking someone's organ's after their death against their wishes - "to save/protect human life, i.e. another human being who would otherwise die."
In both cases the dead person loses the rights to their body, no more, no less.
Hence, if someone approves the first, it's kinda hard to see how they can reject the second, without being a hypocrite.
To point that out, was the reason of my earlier post.
Personally I find both propositions equally disgusting.
Frankly, from my viewpoint, to use your words, it is the state of Texas that "must be either trolling or is so far away from ethical behaviour that their opinion can pretty much be discounted."
Sadly... for Texas it appears to be the later and they have the power to make other people suffer through their unethical behavior as well.
-
I'm amazed at the sheer number of people lining up to say that they believe that people should have no right to decide what to do with their body after they die.
I'm surprised someone as coldly rational as you doesn't see it the other way. Really, you're just about the last person in the forum I thought would hold the view you do, never mind how strongly you seem to hold it.
-
I'm surprised that anyone can find a 'for the children' argument to be rational.
Hell, this situation doesn't even apply to that argument. The fetus in question (if it is birthed) will be utterly doomed medically, fiscally, and paternally.
-
I'm amazed at the sheer number of people lining up to say that they believe that people should have no right to decide what to do with their body after they die.
You said it... just... wow. But once again, american politics lately seems founded on the idea of one guy saying "I have no problem with this therefore none of you should"
But since this crowd doesn't seem to care about inflicting lasting psychological harm on the next of kin, we also have a more tangible issue to discuss : should this deceased woman produce a living child, who's going to be taking care of it? Or paying for this hospital stay for that matter?
Given the low likeliness of success (the circumstances for previous successful cases were more favorable than this woman), I imagine any fetus that did survive to birth may have severe health complications. But since Texas is forcing the development to go on without the consent of the surviving family, the family would have reasonably good arguments to make for saying they shouldn't be responsible for any of the cost of the attempt nor the raising of the subsequent child. There's a lot of money being thrown around here every day they're keeping this woman "alive," that could be spent treating people that actually want to live... Just the same as the money spent caring for an unwanted birth-defect riddled child.
-
I'll just clarify that I'm not taking sides on the debate about the foetus.
-
I'm surprised someone as coldly rational as you doesn't see it the other way. Really, you're just about the last person in the forum I thought would hold the view you do, never mind how strongly you seem to hold it.
I don't see why. I've always argued that people have the right to make their own decisions and shouldn't have the government needlessly impose its will on them.
Do I think that everyone should be giving up their organs upon death so that other people can live - absolutely.
Do I think that upon death the human body is just a pile of meat - yes.
Would I support an opt-out system for organs - definitely.
Do I think that the government should act as if this is true regardless of a person's wishes - absolutely not. A person has the right to decide what to do based on what they feel is right. Yes we should educate people into realising that they might be making the wrong decision, but it is never the place of the government to flat out decide that someone's wishes are wrong and overrule them. Once you start doing that you very quickly go to a very dark place because there are hundreds of examples of people making the wrong decisions where the government could also step in.
Let me give you an example, suppose someone writes a will leaving all their money to a cat sanctuary. Based on the argument you've given, that we must be coldly pragmatic about saving human lives, it would be perfectly reasonable for the government to step in and say "**** cats! We're giving this money to something that helps humans."
The person is after all already dead, why should their wishes have any merit whatsoever?
-
Do I think that the government should act as if this is true regardless of a person's wishes - absolutely not. A person has the right to decide what to do based on what they feel is right. Yes we should educate people into realising that they might be making the wrong decision, but it is never the place of the government to flat out decide that someone's wishes are wrong and overrule them. Once you start doing that you very quickly go to a very dark place because there are hundreds of examples of people making the wrong decisions where the government could also step in.
Let me give you an example, suppose someone writes a will leaving all their money to a cat sanctuary. Based on the argument you've given, that we must be coldly pragmatic about saving human lives, it would be perfectly reasonable for the government to step in and say "**** cats! We're giving this money to something that helps humans."
The person is after all already dead, why should their wishes have any merit whatsoever?
Ah, I see where you're coming from. You're worried about an escalation. I can't say or know if there would be an escalation, I just feel it is deeply wrong for those organs to be going to waste and people to be dying needlessly.
I do believe people should be able to send their worldlies wherever they want to. At least they're going somewhere. Being put to some sort of use.
Back to what you said about education, we need that. It is something I feel strongly about, and I am an organ donor, but you know, I only actually got put on the register in 2013. The reason for this is it's something that almost never gets talked about. And when you're wandering around just doing your normal thing, it's not something you think about. Or likely want to think about, getting chopped up after you die. Eventually the stars aligned and it was in my mind when I needed to visit the doctor, and I got myself signed up while I was there. There had been several previous occasions when I'd visited the doctor and thought "oh, damn!" later on for not getting registered.
However, an opt-out process will remove the need for such education. Those that don't want to give badly enough will make it their business to opt out, while the rest will stay in. I saw this, Wales is already moving to opt-out. I don't know if England is following suit, hopefully it will.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-23143236
People support the idea in Northern Ireland:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-24628060
And there's this for Scotland:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-23275799
-
When you die, you are no longer a person, you do not exist, you are gone. this is why it is the worst possible thing. A person who does not exist, has no rights because there is no person there any more to have them, so yeah, once you are dead I don't really care about what happens to you because you are as extant as Santa Clause.
-
When you die, you are no longer a person, you do not exist, you are gone. this is why it is the worst possible thing. A person who does not exist, has no rights because there is no person there any more to have them, so yeah, once you are dead I don't really care about what happens to you because you are as extant as Santa Clause.
Dead bodies are of considerable emotional and cultural value to the people who're still alive, though.
-
Ah, I see where you're coming from. You're worried about an escalation.
No, I'm not worried about an escalation. I'm using the example of an escalation to point out that it's wrong in the first place. You do have an absolute right while you are alive to say what should happen to your possessions (including your body) after you die. And if you don't believe that, then you should be anti-funeral cause everyone who can't be organ transplanted should be donated to medical science regardless of whatever they wish.
-
HESTON: SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!
PEOPLE: SERVES US RIGHT!
-
Let me give you an example, suppose someone writes a will leaving all their money to a cat sanctuary. Based on the argument you've given, that we must be coldly pragmatic about saving human lives, it would be perfectly reasonable for the government to step in and say "**** cats! We're giving this money to something that helps humans."
We actually do that, it is called taxes. The only difference is that the stealing is distributed more equally to not piss off people too much.
I do generally sympathise with these libertarian leaning arguments but not when it comes to matters of life and death. They are not sufficient to convince me and I think stealing money or organs and many other usualy ugly things can be justified then. Surely you can see why ethically this is not a black and white situation?
-
I'm pretty sure charitable donations aren't taxed on death. Even if they are, I don't think they should be.
Not to mention that I don't think such a flippant answer really gets to the heart of the matter. Does the government have the right to decide what happens to your property after you die?
-
I'm pretty sure charitable donations aren't taxed on death. Even if they are, I don't think they should be.
Depends on the legal jurisdiction. Generally-speaking for common law nations, if the recipient of a bequeathed asset has tax-exempt status, they pay no tax on the asset when it is received.
When you die, you are no longer a person, you do not exist, you are gone. this is why it is the worst possible thing. A person who does not exist, has no rights because there is no person there any more to have them, so yeah, once you are dead I don't really care about what happens to you because you are as extant as Santa Clause.
Wonderful. If you have no rights when you die, then I suppose the government can take all your assets - after all, you have no right to determine what happens to them. While we're at it, we're going to let the local nutjobs drag your corpse around behind a truck for a few days for the hell of it. After all, your family's wishes don't matter either because you no longer have any rights (and neither, by extension, do they apparently have any right concerning your corpse or your property).
People have rights when living, and a number of those rights continue or are legally passed to their families upon death. Whether you agree with that is irrelevant (well, except that people would probably like your address so they can come take all your stuff when you die, your family be damned). The State of Texas is trampling those Constitutionally-protected and common law rights to advance a political agenda concerning their distate for abortion, which is also Constitutionally-protected.
Rights are one of the few things that actually are legally black-and-white: either you believe government must respect and protect all rights, or you believe they do not have to respect or protect any rights - because history has quite clearly demonstrated that any government that manages to successfully trample one is eventually going to try to trample all of them. This is one of the few areas where I agree with some Americans who champion the 2nd Amendment of their Constitution - you don't get to ignore or violate rights that you don't agree with. You either change the Constitution or common law precedent, or you make sure any laws you do draft are compliant with the rights structure which they operate under.
-
Ah, I see where you're coming from. You're worried about an escalation.
No, I'm not worried about an escalation. I'm using the example of an escalation to point out that it's wrong in the first place. You do have an absolute right while you are alive to say what should happen to your possessions (including your body) after you die. And if you don't believe that, then you should be anti-funeral cause everyone who can't be organ transplanted should be donated to medical science regardless of whatever they wish.
No, no, no. Funerals give people closure and peace. Plus, you could still have a funeral, then send the body to medical science. But medical science does well enough, I've never heard of a need for more bodies.
If you're not worried about an escalation, then why do you think it's wrong? If you have no one to give your possessions to, the government takes them. If you're not giving your organs to anyone, the government should take them.
-
While you can "donate" your body you and by extension your family still own it. After science is done with it it gets shipped back to the family for burial or cremation.
-
So... in Texas, if the mother is deemed incompetent to make decisions for her/her child's health, who has "power of attorney" over it? The father? If so, why can't he abort if he damn well feels like it? To him, respecting the wishes of the mother may be more important than the birth of his child, especially if said child won't have a mother and may be handicapped.
I know nothing about Texas law, but the quoted lines say that you can't withhold life-saving patients to pregnant patients. Nothing is said about aborting fetuses from pregnant people on life support, then taking them off life support once they are no longer pregnant. I feel the law might have been put in place to protect families without enough money/insurance from losing a WANTED child because some hospital needed the bed for financial reasons.
Also, if the fetus hasn't aborted already, and that no details were given for how long the mother was hypoxic, it's very hard to say what its outcome will be. Could be anywhere from severely handicapped to 100% healthy. You'd need to watch and see later on in the pregnancy for problems.
The argument of mandatory organ donation is dumb. Sure, opt-out systems make a ton of sense and would save a lot of lives, but FORCING people to donate organs is an absurd idea for how much it infringes on your autonomy while alive.
As for "wasted utility" of letting bodies go to "waste", you must consider that the vast majority of people don't see death as a sterile emotionless event, especially when you take religion into account. If a family member dies, but gets the treatment that the rest of the family desires, you keep the survivors that much mentally healthier and more productive to society. Forcibly harvesting dead people might save some lives, but it would come at the cost of pissing off and drastically reducing the productivity of a large number of surviving family members and the people they disrupt as they fight legal battles or grieve longer than necessary.
-
So... in Texas, if the mother is deemed incompetent to make decisions for her/her child's health, who has "power of attorney" over it? The father? If so, why can't he abort if he damn well feels like it?
Because Texas.
No, seriously, that's the question that I've wanted answered since day 1, given the overarching federal legal framework.
-
So... in Texas, if the mother is deemed incompetent to make decisions for her/her child's health, who has "power of attorney" over it? The father? If so, why can't he abort if he damn well feels like it?
Because Texas.
No, seriously, that's the question that I've wanted answered since day 1, given the overarching federal legal framework.
Well it's really, you can legislate whatever the hell you want until it gets challenged in court. Sometimes really stupid laws get injunctions really fast. Sometimes they don't. Technically the Texas State Legislature could pass a "legal to kill people named Bob" law and you get into some really ugly legal territory. You think i'm kidding? We haven't gone up to murder before but when you consider the various Sedition Acts (there have been more than one), we've passed some seriously unconstitutional stuff before and caused real world damage with it before the law got torn down in the courts or repealed.