[FUBAR-BDHR]

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. 

[MP-Ryan]

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.

[Luis Dias]

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.

[666maslo666]

“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).

[Bobboau]

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.

[Sarkoth]

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.

[karajorma]

I wondered about that one myself. I'm sure some Texas blowhard would try to find something to charge him with though.

[Sarkoth]

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.

[karajorma]

Yeah, but you're in Texas. Want to take the odds of rolling the dice against the jury you could get on this case?

[666maslo666]

Texas has foetal homicide laws (I am not sure if there is some trimester limit), so he very well could be charged with that.

[Sarkoth]

I don't want to live on this planet anymore. (Hence I play so much Freespace, it appears)

[MP-Ryan]

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.

[Mikes]

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.

[Sarkoth]

Supposedly. That's the only word in need of highlighting, also applying to a vast majority of issues all over the world.

[Bobboau]

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.

[Mongoose]

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.

[BloodEagle]

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....

[MP-Ryan]

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.

[FUBAR-BDHR]

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. 

[Bobboau]

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.