# Texas law won't allow pregnant woman to be taken off life support **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 4, 2014, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-wont-allow-pregnant-woman-to-be-taken-off-life-support/677837 "2014-01-04T00:23:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Zsofia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/7bcc69/32.png) [@Zsofia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zsofia)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2014, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-wont-allow-pregnant-woman-to-be-taken-off-life-support/677837/81 "2014-01-06T16:53:32Z")
Here’s a bit about what a 14 week fetus is [like](http://www.babycenter.com/6_your-pregnancy-14-weeks_1103.bc). In other words, it is not a thing that can live without oxygen. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2014, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-wont-allow-pregnant-woman-to-be-taken-off-life-support/677837/82 "2014-01-06T17:46:23Z")
The womb is already, relatively speaking, low-oxygen compared to the open air. Also, the placenta has a sort of blood resevoir that acts as a buffer that moderates blood pressure changes the mother has, protecting the baby from them. Likewise, it can provide oxygen to the fetus for brief period of time - which is why post-death C-sections sometimes worked in the old days, if there was enough oxygen in the placenta to tide the baby over until it could be cut out. Was that sufficient to protect _this_ fetus? Damn if I know. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2014, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-wont-allow-pregnant-woman-to-be-taken-off-life-support/677837/83 "2014-01-07T00:49:17Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Does a pregnancy exist? Would terminating the woman’s life support end that pregnancy? > > Pretending this is not a termination of a pregnancy is dishonest. > I’d argue were talking more about a dead brain. Marlise Munoz may be dead but her body is still alive which is why this situation exists. But as she was the only person who could authorize the termination of her pregnancy, nobody has the authority now that she is dead. So, particularly in the state of Texas, if a woman who is 14 weeks pregnant is killed in an auto accident by another driver, is that driver charged with the death of two people? You are trying to apply something that doesn’t work here. The pregnant woman in question cannot make a decision about anything, much less whether her probably severely damaged fetus should be allowed to run up millions of dollar in hospital bills just because it bothers you that it isn’t “given a chance”. Meanwhile, you are destroying the lives of real living people. Since you personally are not willing to pay the medical costs and take the fetus should it make it to the living baby stage, I’d say the whole thing is none of your business. Nor that of the state. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2014, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-wont-allow-pregnant-woman-to-be-taken-off-life-support/677837/84 "2014-01-07T01:06:41Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > So, particularly in the state of Texas, if a woman who is 14 weeks pregnant is killed in an auto accident by another driver, is that driver charged with the death of two people? [There are states where “feticide” or “fetal homicide” is a crime.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feticide#Laws_in_the_United_States). Such laws never apply to abortion; they would apply, e.g., if a man assaults a pregnant woman and causes her to miscarry. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2014, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-wont-allow-pregnant-woman-to-be-taken-off-life-support/677837/85 "2014-01-07T01:06:59Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > So, particularly in the state of Texas, if a woman who is 14 weeks pregnant is killed in an auto accident by another driver, is that driver charged with the death of two people? In some states that is an aggravating circumstances in a death. Even if a fetus doesn’t have the value of a human being it can still be considered to have value of some sort. Not sure if Texas is one of those states, but it wouldn’t surprise me. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2014, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-wont-allow-pregnant-woman-to-be-taken-off-life-support/677837/86 "2014-01-07T01:10:29Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > [There are states where “feticide” or “fetal homicide” is a crime.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feticide#Laws_in_the_United_States). Such laws never apply to abortion; they would apply, e.g., if a man assaults a pregnant woman and causes her to miscarry. Wow. I’m already glad I can’t get pregnant - some of the stuff in that link makes me even gladder! Giddy! ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2014, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-wont-allow-pregnant-woman-to-be-taken-off-life-support/677837/87 "2014-01-07T02:10:47Z")
> [@Zsofia](#): > > I don’t know if the husband has said anything about their decisions on this matter, but I’m _sure_ they had discussed the possibility of discovering that the fetus would be disabled and what they would do in that case. I’m sure because my husband and I have talked about it a lot and ours is only seven weeks old; if testing reveals certain long term disabilities like Down syndrome we will abort. Pretty much every couple expecting a baby has this discussion because you have to decide if you’re going to test at all, and if so, what tests you’re going to get. Because you don’t test if you aren’t going to do anything about it. We tested but we didn’t explicitly discuss the scenario if the test showed up something - that was a bridge we were going to cross if and when it happened. ---
**Author:** ![drachillix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/48db29/32.png) [@drachillix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drachillix)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2014, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-wont-allow-pregnant-woman-to-be-taken-off-life-support/677837/88 "2014-01-09T20:56:57Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > MOST married women who are three months and some change along want to have the baby. Many, if not most, pregnant women are willing to run risks to bring their baby to term, and submit to various medical procedures to bring their baby to term. Would it be reasonable to also assume that a life changing illness or medical incident might cause one to reconsider the wisdom and or practicality of carrying said child to term especially when the incident could very well have catastrophically damaged the fetus. I will bet my next paycheck that IF that baby survives to be delivered, that it never has anything even vaguely resembling a normal life of any scale or duration. ---
**Author:** ![drachillix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/48db29/32.png) [@drachillix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drachillix)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2014, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-wont-allow-pregnant-woman-to-be-taken-off-life-support/677837/89 "2014-01-09T21:04:07Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > The womb is already, relatively speaking, low-oxygen compared to the open air. Also, the placenta has a sort of blood resevoir that acts as a buffer that moderates blood pressure changes the mother has, protecting the baby from them. Likewise, it can provide oxygen to the fetus for brief period of time - which is why post-death C-sections sometimes worked in the old days, if there was enough oxygen in the placenta to tide the baby over until it could be cut out. > > Was that sufficient to protect _this_ fetus? Damn if I know. We are talking about minutes, not hours. If mom is brain dead, its way into solid betting odds that baby has suffered major neurological injuries as well as disruption of a variety of developmental processes that will end up with an nonviable fetus. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2014, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-wont-allow-pregnant-woman-to-be-taken-off-life-support/677837/90 "2014-01-09T21:06:55Z")
I think the hospital is looking for any reason to keep her on life-support and billing the insurance for $1000s of dollars per day. It has nothing to do with the actual law, right to life, death with dignity or anything beyond $$$. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2014, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-wont-allow-pregnant-woman-to-be-taken-off-life-support/677837/91 "2014-01-09T21:31:36Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Since you personally are not willing to pay the medical costs and take the fetus should it make it to the living baby stage, I’d say the whole thing is none of your business. Nor that of the state. That’s a pretty foolish argument. Would you also argue that somebody can’t support legalized abortions if they aren’t willing to pay for other people’s abortions? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2014, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-wont-allow-pregnant-woman-to-be-taken-off-life-support/677837/92 "2014-01-09T21:44:21Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > You are trying to apply something that doesn’t work here. The pregnant woman in question cannot make a decision about anything, much less whether her probably severely damaged fetus should be allowed to run up millions of dollar in hospital bills just because it bothers you that it isn’t “given a chance”. Meanwhile, you are destroying the lives of real living people. You’ve misunderstood everything I’ve said. This has nothing to do with any supposed rights of the foetus. I don’t recognize that a foetus has any legal rights. I’m defending the rights of a woman to make decisions about her body. I’m saying only the woman has the right to decide to terminate her pregnancy. I don’t feel there should be any circumstances - even the extreme ones in this situation - where anyone else can make that decision. If you accept the argument that a husband can decide to terminate his wife’s pregnancy in one set of circumstances, where will you move the line to in the future? And if you say a husband can sometimes decide to terminate his wife’s pregnancy, then you’re saying the husband has the right to be involved in the decision - and that means he may decide to not allow a pregnancy to be terminated. And again, where do you draw that line? This is a challenge to the entire pro-choice position. ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2014, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-wont-allow-pregnant-woman-to-be-taken-off-life-support/677837/93 "2014-01-09T23:10:30Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > And again, where do you draw that line? > > This is a challenge to the entire pro-choice position. I don’t see why. Even in cases where the wife is not pregnant, it’s fairly well established that the husband (or nearest kin) can communicate what the woman’s wishes would have been were she able to express them herself. That happened in this case. In the absence of written instructions, I suppose that leaves some tiny room for doubt as to the woman’s actual wishes, but then we get into Terri Schiavo territory. I agree a living will is a good thing to have, but I have no problems with spouses or next of kin expressing a patient’s wishes in the absence of documentation. Sure, that means sometimes the result isn’t what the patient would have actually wanted, but that’s letting the perfect get in the way of the very good. The alternative is also imperfect - it simply forces a “default” option on anybody who hasn’t bothered to formally express their preferences in every single possible contingency. ---
**Author:** ![drachillix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/48db29/32.png) [@drachillix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drachillix)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2014, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-wont-allow-pregnant-woman-to-be-taken-off-life-support/677837/94 "2014-01-09T23:22:59Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > I think the hospital is looking for any reason to keep her on life-support and billing the insurance for $1000s of dollars per day. It has nothing to do with the actual law, right to life, death with dignity or anything beyond $$$. I was actually pondering the opposite, the hospital is digging in to force a legal challenge to a poorly constructed piece of law. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2014, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-wont-allow-pregnant-woman-to-be-taken-off-life-support/677837/95 "2014-01-09T23:34:38Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > If you accept the argument that a husband can decide to terminate his wife’s pregnancy in one set of circumstances, where will you move the line to in the future? When he has power of attorney. It’s a well established procedure. Do you actually understand what it means? It’s the closest approximation to having her make the decision when it is, literally, impossible for that to happen. A decision _has_ to be made, whether to continue to keep the body functioning or not. She can’t make it, due to being dead. The only question is who makes it - the hospital, the state, or the next of kin. Or do you propose leaving the body hooked up to various machinery until it literally rots away? That’s the only other option. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2014, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-wont-allow-pregnant-woman-to-be-taken-off-life-support/677837/96 "2014-01-10T00:10:48Z")
> [@drachillix](#): > > Would it be reasonable to also assume that a life changing illness or medical incident might cause one to reconsider the wisdom and or practicality of carrying said child to term especially when the incident could very well have catastrophically damaged the fetus. Some women will reconsider, some won’t. I really don’t feel comfortable issuing a blanket “solution” for that because it will vary all over the map. In other words, no, I do not agree with that statement/question. > [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > I think the hospital is looking for any reason to keep her on life-support and billing the insurance for $1000s of dollars per day. It has nothing to do with the actual law, right to life, death with dignity or anything beyond $$$. I’m pretty sure the hospital isn’t able to bill the insurance company for someone legally dead. Life support for a brief time to allow organ harvesting, yes, but not for this sort of thing. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2014, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-wont-allow-pregnant-woman-to-be-taken-off-life-support/677837/97 "2014-01-10T01:27:53Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > I’m pretty sure the hospital isn’t able to bill the insurance company for someone legally dead. Life support for a brief time to allow organ harvesting, yes, but not for this sort of thing. Then who’s paying for it? The husband? The hospital? The state? ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2014, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-wont-allow-pregnant-woman-to-be-taken-off-life-support/677837/98 "2014-01-10T01:39:21Z")
The hospital will probably have to write the cost off along with all the other uncompensated care they give over the course of a year. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2014, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-wont-allow-pregnant-woman-to-be-taken-off-life-support/677837/99 "2014-01-10T01:48:19Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > That’s a pretty foolish argument. Would you also argue that somebody can’t support legalized abortions if they aren’t willing to pay for other people’s abortions? Actually, depending on what state you live in, we do pay for abortions under Medicaid. However, that’s something of a strawman argument - in the case of a woman opting for abortion she is making the choice to run up the bill (or have her insurance pay for it). In the case of this poor dead body keeping a questionable fetus alive, nobody who actually cares about her or the fetus wants to run up the bills just because she happened to be pregnant. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > You’ve misunderstood everything I’ve said. This has nothing to do with any supposed rights of the foetus. I don’t recognize that a foetus has any legal rights. > > I’m defending the rights of a woman to make decisions about her body. I’m saying only the woman has the right to decide to terminate her pregnancy. I don’t feel there should be any circumstances - even the extreme ones in this situation - where anyone else can make that decision. That makes your argument even weaker - the woman had already decided she didn’t want to be kept “alive” by artificial means. Do you think it hadn’t occurred to her she might be pregnant at the time? And even if she didn’t, she is now _dead_. She doesn’t have the ability to make any decisions about her body or her pregnancy. > [@](#): > > If you accept the argument that a husband can decide to terminate his wife’s pregnancy in one set of circumstances, where will you move the line to in the future? And if you say a husband can sometimes decide to terminate his wife’s pregnancy, then you’re saying the husband has the right to be involved in the decision - and that means he may decide to not allow a pregnancy to be terminated. And again, where do you draw that line? At death. At that point, the woman simply doesn’t have any say because, well, she can’t. Even if she wanted to carry the pregnancy to term and keep the baby, if nobody wants it now, her prior wishes really mean nothing in the face of her husband and the rest of her family having their lives ruined. > [@](#): > > This is a challenge to the entire pro-choice position. Oh piffle. Dead people don’t have choice. If she had said something prior that she wanted them to pull the plug _unless_ she happened to be pregnant, then you might have a leg to stand on. But, she didn’t so her time for choices has passed. > [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Then who’s paying for it? The husband? The hospital? The state? That’s what I’ve been wondering. While all these anti-abortionists dick around, the bills mount and somebody is going to get stuck with them. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2014, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-wont-allow-pregnant-woman-to-be-taken-off-life-support/677837/100 "2014-01-10T02:21:35Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Or do you propose leaving the body hooked up to various machinery until it literally rots away? That’s the only other option. Another foolish post. Is my actual argument too much for you to handle? I’ve said quite clearly what should happen: Munoz should be kept on life support until the birth. Then she should be taken off life support. This accommodates both her expressed wish to not stay on life support indefinitely and her apparent wish to continue her pregnancy to completion. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-wont-allow-pregnant-woman-to-be-taken-off-life-support/677837.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-wont-allow-pregnant-woman-to-be-taken-off-life-support/677837.md?page=6)