# 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:** 7
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2014, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-wont-allow-pregnant-woman-to-be-taken-off-life-support/677837/121 "2014-01-24T23:12:41Z")
> [@Great\_Antibob](#): > > Well, [a Texas judge has ruled](http://www.chron.com/news/texas/article/Judge-Remove-life-support-for-pregnant-woman-5170747.php?cmpid=hpbn). The hospital is ordered to remove life support equipment. > > If it wasn’t already clear, the hospital was being gutless and unethical. They did not have the law, standard practice, or ethics behind them. > [@](#): > > Judge Wallace said Mrs. Muñoz must be removed from life support by 5 p.m. Monday. > > Fort Worth attorney Trent Loftin, who isn’t connected to the case, said he believes Friday’s hearing in front of District Judge R.H. Wallace likely won’t be the end of the case. > > “I think whatever the judge decides, the other side will appeal to the second court of appeals and eventually to the supreme court of the state of Texas,” Loftin said. Will an appellate court hear the case at all if Ms. Munoz is all-the-way dead? Wouldn’t it be moot? ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2014, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-wont-allow-pregnant-woman-to-be-taken-off-life-support/677837/122 "2014-01-24T23:48:45Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Let me try to make this clear, again. There is no woman to whom that body belongs. She is dead. She, as in the person to whom those rights and responsibilities previously applied, does not exist. She cannot make any decisions, has no responsibilities, and has no rights except those we would give to any other corpse. This woman is no more! She has ceased to be! 'She’s expired and gone to meet her maker! She’s a stiff! Bereft of life, She rests in peace! Her metabolic processes are now history! ‘She’s off the twig! She’s kicked the bucket, She’s shuffled off this mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin’ choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-PERSON!! ---
**Author:** ![Ambrosio\_Spinola](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de0a6/32.png) [@Ambrosio\_Spinola](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ambrosio_Spinola)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2014, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-wont-allow-pregnant-woman-to-be-taken-off-life-support/677837/123 "2014-01-24T23:54:07Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Will an appellate court hear the case at all if Ms. Munoz is all-the-way dead? Wouldn’t it be moot? The trial court gave the hospital until Monday afternoon to comply with his order, presumably so they could file an appeal and ask that court for a stay if they are so inclined. Latest reports indicate the hospital is conferring with their attorneys now to decide if they will appeal. I’m not entirely sure the hospital will appeal now that they have a CYA decision from a court. But the issue would become moot if she were to become all the way dead, as you put it, or if her pregnancy were to miscarry in the interim. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2014, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-wont-allow-pregnant-woman-to-be-taken-off-life-support/677837/124 "2014-01-25T00:05:26Z")
> [@Ambrosio\_Spinola](#): > > The trial court gave the hospital until Monday afternoon to comply with his order, presumably so they could file an appeal and ask that court for a stay if they are so inclined. Latest reports indicate the hospital is conferring with their attorneys now to decide if they will appeal. I’m not entirely sure the hospital will appeal now that they have a CYA decision from a court. > > But the issue would become moot if she were to become all the way dead, as you put it, or if her pregnancy were to miscarry in the interim. I have a suspicion that for some weird reason, the JPS attorneys would just as soon have pulled the plug on her, but weren’t willing to have the hospital do it. The reason I have this suspicion is that the hospital’s own filing with the judge described her as brain-dead. If they were resolutely against pulling the plug, I have a feeling they’d have used wording that wouldn’t have played right into the “she’s dead, not a patient” angle that legal experts were using, and that the judge ultimately used. By wording it like that, they let the judge take the responsibility and get the outcome everyone wanted. Gutless, and very lawyerly. The thing I don’t get though, is that the family wanted to pull the plug- who were the JPS people afraid of lawsuits from? ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2014, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-wont-allow-pregnant-woman-to-be-taken-off-life-support/677837/125 "2014-01-25T00:10:45Z")
Crazy Texas Tea Baggers? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2014, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-wont-allow-pregnant-woman-to-be-taken-off-life-support/677837/126 "2014-01-25T00:17:01Z")
> [@bump](#): > > I have a suspicion that for some weird reason, the JPS attorneys would just as soon have pulled the plug on her, but weren’t willing to have the hospital do it. > > The reason I have this suspicion is that the hospital’s own filing with the judge described her as brain-dead. If they were resolutely against pulling the plug, I have a feeling they’d have used wording that wouldn’t have played right into the “she’s dead, not a patient” angle that legal experts were using, and that the judge ultimately used. By wording it like that, they let the judge take the responsibility and get the outcome everyone wanted. Gutless, and very lawyerly. > > The thing I don’t get though, is that the family wanted to pull the plug- who were the JPS people afraid of lawsuits from? Not lawsuits, but IMHO they are afraid of donors and supporters that behind the scenes are pushing to make this an anti-abortion issue. Either that or the hospital and some people there are pandering to anti-abortion groups. [http://www.star-telegram.com/2014/01/09/5473242/family-of-pregnant-brain-dead.html](http://www.star-telegram.com/2014/01/09/5473242/family-of-pregnant-brain-dead.html) > [@](#): > > The hospital’s outside counsel is Neal Adams, who led the drive to end abortions at JPS in 1988 and is on the advisory board of the Northeast Tarrant Right-to-Life Educational Association, based in Euless. His firm mainly handles contracts for the hospital, while medical litigation is primarily handled by the Tarrant County District Attorney’s Office, Labbe said. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2014, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-wont-allow-pregnant-woman-to-be-taken-off-life-support/677837/127 "2014-01-25T01:00:22Z")
“She’s not only merely dead, she’s really most sincerely dead.” (BTW, anything new on Jahi McMath, the girl who was left brain dead after a tonsilectomy, but her parents still insist she be left on life support? The only recent thing I could find was an editorial) ---
**Author:** ![LavenderBlue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e95f7d/32.png) [@LavenderBlue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LavenderBlue)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2014, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-wont-allow-pregnant-woman-to-be-taken-off-life-support/677837/128 "2014-01-25T01:23:16Z")
I can only hope the hospital finally respects her wishes and the wishes of her family and agrees to the judge’s orders. My heart goes out to her husband and my fury to the hospital for prolonging her death. ---
**Author:** ![CrazyCatLady](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/dfb087/32.png) [@CrazyCatLady](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CrazyCatLady)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2014, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-wont-allow-pregnant-woman-to-be-taken-off-life-support/677837/129 "2014-01-25T01:39:21Z")
> [@bump](#): > > The reason I have this suspicion is that the hospital’s own filing with the judge described her as brain-dead. If they were resolutely against pulling the plug, I have a feeling they’d have used wording that wouldn’t have played right into the “she’s dead, not a patient” angle that legal experts were using, and that the judge ultimately used. I don’t know what other wording would have been medically accurate. She’s not in a coma, or a persistent vegetative state or anything else. She’s brain dead, and therefore legally dead. Describing her in any way that made her sound like a living patient would have been an outright misrepresentation. ---
**Author:** ![purplehorseshoe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/purplehorseshoe/32/2996_2.png) [@purplehorseshoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/purplehorseshoe)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2014, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-wont-allow-pregnant-woman-to-be-taken-off-life-support/677837/130 "2014-01-25T02:17:05Z")
God, what an effing nightmare for her widower husband. Poor guy. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![ktribe808](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b38774/32.png) [@ktribe808](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ktribe808)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2014, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-wont-allow-pregnant-woman-to-be-taken-off-life-support/677837/131 "2014-01-25T02:22:05Z")
Well supposedly a judge has ruled the hospital must remove life support by Monday. I hope so for the sake of her family. R.I.P. ---
**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 25, 2014, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-wont-allow-pregnant-woman-to-be-taken-off-life-support/677837/132 "2014-01-25T03:44:21Z")
> [@artemis](#): > > Not the bodies of people who have suffered complete brain death. Bodies where the brainstem and hypothalamus is still functioning can go on for years on artificial support, but mercifully we don’t have the technology to keep completely brain dead bodies going indefinitely. > [@Steophan](#): > > She’s not in a coma. She’s dead. Dead people’s bodies rot, inevitably. We can slow that but not prevent it, and many of the things we can do to slow it would not make it possible to incubate a foetus in that body. Do you still nit understand the distinction between “coma” and “death”? Okay, I’ve being doing some reading on the situation. I was aware that Munoz was dead but I was not aware that her body could not be kept functioning indefinitely on life support. (I also got to read about the unfortunate McMath family.) This does not change my overall opinion. I still maintain a woman’s pregnancy should not be terminated without her authorization - even if continuing the pregnancy requires artificial life support. But I will concede there is no point in maintaining life support for Munoz if there is no medical reason to think her body can be kept functioning long enough to continue the pregnancy. ---
**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 25, 2014, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-wont-allow-pregnant-woman-to-be-taken-off-life-support/677837/133 "2014-01-25T03:47:23Z")
> [@Great\_Antibob](#): > > Well, [a Texas judge has ruled](http://www.chron.com/news/texas/article/Judge-Remove-life-support-for-pregnant-woman-5170747.php?cmpid=hpbn). The hospital is ordered to remove life support equipment. > > If it wasn’t already clear, the hospital was being gutless and unethical. They did not have the law, standard practice, or ethics behind them. I still maintain that this is a significant defeat for the pro-choice movement. This decision pokes a hole in Roe v Wade and now the pro-life movement will work at widening it. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2014, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-wont-allow-pregnant-woman-to-be-taken-off-life-support/677837/134 "2014-01-25T04:12:41Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I still maintain that this is a significant defeat for the pro-choice movement. This decision pokes a hole in Roe v Wade and now the pro-life movement will work at widening it. 😕 There was no recorded wish for the mother to do like the hospital wanted. It is then a choice of her next of kin. BTW Pro-choice does not mean that an abortion is the only choice for that next of kin. **It is the anti-abortionists the ones that will not allow for any choices, and this case shows that.** ---
**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 25, 2014, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-wont-allow-pregnant-woman-to-be-taken-off-life-support/677837/135 "2014-01-25T04:52:15Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I still maintain that this is a significant defeat for the pro-choice movement. The cluelessness. It burns. :rolleyes: I’m glad to know that when all possible ethical, moral, legal, and intellectual support for your case fails, you declare victory. That’s a real winning attitude. This case had nothing to do with abortion. Not even the state of Texas - one that is not exactly a pro-choice state - did not think this was about abortion. And it really isn’t one, no matter what extremist pro-lifers think (and no, many reasonable Texan pro-lifers had no real problems with this outcome). Hell, I even mention it in first post in the thread. Let me refresh your memory: > [@Great\_Antibob](#): > > By and large, yes. But, as this case demonstrates, Texas suffers a bit of cognitive dissonance when anything that has the slightest whiff of abortion is involved. > > Some of the more conservative Texans are of the belief that even the slightest move to legitimize abortion of any sort (even in this case) is anathema. I can’t say for certain in absolute fact, but I’m personally sure that many conservative Texans agree with keeping the woman on life support even if (and for some, especially if) the fetus will be developmentally compromised. And now, I have confirmation that at least one person (though not a Texan) takes exactly this tack. ---
**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 25, 2014, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-wont-allow-pregnant-woman-to-be-taken-off-life-support/677837/136 "2014-01-25T04:57:30Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > 😕 > > There was no recorded wish for the mother to do like the hospital wanted. It is then a choice of her next of kin. BTW Pro-choice does not mean that an abortion is the only choice for that next of kin. **It is the anti-abortionists the ones that will not allow for any choices, and this case shows that.** This decision established the principle that somebody other than the woman who’s pregnant can make a decision about terminating a pregnancy. Now that the principle’s been established, pro-lifers (or anti-abortionists if you prefer) will work on expanding it to cover more situations. Their goal will be to make it increasingly difficult for a woman to choose to have an abortion without other people being able to legally interfere with her decision. ---
**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 25, 2014, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-wont-allow-pregnant-woman-to-be-taken-off-life-support/677837/137 "2014-01-25T05:04:52Z")
> [@Great\_Antibob](#): > > The cluelessness. It burns. :rolleyes: > > I’m glad to know that when all possible ethical, moral, legal, and intellectual support for your case fails, you declare victory. That’s a real winning attitude. The cluelessness here is yours. You keep calling me a pro-lifer despite my repeatedly saying I am pro-choice. Assuming you’re pro-choice, we’re on the same side - and our side lost this case. ---
**Author:** ![EverwonderWhy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee59a6/32.png) [@EverwonderWhy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EverwonderWhy)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2014, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-wont-allow-pregnant-woman-to-be-taken-off-life-support/677837/138 "2014-01-25T05:11:36Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I still maintain that this is a significant defeat for the pro-choice movement. This decision pokes a hole in Roe v Wade and now the pro-life movement will work at widening it. Please, please quite speaking for the pro-choice community, seriously. As had been repeatedly pointed out to you, while hardly the monolith that you are determined to speak for, the general consensus among the pro-choice community is Marlise’s rights are unequivocally being violated. Failing to take outside medical intervention to terminate a pregnancy that would _likely_ progress at 14 weeks naturally is not at all equivalent to taking outside extraordinary and experimental medical intervention to maintain a pregnancy that would otherwise terminate naturally. Marlise Munoz is dead, her pregnancy sadly terminated with her. What has been going on is nothing more than a gruesome science experiment with Marlise’s dead body against her wishes and the consensus of her parents and husband - who are the only people qualified to advocate for the deceased against the state of Texas. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2014, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-wont-allow-pregnant-woman-to-be-taken-off-life-support/677837/139 "2014-01-25T05:13:01Z")
For fuck’s sake, a dead person cannot MAKE that choice. Thus, it must fall to her next of kin. Jesus. It’s not about being anti-choice – the woman is dead. Thus it’s up to her husband, or whoever makes any legal decisions in her place. Gah! ---
**Author:** ![EverwonderWhy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee59a6/32.png) [@EverwonderWhy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EverwonderWhy)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2014, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-wont-allow-pregnant-woman-to-be-taken-off-life-support/677837/140 "2014-01-25T05:18:42Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > The cluelessness here is yours. You keep calling me a pro-lifer despite my repeatedly saying I am pro-choice. Assuming you’re pro-choice, we’re on the same side - and our side lost this case. No, the cluelessness is yours, in thinking you are better equipped to speak for Marlise’s wishes over her next of kin who are unanimous. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-wont-allow-pregnant-woman-to-be-taken-off-life-support/677837.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-wont-allow-pregnant-woman-to-be-taken-off-life-support/677837.md?page=8)