At least no one on this thread so far is trying to “speak for the fetus.” That’s encouraging.
Actually, even if the deceased actively desired to be an organ donor or used in research while still alive at least in the US the next of kin can veto that once they’re dead.
Yes. However, if a pregnant woman is brain dead the fetus is already hooked into her systems and organs. It’s not a matter of giving, it’s a matter of taking away, of deliberately causing a death. I’m opposed to killing without an extremely good reason.
We wouldn’t be talking about maintain the woman’s body indefinitely, only until the fetus/baby no longer needs it. After that, after following the woman’s prior desires can’t kill someone else, we can go back to what the woman wanted while still alive.
Re-read the statements by her husband. He is presuming the fetus is just as brain-damaged as his wife. The doctors seems to think that might not be the case. IF it was known that the child was brain dead or severely damaged that would be one thing, if we KNEW it as a hard fact it would revert to whether or not life support should be continued for an infant that was brain dead or unlikely to survive. We don’t actually know that. If we KNEW for a fact the baby was healthy and neurologically normal I’d say the baby’s life takes precedence over a dead woman’s wishes not to be on life support.
We don’t know either of those two states to be true. In an ambiguous case I’d prefer to err on the side of life. It will be another 12-14 weeks minimum before the baby could be viable outside the womb, and if healthy at that point and we could still maintain the mother’s body it would be in the interest of the child to continue the pregnancy as long as possible.
The only time I’d say cut the power right now if it could be established that the mother absolutely intended to the abort but apparently that was not the case here.
Because the dead person is already functioning as life support for someone else. It withdrawing something already there instead of attempting to replace something. Maybe that makes no difference to you but to me it’s a significant distinction.
Since the woman is legally dead I don’t think the family can be held liable for her debts… including medical care. I suspect the state or the hospital is already paying for this.
And nobody knows if the child will be disabled or not. Nobody. It’s all assumptions. Unless the doctors have some key evidence but if they’re ethical they’ll never share the information with the media, so we’ll never know.
She is no longer “an adult pregnant woman”. She’s a warm corpse that hasn’t gone gamey yet. Again, I find the distinction significant.
Actually, you made the same erroneous declaration in the other thread and were soundly proven wrong there too. You really should quit repeating it.
“When Is An Organ Donor Not An Organ Donor”
You seem to be forgetting that a fetus is NOT legally a person and that abortion is not a ‘killing’ or ‘deliberate cause of death’ of ‘someone else’ :rolleyes:, but a termination of a pregnancy.
More pointedly, conflating the removal from life support of the pregnant women with abortion is not accurate. The intent to remove Munoz from life support is not the same as the intent to terminate a pregnancy - though the outcome for the fetus (which is NOT a legal person) may be the same. Furthermore, the ‘allowing Munoz to be removed from life-support only if she intended to abort’ argument isn’t logical or compelling, as it can be safely assumed that Munoz’s intent in carrying her pregnancy to term was not surrogacy, but a parenthood. There is no such opportunity for that relationship now that she is deceased (outside of the purely biological). Of course the most qualified person to speak on her behalf is her husband - who the state is overriding.
Again, ‘warm corpses’ still have the right to refuse to donate their body/organs/tissues.
And yes, her warm corpse is still the body of an adult pregnant woman who happens to be brain dead and her wishes should be as legally binding as any other ‘warm corpse’ or decedent.
duplicate post
In this thread, we’re talking about a different situation. One where the decision is whether to allow the woman and the foetus to both die now or delay the woman dying in order for the foetus to be born.
Can you show who is harmed by waiting in this case? By common consensus, the woman is irreversibly brain dead and is beyond any further harm. How is delaying the death of her body going to inconvenience her?
And you’re ignoring the central tenet of the pro-choice position: the decision to terminate a pregnancy is solely the pregnant woman’s to make. It doesn’t matter if you’re arguing that the government wants to terminate the pregnancy or the husband wants to terminate the pregnancy or the grandparents want to terminate the pregnancy - the basic principle is the same: nobody but the woman can make that decision.
No, you are stubbornly conflating the removal from life support with abortion. There is no scheduled D&C, no separate medical procedure being performed on the woman in order to terminate her pregnancy – just removal from life support as she would wish. There is no intent to terminate a pregnancy. The intent is to discontinue extraordinary measures via artificial and mechanical support to a brain dead woman who happens to be pregnant and let her pass on naturally. For all you know the Munoz’s could be fervently pro-life and don’t consider withdrawing life support equivalent to abortion (because, it is after all, not even the same procedure).
And while I won’t speak for the whole pro-choice tent here, my belief centers around body autonomy. If Munoz wished to not to have her body on life support and the person most qualified and legally authorized to represent her wishes in this tragic and unique circumstance conveys that - then her wishes should be as legally binding as any other person. Any person has the right be removed from life support, *except pregnant women *. Despite their wishes or advanced directives? How does that not turn pregnant women into second class citizens and deny their body autonomy?
Anyone who fails to acknowledge that between conception and birth there is an ethical grey area is an idiot. The “right” to an abortion is not absolute. Nor is the status of a fetus being a “non-person”. As a general rule (because I don’t want to go into every specific variation of law) past a certain point abortion simply isn’t legal. Injuring a pregnant woman to the point of miscarriage has long carried penalties above and beyond that of assaulting a non-pregnant person, at least in some jurisdictions.
To a woman who wants a child a miscarriage is more upsetting than a menstrual period, and miscarriages can cause as much grief to would-have-been parents as the death of a infant just after birth. And, yes, sometimes an abortion is an enormous relief for a woman who does not want a child at that point. You can’t issue blanket statements about something so variable.
Yes, abortion IS killing. It’s not killing a legally defined human person but it most certainly is killing something alive. Pretending it’s not causing death to something is ludicrous. The question is whether it’s murder - that is, killing a living, legal human being - or of no more consequence than killing a mouse or something. The truth is that the legal dividing lines are fuzzy, and always will be absent a standard of “life begins at conception”.
Does removing life support from the mother’s body cause the death of the fetus? Yes? Then it’s the moral equivalent of abortion. Both actions result in a dead fetus.
So… you’re saying that a woman who suddenly realizes she won’t live long past the birth of her child would want to kill the fetus? Why do you think that? Of course she wanted to be a parent, but it’s not unheard of for parents facing terminal illness when their children are still infants to nonetheless want their spouse to carry on as a parent.
That doesn’t square with the women who are willing to risk their lives to complete a pregnancy, or forgo cancer treatment long enough to birth a child even though it puts their own lives at greater risk, or women who, facing death and without a spouse, make arrangements for the custody and care of their children after their gone.
Thus, I reject your argument that, if we could communicate somehow with this dead woman, she would automatically argue to kill the fetus by taking her body off life support.
Again, I am not convinced the wishes of the dead woman should *automatically *override the interests of her fetus. I think this is a grey area that needs to be considered on an individual basis and not subjected to cookie-cutter rules.
Warm corpses do not have opinions or rights. If a person wants to dictate what happens to their corpse they need to speak up while still alive and able to communicate. If they fail to make their wishes explicit there is a risk of this sort of thing occurring.
In other words, when making out medical directives or living wills women of childbearing age need to consider how pregnancy could affect their wishes regarding their remains.
What is the proof we have of her wishes? There’s a reason why it’s a good idea to put your wishes in writing, otherwise it devolves into hearsay and rumor and what other people want or think you want or hope you want.
Beyond that, if your wishes regarding the disposition of your corpse could harm or kill the living then I say tough crap, you don’t get your wish honored. This would probably be less muddy if she were, say, 30 weeks along instead of 14 and the fetus much closer to clear and full legal status as a person.
Maybe it’s just my hesitation to get the state involved in killing people or even potential people. The 20th Century had all manner of horrific abuses done by governments in the name of eliminating life deemed unworthy of life, including slides down slippery slopes, and I do not want that to happen again. I am opposed to capital punishment as well. As I said, I’d rather err on the side of life, it makes it less likely to categorize significant numbers of people as disposable.
What several million you can never pay? If she was disconnected from life support as soon as her husband was able to let her wishes be known, there would be no several million dollar hospital, etc bill. Your cavalier dismissal of those bills is pretty chilling too, given that just because the husband can’t pay them doesn’t mean they just go away.
In this case, we aren’t talking about a pregnant woman, we are talking about a dead body.
The woman is already dead, no way around that. The fetus may already be dead, may die soon, may die shortly after birth or may be born severely retarded. Or, there is a VERY slight chance it will be born normal.
She isn’t the one who is going to be affected here. Beginning with her husband, who cannot have closure on this and whose memories of his wife are now of her corpse being kept alive. Then there is any other relatives who will suffer the same way. Then there are all the bills this would run up - it will either bankrupt the husband or the state/fed/some crazy anti-abortion group will end up having to pay them. And finally, there is that fetus you are so worried about - there is extremely little chance it’s going to be born without severe damage, so now you have a man who had to live with his wife’s corpse being kept on support until this baby could be born, and he ends up with not only a reminder of that horrible time, but quite likely also one that will need a lot of expensive care. Wonder if he could possible love such a child?
They aren’t terminating the pregnancy, they are disconnecting “life” support.
Part of the problem here is determining what, exactly, the deceased would have wanted. Again, that’s why making these things explicit in writing is important.
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. Assumption that a pregnant woman who has not secured an abortion by the second trimester wants the child is reasonable. The default assumption in medicine is that if a woman is pregnant the assumption is she is keeping the baby until she says otherwise, and medical procedures, even on unconscious women, are conducted with that in mind. Absent solid proof otherwise I don’t see a problem with that.
Now, if the woman had a living will where it was explicitly written that she did not desire life support post-brain death even if she was pregnant I’d say that there is a much more significant basis for turning her off in this case. We don’t have that.
Yes, her husband is next of kin and apparently has the power of attorney in this case. However, the dead woman is not suffering and I for one have no problem with taking a week or two to carefully examine and question what is the best course here. Medical ethicists and maybe a judge can consider the question with access to details you and I will never see, and I have no problem with doing it that way. If the widower wants to terminate parental rights prior to birth the child would then become a ward of the state. I would feel much more comfortable about an ethical review which ends in turning off the machines in a fortnight than simply yanking the plug right now without a second thought.
Her body autonomy is being violated as she did not want her body kept ‘alive’ via extraordinary measures if she became brain dead. This is not simply waiting to let ‘nature take its course’ - it is taking extraordinary measures to prevent ‘nature from taking course.’ It is using extremely technical and resource intensive medical intervention to keep the body minimally functioning - many of which are indignfying. (and yes, dead people should still be afforded their human dignity)
Dignity given to the dead is largely for the benefit of the living.
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.
If we were talking about keeping her body alive indefinitely, you’d have a valid point. But that’s not the issue under discussion.
So in Texas they are eager to reduce costs and pull the plug on the already born, but the pre-born get special protections, until they’re born. Heck of a contrast.
Cases like this are always tragic. There are no right answers. Has the husband been told by a competent authority that the fetus is brain damaged, or that such a case is highly likely?
Um whoa, you are arguing claims never made. There is an ethical gray area between conception and birth, which is usually defined around viability. The woman was diagnosed brain dead at 14 weeks, not even close to viability.
In your opinion abortion IS killing and you are free to apply that belief to your own life. Fortunately, what is being debated here is the legality or more precisely when does the state have the right to override the wishes of private citizens and impose the state’s views on ‘the status of the fetus’ on private citizens who are most intimately involved. I contend that pre-viability it is the Munozs views on the status of the fetus that should carry any legal weight.
This, is frankly, quite ridiculous. Not even the Catholic church holds that absolute - examine the Principle of Double Effect if you don’t want to take my word for it. Most moral or ethical reasoning is grounded in distinguishing the ends from the means. ‘Anything that causes the death of fetus being morally equivalent to abortion’? Please. Even most pro-lifers agree with abortion in some cases.
No, I never argued any of that, nor do I think any those things. Another creative interpretation on your part.
While I agree the woman, by carrying a pregnancy to 14 weeks without aborting, assumes she intends to carry the pregnancy to term – I do not agree that this assumes the pregnancy must be carried to term at all costs. Or as in this case, maintained through extraordinary measures against the directive of the woman’s next of kin. Women whose health and life are endangered by completing their pregnancies or who’s fetus may potentially face profound disability (similar to this case) are typically advised to abort - and many of them do.
You are rejecting an argument on your own creative invention. I am saying that in absence of direct communication with the woman, the state should, like in most other instances of determining the wishes of the deceased, look to an advanced directive, will and/or next of kin - in this case the next of kin has been quite clear on what the deceased wishes would be. And no will or advanced directive can account for every circumstance, the next of kin is the best person to help navigate the intent and wishes of the deceased.
Well, I guess we will just have to accept to disagree, because I believe the wishes of the dead woman always override the interests of the pre-viable fetus and legally so do the majority of states.
While, I do agree warm corpses do not have opinions, the deceased still maintain some rights after death - the most obvious being what happens to their body. Perhaps, you need to take that up with the law that allows next of kin to speak to the wishes of the deceased. No one’s advanced directive or will is going to account for every circumstance and in those cases it is best to look to the next of kin to convey the deceased wishes.
What her husband and co-parent communicates about her wishes is more than hearsay or rumor. Good grief.
Oh, so now you do support mandatory organ donation? That’s a complete 180 from your position on presumed or opt-in organ donation. Interesting how you’ve evolved. Because the personhood of the already born people who would benefit is not even close to the equivalence to personhood of fetuses.
I would agree with that if this was a case where the woman was unconscious and had a chance of recovery or even if the woman suffered brain death post 24 weeks gestation (so they could immediately deliver). However, as I already stated upthread it can be safely assumed that the woman’s intent to carry her pregnancy to term was not to be a surrogate, but a parent. As she has no chance of recovery and the fetus is not even close to being viable, not to mention the potential for profound disability - she should be allowed to pass on naturally as her family wishes. I think explicit consent should be required when extraordinary medical interventions are going to be implemented to artificially maintain a person’s minimal body functions after they have been diagnosed brain dead. This type of intensive medical care is extremely expensive, technical and resource intensive. That kind of undertaking shouldn’t simply be implicitly assumed and certainly should not go against the wishes of the deceased or their next of kin.:mad:
Again, not at an accurate assessment of what is actually happening. No one is saying ‘pull the plug without a second thought’. Its been well over a month with even the woman’s mother weighing in that her daughter would not want to be artificially kept ‘alive’ in this manner. The wishes of the woman, as communicated through her next of kin, are expressly opposed to keeping her body functioning in this manner. It may also be worthwhile to add that both the woman and her husband were paramedics quite familiar with the implications of brain death and artificial support. In fact, this is one of the reasons the husband explicitly expresses for knowing she would not want to be kept going in this way.
I think we shall have to agree to disagree, because I think it is an incredibly dishonest characterization that wanting to remove Munoz from life support is intentionally terminating her pregnancy or remotely equivalent to abortion. It is nothing more than letting her pass naturally, with dignity, as she would want. The end of her pregnancy is a secondary, just as when someone dies, their pregnancies end with them, unless it is viable and can be delivered at the time of death. (It may be useful to note that the pulmonary embolism that killed her was likely caused by her pregnancy.)
Diary of an intensive-care nurse
After seeing this for myself first hand as a medical professional and watching a loved one experience it when my grandfather passed. I know there is under no condition I would ever consent to this, nor would I want to subject my loved ones or the medical professionals charged with my care through any of it. What is disconcerting, Broomstick and what you are repeatedly failing to grasp about this law is that even if a woman did ‘explicitly express in writing’ that she did not want extraordinary medical measures in the event she was pregnant and brain dead - the state would still disregard it and force “life-support” on her. Her wishes or the wishes of her next of kin be damned. :mad:
IMO, a fourteen week fetus should not get to impose this kind of invasive extraordinary medical care on the body of the brain dead mother. It’s the ultimate violation of body autonomy and should not be assumed, ever.
Then disagree we will. But I don’t feel the dishonesty is on my side. You can protest that removing Munoz from life support is not “intentionally terminating her pregnancy” but the fact remains that that’s exactly what it is.
And it’s the central issue of this thread. If Munoz was not pregnant there would be no debate - nobody (including the law) is disagreeing that Munoz’s family has the right to withdraw her life support in this situation if she wasn’t pregnant. Terminating the pregnancy is the only topic under discussion. If you want to pretend it doesn’t exist, what do you have to talk about?
Yes, the wishes of her next of kin be damned. The wishes of the government be damned. Your wishes be damned. My wishes be damned.
It’s really simple. The only person who can decide to terminate Marlise Munoz’s pregnancy is Marlise Munoz. Her wish is the only wish that matter. And as she never indicated she wanted to end her pregnancy, nobody else gets to make that choice.
To me, “the ultimate violation of body autonomy” would be somebody terminating a woman’s pregnancy without her permission. For you to assume that you or anyone else has that power over a woman’s body is wrong.
Let’s be realistic here. Marlise Munoz was unconscious and without oxygen for an hour when five minutes without oxygen results in irreversible brain damage.
Marlise and the fetus she carried, having been on life supoort for MORE THAN A MONTH, what quality of life will she and the child she carries REALLY HAVE? Just because there is a heartbeat? Do you really think that after all this Marlise will be able to go on Dancing With The Stars? That the fetus will somehow grow up to be a prima ballerina, Rhodes Scholar, Nobel Prize winner and Senator? Why are the wishes which MARLISE HERSELF communicated to her husband and mother so easily disregarded?
It’s not an abortion, it’s letting a woman who had a pulmonary embolism go in peace. Is that what you want for yourself? I wouldn’t.