Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

What About the Dad?Follow

#27 Jan 24 2014 at 4:22 PM Rating: Good
Judge has ruled they should remove life support.

Good.

Edit: I've been thinking about why the state created this law in the first place. The only plausible scenario I've come up with is this: Couple gets pregnant, man does not want baby, woman does. Man attempts to cause woman to miscarry or attempts to kill her entirely, and fails. Woman is in a coma/minimally conscious as a result.

But a coma is not the same as brain death. Minimally conscious is not the same as brain death. Even a vegetative state is not the same as brain death.

The law really needs to be clarified.

Edited, Jan 24th 2014 5:28pm by Catwho
#28 Jan 24 2014 at 4:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
I have no idea what that means, but yes. Yes, it is.

Why are you back to three, no four, k's?
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#29 Jan 24 2014 at 4:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Posting too hard can give you a Kav-ek-k-k....
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#30 Jan 24 2014 at 4:37 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Catwho wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
Husbands have no rights in regards to unborn children in this or any other circumstance.


I think this is perhaps the one circumstance in which a father does have 100% rights over the unborn child. 1. The mother is dead 2. They were legally married 3. He is trying to carry out her wishes as explicitly stated in a legal document.


She specified that she wished to have an abortion in the event that she were to become brain dead? If we assume that they planned to have the child prior to the injury to the mother then the doctors are obligated to do everything they can to allow the fetus to come to term. Those are the assumed wishes of the mother in this case.

Quote:
It's only the hospital that went crazy with this law, which will hopefully be struck down as a result of this case.


I don't see that at all. The hospital is doing precisely what the law was intended to do. What possible other case do you think the lawmakers had in mind when they said that a patient could not be removed from life support if they were pregnant? That language was pretty clearly written for precisely this case and no other. Disagree with the law if you must, but don't blame the hospital for adhering to it.

Edited, Jan 24th 2014 2:47pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#31 Jan 24 2014 at 4:41 PM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
That was the time where Iddigory argued at considerable length that the Mesoamerican civilisations were more advanced than the Europeans invading them, all while claiming to be a history major; which, god help us all, may be true. In the process he demonstrated such a staggering ignorance of 16th century Europe (they don't wash, no guilds or skilled labourers, everyone's a peasant) I wanted to gnaw my eyes out, and that's not even biologically possible. I know, I tried. Hard to gnaw anyone's eye, come to that. They're too soft, is the thing.

I'll be back to a more reasonable number of k's tomorrow. I nicked one off Kelloggs and they want it back.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#32 Jan 24 2014 at 4:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
gbaji wrote:
I don't see that at all. The hospital is doing precisely what the law was intended to do. What possible other case do you think the lawmakers had in mind when they said that a patient could not be removed from life support if they were pregnant? That language was pretty clearly written for precisely this case and no other. Disagree with the law if you must, but don't blame the hospital for adhering to it.
I was under the impression they were thinking more of vegetative or potentially terminal cases rather than brain dead ones? That's partly where I swing sides on this one. If the patient wasn't dead already the argument would hold more weight for me.

Edit: Not that I blame the hospital for doing what they're doing of course. If I was in their situation I'd probably do the same thing. Better to make a judge clarify this instance if it was a gray area in the law, rather than pulling the plug and potentially facing a lawsuit.

Edited, Jan 24th 2014 2:47pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#33 Jan 24 2014 at 4:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Kavekkk wrote:
I nicked one off Kelloggs and they want it back.
Shame, Elloggs has a nice ring to it.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#34 Jan 24 2014 at 4:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Kavekkk wrote:
That was the time where Iddigory argued at considerable length that the Mesoamerican civilisations were more advanced than the Europeans invading them, all while claiming to be a history major; which, god help us all, may be true. In the process he demonstrated such a staggering ignorance of 16th century Europe (they don't wash, no guilds or skilled labourers, everyone's a peasant) I wanted to gnaw my eyes out, and that's not even biologically possible. I know, I tried. Hard to gnaw anyone's eye, come to that. They're too soft, is the thing.

I'll be back to a more reasonable number of k's tomorrow. I nicked one off Kelloggs and they want it back.



Okay, I do vaguely remember that. Germs, Guns and Steel for the win.

Re: the eyes - sounds like you're biting down too hard.


Edited, Jan 24th 2014 2:53pm by Samira
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#35 Jan 24 2014 at 4:56 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I don't see that at all. The hospital is doing precisely what the law was intended to do. What possible other case do you think the lawmakers had in mind when they said that a patient could not be removed from life support if they were pregnant? That language was pretty clearly written for precisely this case and no other. Disagree with the law if you must, but don't blame the hospital for adhering to it.
I was under the impression they were thinking more of vegetative or potentially terminal cases rather than brain dead ones?


The clear intent of the law is to ensure that the fetus is brought to term if a pregnancy can be sustained via life support on the mother. It's not about her state, but that of the fetus/pregnancy. And it's also not about saving her life. So her wishes regarding being kept alive aren't relevant. Only the fact that at least to this point there is a live fetus and viable pregnancy and the law is quite clear about what the hospital must do in that case.

Quote:
That's partly where I swing sides on this one. If the patient wasn't dead already the argument would hold more weight for me.


It does make it a bit of a grey area if we were talking about continuing life support in the hopes of the woman surviving. But that's really not the case here. There's already a time limit involved. Presumably at some point doctors would have to make the decision to attempt to remove the fetus from the mother. The judge's decision just pushed that ahead about a week.

It would be a lot easier to make a judgement on this case if there was more direct information (like from the hospital, not the families attorneys) about the status of the fetus itself.

Edited, Jan 24th 2014 2:57pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#36 Jan 24 2014 at 5:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
gbaji wrote:
It would be a lot easier to make a judgement on this case if there was more direct information (like from the hospital, not the families attorneys) about the status of the fetus itself.
Well, we can agree on this part at least. Patient privacy law being what they are I'm happy to suffer the not knowing of course.

Sticky situation either way, wouldn't want to be in either the hospitals' or the judge's shoes at the moment. You're going to be condemned by someone no matter what you do.

Edit: well this clarifies things a bit:

Quote:
On Friday, John Peter Smith Hospital acknowledged for the first time that Marlise Munoz, who is being kept on a respirator under Texas law, has been brain dead since November 28 and that the "fetus gestating inside Mrs. Munoz is not viable," according to court documents released before a Friday hearing.


Edited, Jan 24th 2014 3:13pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#37 Jan 24 2014 at 5:21 PM Rating: Good
someproteinguy wrote:
Edit: well this clarifies things a bit:

Quote:
On Friday, John Peter Smith Hospital acknowledged for the first time that Marlise Munoz, who is being kept on a respirator under Texas law, has been brain dead since November 28 and that the "fetus gestating inside Mrs. Munoz is not viable," according to court documents released before a Friday hearing.


Edited, Jan 24th 2014 3:13pm by someproteinguy


I do not understand the problem here. Why is this woman being used as an incubator for a child that no one wants...? This is incredibly sickening.
#38 Jan 24 2014 at 5:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Because life, duh.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#39 Jan 24 2014 at 5:40 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Is it that the fetus is not viable or that the pregnancy is not viable? Those are critically different terms in this context. A non-viable fetus means that if the fetus were to be removed from the womb, it would die. A non-viable pregnancy is one in which the fetus will never develop to viability (or is already dead).

I'll point out again that the presumed purpose of this law is to ensure that a non-viable fetus can gestate sufficiently to become viable even if the mother is on life support and would otherwise be disconnected.

Edited, Jan 24th 2014 3:41pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#40 Jan 24 2014 at 5:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
gbaji wrote:
Is it that the fetus is not viable or that the pregnancy is not viable?
I've yet to find anywhere where it addresses that. I'd guess that if the doctors expected the baby to have any reasonable chance at viability (i.e. staying alive) once it came to a point they could remove it from the mother the judge wouldn't have been able to duck the issue of the constitutionality of the law.

But that's merely speculation on my part, crazy things happen.

Edited, Jan 24th 2014 3:59pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#41 Jan 24 2014 at 6:01 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
Samira wrote:
Because life, duh.

SAVE THE BABIES!
#42 Jan 24 2014 at 6:08 PM Rating: Good
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Edit: well this clarifies things a bit:

Quote:
On Friday, John Peter Smith Hospital acknowledged for the first time that Marlise Munoz, who is being kept on a respirator under Texas law, has been brain dead since November 28 and that the "fetus gestating inside Mrs. Munoz is not viable," according to court documents released before a Friday hearing.


Edited, Jan 24th 2014 3:13pm by someproteinguy


I do not understand the problem here. Why is this woman being used as an incubator for a child that no one wants...? This is incredibly sickening.


It's not even a matter of wanting - it's a fetus that isn't gonna make it, period. Even if they kept her a zombie for another few weeks, the fetus would likely have either miscarried by then, or wouldn't survive more than a few minutes after a C-section.

This would be a different story if she had been 28 weeks pregnant at the time of death.
#43 Jan 24 2014 at 6:12 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,024 posts
It's easy to claim Europe was the most advanced civilization when you are ranking civilizations by what Europe was good at. But circular reasoning is rarely impressive.

But when you are taking a look at civilizations subject to how well a civilization maintains itself, relative to the parts that make civilization possible, Europe was performing very poorly in the 16th c. compared to the rest of the world.

This was followed by a period of extreme acceleration, sure. But unless the only thing you care about is metallurgy and shipbuilding (the only counterpoints I actually remember from that thread), it wasn't all that amazing.

It's the same reason I would consider the EU the single greatest (or perhaps "most successful" is less ambiguous) civilization today. America has the better army and technology, by a pretty solid margin (particularly with military), but the EU does a much better job with regards to the infrastructures that make civilization possible.

The Ottoman Empire easily wins out for most successful/greatest/whatever civilization in the 16th c. though. That wouldn't change until Europe was deep into it's period of expansion in the 17th c. (though the real point it surpasses the Ottoman Empire is when the Industrial Revolution was triggered).

Don't particularly care if you disagree with me or not. If you think metallurgy and ships are all that really matter, I'm just happy I don't live in a civilization you're in charge of designing.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#44 Jan 24 2014 at 6:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
I do not understand the problem here. Why is this woman being used as an incubator for a child that no one wants...? This is incredibly sickening.

Because limited government.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#45 Jan 24 2014 at 6:39 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Catwho wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Edit: well this clarifies things a bit:

Quote:
On Friday, John Peter Smith Hospital acknowledged for the first time that Marlise Munoz, who is being kept on a respirator under Texas law, has been brain dead since November 28 and that the "fetus gestating inside Mrs. Munoz is not viable," according to court documents released before a Friday hearing.


Edited, Jan 24th 2014 3:13pm by someproteinguy


I do not understand the problem here. Why is this woman being used as an incubator for a child that no one wants...? This is incredibly sickening.


It's not even a matter of wanting - it's a fetus that isn't gonna make it, period. Even if they kept her a zombie for another few weeks, the fetus would likely have either miscarried by then, or wouldn't survive more than a few minutes after a C-section.


If that were actually the case, there would be no need to take the issue to court. The matter would literally take care of itself. It's almost 99% certain that the reason the family is pushing this issue is because they're afraid that the fetus will survive and will be viable, but will be horribly handicapped as a result of being gestated inside the body of a dead woman kept alive on life support. If they can get a judge to allow them to turn off the life support as soon as possible they maximize the odds that the fetus will die.


That's the whole point of this legal fight. If the fetus wont ever be viable, then there's no reason to sue.

Quote:
This would be a different story if she had been 28 weeks pregnant at the time of death.


If she'd been 28 weeks pregnant the fetus may have been viable right then. Or they might have kept the body on life support for a few more weeks to maximize the odds of the fetus surviving outside the womb. I'd expect that the doctors would make that decision based on their own medical knowledge and an assessment of what course of action will maximize the odds of a living healthy baby.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#46 Jan 24 2014 at 6:41 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
She's in Texas, how are they certain she really is brain dead?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#47 Jan 24 2014 at 6:43 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Samira wrote:
Because life, duh.

SAVE THE BABIES!, but don't provide them with decent health care, schools or food because that will impinge upon my FREEDOM!!

I'm an Helper!!Smiley: nod
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#48 Jan 24 2014 at 7:06 PM Rating: Decent
***
1,159 posts
Sure, and that's a great argument if you want to argue that a bunch of stone age primitives are more advanced than the people who effortlessly conquered them from across an ocean they couldn't have dreamed of crossing. It's the best you've got - try to pretend that efficient farming is the only measure of a civlisation's technological progress. I can almost respect that.

As I made clear in my last post, what was stupid was that, in the course of making your argument, it became clear you had an understanding of European society was made up of a patchwork of cartoonish misconceptions about bathing habits, the complexity and use of machinery and the social organisation of labour. Anachronistic stereotypes normally (and also incorrectly) applied to the dark ages, you know. You spent pages on pages arguing about something you hadn't got the first clue about.

You did it for the same reason you called 'strawman' above over a direct quote of your position. Do you know what that reason is, Idiggory?
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#49 Jan 24 2014 at 7:11 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
She's in Texas, how are they certain she really is brain dead?
She's not reacting to someone waving a confederate flag, grilling a burger and opening a cold bottle of Shiner while there's country playing in the background.
#50 Jan 24 2014 at 7:14 PM Rating: Excellent
******
27,272 posts
Kavekk/idiggory, please stop trying to drag a new argument out of the rotten corpse of a very old one. It's almost as bad as what the zombie baby.
#51 Jan 24 2014 at 7:17 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
She's in Texas, how are they certain she really is brain dead?


Hah. Funny, but also relevant to a conversation a co-worker and I had last week (or maybe two weeks ago? I forget). He was telling me about this case (which I hadn't actually heard about yet) and I was telling him about the girl who ended out brain dead as a result of a botched appendectomy. He had a very different perspective on both cases due to something that happened to him when he was a child. His brother was in an accident and was declared brain dead by the doctors at the time. His mom refused to believe them, even when they insisted they could detect no neural activity in his brain stem and no response from any stimulus. She fought against their attempts to remove him from life support. Then after 3 months, he woke up. He's still alive today, with no brain damage, and otherwise fully functional.


Now, this was 1970s era medicine, which presumably isn't quite as good at determining brain activity than we can today, but the point is that doctors are occasionally just plain wrong. Do I think that means that every grieving parent should keep their otherwise dead child on life support for months until the body rots away? No. But I understand that every once in a while the odds don't play out the way we assume they will.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 347 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (347)