Posted on 01/24/2014 6:54:06 PM PST by Morgana
A judge allowed a Texas husband’s bid to remove his “brain dead” pregnant wife from life support, an action that would end the life of his own unborn child.
Marlise Munoz collapsed in her home last November from an apparent blood clot in her lungs when she was 14 weeks pregnant with her second child. Her husband and other family members have asked the John Peter Smith Hospital in Ft. Worth to remove Marlise from life support after they were told she was “brain dead.” Ending life support would also end her unborn baby’s life.
munozSo far John Peter Smith Hospital officials have refused to follow the family’s request, citing a Texas law that prohibits hospitals from removing life support from pregnant women.
Erick Munoz, who says a doctor has told him his wife is brain dead, has filed a lawsuit against JPS Health Network. But, the judge in the case sided with the state law and hospital.
The judge ordered the hospital to remove life support by 5 p.m. Monday.
The designation of “brain death” is a controversial one and presents moral and ethical issues, especially when the life of a baby is involved. There are many cases where babies have survived after the mothers have experienced similar situations to that of Marlise Munoz. There is a very strong possibility that Marlise’s baby could survive, given a little more time.
“We feel great compassion for the family of Marlise Munoz and her pre-born baby. No one ever wants to be in their difficult and tragic situation,” said Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue. “Marlise wanted this baby, and as long as there is a chance that he or she can be saved, we support John Peter Smith Hospital in their bid to follow the law and protect this baby’s life.”
“The public has been given the erroneous impression that Marlise is a dead and decaying corpse. This assumption is completely false. Marlise’s heart continues to beat and she continues to nourish her pre-born baby. A rotting corpse cannot do that,” said Newman. “As for the baby, we have information that diagnostic tests have not been done on the baby to support allegations that there are developmental anomalies, but even if the baby does have health issues, that baby still does not deserve to be killed.”
Newman added after the ruling:
We are appalled by Judge Wallace’s order to terminate life support for Marlise Munoz and her baby. The order is the equivalent of signing a death sentence for Baby Munoz. We utterly reject the false notion that Marlise’s body is a rotting corpse, which is impossible since a decaying body cannot support the life of a baby for weeks, as Marlise has.
Killing people because they are disabled is wrong, and dangerously devalues all life. We condemn in the strongest terms this order to fatally discriminate against this disabled mother and her baby, especially in light of the fact that there are people standing by to adopt the baby knowing that the child will have special needs.
Even if the Munoz baby has suffered disabilities due to Marlise’s condition, numerous people have expressed an interest in adopting the Munoz baby regardless of whether he or she has special needs.
Abortion groups like NARAL have coldly sided with Marlise’s husband in calling on the hospital to kill Marlise and her baby.
“Some people want to decide who lives and who dies based on their personal criteria. If that was allowed, none of our lives would be safe. We simply cannot murder sick or inconvenient people just because we don’t want the hassle of caring for them. That is a dangerous road that will only end up unjustly depriving vast numbers of people of their right to life, just as we have seen with the issue of abortion,” said Newman.
Writing at LifeNews, Calvin Frieberger says abortion activists are upset.
As Newsbusters’ Katie Yoder documents, pro-aborts far and wide are seething with rage over this. But curiously, that’s despite the fact that almost none of their token justifications are present. Delivery will no longer affect Marlise’s well-being, and as Cox points out, whatever end-of-life wishes she had told Erick almost certainly didn’t account for the remote possibility that ending her life would also end her son or daughter’s, in what is presumably a desired pregnancy.
That means a man is presuming to make a woman’s reproductive decision for her—with the full backing of the supposed “reproductive rights” champions. Apparently the outcome of a dead baby is all that matters.
“How about OBEYING the laws of Texas enacted by the legislators elected by Texas voters? “
That is why this so baffles me.
Perhaps, before you question the credentials of social conservatives to resist the emotionalism that underlies the judicial order to execute an unborn child, you might give us your professional credentials as to the defense of the unborn from the ravenous blood lust of the official organs of the medical profession from 1973 (or even earlier) onward to free doctors to earn fees killing babies in utero at the command of their mothers (or in this case other family members) and to recognize some sort of total "freedom" of doctors to do as they please even when that includes killing.
Do you attend meetings of medical associations to restore the traditional commitment of your profession to preserve innocent life and refuse co-operation in the killing of the unborn? Become a delegate to state or national medical conventions to change their baby-killing policy? Write articles for peer-reviewed professional and scholarly journals to urge restoration of your profession as one that fosters the protection of innocent life? Have you any credentials whatsoever to include yourself rhetorically as part of a pro-life "us?"
I did not think so.
Instead, you rise to the defense of emotionalism expressed in support of a freedom for doctors and "family" members that is not morally theirs. Those who resist babykilling are just "inhuman" and deserving of "scorn and derision" for resisting Herod Blackmun's mass-murdering stupidity. If that means that pro-lifers (the actual ones) must suffer the disparagement meted out by NARAL, Planned Barrenhood and such as the American Medical Association and OB-GYN groups (professionally interested as they are in preserving Roe vs. Wade), we actual pro-lifers will get along somehow and wear that disparagement as a badge of honor. The murdered babies? Not so much!
Doctors typically shun their abortionist colleagues socially and professionally but refuse to expel them from the medical profession. That tells us as much as we need to know about today's medical profession on the subject. Until those expulsions are routine and permanent, don't expect respect as a profession from those who remember the Hippocratic Oath that governed your profession from the time of pagan Greece until your profession wanted to reject its traditions to whore after the approval of the worst in our society. If that sounds "cruel" or "inhuman" to you, too bad! If the label "death lobby" fits, wear it!
Scorn??? Derision??? Bring it on!
Certainly there are doctors who deserve respect but that is on an individual basis and no longer attributable to the profession itself. Res ipsa loquitur.
We have come to a point where we MUST know the moral credentials of the doctors whom we choose even before we seek knowledge of their professional credentials.
Likewise those elected or appointed as judges. Don't you wonder just WHAT is Judge Wallace's BIG hurry to carry out the killing of this baby as demanded by the baby daddy?
Then again, there are those lawyers (more than willing to serve as rent-a-whores) eager to represent baby daddy in effecting his desire to kill the baby ASAP. If the baby is killed on Monday as scheduled by Judge Wallace, such lawyers have "won." If not, they reap major fees on appeal, AND major publicity. It's a win-win for the lawyers for baby daddy. For the baby? Not so much!
To put it mildly.
God bless you and yours!
agreed. It was a heart breaking tragedy
true that
the baby is now dead along with the mother.... you apparently lack reading comprehension
the life support was ended yesterday... you really are not paying any attention to the facts in the case
Done trying to convince people that dead is dead... the artificial means of life support have been removed from the mother.... end of story
Why yes you pompous jackass...
I do attend national meetings in my society and advocate for innocent life. Peer reviewed journals are for research you idiot so no I don’t publish basic research as I am not a research scientist. While my advocacy on behalf of expelling from the medical profession abortionists this is merely a political question. I do not appoint licensing boards. I did take the oath of Hipocrates in its entirety.
You are amusing that you proclaim to know my activity. I am the lead of the clinical ethics committee in my institution and I have no regret on any of my positions and I know they are 100% pro life
You are an idiot full of sound and fury signifying nothing. Btw I listening to hear your clinical bona fides....obviously you have none
” I start suspecting sone people posting have more than what may, or may not be best for mother and child as their primary concern.”
And you fall into that category... you do not have a clue as to what happens to the human body (even with artificial life support). You have not sat bed side and watch the skin become so inelastic that every pressure creates a deep bruise and the skin separates from the body and peels off.
This is NOT a Terri Schiavo case. Terri was NOT brain dead and no court document ever suggest she was. Persistent vegetative state is FAR different than what happens when a person suffers brain death.
Either start learning about how the body actually works or please save us all the melodramatics of the uninformed.
You blasted some on this forum and called them horrible names. If that is the best that you as a ‘pro life’ supporter can muster then something is wrong. Perhaps some long introspection will cause you to do the appropriate work
Where did you get that from? It isn't anywhere that I have seen.
If that is not true-that she collapsed at 10 weeks pregnant-Why did you post that?
Were the tests on the baby done or not done?
Does the baby have rights as an individual, as a living human being separate from his/her mother, including the right to life? Texas law says yes.
I will refer you to BlackElk's posts, since they better express the pro life points on this issue.
Sorry, dear Nifster. It is you that lacks reading comprehension:
The judge ordered the hospital to remove life support by 5 p.m. Monday.
By my calculations, it is Saturday night. That means it is not yet Monday at 5 p.m. Put your specs on. We await to see whether the hospital is going to appeal the judge’s order or not. Now you can thank me for bringing you up-to-date, which you obviously weren’t.
>> the life support was ended yesterday
No it wasn’t. Where are you getting your information from? Wherever it is, you’re being fed lies and you’re eating them up like cotton candy.
Are you sure you’re not an Obama voter? You have the same modus operandi.
He’s drunk. Ignore him.
I am glad you are amused. It will keep you busy at something more worthwhile than patting yourself on the back undeservedly for defending the lawless decision of this Judge Wallace.
Care to translate into conventional English your attempt at answering as to whether you actively seek the expulsion from your profession (not a mere political question) of those engaged in the premeditated killing of innocent babies in utero? You can do it. Your last paragraph suggests that you have read Shakespeare somewhere along the way.
I am quite content with the fact that I am not a physician in this day and age if that is what you imagine to be "clinical bona fides." I do not envy anyone practicing medicine in the midst of what passes nowadays for ethics involving innocent human life. To the extent that you have clinical experience, that is your job. If it disturbs you emotionally, find another and less stressful occupation. All this business of nobody knows the troubles you've seen is not rational argument and is not an excuse for your defense of the lawless decision of the court in Texas. This business of "clinical bona fides" is simply the equivalent of asserting that no one but doctors has any business in holding doctors to standards. Self-serving nonsense.
As to your self-evaluation, is it not a parallel to a situation in which Honest John McGraw draws the winning lottery ticket from the barrel and, in a stunning surprise, the Winnuh is.... Honest John McGraw???
If you imagine the lawlessly judicially ordered death of this unborn child to be just, then you have an apparently curious understanding of the Hippocratic Oath.
You may also note that I do not find it necessary or desirable to sling ad hominem insults in your direction in response to your scarcity of argument.
Thank you for your kind words. May God bless you and yours.
Nasty name calling not withstanding....
the woman has been declared dead and the family has been given the okay to remove the body
Didn’t call you any names, I just said you’re operating like an Obama voter. At the time, you were. Now they’ve decided to let the baby and mother die. So congrats, they’re both dead, you win.
Let me correct that before your pedantic attack:
The woman was already declared brain dead, but the baby was still alive. So congrats on the baby death. No kudos for the mom’s death since that happened beforehand.
you really are clueless.
whether you know it or not or like it or not you and I agree more than we disagree. my guess is my voting record matches yours in most ways.
calling me an ‘obama voter’ is outrageous on its face.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.