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.
Providing life support to an otherwise dead person is playing God.
And pulling the plug with a viable baby is not?
She’s not dead Einstein, a corpse can’t support a baby.
Doesn’t this father have another child? I wonder how that child will feel about him when he or she realizes he killed their sibling. Especially since that would be that child’s only full brother or sister.
This article says nothing about the baby’s current state. From what I heard it doesn’t sound good. What if the baby has no chance of surviving and is suffering now? Horrible situation.
If this “Husband” really wanted this child, he would want her kept alive so that she has a lasting legacy, instead he wants the child killed..what a despicable human being
the baby is as dead as the mother.... keeping a body ‘going’ doesn’t mean that decay hasn’t set in....too many folks here do not understand the human body and how it functions. They think they do but they don’t.
the baby is not ‘living’....you apparently are uninformed about what happens to one’s body at death...even IF the machines keep pumping air into your lungs and try and force blood through your veins. Ignorance is no reason to make ridiculous statements.
exactly... and such provision does not revive the dead and rotting body it merely delays the inevitable and allows the family to maintain an illusion of hope
Oh she’s dead and so is the baby....
You’re a liar. You are trying to put out false information to suit your agenda.
The woman is on life support. She is brain dead. Due to the accident the baby is severely deformed physically and mentally and would not survive outside of the mother. The FAMILY has made the decision to cut life support to the mothers BODY. My suggestion is to help the family PAY for the medical bills of the womans family and if the child is C-sectioned, help pay for the childs obvious lengthy medical bills.
Her parents have also been fighting in court to let her go. She and her husband both signed living wills never desiring to be in this position, and her parents have been traumatized (according to their lawyer) by the fact that they couldn't grant her clear wishes.
This isn't a case of a husband trying to bump off his wife, screwing up the job, and then removing life support to finish the job. She likely (according to reports) had a pregnancy complication (blood clots) that killed her. My mother-in-law has a disorder that causes blood clotting, and had several miscarriages as a result. My husband inherited the major form of that disorder, and almost died from blood clots in his lungs on his 30th birthday. Our daughter has the minor form of that disorder, and she will always be at risk of death from pregnancy (progesterone aggravates the disorder) without knowledge of the disorder and special treatment.
In the days of the Israelites, she would have died and her baby would have died -- both souls would have had some rest and "gone home". But the fact that we can keep a dead body warm enough to incubate another body somehow makes this murder? I'm pro-life, I'm anti-abortion. But I have told my husband, family, and friends publicly that if I were to ever end up in this state to please let me go and let my baby go. I have no doubt that the Lord would welcome myself and my child with open arms, without either of us having to suffer further.
What is so wrong about letting the Lord welcome this little one, who has already suffered so much, too? If we believe that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord, then why can't we allow some compassion into the discussion? If her husband hadn't found her until she had already developed rigor mortis, we wouldn't even be discussing it right now.
So we're going to take a grieving husband, who already has the responsibility of raising a child on his own, and saddle him with millions of dollars of medical bills -- because a hospital said "we are going to ignore the patients wishes because we don't want to be sued"? When we put that decision in the hands of the hospital, then it's also in the hands of the government. Do you really think the government (in light of ObamaCare) won't abuse that to decide to pull the plug on people who actually are alive, because of cost concerns?
What happened to dignity, and individual rights / responsibility? Why can't I tell my family what I want and then fully expect that my wishes will be carried out?
I have no agenda. You are apparently ignorant about the human body and how it functions and what happens when the brain stem is gone.
Being rabid in your position does not make it correct.
The baby is not alive? it’s not growing?
This is the first I had heard this. Then what is the point of the court case?
“the hospital and the Munoz family agreed on crucial facts listed in a court document: that Marlise Munoz, 33, has “met the clinical criteria for brain death since November 28” and that “the fetus gestating inside Mrs. Munoz is not viable.”
This was the basis of the judge’s decision today
Thank you for a wonderfully well reasoned and beautifully written explanation of a very difficult situation. You have said much more cogently than I what needs to be said
“the hospital and the Munoz family agreed on crucial facts listed in a court document: that Marlise Munoz, 33, has “met the clinical criteria for brain death since November 28” and that “the fetus gestating inside Mrs. Munoz is not viable.””
This is what the judge used today to order the removal of ventilators and respirators from this woman
“the hospital and the Munoz family agreed on crucial facts listed in a court document: that Marlise Munoz, 33, has “met the clinical criteria for brain death since November 28” and that “the fetus gestating inside Mrs. Munoz is not viable.””
The case was brought by the hospital and many in Texas have said on more than one occasion that the hospital was abusing the law. I do not know if someone at the hospital has an agenda or not. Asking me why someone else files a suit doesn’t make sense I am not their lawyer (or a lawyer at all)
Perhaps someone is trying to establish some type of precedent. I don’t know
“not viable” because he/she too young is a FAR DIFFERENT thing than saying the baby is “not alive”
A FAR FAR DIFFERENT THING
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.