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.
the fetus gestating inside Mrs. Munoz is not viable.
Practically no “fetus” (unborn child) is viable at 22 weeks. You weren’t. I wasn’t.
“Not viable” doesn’t mean “deformed”.
Because you can’t choose to kill your child.
My father resisted God for most of his life but came to know Christ just before he died (when I was 15). After watching the suffering he endured, I figured out that I didn't have it in me to make that decision for other people. If he had wanted to end his own physical suffering then I don't think I could have said "no" (he was battling cancer for the 4th time and was losing sorely). My mother had died 4 years prior. At the age of 15, I had to make the decision to remove him from a hospital that was keeping him doped up on morphine so he didn't complain, and move him to a hospice that allowed him some quality of life (building his model airplanes, taking daily walks), even though he would have to deal with some pain.
The hospital could have kept him alive longer with insane amounts of pain medications and drugs, but I knew on the first night he was in that hospital that he wanted to "go home". One of his friends gave me a ride to the hospital to go see him, and he didn't know who I was and he kept asking when he would see my mom.
As much as I loved him, and as much as I still miss him now at age 37 (and knowing his grand-daughter will only ever know him through what I tell her), I know that he died with dignity and on his terms, and he is with the Lord. One day I'll see him again, and I can't wait for that.
Not viable only means the child can’t live outside the womb-yet. Doesn’t really say what the status of the child is/will be. There may be medical problems with the child- or not. None of the info released really tells us- and I certainly would not trust any statements from the father’s attorney.
What if the baby has no chance of surviving and is suffering now?
I thought a “blob of cells” couldn’t suffer.
Many abortion supporters love to regale me with the “fact” that the “fetus” feels no pain until the 24th week. I guess the fully-developed nervous system just magically turns on at 24 weeks.
If it can suffer, it is a human being and deserves every chance to live.
bump
What if “it” is suffering??
What if you are?
The answer to a “what if” should not be “KILL HIM!!!!!!”
Maybe I see this differently because I've had to see so much death in my life (murder, cancer, brain tumors, heart attacks) ... the only people left of my family are my sister and I.
There is a difference between "kill" and "murder". There is a difference between "justice" and "mercy". The "just" thing to do may be to provide this child an incubator and keep them alive no matter what pain they endure, or regardless of whether they will ever spend a moment conscious in their entire life because they have a beating heart. The "merciful" thing may have been to let this woman and her child go back to the lord 10 weeks ago before getting to this point, and to let the father and sibling grieve and move on. Sometimes God did what was just, and sometimes He did what was merciful. We can all speculate on what God would do and on what we want to impose on this man and this woman's family. But as a woman who has a relationship with Christ, I can tell you that this isn't what I would want for myself or my child.
Many abortion supporters love to regale me with the “fact” that the “fetus” feels no pain until the 24th week. I guess the fully-developed nervous system just magically turns on at 24 weeks.
If it can suffer, it is a human being and deserves every chance to live.
And this is where things get really tricky. This baby (note, I didn't say blob of cells, because I don't believe that he/she is a blob of cells) is probably suffering given the fact that he/she is at nearly 24 weeks, and his/her bottom portions are so malformed that they can't determine if he/she is a boy or a girl.
Granted, this child will never remember the pain inflicted right now -- but why should we feel smug about requiring (by edict) that this child bear what could be torturous pain for all we know, because we think we know better than his/her father, sibling, and maternal grandparents.
You’re right. Like I said, if it (and the only reason I’m using “it” is because I haven’t learned the baby’s sex yet) can suffer, and it is gestating inside a human being, then logic dictates it is a human being itself, with all of the rights and liberties that any human infant should have.
The lawyers and husband in question are in disagreement with the “scientific facts” that allow abortion supporters to callously throw life away, like they themselves are doing.
Not to be disrespectful, but it's always that last word that does it, isn't it?
How do we know God might not work a miracle through that baby being born alive?
Granted, this child will never remember the pain inflicted right now — but why should we feel smug about requiring (by edict) that this child bear what could be torturous pain for all we know, because we think we know better than his/her father, sibling, and maternal grandparents.
What’s wrong with ending the poor thing’s suffering with abortionist tools then? Tear it apart while in the womb, pull the pieces out, reassemble them on a table to make sure you got it all... No problem, right? Better than “feeling smug” about its “torturous pain”, don’t you agree?
The docs did not say because the baby is too young...they said it is not viable due to the mother’s brain death .
I did not say nor imply deformed
I have had similar experiences in my own life. It is why I think hospice is a good thing. Thank you for sharing such a personal part of your life. I hope others will read it
This one is a tough case for me as a doctor. I completely disagree with the removal of the ventilator if baby were viable or there was a chance. That being said, you are entirely correct, mom is dead, and once mom dies, it effectively ends the pregnancy. So I suppose after weighing ll the facts this is a two corpse problem. I am heartbroken for both mom and child. If the PE happened when MOM was 27 weeks pregnant, then delivery could be accomplished. This is a sad, wrenching, awful case. I agree that baby should be delivered alive, but it does appear that moms brain death has irreversibly destroyed or damaged the child. It makes me want to cry all around, but my emotional disposition does not change the facts, unlike what others think...
How do we know God might not work a miracle through that baby being born alive?
I appreciate the non-disrespect. To be honest, I've always been timid about wading into these conversations because they tend to become venomous.
We have no way of knowing what God will or will not do. He could work a miracle through that child. Or, the child could spend their life in unconsciousness or pain, never knowing God.
I think it's best to leave these sorts of decisions to the people who know the patient/victim the best (absent any potential criminal situations, ala Terri Schaivo). None of us are perfect except Christ himself. We are going to screw up, and thankfully He is prepared to forgive us.
I guess I sometimes feel like we hurt our cause by trying giving the appearance of forcing people into hopeless situations instead of giving grace and comfort. If this guy had some clear ulterior motive such that her own family were opposing him, then maybe I could see pushing this through the courts. But her own family wants to see this end, because to them she is gone and this is causing unnecessary suffering to a baby that may ever take a single breath. If they're wrong and this baby were supposed to be the next President, I believe God would probably forgive them because they made their choices out of 1) what she told them her wishes were, and 2) love (not wanting to see her or her baby suffer).
This isn't a zero-sum game. We screech against abortion, and then support laws that make make it more difficult for couples to adopt children who aren't wanted. (My husband and I were rejected by 3 countries and countless birth mothers because of the blood clotting disorder I mentioned earlier.) Because of that, we had people (even here on FR) tell us that God didn't want us to have kids. We scream about individual responsibility and then meddle in the decisions of people we don't know.
Since it's now almost 12am in my timezone I'm going to head off to bed now before I say something that gets me a ZOT. Good night everyone.
There are questions about these allegations that the baby has defornmities-But of course that doesn't matter to you and the rest of the death lobby.
The "judge" said the baby is "nonviable". As noted by other FReepers-no baby is viable at 22 weeks= more twisting, lying BS. The baby can be viable at 24 weeks- hence the rush to kill it.
Unfortunately emotions run high in cases like this. That said, some of the comments directed to other FReepers are un-hinged.
If you knew me as a real person, then you would know that I'm no part of the death lobby and how much that comment hurts. I've had to weigh life and death situations and decisions that no one should ever have to face. But I'm never going to be able to convince you over the internet.
I've said my peace. I guess I'm done here.
Lazy bastard.
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.