Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Jane Long
Any reports on what Marlise’s parents/siblings would like to see happen to mother and child? Just curious, as all I’ve read is her husbands wishes to see his flesh and blood - and his older child’s flesh and blood - killed.

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?

33 posted on 01/24/2014 8:05:21 PM PST by cyphergirl (Not so proud to be in the Freak State)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]


To: cyphergirl

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


37 posted on 01/24/2014 8:13:07 PM PST by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]

To: cyphergirl

Because you can’t choose to kill your child.


42 posted on 01/24/2014 8:23:26 PM PST by AppyPappy (Obama: What did I not know and when did I not know it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]

To: cyphergirl
I'm pro-life, I'm anti-abortion. But

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?

50 posted on 01/24/2014 8:44:18 PM PST by Colonel_Flagg (Some people meet their heroes. I raised mine. Go Army.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]

To: cyphergirl

Amen.


62 posted on 01/24/2014 9:11:55 PM PST by DB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]

To: cyphergirl; Dallas59

Thank you both for your reasoned comments.

In this sad case, neither the mother nor the severely deformed baby can live.

There is no moral reason to artificially keep either of them “alive” and make this tragedy even harder than it already is on her husband and parents.


70 posted on 01/24/2014 9:52:54 PM PST by Jedidah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]

To: cyphergirl
First, my heart goes out to you for all that you've shared. I can personally relate to much of what you've had to deal with.

This situation is difficult, at the very least. There is a baby who is living, whose heart did not stop with the mother's end of "brain life". For what ever reason, the baby's heart continued to beat, rather than he/she dying at the time of the mother's brain death.

Yes, in the days of the Israelites both mother and child would not be living, after this amount of time had passed. Nor would there have been penicillin given for infections or neonatal care for premature infants. We've many miraculous advancements, since the "days of the Israelites".

All I ask is this: What is the harm in offering this baby a chance to live? There are even families standing by, waiting to adopt this child knowing he/she may likely have disabilities and challenges.

We don't know the viability of this child...only God knows that. All we can do is give him/her every fighting chance to live.

I think (or hope) we can all agree that this situation is heartbreaking, on many levels. And, that we can respectfully agree to disagree on what would be the proper way to handle this very delicate situation. Prayers go out to this family and all who are personally involved.

78 posted on 01/25/2014 6:48:28 AM PST by Jane Long (While Marxists continue the fundamental transformation of the USA, progressive RINOs assist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson