Dead pregnant woman forced to stay on life support, due to TX State law

by adamah 285 Replies latest social current

• 

  adamah

  There's an interesting medicolegal issue arising out of TX, a pregnant women who suffered a pulmonary embolism in November and died (when she was 14 weeks pregnant).

  However, the body has been kept on life-support all this time (against her and her husband's wishes), due to an ambiguous TX state law (TEX HS. CODE ANN. §166.049) which actually blocks the ability of the patient and family to decide:

  A person may not withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment under this subchapter from a pregnant patient.

  Here's an article discussing the situation:

  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2538590/Family-brain-dead-20-week-pregnant-mom-suing-hospital-refusing-turn-life-support-baby-born.html

  And here's the emergency motion for expedited relief, filed on behalf of the family just yesterday, requesting an order to disconnect her from life support by arguing the TX law was misinterpreted by the hospital; the motion points out the women is no longer a "pregnant patient", but a "pregnant dead body", and hence the law doesn't apply:

  http://media.star-telegram.com/smedia/2014/01/14/12/04/2kN51.So.58.pdf

  The situation raises some interesting medico-ethical issues of when a patient's right to decide what happens to their body after death is overriden by the interests of the State to take that right away (in this case, forcing the dead body to serve as an incubator, despite the likelihood of the fetus of having experienced some due to anoxia and against the wishes of the dead woman and her family).

  Adam
• 

  cantleave

  FFS - The stupidity of the bible belt knows no bounds.
• 

  KateWild

  The husbands and family's wishes are paramount here. This is dictatorship style ruling when the state takes over personal choices of the family. Very disturbing indeed. Kate xx
• 

  Gypsy Sam

  Every time news comes out of Texas I feel fortunate that I don't live there.
• 

  problemaddict

  You know.....I would understand it if for some reason the baby was alive or could be kept alive until birth and the father wanted that to happen.....but I am certain that is just not an option. A baby cannot grow inside of a dead woman. This is lunacy. Its a tragedy.

  How can a state so concerned with freedom and the right of the individual over the government also make this kind of decision. Religions work at its finest.
• 

  Space Madness

  @problemaddict

  The title of this thread is incorrect. The woman isn't dead (obviously) she's brain dead. The rest of her body is functional which means the baby is still alive and growing. The state of Texas doesn't want to pull the plug becasue that would kill the child which is still developing.
• 

  adamah

  PA said- How can a state so concerned with freedom and the right of the individual over the government also make this kind of decision. Religions work at its finest.

  You'd think any religion that is entirely premised on the concept of the death of innocent Jesus being carried out for the benefit of the sinful mortals would be OK with respecting the families wishes?

  Perhaps they should look at this as a 'property rights' issue (with her husband owning her dead body), and maybe that would make it more palatable and understandable to the Bible belt mind, where someone is entitled to kill to protect their property?

  Space Madness said-

  The title of this thread is incorrect.

  Nope: brain dead IS dead, as that's been standard criteria used in determining when someone is dead, per the AMA, after it's pronounced by a neurologist. These are not people in persistent vegetative states (PVS) or comas: they are cadavers, i.e. they have been declared DEAD.

  Here's the most-recent episode of TAE where they discuss the case in TX, and the case of 13-year-old Jahi McMath, declared brain dead after a tonsillectomy at Children’s Hospital in Oakland, CA went awry and she died, but the family wanted to keep the dead body on life support:

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Xeh96Uk5L8

  In fact, that's the entire irony here: why should someone who's been declared dead be kept on LIFE support, esp when doing so is against the person's stated wishes before death, and those of her next-of-kin, but it's required by a Nanny State?

  Adam
• 

  Space Madness

  @adamah

  Not going to argue over semantics. If she was dead this would not be an issue as the baby would also be dead. Since her body is still funcitonal and only her brain is dead, the state decided to wait until the child is born before they pull her off of life support. Why kill the child when it can be saved? If the dad doesn't want the child he can simply put it up for adoption. I don't see the controversy here.
• 

  Apognophos

  Me neither; if the baby can be saved, then isn't this the ethical thing to do?
• 

  nonjwspouse

  I imagine some here are also asking who is paying for this? Now I amiin the camp of saving the life when it can be saved, but the other subject is also a valid point.