by adamah 285 Replies latest social current
Your statement infers that the fetus's viability factors into this in some manner.
It seems that the law was open to interpretation - since November 28 the hospital has been complying with what they thought the law said. Maybe I am a bit cynical, but is it not possible that the judge was influenced in his decision by the knowledge that the fetus was not just inviable, but damaged?
He did not say the statute didn't apply because she was deadn AND the fetus was not viable.
BB said- He didn't have to.
Sure, and the reason (which you didn't state) is once the judge concluded 166.049 didn't apply to dead people, viability of the fetus became irrelevant. That's why viability wasn't mentioned in the ruling (although it must've been in the back of the judge's mind, with the prospect of the State cast in the role of Dr. Frankenstein, morbidly experimenting with cadaviers to save a malformed fetus, against the will of their next-of-kin).
But regardless, the ruling of the high-profile Munoz case is one that gained National attention and hopefully won't likely be overlooked or dismissed (as the Miller case seemingly was).
SNR said- Seriously, you speak with authority on EVERY topic. I hate intellectual eliteism, but there is a huge difference between qualified and unqualified on these issues.
You side-stepped the question, I see?
Adam asked- What law do you believe the hospital was violating by NOT respecting the decedent's wishes?
Please feel free to start a new thread on the topic of 'intellectual elitism vs arrogance of ignorance' if you wish, since we're discussing the ethical, moral and legal implications of the Munoz case in TX. You and I can engage in 'special pleading' on the basis of appealing to our own authority until the cows come home; in the end, only the veracity of the information presented is what matters, and whether the facts supports the claim(s).
Hopefully this thread will be winding down after yesterday's ruling, unless there's any new twists and turns in the matter, such as this:
BOTR said- I just heard that the hospital is considering an appeal of the lower court's order.
(Forehead slap!) You've gotta be kiddin' me....
(EDIT: sorry for the cross-post: I see JT and BB are disussing this already....)
Buzy bee, no the hospital could only do what they did with the law behind them and the law was CLEARLY refering to a living pregnant women.
Adamah.... Have you read ANY of my posts?
from my very first post, I have said they have missaplied the law, therefore it is illegal. The law they used did not apply, so they illegally overode a legal document, an advanced directive and the legal authority of the next of kin when capacity has been removed. it went to court because it was a LEGAL matter and the hospital had took action based on a LAW, but they missaplied it, making those actions not legal .... Illegal.
"Hospital officials have said they were bound by the Texas Advance Directives Act, which prohibits withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment from a pregnant patient. But in his brief ruling, Wallace said that "Mrs. Munoz is dead," meaning that the hospital was misapplying the law."
It isn't complicated. I said exactly as the judge did, several pages ago, several days ago.
I have no idea what you are arguing about. You want me to quote a law ....for what? You don't seem to grasp that to act illegally, includes misintepreting a law and denying someone their legal rights. There is no SPECIFIC law about giving an injection to someone against their will, but if I do, I'll be charged with assault.
They quoted a LAW to defend their actions, that should tell you enough to recognise how intricate the line of legal and illegal is in medicine. The hospital TOOK AUTONOMY AND CAPACITY from the mother and the surviving father, that can only be done with a law to back you as a person's autonomy is utmost. They didn't have it, denying the mother and father their legal rights.
It was illegal.
Ahh, so I found further details on the agreement to concede non-viability of the fetus which was reached hours before oral arguments were heard.
The signed agreement is here:
http://media.star-telegram.com/smedia/2014/01/24/15/46/1jI4ZN.So.58.pdf
So BB is seemingly correct on the point, and it clears up some of the confusion, since non-viability was considered by the judge as a factor (see text below, in the judge's own words), and if the fetus were viable it possibly could've been used as a factor to reach a different outcome:
Update at 4:05 p.m.:
District Judge R.H. Wallace listened to an hour of arguments Friday afternoon, and both sides agree that Marlise Muñoz’s fetus is not viable and she is dead. It’s whether she’s been “pronounced” dead that appears to be the sticking point.
“I respect JPS’ arguments in trying to follow the law,” the judge said, “but every section doesn’t apply to someone who is dead.”
Attorneys for John Peter Smith Hospital and Erick Muñoz presented their cases about the right of the fetus to live and the right of the mother to die. But despite Marlise Muñoz being brain dead, the hospital argues, she has never been pronounced dead.
Both sides also agree that the fetus is not viable, and the judge noted that the mother could elect to have an abortion if she were able to make such a decision.
“As I understand the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court that if this fetus were not viable [and] Ms. Muñoz were alive … she could abort the child.”
Wallace has ordered a brief recess, after which he could make a ruling in the case.
Update at 3:07 p.m.: About two hours before today’s hearing, attorneys representing Erick Munoz and John Peter Smith Hospital filed a joint document in which they agree that “at the time of this hearing, the fetus gestating inside Mrs. Munoz is not viable.” It is the first time the hospital has acknowledged what Erick Munoz has maintained all along.
A breakthrough came when 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 woman's husband repeatedly made these claims in his efforts to have her removed from the machines.
SNR said- Buzy bee, no the hospital could only do what they did with the law behind them and the law was CLEARLY refering to a living pregnant women.
Have you ever heard of the fallacy from informal logic called, "begging the question"?
You're doing it right now, since the judge had to rule on the matter in order to show that 166.049 didn't apply. The JUDGE even commented on that issue with the words I put in BOLD RED above.
A fetus is not a baby.
You don't have children, do you? You know, ones you grew yourself?
FHN,
A fetus is NOT a baby. Whether or not I have children IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.
Abortions were only classified as crimes relatively recently.
There are millions of women who are biological mothers who value pro-choice and personal autonomy. Do with your body what you will. Women and families have privacy rights. Imagine losing a wife unexpectedly and being forced to undergo a grueling legal process b/c some dummy lawyer can't interpret a clear statute.
Please.
Fetuses are not babies. Mind your own body. Respect personal autonomy.
There was no issue with the law, it was CLEAR, it only applied to a living preganant woman, so therefore it didn't apply. He didn't have to rule on it at all, the issue was the hospitals claim about the woman's status, do you even know the hospital defence?
“I respect JPS’ arguments in trying to follow the law,” the judge said, “but every section doesn’t apply to someone who is dead.”
But despite Marlise Muñoz being brain dead, the hospital argues, she has never been pronounced dead."
The hospital defence was that she was not declared dead. Nothing to do with the law being ambigous or a section being ruled on.
I have no idea what you are arguing about, but argue on your own. The law was clear, the hospital made a mistake then tried to back peddle at the expense of a family. I hate saying this, because I respect and hold high the world of medicine. But that is how it looks.
I noticed you highlighted in red "trying to follow the law" but you ironically didn't mark in red bold the next quote which made clear that
"every section doesn't apply to someone who is dead."
what your point is I have no idea, if you think that hesring someone attemoted to not act illegally will diminish the suffering of the family or stop it from being illegal, you are fooling yourself for the sake of stubborness.
i am done arguing with you,
Goodbye Adamah.
FHN
Do you eat fried eggs or fried potential chicks?
I'll tell you what, s&r, that's a foolish question to ask. I eat eggs, but if I ever go vegetarian and stop eating chicken, I won't eat eggs either. That's just common sense. It's beyond me how anyone, father or especially mother, could consider the child growing inside them to be something other than a human being just because they haven't lived into their third trimester, or been born yet.
Some vegetarians eat eggs, there is even a term for it, ovo vegetarian. There is a difference between the chicken and the egg.
