sammielee said- Did she leave a written directive about what she wanted? That's the only way to make any claim that she herself made decisions for her body - to pass on decisions regarding her life or decisions that might affect her or her family.
It wouldn't matter if she had left an advanced directive which meticulously stated what she wanted: state law automatically overrides the patient's desires, and the Hospital has to ignore those wishes and follow the ambiguously-worded law (§166.049).
Apo said- Of course the baby cannot form an opinion yet, that's why it needs to have its life preserved.
And on what basis do you assume that it even WILL be able to form an opinion?
Apo said- For God's sake, Adam, when a paramedic comes into a room where there's a person who's not breathing, do they refuse to help until they know if the person wants to keep living?
No, since the default assumption of healthcare providers is to save a life UNTIL they are told otherwise.
ONCE the pt expresses their wish (or beforehand, as this women told her husband) then THAT request has to be honored, since it's unethical to treat people without their consent. This women stated her wish was NOT to be kept on life support if in a coma/PVS, and that would go doubly so for keeping her dead body alive for 4 months. Her husband (next of kin) normally would be allowed to decide, but he's not allowed to, since the Nanny State is forcing her body to be used as an incubator, against her will.
Apo said- What about all the people who attempt suicide and are forcibly resuscitated?
What about it? Again, the default assumption of healthcare providers is to save a life, and ask questions later. What appears to be a suicide can be a staged murder, etc.
Apo said- And I don't claim to have any wisdom, just common sense. It simply seems clear to me that the wishes of "living beings" (the family, I presume you mean) are automatically trumped by an issue of life and death. It's not their lives at stake, so their say in the matter is limited.
You're missing the broader issue here: ONLY YOU should be able to decide what happens to YOUR body. ONLY the person should be allowed to make decisions of what happens to their body, since they "own" it. Self-determination, self-autonomy, etc is a CORE principle of jurisprudence.
Apo said- Didn't the husband want the baby when his wife was alive? So why are we suddenly so eager to kill the baby if there's a chance it can be saved?
They have a child already.
Hell, Apo: who are YOU to sit there and TELL this father that he is "killing his baby", when he's going to have to deal with not only the grief of the loss of his wife, but also arrange for childcare for the older son while he works, criticizing him for not taking on the added responsibility of what might turn out to be a child with permanent developmental delays that may lead to nothing more than a living, breathing, crap shell, for 70 years?
The fetus is an emotional tug at heartstrings, yes, and we all want there to be a happy ending or sliver lining, but the reality is bad things happen and there is guarantee of NO happy ending. Religious people allow their delusional thinking to color their thinking, and it's fine if they keep it inside their own heads, but they don't: they allow it to effect public policies, such as this very law under discussion.
Adam- So, assuming you're not already an organ donor, how do you feel about the State simply deciding for you, and forcing individuals to become organ donors (despite their wishes: some people have religious beliefs that prevent such practices), and harvesting your organs against your will? You're dead, right, so what would it matter to you?
It's a bit creepy to think about, but I suppose I have to be fine with it. As a materialist, I don't believe that there's anything left of me in my body once I die (and most religious people feel the same, nowadays), therefore it's just a big bag of organs for the taking. If they're still useful for someone else, it would be unethical for me to not want them to be harvested.
OK, fair enough.
So you'd have no problem with us keeping your dead body on life support for say, 5 months, since the organ donors are not yet ready for your organs?
Your family wouldn't mind visiting your carcass in the Hospital, since it's not like people actually get any emotional closure from attending the burial service of a loved one, right?
BTW, if you say "yes", no are consenting. This woman wasn't asked, and even if she were, the State has overridden her choice, anyway, if she wanted to say 'no'. That's no choice.
If we were living in a logical society, all bodies would be automatically organ-salvaged at death. Sadly, we instead live in a world of hypocritical madness, where people protest the death penalty for people who've murdered others, but at the same time believe that a baby's life is somehow less important than the mother's "healthcare rights". News flash, it's not "her body" at all anymore, it's "their bodies".
Huh? who is "their"?
Anyway, you apparently don't believe a person's right to determine what happens to the property they own matters upon their death (since they're dead, and don't know any different), so guess what? You probably shouldn't worry about leaving a will (AKA "last will and testament"), the right to decide who inherits your property after your death.
Adam