JT, thanks for jumping into discussion.
This just in:
The judge recused herself from the lawsuit, due to conflict of interests; so 2 more days wasted....
BTW, Marlise Munoz' mother has been trapped in limbo during all of this, and has been suffering for months over the agonized loss of not JUST her daughter, but the loss of a grandchild.
Sammielee said- Why not wait the 3 weeks and have all the testing done? Wouldn't that be the middle ground of compromise?
Sounds reasonable, except what right do you or I or anyone else have to find middle ground over? NO ONE BUT the deceased's husband should have the right to decide what happens to her body, since he's next-of-kin; instead, his wishes AND the deceased wishes are completely ignored, since TX law DEMANDS those wishes be ignored, unless his decision is to keep his deceased wife's body on life support. For THAT'S the ONLY decision that is allowed (i.e.Erick Munoz has NO say in the matter).
Sammielee said- There are some things that don't really add up in as far as the father claims that both he and his wife being paramedics, both did not want DNR or life support for themselves as they had seen enough in their line of duty. Yet - as adamant as he sounds about taking his wife off that support for those very reasons - neither he nor his wife were such strong advocates nor all that sure about it in that neither of them bothered to put it in writing. Something both of them knew was in their best interests if they felt that strongly. Just how strong was his wife's desire and would it have been the same with pregnancy?
AGAIN, it doesn't matter if Marlise Munoz had been a prescient fortune teller and knew she'd suffer an embolism and end up dead with a fetus inside of her. She could've hired an airplane that wrote her wishes in the sky via sky-writing, or written her desire to not to be kept on life support on a set of stone tablets that were personally notarized by God Himself: TX law doesn't care, since it FORCES the hospital to ignore the patient's wishes: that's the entire point of the story!
Sammielee said- Further - they worked in Texas and as part of the health services, would no doubt been fully aware of Texas law in these sort of cases and didn't have an issue with it - as long as it didn't affect them.
Or perhaps they should've moved out of TX, to flee from a law they thought would never apply to them?
Sammielee said- Or was the wife accepting of the fact that should anything happen to her, that her unborn child would be the priority and all attempts made to secure the life of her child. Did she believe that no matter what her husband would have done all he could to make certian that their child was the priority in times of life and death? Who knows?
Exactly... And WHO would be a person who stands the best chance of being able to answer that question: Erick Munoz, or the legislators in Austin who essentially decided for her when the law was passed?
Sammielee said- The father has said they don't know how long the fetus was without nutrients or oxygen - everything is a guess. A could have. A maybe.
Exactly.... And WHO should be able to decide, and then face the consequences of that choice? Erick Munoz, or the legislators in Austin, TX? As it stands now, the State makes the choice, but Erick has to live with the consequences. The family is in limbo, feeling completely out of control due to a legislature that is notorious for it's pro-life stance based on being in Xian heartland of conservative Texas.
FHN said- I don't know if you've been pregnant, but expectant mothers call their babies, baby. They don't say things like, "Oh, I went to the doctor today and the fetus now is probably 2 pounds and has a very healthy heart beat." Or "Oh, the fetus kicked! Come here, see if you can feel the fetus." Or, "We decided to paint the fetus' nursery today." Expectant mothers who want their babies, call them baby.
Yes, the warm loving glow of maternal hormones coursing through one's tender veins must be quite lovely, and I'm sure Marlise Munoz would be enjoying those feelings, too, if not for being DEAD. She cannot share in the wonder of the 'cycle of life', and your sharing the joys of motherhood in a thread about a deceased women is rather insensitive. I KNOW you're not that callous, FHN, but really, now. REALLY?
Anyway, consider this scenario, which could just as easily play out under current TX law:
Suppose the mother had not died, but instead suffered a debilitating stroke that left her in a coma during the pregnancy (which she would eventually awaken from, only to find herself bed-ridden and unable to return to her high-paying career, now requiring diapers and being spoon-fed). While in the coma, her husband realized the couple's life circumstances had significantly changed for the worse (esp since HE had been unable to work for years, due to health issues which left him permanently on disability). Throw in the same anoxic conditions suffered by the mother which compromised the prognosis of the fetus to be born without some permanent cognitive impairments and disabilities of its own, and the husband decided it would be better to abort the fetus, as it was all simply too much to bear for him to take care of his disabled wife.
Shouldn't the husband have that right to decide?
If he lived in TX, he wouldn't have the choice to make that decision, since the State already made it for him, due to religious types who place the sanctity of potential life above all other concerns (which makes THEM feel quite good about themselves, since they're carrying out God's will on Earth: Hallelujah!).
Adam