Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Husband wants to pull the plug on pregnant wife

122 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

I asked a question...did not make an assumption.

I posed that if her wishes were to keep the child then would that make the whole discussion different.

 

The "you" was used in a collective manner, not necessarily directed at you, but at the question.

 

The question, as posed, would require one to make such an assumption. And of course if such provisions were made it obviously does create an entirely new circumstance.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

The "you" was used in a collective manner, not necessarily directed at you, but at the question.

The question, as posed, would require one to make such an assumption. And of course if such provisions were made it obviously does create an entirely new circumstance.


Fair points.
I am very interested in seeing how this story develops and plays out. It has so many different levels that touch on many hot buttons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Women deserve more respect and dignity than to be viewed as incubators. If there was a decision to be made between saving the life of the child or saving the life of the mother, and the mother is incapacitated, the husband is the proxy. Well, how is this ANY different? Big overreach by the state, but what do you expect? It's Texas, after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Women deserve more respect and dignity than to be viewed as incubators. If there was a decision to be made between saving the life of the child or saving the life of the mother, and the mother is incapacitated, the husband is the proxy. Well, how is this ANY different? Big overreach by the state, but what do you expect? It's Texas, after all.

 

I see it a little differently.

 

In this case, you are not making a decision to save the child or save the mother.  The mother is already gone.  The decision here is around saving the child vs the grieving process of the family.

 

If this situation happend to me, it would be all about whatmy wife's wishes were concerning the child before she died.

 

If she had intended to abort the child and we had made that decision....pull the plug

 

If she had intended to have the child, I would not pull the plug.  Allow the child to be born....then either raise it or put it up for adoption to the thousands of couples who would do anything to have a child.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

If she had intended to have the child, I would not pull the plug.  Allow the child to be born....then either raise it or put it up for adoption to the thousands of couples who would do anything to have a child.

 

Not in Texas you wouldn't.  You would shut the hell up and let the state dictate to you what the decision would be, and you will like it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Not in Texas you wouldn't.  You would shut the hell up and let the state dictate to you what the decision would be, and you will like it.

 

nah...I would just pull out my big ass gun, shoot the doctor, and walk away claiming self defense.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I see it a little differently.

 

In this case, you are not making a decision to save the child or save the mother.  The mother is already gone.  The decision here is around saving the child vs the grieving process of the family.

 

If this situation happend to me, it would be all about whatmy wife's wishes were concerning the child before she died.

 

If she had intended to abort the child and we had made that decision....pull the plug

 

If she had intended to have the child, I would not pull the plug.  Allow the child to be born....then either raise it or put it up for adoption to the thousands of couples who would do anything to have a child.


That's what I'm saying though. The wife's wishes were apparently communicated to her husband before she got to this state when she said she never wanted to be kept alive on machines. The way I see it, she deserves dignity and respect. Her wishes were to not be kept alive on life support. Forcing her to stay alive on life support, just to serve as an incubator, is disgusting, to me. I certainly see what you're saying, don't get me wrong, but the only thing we know is her wishes concerning life support. Any speculation on what she would want concerning the baby is just that; speculation.

At the end of the day, I believe the wife's dignity and respect for her life and wishes trumps the fetus. I'll concede that the fetus has as much right to the body of it's mother as the mother does the day mothers are forced to give organs to their children if they so need them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post


That's what I'm saying though. The wife's wishes were apparently communicated to her husband before she got to this state when she said she never wanted to be kept alive on machines. The way I see it, she deserves dignity and respect. Her wishes were to not be kept alive on life support. Forcing her to stay alive on life support, just to serve as an incubator, is disgusting, to me. I certainly see what you're saying, don't get me wrong, but the only thing we know is her wishes concerning life support. Any speculation on what she would want concerning the baby is just that; speculation.

At the end of the day, I believe the wife's dignity and respect for her life and wishes trumps the fetus. I'll concede that the fetus has as much right to the body of it's mother as the mother does the day mothers are forced to give organs to their children if they so need them.


I understand your points.

But, I do disagree with your statement that the wife's "dignity" should trump the life of a child.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Hatter brings up a good point.

 

If the mom never wanted the child, why was she still carrying it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Hatter brings up a good point.

 

If the mom never wanted the child, why was she still carrying it?

 

Maybe because an abortion was scheduled for next week, for all we know. Abortions are typically legal in most states until the final trimester, which means until about 22-24 weeks.

 

There are simply way too many questions we simply do not have the answers to while debating the subject. But for Texas law to so blatantly ignore the entire family's wishes- and we are talking about virtually every member of his and her families- which were to not sustain life support, is just wrong, in my opinion.
 

The latest update (yesterday) says the woman is now 19 weeks pregnant and now the dispute between medical experts and the hospital is not whether she should be kept on life support, but should she really be considered legally brain-dead and is the hospital refusing to consider her as such and maintaining life support for the sole purpose of incubating the unborn fetus.

 

http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/health/238640641.html

 

Hospital spokeswoman J.R. Labbe said she isn't permitted to confirm that Marlise Munoz had been declared brain-dead, only that she was pregnant and hospitalized in serious condition.

"We are following the law of the state of Texas," Labbe said. "This is not a difficult decision for us. We are following the law."

 

But three experts interviewed by The Associated Press, including two who helped draft the law, said a brain-dead patient's case wouldn't be covered by the law.

 

"This patient is neither terminally nor irreversibly ill," said Dr. Robert Fine, clinical director of the office of clinical ethics and palliative care for Baylor Health Care System. "Under Texas law, this patient is legally dead."

 

John Peter Smith Hospital in Fort Worth is pointing to a provision of the Texas Advance Directives Act that reads: "A person may not withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment under this subchapter from a pregnant patient."

 

Tom Mayo, a Southern Methodist University law professor, said he did not believe the law applied in this case. He said the hospital would not have absolute immunity from a civil or criminal case if it went outside the subchapter referenced by the law, but noted that "most medical decisions" are made without immunity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

If someone has an abortion, you can surmise that they don't want the baby.  If they do not have an abortion, you can surmise the other way.  But, it is a big leap to say, "yeah, she didn't have one, but was probably going to get one, so the baby was not wanted".  Kind of a stretch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

If someone has an abortion, you can surmise that they don't want the baby.  If they do not have an abortion, you can surmise the other way.  But, it is a big leap to say, "yeah, she didn't have one, but was probably going to get one, so the baby was not wanted".  Kind of a stretch.

 

Don't think anyone said that, stirs. What I said was we don't know. For all we know she may have had one scheduled for next week or never. We have no way of knowing, so on one hand assuming because she hadn't had an abortion yet meaning she wasn't going to have one at all is the same as assuming she might have had one scheduled, but never got there.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites