Hellobee Boards

I don't think there is enough medical information in the article for anyone to really side either way. The author made it sound like the wife was toast but because of state law they have to keep her on life support. I don't know if that's true or if she actually has a chance. And they didn't say anything about the viability of the baby other than they can detect a heartbeat. They have to know more than that, at 11 weeks they were able to see a lot of my baby.

@MrsMcD: I remember that case well (it spanned 15 years!).

Gah… so terrible. I hope they get this sorted out sooner rather than later and the husband is allowed to give her peace

@MrsSCB: I agree.

I can't believe that this whole debacle is still going on. They really need to let this poor woman go completely since she's not there anyways and it seems like any outcome for the child (if it were even to survive birth) would be incredibly poor at best. I feel sickened for her family that they are having to live with this reality. They need closure!

This is so sad.

I hear a lot of people say it is so unfair that the state gets to make the decision and they should respect the family's wishes. To me, I think the assumption would be that it is more in line with a pregnant woman's wishes to let the baby survive. I'm uncomfortable with the idea that the husband gets to decide to pull the plug on her and the baby. If she was alive, he wouldn't have any say on whether or not she got an abortion. I wouldn't want my mom or someone coming in and deciding it was too hard on her to see me on a ventilator and think they should end it. I would hope the state would protect my child. I also wouldn't want others determining whether they thought my baby was in good enough shape to be allowed to live or not.

@Mae: Well since neither knew her wishes in this instance, I think that you should err on letting the baby live in that case.

@jedeve: Don't you think that knowing a person, and knowing all the discussions you've had with them, and knowing their preference in similar situations gives you insight into what they would want though? You are never going to know how your spouse would feel in EVERY possible situation-- but I would think that most spouses would have a pretty good idea based on all of those factors.

Would the fetus even be able to live outside the womb? It just seems so cruel to keep a dead woman's heart beating for months so they can deliver a child that will likely die. Take her off life support, let them die peacefully, and let the family mourn them. I might feel differently if the fetus looked like it was developing normally, or if the mother was just in a coma or PVS, I don't know. This is such a horrifying situation.

This might be a stupid question, but can't the family just move her to another state that doesn't have this law in place?

Ugh this is horrifying. And the article makes a fair point that if the Texas law applies to her, they would need to run pregnancy tests on EVERY braindead woman in the state to determine whether or not to keep her on life suppose as well. Horrifying.

@MsLipGloss: That's true. I guess I was thinking about Jahi McMath, who was ultimately released to a coroner and then to her mother, who put her in a private facility...but thinking it through more, not a comparable situation at all.

This whole situation is deeply upsetting. It is a terrible loss of life that the mother has died (because really, she has) and it is even more disturbing that a state mandate is forcing her to be kept alive to incubate her baby. That should not be the state's role and in a case where a person has made their wishes known, I find it reprehensible that the state can assume they know what's best. Perhaps if the baby was already viable when this tragedy occurred, that may be one thing as they can deliver the baby and hope for the best. But when it is clearly a long way from viability, it is far overstepping the boundary to dictate that a dead woman's body must incubate a fetus until it is viable.

Aren't we starting down a slippery slope here? Is every woman of child bearing age going to be tested for pregnancy before they can legally be declared dead? I mean a lot of women don't find out until they are five, six, seven etc weeks pregnant, so of course you'd need to make sure the person wasn't in the very early stages of pregnancy before turning off the machines, right? Ugh! This is a decision that should be made by the family and no one else.

For me personally, if something happened to me whilst in the first half of pregnancy, no, I would not want to be kept alive as an incubator for my child. It would be a tragedy to lose two lives, but if the fetus can't survive outside of me, I don't consider its rights to supersede mine.

@JoJoGirl: Although it would create an absurd result, under a broader application of the premise you just posted about, wouldn't the State be obligated to determine whether every single female patient is pregnant in the event of their death so that the State would know whether or not they had a legal (statutory) obligation to keep the patient *alive*?

@MsLipGloss: That's true, I just made the broader jump that if the statute wasn't in place, the hospital would not be able to take the actions they are taking. Just out of curiosity, what would happen if the hospital did remove her from life support, clearly violating Texas law? I'm assuming they're in a position where their hands are tied because of this law, but I could very well be wrong.

@Ree723: Outside of serious fines and someone looking over the Hospital's shoulder for a while (or their operating license being in jeopardy), I can't think of any . . . ?

Here is an article that discusses the Texas Directive:

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/commentary/la-oe-caplan-pope-texas-pregnancy-life-support-20140116,0,3476520.story#axzz2rEgiK7BC

@psw27: I believe (though someone is free to correct me if I'm wrong) that in order for the family to remove her from the hospital, the hospital has to sign a death certificate. Since the hospital is refusing to let her body "die," the family can't simply take her from the hospital.

I think this is what happened in the case of that young girl who went to the hospital for a tonsilectomy and, after complications, became brain dead - the hospital would only release her to the continuing care center if the family would allow them to sign a death certificate. Here it's the opposite scenario - the family wants the hospital to sign a death cert and the hospital refuses to do so.

@psw27: totally agree. Unless there is some serious reason to doubt the spouse (like for example if they are legally separated or if there was some allegation that he was abusive and caused the injury) it just seems right to me that the spouse gets to decide. I trust my husband implicitly. I know that he would protect our baby if there was a real chance of her leading a normal life. I would trust him to make that decision for me/us absolutely regardless of whether I had thought to account for this specific circumstance.

@MsLipGloss: Really good article, I could not agree more! Thanks for sharing!

@jedeve: That is an urban legend. Never let anyone tell you that if you sign out AMA your insurance won't pay.

@littlebug: Yeah, I imagine a *death* changes that procedure and the Hospital's obligations regarding the body (as it becomes property). *augh* What a mess.