Texas Father Barred from Taking Pregnant Wife Off Life Support

Sal

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 29, 2007
17,135
33
48
On November 26, Erick Munoz woke to the sound of his 14-month-old son crying and found his pregnant wife, Marlise, lying on the kitchen floor, blue in the face and without a pulse. As a firefighter and paramedic, Munoz called 911 and performed CPR to no avail.



When they arrived at the John Peter Smith Hospital (JPS) in Fort Worth, Texas, he thought he would have to make an agonizing decision: refuse life support even though that meant losing both his wife and his future child. Munoz says in a WFAA News report that four years ago, when Marlise's brother was killed in an accident, she told him that she would never want to be on life support-something that they had discussed many times since.



http://yhoo.it/1gKZznk
A month later, against his requests, she is still on a ventilator. Not only does Munoz want to honor his wife's intentions, he also believes that the fetus she is carrying has been seriously harmed. "I don't know how long she was there prior to me finding her," he says. Munoz, who could not be reached for comment, wrote on WFAA's Facebook page, "All I know is that she was without oxygen long enough for her to have massive brain swelling. I unfortunately know what that type of damage could do to a child during crucial developmental time."


http://yhoo.it/1jqfs4J

When he first arrived at the hospital, he discovered that, according to Texas law, life-sustaining procedures may not be withheld or withdrawn from a pregnant woman-even if she has an advance health care directive (also called a living will) stipulating that she does not want to be kept alive on a machine. According to the Center for Women Policy Studies, as of 2012, eleven other states also automatically invalidate a pregnant woman's advance directives to refrain from using extraordinary measures to keep them alive and others have slightly less restrictive but similar laws. A spokesperson from the hospital tells Yahoo Shine, "Our responsibility is to be a good corporate citizen while also providing quality care for our patients. At all times, JPS will follow the law as it applies to healthcare in the state of Texas."



Marlise Munoz's mother and father say they support Munoz's request to take their daughter off life support. "She absolutely DID NOT EVER want to be connected to Life Support," her mother, Lynne Machado, wrote on WFAA's Facebook page. "This issue is not about Pro Choice/Pro Life. Our intent is purely one of education about how this Statue null and voids any woman's DNR [if she is] pregnant. We know our daughter well enough, after numerous discussions about DNR, that she would NEVER EVER consent to being hooked up to Life Support." While the family's tragic situation hits a nerve in a state where abortion debates rage, Munoz also says he doesn't want to participate in arguing over right to life or pro choice issues, but instead, to honor his wife and inform the public about a little-known law.
Marlise Munoz remains unresponsive and her husband describes her as "simply a shell." Doctors check the fetal heartbeat daily, but Munoz doesn't think the testing is sufficient to measure its viability. "Its hard to reach the point where you would wish your wife's body would stop," he says.



Yahoo!


a bizarre case


http://yhoo.it/1iEfd5y
 

Sal

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 29, 2007
17,135
33
48
Yes. I can't understand what they are trying to achieve.
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
Yes. I can't understand what they are trying to achieve.


They are trying to save the baby. Obviously the "father" doesn't give a rats a$$ about the baby and would prefer to see them both die.
 

shadowshiv

Dark Overlord
May 29, 2007
17,545
120
63
50
If the baby is born with a number of health defects due to what happened to the mother, who would be required to pay the medical bills? Would it be Texas since they were the ones who said the wife would remain on life support or would it be the father?
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
55,565
7,076
113
Washington DC
Texas doesn't allow the government to intrude on private family decisions. For that matter, "government interference" is the usual reason cited by Texans (including their governor) for secession.
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
Texas doesn't allow the government to intrude on private family decisions. For that matter, "government interference" is the usual reason cited by Texans (including their governor) for secession.







This article kind of flies in the face of that, since it's a law specific to Texas, not the federal government, that is interfering.
 

damngrumpy

Executive Branch Member
Mar 16, 2005
9,949
21
38
kelowna bc
What a hell of a mess. The family vs society and where you live makes all the
difference I guess. wonderful how a government can overturn a directive that
the mother herself wished for. She does not want to be on life support. the
government has taken control of her body in this case and that troubles me.
Then again it opens to old argument about end of life situations too does it not.
At what point does the government take control of your life or what's left of it.
And what control should they have in any event?
 

Sal

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 29, 2007
17,135
33
48
What a hell of a mess. The family vs society and where you live makes all the
difference I guess. wonderful how a government can overturn a directive that
the mother herself wished for. She does not want to be on life support. the
government has taken control of her body in this case and that troubles me.
Then again it opens to old argument about end of life situations too does it not.
At what point does the government take control of your life or what's left of it.
And what control should they have in any event?
this will not end well
 

B00Mer

Keep Calm and Carry On
Sep 6, 2008
44,800
7,297
113
Rent Free in Your Head
www.getafteritmedia.com
What a hell of a mess. The family vs society and where you live makes all the
difference I guess. wonderful how a government can overturn a directive that
the mother herself wished for. She does not want to be on life support. the
government has taken control of her body in this case and that troubles me.
Then again it opens to old argument about end of life situations too does it not.
At what point does the government take control of your life or what's left of it.
And what control should they have in any event?

What a SELFISH statement, there is an unborn child growing in her.. I doubt she would want to be "murdered" before the child has been born.
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
What a SELFISH statement, there is an unborn child growing in her.. I doubt she would want to be "murdered" before the child has been born.

Does anyone have timelines on how long she went without breathing- damage to the child she is carrying- Nope- Family does though.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,337
113
Vancouver Island
What a SELFISH statement, there is an unborn child growing in her.. I doubt she would want to be "murdered" before the child has been born.

If she went more than 4 minutes without oxygen the child would be better off not being born. At the moment it is not even a child.
 

B00Mer

Keep Calm and Carry On
Sep 6, 2008
44,800
7,297
113
Rent Free in Your Head
www.getafteritmedia.com
Does anyone have timelines on how long she went without breathing- damage to the child she is carrying- Nope- Family does though.

So does the state, and I'm sure the doctors at JPS are qualified enough to know if there child will have been damaged.

If she went more than 4 minutes without oxygen the child would be better off not being born. At the moment it is not even a child.

Well I see you have no issue with abortion.. it's always the easy way out for a man.
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
So does the state, and I'm sure the doctors at JPS are qualified enough to know if there child will have been damaged.



Well I see you have no issue with abortion.. it's always the easy way out for a man.

Really - From the article.They are adhering to law.
"Our responsibility is to be a good corporate citizen while also providing quality care for our patients. At all times, JPS will follow the law as it applies to healthcare in the state of Texas."
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,337
113
Vancouver Island
So does the state, and I'm sure the doctors at JPS are qualified enough to know if there child will have been damaged.



Well I see you have no issue with abortion.. it's always the easy way out for a man.

It has nothing to do with an easy way out . It is about reality. Something religious fanatics know nothing about.
 

B00Mer

Keep Calm and Carry On
Sep 6, 2008
44,800
7,297
113
Rent Free in Your Head
www.getafteritmedia.com
It has nothing to do with an easy way out . It is about reality. Something religious fanatics know nothing about.

Yeah, there ya go, blame religious fanatics lol

I'm personally not very religious myself, last time I went to church was 4 years ago.. and I still do not believe in abortion..

We have been become a society of casual sex, self gratification with no personal responsibility for our actions.
 

damngrumpy

Executive Branch Member
Mar 16, 2005
9,949
21
38
kelowna bc
You might be non religious or not very religious but the intent of this Texas
law want drafted from a religious view and therefore its about religion.
It is time religion conformed to the law and not the other way round. Religious
groups as groups should be under the same law as everyone else no
exceptions period. Personally I do understand you are not in favour of abortion.
I have twenty three grandchildren and four great grandchildren and I would
not want to chose any for the fate of abortion however the decision would not
be mine it would be the prospective mothers decision that is the law.