State law enforces dead woman to be an incubator for fetus in Dallas, TX

[MysticSang'ha]

Let's say a woman is declared legally dead, had documented that she wants next of kin to pull the plug if she is in a medical condition that offers no chance of recovery, but at the time she is declared dead, it is discovered that she is pregnant.

Let's also say her family wishes to take her off life support.

Would you argue for or against the wish to take her off life support? Or would you want the woman to remain on life support to save her fetus?

This is not a fantasy, btw, this is a real story from Dallas, TX where Marlise Munoz suffered a pulmonary embolism a week after Thanksgiving, was declared dead, but is required by state law to be kept on life support because she was discovered to be pregnant.

The story has gone viral and has sparked the debate again between pro-life and pro-choice political groups. Should the state intervene and enforce the incubation with a dead woman's uterus of a fetus?

The family is, sadly, apparently grieving hard. They do not wish to make the woman's story into a talking point for abortion rights advocates or for pro-life advocates. They are wishing to take her off life-support, and to allow them to let her and the fetus go.

Where do you stand? With the state? With the family?

EDIT: After a second look, it seems that Mrs. Munoz had not made a living will that specifies her wish to be taken off life support, but that she and her husband - both EMT's in their work experience - had discussed the wishes with each other considering their views on quality of life of patients who suffered the same fate as she had.

And, to add, I'm personally deeply saddened by the story.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Where do you stand? With the state? With the family?

I'm tempted to say: "with the baby" - but I'm not at all comfortable with that response.

Also, I wonder how we might view the matter were the situation reversed, i.e., were it a case of the husband and mother desperately wanting the baby while the state took legal steps to terminate it.

 

[metis]

One of the news stories I ran across yesterday is that they think the fetus/baby also may have suffered severe brain damage as well.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I'm tempted to say: "with the baby" - but I'm not at all comfortable with that response.

Also, I wonder how we might view the matter were the situation reversed, i.e., were it a case of the husband and mother desperately wanting the baby while the state took legal steps to terminate it.

This is difficult all around, I think. What gets me to pause is the family's grief of losing a daughter and a wife.

 

[tytlyf]

1 of 12 states that legally overrides the wishes of the parents because of the pregnancy.
I guess she and her husband never discussed this if she happened to be pregnant. In this case, I think the parents should have the right to pull the plug regardless of pregnancy. The baby will most likely have serious issues when born and that will most definitely add grief and serious expenses will ensue.

 

[freethinker44]

My views about dealing with dead people are pretty extreme and are sure to offend a lot of people, but without going into too much detail right now, I don't think dead people should have rights of any kind, so by default I would choose to save the fetus if possible.

EDIT: just read the story, and if she was only 14 weeks pregnant I wouldn't have bothered.

 

[Sunstone]

Tough call either way, I think. At least in terms of principles involved.

 

[averageJOE]

If the state is overriding the families decision will the state front the bill for keeping that life support on and for any and all complications of the delivery and birth defects? How does that work?

 

[Revoltingest]

The woman loses her civil liberties when she dies.
She does retain some residual contractual authority over her estate, including her body.
There will be conflict between these rights, & whatever rights the state assigns to the fetus.
This will be a societal compromise reflected in law.
I take no stand on the matter.
Boring, eh?

 

[Alceste]

IMO, it is the privilege of her next of kin to make that awful decision, and the state should have no say in the matter. Imagine she specified she did not want to be an organ donor, but the state intervened to harvest her body to save other lives. Would that be OK? I think not, so neither is this.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

My views about dealing with dead people are pretty extreme and are sure to offend a lot of people, but without going into too much detail right now, I don't think dead people should have rights of any kind, so by default I would choose to save the fetus if possible.

EDIT: just read the story, and if she was only 14 weeks pregnant I wouldn't have bothered.

I agree with you, if there was no family to make the decision for her.

But i wonder if the family should have any rights in this regard.

It's a tricky situation.

 

[MoonWater]

If the state is overriding the families decision will the state front the bill for keeping that life support on and for any and all complications of the delivery and birth defects?

Doubtful, yet another reason to support abortion laws

 

[freethinker44]

I agree with you, if there was no family to make the decision for her.

But i wonder if the family should have any rights in this regard.

It's a tricky situation.

I don't think the family should have rights to the body. Like I said, my views on this are extreme. If I was in charge of the world, upon death the body would be confiscated and all useful organs harvested and the rest of the body used for scientific/medical research or disposed of organically. To me, preservation or cremation are irresponsible and selfish. As much destruction as we cause the least we could do is give a little back to nature when we die.

 

[dust1n]

Yup. Texas is pretty horrible. This reads like a sci-fi. How irresponsible is it to try to attempt to keeping a 13 week old fetus alive for 6 months an expect that birth to be alright...

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

IMO, it is the privilege of her next of kin to make that awful decision, and the state should have no say in the matter. Imagine she specified she did not want to be an organ donor, but the state intervened to harvest her body to save other lives. Would that be OK? I think not, so neither is this.

In some countries that is exactly what the state does unless you have previously opted out.

It would be reasonable to keep her functioning if the birth date was only a day or two away and her organs were functioning correctly. and this has happened many times.

However I do not see that abortion laws can apply to a dead person. So the only grounds for letting the baby come to term would be normal viability.

 

[dawny0826]

Tragic story and I am deeply saddened for the family's loss. I can't imagine losing a daughter or spouse in such a sudden manner and I am troubled and saddened by the additional grief, as the family would like to let go and begin healing and cannot.

Texas bans and outlaws abortion after 20 weeks gestation, but, can make an allowance "to prevent a substantial permanent impairment of the life or physical health of the woman or in the case of a severe fetal anomaly".

Source

If she was further along in her pregnancy and the baby had reached a milestone of viability, I would hesitate, from a clinical perspective, to pull the plug when the pregnancy, even when considering the risks, can continue to be monitored and with testing it could be determined if the fetus had a chance of survival outside the womb.

But, this isn't the case at all and there's a grieving husband and father who has made his wishes known and is being ignored. It's unacceptable.

Such government intervention is costly and hurtful in many ways.

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

One of the news stories I ran across yesterday is that they think the fetus/baby also may have suffered severe brain damage as well.

As soon as I read the heading, that scenario immediately popped into my mind (without reading the news story).

The woman is dying/dead. She is not healthy, so how can the baby be? Is it also fair for a baby to be born deprived of its mother? deprived of its health?

In certain scenarios where a woman dies during childbirth, that is unfortunate and unforseen, but in this situation, it is not.

Is science doing more harm than good to the baby by incubating it in this sterile, dead environment, where a mother cannot even feel any love/connection to her fetus? Fetus needs that for proper brain development.

This is taking the 'right to life' too far. There also must be a 'right to death' that must be weighed up in comparison.

The woman's family has my vote in this regard because, quite frankly, it's nobody else's business.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

I think if the state attempted to force the issue, chances are that the upbringing of that child would include an incredibly complex and potentially negative psychological trauma of incredible impact. It would therefore in my opinion be unhealthy to force the family to prolong the woman's life.

 

[Revoltingest]

As soon as I read the heading, that scenario immediately popped into my mind (without reading the news story).

The woman is dying/dead. She is not healthy, so how can the baby be? Is it also fair for a baby to be born deprived of its mother? deprived of its health?

In certain scenarios where a woman dies during childbirth, that is unfortunate and unforseen, but in this situation, it is not.

Is science doing more harm than good to the baby by incubating it in this sterile, dead environment, where a mother cannot even feel any love/connection to her fetus? Fetus needs that for proper brain development.

This is taking the 'right to life' too far. There also must be a 'right to death' that must be weighed up in comparison.

The woman's family has my vote in this regard because, quite frankly, it's nobody else's business.

You have some pretty shaky premises there.
I don't believe an adopted baby is worse off than one with its bio-mom.
And how can the fetus exercise a "right to death" when it's in no position to make a decision?

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

You have some pretty shaky premises there.
I don't believe an adopted baby is worse off than one with its bio-mom.
And how can the fetus exercise a "right to death" when it's in no position to make a decision?

The family can exercise the 'right to death' because the fetus is in no position to make a decision and if its brain is severely damaged, it may never get that right.

My premises are always 'shaky' because I know zero about the law (justice being blind and all that) and I would prefer to keep it that way.

This is just NYK's 'common sense' that isn't very 'common' anymore.

Put it this way...in any other country, the family would have case for a legal suit...I mean, you can see the headlines in 20 years time:

"Man sues government for billions for allowing him to be born'.

It is just totally unnatural...but then again, nothing and absolutely nothing is 'natural' anymore and it disgusts me, so please forgive my 'shaky premise'.

I am also learning when it is best to do just 'fly by posting' and not respond to any subsequent questions.

This should have been one of those times.