If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(SeattlePI)   Defying all medical reason and a judge's order, Fort Worth hospital considers appeal because they 'have a duty to protect the fetus'   (seattlepi.com) divider line 344
    More: Followup, Hospital considers, duty to protect, pregnancy, fetus, John Peter Smith Hospital  
•       •       •

6676 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Jan 2014 at 3:39 PM (26 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



344 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-25 06:51:38 PM

Amberleia: I believe the rights of the living fetus supercede the rights of a dead woman.


Thank goodness your beliefs aren't the law. You are a frightening individual.
 
2014-01-25 06:52:29 PM
Oh and another ick factor is the fact that there are people who have to come to work everyday and feed, clean, and provide care for a dead person.
 
2014-01-25 06:55:24 PM

letrole: letrole: Here's the evidence. I don't want to talk to you. Go away. You have two options: STFU or QED. Take your pick.
cameroncrazy1984: You can always put me on ignore, bud. Nobody's stopping you. I'm sorry you hate having factual evidence provided for you.


If you were Forest Gump, this is where you would say, "but you ain't got no legs, Lt. Dan", and Lt. Dan would say, "yes, I *know* that".


Well that makes about as much sense as I expected for your reply. I guess you actually don't want me to go away.
 
2014-01-25 06:56:10 PM
By the time the kid is ready to be born the mother's skin will be decayed so badly the baby will burst out of her abdominal cavity like in that scene from Alien.
 
2014-01-25 06:56:42 PM

panfake: Oh and another ick factor is the fact that there are people who have to come to work everyday and feed, clean, and provide care for a dead person.


Yeah, that is creepy. I wonder what those poor nurses must be going through.
 
2014-01-25 06:56:51 PM

panfake: Oh and another ick factor is the fact that there are people who have to come to work everyday and feed, clean, and provide care for a dead person.


Like I said up thread, I'd tell my boss to take the gomerbaby as shove it up his own twat and incubate on it. No paycheck is worth it.
 
2014-01-25 07:00:44 PM

Farking Canuck: MechaPyx: If the fetus is healthy and there's a chance it can be brought to term then you try and save it. That's the ethical thing to do.

No. It is never ethical to fark with a corpse.

If a living fetus can be removed from the corpse at the time of death that is justifiable. But otherwise it dies with the mother. That is life, death and the natural order of things.

We can do some pretty amazing things with medical science ... but turning corpses into incubators to pacify some religious whack-jobs is way over the line.


I agree with that. I might be ok with incubating if the fetus is really close and needs another week or two. I'm uncomfortable pulling the plug in that situation so I'd rather try incubating than just let it die but I'd feel pretty uncomfortable with it. Just thought of it has me kind of squicked.

What they're doing now is way over the line. I'm not 'grab your torch and pitchforks' outraged but they need to have some common sense slapped into them.
 
2014-01-25 07:03:10 PM
There HAVE been other cases where brain-dead women have been kept on life support in order to allow fetuses to develop enough to survive outside the womb. In 2012, viable twins were born by C-section from a woman who had died due to an aneurysm a month before.  In 2013, a baby was delivered from a mother who had been brain-dead for three months.  Also in 2013, a woman was pronounced brain-dead 8 weeks into her pregnancy.  She, and her fetus, were without oxygen for four hours. She was kept on life support, and her daughter celebrated her first birthday earlier this month. Admittedly, not all fetuses who have developed in women who have been on life support have been viable, but, without seeing the evidence that this individual fetus is not viable, who are we to say that the rights of a dead woman supercede that of the living fetus? Granted the judge, hospital, and family have seen evidence about the fetus' viability, and as I said previously, if the fetus truly has no chance of surviving outside of the womb, then by all means remove life support.  But if there's a chance that the fetus is viable, then its rights do take precedence.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/brain-dead-mom-gives-birth-to-twins-whil e- on-life-support/
http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/healthy-baby-born-brain -d ead-mother-hungary-article-1.1517401
http://www.wjhl.com/story/24486953/as-legal-battle-rages-over-brain- de ad-mother-in-texas-baby-born-to-brain-dead-mother-in-tri-cities-celebr ates-first-birthday
 
2014-01-25 07:03:52 PM
I thought last week the only reason the hospital was keeping her "alive" was because the law.. but now a judge has told them to pull the plug and they're still going to fight it.. ?? What the Fark?
 
2014-01-25 07:04:03 PM

Amberleia: There HAVE been other cases where brain-dead women have been kept on life support in order to allow fetuses to develop enough to survive outside the womb. In 2012, viable twins were born by C-section from a woman who had died due to an aneurysm a month before


Nobody's disputing that, but at 14-weeks they're not viable.
 
2014-01-25 07:04:16 PM
Human experimentation. Nothing more.


Make them do one of those "3D ultrasounds" so the whole farking WORLD can see the "baby" they're trying to "save"
 
2014-01-25 07:04:44 PM

FnkyTwn: I thought last week the only reason the hospital was keeping her "alive" was because the law.. but now a judge has told them to pull the plug and they're still going to fight it.. ?? What the Fark?


True Believers will take any reason they can to be Right.
 
2014-01-25 07:05:23 PM

MechaPyx: . I'm not 'grab your torch and pitchforks' outraged but they need to have some common sense slapped into them.


Agreed. But I suggest we slap them with torches and pitchforks.
 
2014-01-25 07:05:58 PM

RobertBruce: Since this has gone on so long already, let it go to 24 weeks, do a c-section and see what happens.


That is probably the plan already.
 
2014-01-25 07:08:04 PM

OooShiny: Amberleia:   I am pro-choice.  The well-being of a woman, mental, emotional, and physical, supercedes the rights of an unborn fetus.  However, in this case, the mother's well-being is irrelevant, as she's no longer living. Therefore, I believe the rights of the living fetus supercede the rights of a dead woman. If there's any chance of a viable infant being born, then, in my opinion, life support should be continued.


Fetus was 14 weeks' gestation at time of mother's death.  Husband decided, after brain activity had ceased, that it was time to let her and her pregnancy go.  Had fetus been months closer to viability on November 28th, the husband's decision might have been very different.

Why do the state's 'ethics' and 'rights' supersede those of her husband, her parents and the patient herself as her family says she verbally expressed before death?

Why is it unethical for her loving husband, who's also her medical and legal power of attorney, to make this deeply personal decision without state intervention?

Why is it ethical for the state to force her husband and family to maintain her body and pregnancy against their express written consent?

Why is this husband's thoughtful, reasonable and loving decision codified as a crime by the state?

Why is this husband's deeply personal and private decision anyone else's business?


Because JAY-ZUSS!!!!!
 
2014-01-25 07:08:48 PM

The My Little Pony Killer: Amberleia: I haven't seen the evidence that the fetus isn't viable,

Then you need to do your homework, starting with reading this thread.


I have seen articles stating that the attorneys have such evidence, but none of us have actually seen such evidence ourselves.  I imagine the hospital has evidence that they think demonstrates the fetus is viable.  And no, living relatives don't take precedence of the rights of the fetus.
 
2014-01-25 07:11:19 PM

cameroncrazy1984: FnkyTwn: I thought last week the only reason the hospital was keeping her "alive" was because the law.. but now a judge has told them to pull the plug and they're still going to fight it.. ?? What the Fark?

True Believers will take any reason they can to be Right.


Even though there is not one place in the Bible or any other religious text or teaching that suggests that incubating the living inside of the dead, or any other Hail Mary medical intervention to attempt to save a doomed pregnancy is required by God.

There is nothing that says that allowing a pregnancy to terminate naturally when it is not viable is a sin.

Nothing. Not one word. Anywhere.

Yet they continue with this horror show in the name of their god.
 
2014-01-25 07:13:26 PM

Amberleia: The My Little Pony Killer: Amberleia: I haven't seen the evidence that the fetus isn't viable,

Then you need to do your homework, starting with reading this thread.

I have seen articles stating that the attorneys have such evidence, but none of us have actually seen such evidence ourselves.  I imagine the hospital has evidence that they think demonstrates the fetus is viable.  And no, living relatives don't take precedence of the rights of the fetus.


Yes, actually, they do. The living trump the unborn and the dead.

Never mind that the drugs used to keep the woman's corpse from rotting would fark up a NORMAL fetus, but this fetus' brain is goo, its lower body is farked beyond repair, and, as it's developing inside a corpse, it WILL NOT develop normally enough to survive.
 
2014-01-25 07:14:36 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Amberleia: There HAVE been other cases where brain-dead women have been kept on life support in order to allow fetuses to develop enough to survive outside the womb. In 2012, viable twins were born by C-section from a woman who had died due to an aneurysm a month before

Nobody's disputing that, but at 14-weeks they're not viable.


But the baby born in the second link I posted was born to a mother who was brain-dead when the fetus was just 15 weeks along and in the third link, the mother died when she was just 8 weeks pregnant.
 
2014-01-25 07:17:07 PM

Amberleia: I am pro-choice.  The well-being of a woman, mental, emotional, and physical, supercedes the rights of an unborn fetus.  However, in this case, the mother's well-being is irrelevant, as she's no longer living. Therefore, I believe the rights of the living fetus supercede the rights of a dead woman. If there's any chance of a viable infant being born, then, in my opinion, life support should be continued.

I haven't seen the evidence that the fetus isn't viable, though the reports state that the father's attorneys have such.  If this is true, then by all means end everything, but if there's any doubt at all, then I believe the fetus should be maintained until it is either born or all doubt in removed.


I saw a similar post on the website. Was that you? You believe the "attorneys" are speaking for themselves and not the actual physicians and nurses who are required to (until Monday) care for a deteriorating corpse which is "incubating" (and that's NOT what is happening) an abnormal fetus (hydrocephalus; no legs; vast internal derangement of organs, including the heart).

You say you are "pro-choice." I call BS. You are not pro-choice. You are pro-fetus, at all costs.

I'm going to try to give you the benefit of the doubt but, when you proclaim that a disintegrating dead woman should...no must...be required to carry a monster to term, I have a really hard time wrapping my head around that. This woman is dead. Her fetus at 22 weeks is beyond abnormal. You want a "live birth" to prove something, something, something, God, Jesus, miracle, something and that all the medical personnel are wrong and you and your ilk are right.

I think you should be in that operating room (not delivery room;the poor woman is dead and they're going to have to cut the fetus out), smelling the stench of death from her womb as they deliver a monstrosity which, most likely, won't even take a breath.

I thought I'd seen everything in my more than half-century on this planet...guess I was wrong. Very, very wrong.  :-(
 
2014-01-25 07:17:53 PM

Amberleia: cameroncrazy1984: Amberleia: There HAVE been other cases where brain-dead women have been kept on life support in order to allow fetuses to develop enough to survive outside the womb. In 2012, viable twins were born by C-section from a woman who had died due to an aneurysm a month before

Nobody's disputing that, but at 14-weeks they're not viable.

But the baby born in the second link I posted was born to a mother who was brain-dead when the fetus was just 15 weeks along and in the third link, the mother died when she was just 8 weeks pregnant.


From the third link: "They had to put her in a medical induced comma for the entire rest of the pregnancy," said Odom.

I'm not sure what a comma is, but "coma" is not the same as "dead."
 
2014-01-25 07:18:18 PM

Amberleia: cameroncrazy1984: Amberleia: There HAVE been other cases where brain-dead women have been kept on life support in order to allow fetuses to develop enough to survive outside the womb. In 2012, viable twins were born by C-section from a woman who had died due to an aneurysm a month before

Nobody's disputing that, but at 14-weeks they're not viable.

But the baby born in the second link I posted was born to a mother who was brain-dead when the fetus was just 15 weeks along and in the third link, the mother died when she was just 8 weeks pregnant.


It doesn't matter. If it hasn't been born yet, it's not a person. If it won't entitle me to drive in the carpool lane, and I can't list it as a dependent on my taxes, it's not a person. The law is pretty damn clear about the point at which it becomes a person.
 
2014-01-25 07:18:59 PM

Amberleia: But the baby born in the second link I posted was born to a mother who was brain-dead when the fetus was just 15 weeks along and in the third link, the mother died when she was just 8 weeks pregnant.


Were either of those two fetuses abnormal as this one is?
 
2014-01-25 07:21:34 PM
Amberleia: who are we to say that the rights of a dead woman supercede that of the living fetus

Who is anyone to say that the state's 'ethics' supersede the rights of her remaining living family?

If her husband and parents expressly asked to let her body and her pregnancy go, as he did at 14 weeks' gestation when his wife died, why is this decision unethical?

Why was a 14-week fetus more important that the woman's bodily dignity, her husband, her family and their wishes?  If family wanted to keep her dead body pumping to preserve the fetus for another 4 months, then fine.  But they did NOT want that.

Why is it okay for the state to overrule noncriminal decisions and even define those decisions as, in fact, criminal?
 
2014-01-25 07:24:12 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Amberleia: There HAVE been other cases where brain-dead women have been kept on life support in order to allow fetuses to develop enough to survive outside the womb. In 2012, viable twins were born by C-section from a woman who had died due to an aneurysm a month before

Nobody's disputing that, but at 14-weeks they're not viable.


And that may be so, but it's still creepy as hell and I would not want that done to my corpse after I die.
 
2014-01-25 07:24:29 PM

Amberleia: cameroncrazy1984: Amberleia: There HAVE been other cases where brain-dead women have been kept on life support in order to allow fetuses to develop enough to survive outside the womb. In 2012, viable twins were born by C-section from a woman who had died due to an aneurysm a month before

Nobody's disputing that, but at 14-weeks they're not viable.

But the baby born in the second link I posted was born to a mother who was brain-dead when the fetus was just 15 weeks along and in the third link, the mother died when she was just 8 weeks pregnant.


In the second link, the terms "vegetative state," "brain-dead" and "kept alive" were all thrown around, and the facts aren't clear. Vegetative state is very different from "brain-dead." And in the case under discussion, the woman is dead. She's rotting. They're essentially trying to keep her embalmed.
 
2014-01-25 07:25:21 PM

TheSopwithTurtle: Amberleia: cameroncrazy1984: Amberleia: There HAVE been other cases where brain-dead women have been kept on life support in order to allow fetuses to develop enough to survive outside the womb. In 2012, viable twins were born by C-section from a woman who had died due to an aneurysm a month before

Nobody's disputing that, but at 14-weeks they're not viable.

But the baby born in the second link I posted was born to a mother who was brain-dead when the fetus was just 15 weeks along and in the third link, the mother died when she was just 8 weeks pregnant.

From the third link: "They had to put her in a  medical induced comma for the entire rest of the pregnancy," said Odom.

I'm not sure what a comma is, but "coma" is not the same as "dead."


Dr, Frank, en, shteen.
 
2014-01-25 07:25:58 PM

oukewldave: How long until a family member says " enough of this shiat" and grabs a gun, goes to the hospital and pulls the plug themself?


Many years ago, think 1970's, this happened, possibly in Illinois but not certain.  A boy was on a ventilator after choking on a balloon and had no chance of recovery.  The father went to court to disconnect, hospital fought him on it.  Father went to hospital with a gun told everyone to leave and he disconnected the boy and held him in his arms.  Father was arrested but a grand jury declined to indict.
 
2014-01-25 07:26:17 PM

TheSopwithTurtle: In the second link, the terms "vegetative state," "brain-dead" and "kept alive" were all thrown around, and the facts aren't clear. Vegetative state is very different from "brain-dead." And in the case under discussion, the woman is dead. She's rotting. They're essentially trying to keep her embalmed


This is actually a very good point. Brain-death is different from a vegetative state.
 
2014-01-25 07:29:20 PM

Amberleia: cameroncrazy1984: Amberleia: There HAVE been other cases where brain-dead women have been kept on life support in order to allow fetuses to develop enough to survive outside the womb. In 2012, viable twins were born by C-section from a woman who had died due to an aneurysm a month before

Nobody's disputing that, but at 14-weeks they're not viable.

But the baby born in the second link I posted was born to a mother who was brain-dead when the fetus was just 15 weeks along and in the third link, the mother died when she was just 8 weeks pregnant.


Your second link: Complete bullshiat. You can tell because of the bit about donating the organs after the patient has been brain dead for that length of time. Impossible. Didn't happen. The body of a brain dead patient will decay. You can't stop it.

Your third link - also bullshiat because of this line: "They had to put her in a medical induced comma for the entire rest of the pregnancy," said Odom.

She could not possibly have been brain dead and needed to be put in a medically induced coma. She was not brain dead. She was not without oxygen for four hours, she had low oxygen for four hours. She was brain DAMAGED not dead.

As for the first link:
Dr. Cosmas Vandeven, who specializes in high-risk pregnancies at University of Michigan hospital, said Bolden's case is a "very exceptional scenario." He said an important ethical issue in cases like these is whether a brain-dead woman would suffer by being kept on a respirator and undergoing a C-section.
"Almost every parent would give their life for their child," Vandeven said. "But you need to get truly independent opinions: Are we sure we're not causing harm to the mom?"


Again, bullshiat, because no doctor anywhere outside of Hollywood Upstairs Medical School would question whether they were causing a dead body to suffer. A dead body doesn't suffer. It's dead.

As we have seen over and over and over in the Jahi McMath case, the media as a whole is unable to differentiate between brain DAMAGED and alive but in a persistent vegetative state requiring advanced life support, and brain DEAD, meaning no brain activity at all. Also meaning dead.

That's what is likely going on with your links.
 
2014-01-25 07:34:59 PM

Amberleia: cameroncrazy1984: Amberleia: There HAVE been other cases where brain-dead women have been kept on life support in order to allow fetuses to develop enough to survive outside the womb. In 2012, viable twins were born by C-section from a woman who had died due to an aneurysm a month before

Nobody's disputing that, but at 14-weeks they're not viable.

But the baby born in the second link I posted was born to a mother who was brain-dead when the fetus was just 15 weeks along and in the third link, the mother died when she was just 8 weeks pregnant.


What don't you understand about this fetus having no chance of any kind of life?
 
2014-01-25 07:36:55 PM
Amberleia: And no, living relatives don't take precedence of the rights of the fetus.


Owner of the uterus does indeed have legal control of choice over fertilized eggs, zygotes, embryos and fetuses through first trimester.  And just to be clear, owner of uterus is not the state.

When death of said uterine owner occurs, all medical decisions revert to spouse who, by default, is medical and legal power of attorney.
 
2014-01-25 07:42:39 PM
letrole: Here's the evidence. I don't want to talk to you. Go away. You have two options: STFU or QED. Take your pick.
cameroncrazy1984: You can always put me on ignore, bud. Nobody's stopping you. I'm sorry you hate having factual evidence provided for you.
letrole: If you were Forest Gump, this is where you would say, "but you ain't got no legs, Lt. Dan", and Lt. Dan would say, "yes, I *know* that".
cameroncrazy1984: Well that makes about as much sense as I expected for your reply. I guess you actually don't want me to go away.


It doesn't matter. The random reader of this sub-thread is either bored shiatless, or mildly amused at the way that you're so clueless. I can type anything, and you will be compelled to respond. So if you reply now, you prove the point, and you lose. So don't reply. Just go do whatever it is that you people do for fun. Be a winner. Just say no to obsessive behaviour.
 
2014-01-25 07:43:54 PM

OooShiny: Republican church-state


Republican Church-State has a nice ring to it.
 
2014-01-25 07:49:03 PM

letrole: or mildly amused at the way that you're so clueless.


Objection, assumes facts not in evidence.

 

letrole: Just say no to obsessive behaviour.


Says the guy who told me to go away and yet continues to reply to me. Who's the obsessive one here?
 
2014-01-25 07:55:26 PM

Alicious: RobertBruce: Since this has gone on so long already, let it go to 24 weeks, do a c-section and see what happens.

That is probably the plan already.


And when they do, and harvest a dead sack of deformed goo, who is going to take the blame then? As of yesterday, an ultrasound showed that the fetus in this case had severely deformed lower limbs and hydrocephaly, among other problems. Likely, if the lower limbs are deformed, it has other internal organs either deformed or missing.

This whole thing, and the girl in Oakland, have brought up an interesting phenomenon that needs to be examined more fully--that people don't comprehend the difference between "brain dead" and "dead but on life-support." Somebody above posted a link to a woman who managed to be delivered of a healthy baby despite being "brain dead"--but closer review of the case revealed she was in a medically-induced coma. The line between "brain death" and "coma" may be getting grayer and fuzzier, but it's still there; and the doctors keeping someone in a medically-induced coma is most definitely different.

This woman isn't just brain dead (someone whose brain no longer has any electrical function) she is dead. Her body functions have begun to shut down. If the ventilator was switched off, she wouldn't keep breathing--she has no meaningful brain stem impulses. The girl in Oakland, same thing. She is not "brain dead", but dead, and the organ responsible for keeping blood flowing is doing so by artificial means. If there was a power failure, she'd be dead in four minutes or less.

Terry Schiavo was "brain dead," in that she had no brain to speak of, but had enough brain stem to keep her heart and lungs functioning. She had to be starved to death, so there were some slightly different ethical issues about allowing her to die. The distinction is critical, and requires a knowledge of where the various autonomic functions are located in the brain. Heart and involuntary lung functions are very old and very low on the brain, so a human being can have virtually NO brain function and still breathe and have a pulse without mechanical assistance. (High-cord quadriplegics have suffered damage of the spinal cord at that critical juncture and have lost involuntary lung function) Anencephalic babies have brain stems, but no brains, and sometimes heartbreakingly survive long enough to breathe in the delivery room.

But being "brain dead" is not the same thing as being dead but maintained on a heart-lung machine, like this woman and the girl in Oakland. They have both begun to display signs of actual physical disintegration consistent with death. That means that not just HIGHER brain functions are gone, but also LOWER brain functions are gone--the autonomic functions that keep your internal organs regulated, your glands operating, etc. And, not at all incidentally, control gestation of a fetus. The human body isn't some kind of package of discrete parts that function independently--they are all interrelated parts of a whole, controlled by the brain. It's not that you pop in an egg and sperm and the uterus goes to work without any more input from the mother's body, incubating a baby like it was inside an egg. It requires constant though completely unconscious signals from the brain to regulate mom's liver functions, kidney output, insulin secretion, prevent toxin backup through the cord...all kinds of things that just keeping the heart beating won't help.

It's why pregnant women need to stay healthy, eat right, take vitamins, avoid stress. So they can have all the OTHER things besides a pulse that the baby needs. Hell, just the waste products from body deterioration building up in her system are likely to poison the fetus long before it could ever be brought to term. People need to realize that the mother isn't "brain dead", she is dead. A heartbeat is not enough to bring a fetus to term. The uterus is not somehow independent of the body its in, so a uterus in a dead body is a dead uterus. Sorry, folks.
 
2014-01-25 07:56:54 PM
And it just keeps getting more and more outrageous as the pro-fetus group wants an abnormal, 22-week-old fetus to make it to at least 36 weeks (because then it's a baybee!) in order for it to "take its first breath" after the physical disintegration of its mother to prove that God, miracles, blah, blah, etc.

I am not an atheist. I'm actually OK with a higher power. Wish he/she/it would step in and stop this. But I am a rationalist. Sometimes fetuses don't survive the first six weeks of gestation. But, hey! Let's keep a decaying corpse as an "incubator" to prove the Almighty Will of God to bring forth a nearly dead monster to prove Jesus, God, miracles, etc.

Are we this insane? ::rhetorical question::

Can you imagine, if there is an afterlife, what this poor woman is going through? She's neither here nor there. This is a crime against nature.

There will be nightmares tonight.  :-(
 
2014-01-25 07:58:38 PM
Only thing that about this horrific fiasco that would make sense to me is if the legal counsel is preparing to run for office of some sort, and is pumping up his bonifides for the derper crowd. I mean, why else would you do this?
 
2014-01-25 08:02:11 PM

zeio: SilentStrider: They only want to keep the fetus alive in the hopes that it will grow up to vote Republican.

Well if its dead, it will end up a democrat registered voter. And if its brain dead, it will be a democrat registered voter that votes several times in one election being bussed from polling station to polling station.

EAT EVERY COCK, EVERYWHERE, FOR ALL TIME.

 
2014-01-25 08:03:32 PM

Gyrfalcon: Alicious: RobertBruce: Since this has gone on so long already, let it go to 24 weeks, do a c-section and see what happens.

That is probably the plan already.

And when they do, and harvest a dead sack of deformed goo, who is going to take the blame then? As of yesterday, an ultrasound showed that the fetus in this case had severely deformed lower limbs and hydrocephaly, among other problems. Likely, if the lower limbs are deformed, it has other internal organs either deformed or missing.

This whole thing, and the girl in Oakland, have brought up an interesting phenomenon that needs to be examined more fully--that people don't comprehend the difference between "brain dead" and "dead but on life-support." Somebody above posted a link to a woman who managed to be delivered of a healthy baby despite being "brain dead"--but closer review of the case revealed she was in a medically-induced coma. The line between "brain death" and "coma" may be getting grayer and fuzzier, but it's still there; and the doctors keeping someone in a medically-induced coma is most definitely different.

This woman isn't just brain dead (someone whose brain no longer has any electrical function) she is dead. Her body functions have begun to shut down. If the ventilator was switched off, she wouldn't keep breathing--she has no meaningful brain stem impulses. The girl in Oakland, same thing. She is not "brain dead", but dead, and the organ responsible for keeping blood flowing is doing so by artificial means. If there was a power failure, she'd be dead in four minutes or less.

Terry Schiavo was "brain dead," in that she had no brain to speak of, but had enough brain stem to keep her heart and lungs functioning. She had to be starved to death, so there were some slightly different ethical issues about allowing her to die. The distinction is critical, and requires a knowledge of where the various autonomic functions are located in the brain. Heart and involuntary lung functions are very old and ...


Sorry, but you're wrong here. Brain DEAD means the complete absence of any brain activity whatsoever. Not even in the brain stem. The brain, all of it, has died. Medically and legally, a brain dead person is dead. Truly Most Sincerely Dead. There is no difference between brain dead and dead. When you are brain dead, you are dead. An ex parrot. The end.

Terry Shiavo was NOT brain dead. She had minimal brain function, therefore she was alive. She was severely brain DAMAGED, meaning alive. Anyone who has a spark in the brain stem is alive.

In order to be brain DEAD, there has to be no brain function at all. Not even in the brain stem. It can be misdiagnosed (as in the case of the brain dead people who are miraculously "cured") but it is a very clear and absolute definition. It is actually, thanks to modern medical advances, getting easier to diagnose, not harder.
 
2014-01-25 08:06:06 PM
Universal Declaration of Death Act: (pdf)

"§ 1. [Determination of Death]. An individual who has sustained either (1)
irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible
cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, is dead.
A
determination of death must be made in accordance with accepted medical
standards."

There are no levels of dead. You are alive, or you are dead. Brain dead is dead.
 
2014-01-25 08:06:53 PM

zeio: SilentStrider: They only want to keep the fetus alive in the hopes that it will grow up to vote Republican.

Well if its dead, it will end up a democrat registered voter. And if its brain dead, it will be a democrat registered voter that votes several times in one election being bussed from polling station to polling station.


It's only funny because it's true.
 
2014-01-25 08:10:23 PM

jmr61: Farking religious republican pieces of shiat.

DIAF all of you.


Very tolerant of you to wish death on others.
 
2014-01-25 08:13:49 PM

namegoeshere: Universal Declaration of Death Act: (pdf)

"§ 1. [Determination of Death]. An individual who has sustained either (1)
irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible
cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, is dead. A
determination of death must be made in accordance with accepted medical
standards."

There are no levels of dead. You are alive, or you are dead. Brain dead is dead.


That's fine, but that doesn't negate my larger point.
 
2014-01-25 08:15:33 PM

Amberleia: There HAVE been other cases where brain-dead women have been kept on life support in order to allow fetuses to develop enough to survive outside the womb. In 2012, viable twins were born by C-section from a woman who had died due to an aneurysm a month before.  In 2013, a baby was delivered from a mother who had been brain-dead for three months.  Also in 2013, a woman was pronounced brain-dead 8 weeks into her pregnancy.  She, and her fetus, were without oxygen for four hours. She was kept on life support, and her daughter celebrated her first birthday earlier this month. Admittedly, not all fetuses who have developed in women who have been on life support have been viable, but, without seeing the evidence that this individual fetus is not viable, who are we to say that the rights of a dead woman supercede that of the living fetus? Granted the judge, hospital, and family have seen evidence about the fetus' viability, and as I said previously, if the fetus truly has no chance of surviving outside of the womb, then by all means remove life support.  But if there's a chance that the fetus is viable, then its rights do take precedence.



The problem with these sentiments is that exactly zero medical professionals have said the fetus is or will ever be anything but non-viable.  Munoz's medical experts have examined the fetus and determined it's deformed to the point that its long term survival prospects are zero, since it has limb deformation along with a heart defect along with a braincase full of too much fluid and not enough brain.  To further damn the whole thing, the hospital agrees with all of this.

This is not a case of a dead woman's still technically living body miraculously supporting a healthy fetus.  The fetus inside her has been dramatically damaged to the point where its survival in any circumstance is a near-certain impossibility. In the very very unlikely best case scenario, if the fetus was brought to term and delivered it would be a malformed vegetable that lived on life support for a few months before organ failure killed it; the vastly more likely scenario is that the fetus dies in utero anyway.  There's no life here to save unless you count a less-than-one-percent chance of a few months of non-conscious breathing, IV feeding, and (importantly) painful suffering a form of life.

All that said, there's another aspect that is getting underplayed here which makes the rest of the arguments moot: if the mother was alive and healthy right now and the fetus showed those same developmental deformities, she would not only be justified in aborting the fetus, she would probably be advised to do so.  That's what makes this case so utterly sick: the hospital has used this tragedy as an opportunity to force their hardline pro-life crap on an innocent family.  They're trying to claim that if a woman becomes incapacitated while in their care that they OWN her right to choose, despite the wishes of her family and the written wishes of the woman herself.
 
2014-01-25 08:16:08 PM
I don't understand what the hospital hopes to get out of this.
 
2014-01-25 08:17:14 PM
Amberleia:   In 2013, a woman was pronounced brain-dead 8 weeks into her pregnancy.  She, and her fetus, were without oxygen for four hours. She was kept on life support, and her daughter celebrated her first birthday earlier this month.


Article actually says patient was put in a medically-induced coma.  See Glasgow Coma Scale on how coma status is evaluated.

* Brain-dead does not = coma because minimal brainwaves are still present.
* Brain-dead does not = vegetative because minimal brainwaves are still present.
* Brain-dead does = no measurable brain activity.

Her family said she was 'brain-dead,' not doctors.  However, such misinterpretation by laymen especially during such high stress is completely understandable.

No fetus or woman has lived completely without oxygen for four hours.  Further, you can't put brain-dead people in a coma, as that would require artificially increasing brain activity of the brain-dead just to qualify as comatose.  Science is not yet capable of such feats.

Despite false 'evidence' in your linked case, the question is this:

Did family consent to life-support for comatose woman to incubate fetus until viable gestational age? If yes, then fine.

Fort Worth case is different because this woman is irreversibly brain-dead and her loving family refused medical intervention after her death, but were forced by the state to accept it anyway despite pregnancy being only in first trimester.
 
2014-01-25 08:19:21 PM

armor helix: I don't understand what the hospital hopes to get out of this.


They want to be viewed as compassionate.

/that's the joke
 
2014-01-25 08:20:36 PM

Trillian Astra: bluenovaman: So what's to stop the husband from getting his family, friends and supporters to block the way while he disconnects the system? Not trying to ITG, but I'm close enough to where I'd be down for helping him with something like that.

I'm wondering if, supposing the husband did something to this effect, they would bring him up on charges.


Charged for carrying out a court order?
 
2014-01-25 08:22:28 PM

Amberleia: There HAVE been other cases where brain-dead women have been kept on life support in order to allow fetuses to develop enough to survive outside the womb. In 2012, viable twins were born by C-section from a woman who had died due to an aneurysm a month before.  In 2013, a baby was delivered from a mother who had been brain-dead for three months.  Also in 2013, a woman was pronounced brain-dead 8 weeks into her pregnancy.  She, and her fetus, were without oxygen for four hours. She was kept on life support, and her daughter celebrated her first birthday earlier this month. Admittedly, not all fetuses who have developed in women who have been on life support have been viable, but, without seeing the evidence that this individual fetus is not viable, who are we to say that the rights of a dead woman supercede that of the living fetus? Granted the judge, hospital, and family have seen evidence about the fetus' viability, and as I said previously, if the fetus truly has no chance of surviving outside of the womb, then by all means remove life support.  But if there's a chance that the fetus is viable, then its rights do take precedence.


Looks to me like you just read the headlines and didn't stop to think about what was actually being said. It doesn't help that the reporting for your latter two links aren't exactly prime examples of excellent reportage.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/brain-dead-mom-gives-birth-to-twins-whil e- on-life-support/

Yes, the mother was declared brain dead, but her twins were already 21 weeks along, and they only kept her on support for a month. 21 weeks is hella different from 14 weeks. Even so, the doctors are quoted as being concerned about the babies having long term health problems owing to their early birth at 25 weeks.

http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/healthy-baby-born-brain -d ead-mother-hungary-article-1.1517401

FTFA: "A baby was born to a brain-dead mother in Hungary after she was kept in a vegetative state for three months - one of few such cases on record, doctors said."

So, was the mother brain dead, or just in a vegetative state? The article provides almost no details, and it's quite possible that an iffy translation from Hungarian to English clouds the actual circumstances.

http://www.wjhl.com/story/24486953/as-legal-battle-rages-over-brain- de ad-mother-in-texas-baby-born-to-brain-dead-mother-in-tri-cities-celebr ates-first-birthday

FTFA: "After only 8 weeks of pregnancy, Hope's mother overdosed on drugs. She went 4 hours without the proper level of oxygen.

"They had to put her in a medical induced comma [sic] for the entire rest of the pregnancy," said Odom."


What brain dead person needs to be put in a medically induced coma? Hint: The answer is none.


It's absolutely correct to make sure that the fetus has no chance of survival, but you're reaching way too far for some example that supports the ongoing travesty in Texas.  Be honest with yourself.
 
Displayed 50 of 344 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report