Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(Daily Kos)   Sorry about keeping your brain-dead wife on life support against her will because of our medieval religious laws -- here's a massive hospital bill to make you feel better   (dailykos.com ) divider line
    More: Sick, DailyKos, medical bills  
•       •       •

18468 clicks; posted to Main » on 31 Jan 2014 at 3:53 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-31 05:35:42 PM  

Warlordtrooper: armor helix: As dumb as the whole thing is, the hospital may have legal precedent to collect all of the medical bills. People that have been admitted to hospitals against their will or without consent (mental institutions, ambulances to hospital after passing out drunk) have contested hospital bills and it seems like they always lose.

IANAL, but I believe being admitted to the hospital and receiving care, requested or not, places the burden on the patient.

How many of those peoples had DNR orders and were kept alive against their will?


I don't think it matters (as stupid as it is)
 
2014-01-31 05:38:58 PM  

qorkfiend: efgeise: PsiChick: brantgoose: Living wills, people.  Living wills.

Defend yourself and your estate against busybodies of the left and right alike, against free entreprising HMOs and government loving social democrats, liberals, socialists, commies, Nazis and statists of the right and left.

The socalled "death panels" are designed to resolve issues raised by just such cases where the will of the decease, their family, their doctors, their HMO, their insurance company and their government do not necessarily find common ground.

Of course, I shouldn't talk. I haven't updated my will in ages. It needs to be done sooner rather than later. But look out for the pitfalls of dying intestate or losing control over your own body and life due to some busybodies of State or Church or simply your own thieving greedy family members. It is so easy to talk yourself into a rationalization of why you deserve it all or why you should override the express wishes of even your loved ones. Padlock the door on that happening.

She had a living will. They ignored it.

/Sleep tight

It's not the hospital's fault though. There were legally required to keep her on life support because she was pregnant at the time.

Is this the part of the thread where we ignore the judge's rulings that say the hospital grossly misinterpreted the law?


And then they shut down the machines when the judge ruled that they misinterpreted the laws. I'm still not seeing the source of outrage against the hospital.

I'm not disagreeing with the sentiment that it's probably a shiatty thing to do, especially when the baby wasn't viable, but they were legally required to follow the law. I'm not sure of how the law is worded, but if the law is quoted like this:
Slam Bradley:
Sec. 166.049. PREGNANT PATIENTS. A person may not withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment under this subchapter from a pregnant patient (the subchapter being the code regarding living wills)

then their hands are tied on the matter.

It's going to be shiatty if they go after the family though.
 
2014-01-31 05:45:07 PM  

genner: Did the child live? Did he ever have a chance of coming out of this alive?


According to the NPR piece about this, The child is alive and will probably survive if they leave her on support. They did detect some possible deformity with one of the child's legs, but that alone is not enough in texas to allow them to pull the plug. Regardless what the woman wanted or what the husband wants, there is another life in the picture that also has rights. Before all the "Women have the right to abort" folks jump on this, I have to point out that this woman is Brain dead. She has no further rights, and the only rights at stake here are the rights of the still living child in her womb. For all intents and purposes, she (her body, at least) has become a strange artificial/natural womb that can continue to support the child until delivery. The father needs to shut up and man up.
 
2014-01-31 05:46:10 PM  
He will be on the hook for the bill, guaranteed.
 
2014-01-31 05:50:14 PM  

washington-babylon: genner: Did the child live? Did he ever have a chance of coming out of this alive?

According to the NPR piece about this, The child is alive and will probably survive if they leave her on support. They did detect some possible deformity with one of the child's legs, but that alone is not enough in texas to allow them to pull the plug. Regardless what the woman wanted or what the husband wants, there is another life in the picture that also has rights. Before all the "Women have the right to abort" folks jump on this, I have to point out that this woman is Brain dead. She has no further rights, and the only rights at stake here are the rights of the still living child in her womb. For all intents and purposes, she (her body, at least) has become a strange artificial/natural womb that can continue to support the child until delivery. The father needs to shut up and man up.


She was taken off life support days ago.  The kid is dead.
 
2014-01-31 05:50:19 PM  

fickenchucker: Chances are the guy, like many Americans, has minimal assets, so if he gets the bills, just go bankrupt. It's not really that hard to hide a few tens of thousands if he has it.


Bankruptcy changed during the whole housing bubble collapse.  Nowadays, if you aren't a corporation, it is very hard to declare bankruptcy.
 
2014-01-31 05:50:29 PM  
Well that explains the weird sound I heard earlier. Every civil lawyer in the state of Texas getting a hard on simultaneously. I can think of a few local guys I'm sure have already reached out to this family offering to sue that farking shiathole hospital to death.
 
2014-01-31 05:50:58 PM  

washington-babylon: genner: Did the child live? Did he ever have a chance of coming out of this alive?

According to the NPR piece about this, The child is alive and will probably survive if they leave her on support. They did detect some possible deformity with one of the child's legs, but that alone is not enough in texas to allow them to pull the plug. Regardless what the woman wanted or what the husband wants, there is another life in the picture that also has rights. Before all the "Women have the right to abort" folks jump on this, I have to point out that this woman is Brain dead. She has no further rights, and the only rights at stake here are the rights of the still living child in her womb. For all intents and purposes, she (her body, at least) has become a strange artificial/natural womb that can continue to support the child until delivery. The father needs to shut up and man up.


??
From what has been reported she was taken off life support days ago and her body has been released to the widower you want to "man up" - maybe being a single dad will help him with that...

nert
 
2014-01-31 05:56:11 PM  
Hospital chooses to keep her on life support against her wishes.
Hospital gets to pick up the bill.
Simple.
 
2014-01-31 05:58:44 PM  

Slam Bradley: brantgoose: Living wills, people.  Living wills.

Not to keep piling it on...but it can't be said enough on this topic.  She had a living will.  It was ignored because she was pregnant and it conflicted with this law:    Sec. 166.049. PREGNANT PATIENTS. A person may not withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment under this subchapter from a pregnant patient (the subchapter being the code regarding living wills)

If hospitals want to be dicks about it, under Texas law it might be impossible to have your living will honored if you are pregnant, no matter how particular you are with the directives.

In fact, in 26 states, there are laws that allow for living wills to be ignored if the patient is pregnant.  26!!!!!!


She was already dead when they started pumping her full of chemicals & hooking her up to machines in order to keep her body going for the gestating fetus. It was addressed in the previous thread that the above statute didn't apply to this woman, and even the hospital eventually admitted it didn't. It would have applied had she been comatose or had some sort of brain function, but she didn't. She was brain dead. She was a slowly decaying corpse being kept artificially alive in the hopes that the baby she was carrying could be delivered. A baby with multiple deformities that likely would have died shortly after delivery. A brain dead body cannot really provide the essential things a gestating fetus needs to form and develop properly. Not to mention that the fetus was deprived of oxygen in utero, which further impacted it.
 
2014-01-31 06:00:16 PM  

efgeise: Sec. 166.049. PREGNANT PATIENTS. A person may not withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment under this subchapter from a pregnant patient (the subchapter being the code regarding living wills)


This wasn't life-sustaining treatment.  The patient was dead.  D-E-D.
 
2014-01-31 06:03:28 PM  

someonelse: For everyone saying a spouse can't be billed: He may have signed a guarantor when she was admitted. Or:
If the spouses live in a community property state, or lived in one at the time the consumer debt occurred, the non-patient spouse may have incurred liability without signing any contract. The reasoning is that if a debt incurred during a marriage was used for the support of a spouse, liability may accrue to the non-signing spouse. Does this mean that the non-patient spouse has liability for the patient's debt in community property states? Maybe. Some creditors will not pursue legal action against the spouse because it is difficult to do so and are unwilling to expend the resources. Other creditors will take the time and expense. Each creditor has different policies, and therefore each case is different. (from bills.com)


Medical bills do not work this way.
 
2014-01-31 06:03:51 PM  

washington-babylon: genner: Did the child live? Did he ever have a chance of coming out of this alive?

According to the NPR piece about this, The child is alive and will probably survive if they leave her on support. They did detect some possible deformity with one of the child's legs, but that alone is not enough in texas to allow them to pull the plug. Regardless what the woman wanted or what the husband wants, there is another life in the picture that also has rights. Before all the "Women have the right to abort" folks jump on this, I have to point out that this woman is Brain dead. She has no further rights, and the only rights at stake here are the rights of the still living child in her womb. For all intents and purposes, she (her body, at least) has become a strange artificial/natural womb that can continue to support the child until delivery. The father needs to shut up and man up.


So, is necrophilia back on the menu?
 
PJ-
2014-01-31 06:05:12 PM  

tlars699: PJ-: Warlordtrooper: armor helix: As dumb as the whole thing is, the hospital may have legal precedent to collect all of the medical bills. People that have been admitted to hospitals against their will or without consent (mental institutions, ambulances to hospital after passing out drunk) have contested hospital bills and it seems like they always lose.

IANAL, but I believe being admitted to the hospital and receiving care, requested or not, places the burden on the patient.

How many of those peoples had DNR orders and were kept alive against their will?

DNR is different than being kept alive.

I thought they had a clause in there about requiring machinery to sustain life, and having you initial that part if you didn't want it? Am I wrong?

IANAL


Ex-girlfriend was a doctor, and from what she learned, everything you want has to be spelled out to the letter.  If you say DNR, they just won't start your heart again, but will keep you alive (ventilators for instance) unless you say otherwise.  Don't blame hospitals or the doctors, blame lawyers and families who couldn't accept the death of a loved one.
 
2014-01-31 06:05:20 PM  
washington-babylon


Oh, look, another alt-troll......*favorited!
 
2014-01-31 06:06:25 PM  

profplump: MutantMotherMouse: spouses owe medical bills

That's not generally true. It can be true in community-property states (which include Texas), but as a general rule it requires a written agreement to take on anyone else's debt, including your spouse's. Obviously you should consult the rules in your particular jurisdiction for details.


Makes sense -- the community property thing. Have a friend w/ astonimical medical bills and a lot of assets. He was recently told he has a few months, at best, to live. He and his wife were in the process of a divorce prior to his illness, reconciled during his treatment, but never dismissed the divorce. Attorney told them to finalize the divorce, agreeing that she gets the stuff before his debtors clean them both out. Reckon he owes the old girl whatever he can leave her as they were divorcing due to his mid-life crisis. Seems the younger-than-his-daughters girlfriend didn't stick around to wipe his almost dead arse.
 
2014-01-31 06:09:22 PM  

Serious Black: scottydoesntknow: FlashHarry: that poor woman's family. how appallingly awful.

To be fair, it doesn't say they are receiving the medical bills. It says they might.

Don't get me wrong, it's still a sick, appalling story. But subby's headline is acting like it already happened.

I'll reserve my outrage until we're sure the husband is getting billed even one lousy penny.


Yea, I am sure bills aren't already on the way...after all, hospitals aren't in the business of profits, they are in the business of human care and compass.s.s.s....BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH  Wow, you aren't from around here are ya?
img.fark.net
 
2014-01-31 06:11:59 PM  
Wait until he gets the "legal service fee" for the hospital's lawyers.
 
2014-01-31 06:13:33 PM  
Since they were both EMT's I'm guessing they had insurance.  So the first fight will be insurance co. vs hospital with the insurance co arguing that since she was medically dead in November, many procedures taking place after that were ineligible for coverage.

Now following that, it would be logical that the bill would fall to the patient as tends to happen when insurance denies a hospital claim.  Throwing this for a loop though is the fact they were in court fighting to keep her on artificial support through a misreading of the law while the family argued for care to end.

I'm no fark legal beagle, but it seems like unless they want to go back to court and fight some more over the bill regarding unwanted services rendered, the hospital should cut its losses.
 
2014-01-31 06:17:43 PM  

what_now: Actually, this headline is unfair to medieval medical practitioners.  Sure, they thought that opening a vein cured evil humors and they tended to just pray a lot, but even monks and nuns would give a dying person an herbal concoction to "sleep" while the prayed over them and they died.


Yeah, this.

Say what you will about Bible-based lawmaking, but the GOP (and Texas in particular) has gone far, far beyond it.

Serious Black: I'll reserve my outrage until we're sure the husband is getting billed even one lousy penny.

The clinic in New Mexico that performed a series of unsolicited enemas and colonoscopies on a "drug suspect" sent the victim a bill.  So nothing should surprise you in this case.
 
2014-01-31 06:18:48 PM  

Clever Neologism: He will be on the hook for the bill, guaranteed.


You know what, lets say he is,  I for one can't wait for all the conservatives to start defending the government of texas mandating that he purchase a service neither he nor his wife wanted.  That will be hilarious.
 
2014-01-31 06:19:13 PM  

efgeise: I'm not disagreeing with the sentiment that it's probably a shiatty thing to do, especially when the baby wasn't viable, but they were legally required to follow the law. I'm not sure of how the law is worded, but if the law is quoted like this:
Slam Bradley:
Sec. 166.049. PREGNANT PATIENTS. A person may not withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment under this subchapter from a pregnant patient (the subchapter being the code regarding living wills)

then their hands are tied on the matter.


Whats really sick about this is that there is no trimester/weeks/month description in the law.  3 months?  3 weeks pregnant?  At conception?  These people think so.  Should we be doing pregnancy tests on all women who come in comatose just in case?

On Point with Tom Ashbrook (which is a great show generally) had a depressing show on this.  Basically everyone on the show, pro-life, pro-choice, legal experts, the damn guy who drafted the bill...all of them came  to the conclusion that it is impossible to have a living will be followed in Texas if you are pregnant.
 
2014-01-31 06:22:20 PM  

MBrady: Serious Black: scottydoesntknow: FlashHarry: that poor woman's family. how appallingly awful.

To be fair, it doesn't say they are receiving the medical bills. It says they might.

Don't get me wrong, it's still a sick, appalling story. But subby's headline is acting like it already happened.

I'll reserve my outrage until we're sure the husband is getting billed even one lousy penny.

FTFA:  In an interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper, Erick Muñoz acknowledged that he has been receiving medical bills at his home - although he's not sure exactly what he will be expected to pay.

reading - it's not that hard.

if I were him, I'd send the bills to 0bama and botox



He's probably getting statements of benefit from the insurance company.  They say what the insurance will/won't cover, and have an amount he might have to pay if he receives a bill from the provider.

Often the provider bills are different than what the statement says though, especially if a claim is outright denied, and provider bills often don't show up for weeks after the procedures.
 
2014-01-31 06:22:25 PM  

Active introvert: The hospital shouldn't have the suck up the entire bill because they were following the law.


They were following what they assumed to be the law. As the woman was already dead, the law being cited since then was not one that ever applied to her situation.
 
2014-01-31 06:23:14 PM  

vudukungfu: Here's a nice lady who had her husband kill her son then commit suicide, so an intern had her involuntarily locked up in the nut house against her will. They will probably attempt to bill her.


This just made me physically ill..

/her 'siblings' should rot in hell, if one existed
// oh yes, involuntary committal sounds like it
 
2014-01-31 06:23:27 PM  

MutantMotherMouse: profplump: MutantMotherMouse: spouses owe medical bills

That's not generally true. It can be true in community-property states (which include Texas), but as a general rule it requires a written agreement to take on anyone else's debt, including your spouse's. Obviously you should consult the rules in your particular jurisdiction for details.

Makes sense -- the community property thing. Have a friend w/ astonimical medical bills and a lot of assets. He was recently told he has a few months, at best, to live. He and his wife were in the process of a divorce prior to his illness, reconciled during his treatment, but never dismissed the divorce. Attorney told them to finalize the divorce, agreeing that she gets the stuff before his debtors clean them both out. Reckon he owes the old girl whatever he can leave her as they were divorcing due to his mid-life crisis. Seems the younger-than-his-daughters girlfriend didn't stick around to wipe his almost dead arse.


While I have little sympathy for the guy due to his whole midlife crisis causing his divorce,  I have absolutely zero sympathy for the companies that will try and collect on a guys debts against someone who did not incur those debts.   Hopefully she tells them to go fark themselves.
 
2014-01-31 06:25:04 PM  

Active introvert: The hospital did provide treatment and life saving measures prior to declaring her brain dead. I think he should pay for that.


As a Canadian I find that statement absolutely amazing.
 
2014-01-31 06:26:33 PM  

efgeise: There were legally required to keep her on life support because she was pregnant at the time.


Nope. She was dead. The law never applied to her situation.
 
2014-01-31 06:27:24 PM  

flondrix: fickenchucker: Chances are the guy, like many Americans, has minimal assets, so if he gets the bills, just go bankrupt. It's not really that hard to hide a few tens of thousands if he has it.

Bankruptcy changed during the whole housing bubble collapse.  Nowadays, if you aren't a corporation, it is very hard to declare bankruptcy.


Set up a shell corporation so that anything you do is done under the corporation, therefore all lawsuits have to go through the corporation which can declare bankruptcy.  Then start a new corporation.
 
2014-01-31 06:29:20 PM  

efgeise: qorkfiend: efgeise: PsiChick: brantgoose: Living wills, people.  Living wills.

Defend yourself and your estate against busybodies of the left and right alike, against free entreprising HMOs and government loving social democrats, liberals, socialists, commies, Nazis and statists of the right and left.

The socalled "death panels" are designed to resolve issues raised by just such cases where the will of the decease, their family, their doctors, their HMO, their insurance company and their government do not necessarily find common ground.

Of course, I shouldn't talk. I haven't updated my will in ages. It needs to be done sooner rather than later. But look out for the pitfalls of dying intestate or losing control over your own body and life due to some busybodies of State or Church or simply your own thieving greedy family members. It is so easy to talk yourself into a rationalization of why you deserve it all or why you should override the express wishes of even your loved ones. Padlock the door on that happening.

She had a living will. They ignored it.

/Sleep tight

It's not the hospital's fault though. There were legally required to keep her on life support because she was pregnant at the time.

Is this the part of the thread where we ignore the judge's rulings that say the hospital grossly misinterpreted the law?

And then they shut down the machines when the judge ruled that they misinterpreted the laws. I'm still not seeing the source of outrage against the hospital.

I'm not disagreeing with the sentiment that it's probably a shiatty thing to do, especially when the baby wasn't viable, but they were legally required to follow the law. I'm not sure of how the law is worded, but if the law is quoted like this:
Slam Bradley:
Sec. 166.049. PREGNANT PATIENTS. A person may not withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment under this subchapter from a pregnant patient (the subchapter being the code regarding living wills)

then their hands are tied on the matter. ...



Here's the outrage for the hospital:

The hospital's legal counsel is a well known anti-abortionist and constructed the argument that this woman fell under the law regarding pregnant women in comas - even the law's authors said it was wrong. He was also the campaign treasurer for the original judge in the case that delayed it week after week.

Once a journalist turned up the connection to the judge, she summarily withdrew from the case with little explanation.  A new judge was selected and then ruled that their interpretation was grossly faulty within a week.

Virtually all blame resides with the hospital and its administrators.
 
2014-01-31 06:32:25 PM  

Active introvert: Wait, she did go to the hospital after the initial event. The hospital did provide treatment and life saving measures prior to declaring her brain dead. I think he should pay for that. After they declared her brain dead and he wished to have efforts terminated, then there should be a dispute about that portion of the bill. The hospital shouldn't have the suck up the entire bill because they were following the law. It wasn't like they were doing it to just be douches or for some religious reason. It is a law.


I will agree that the agreed upon care should be paid for  (ideally covered by insurance)  But after the husband made the decision to let her go because that was her wish,  Anything after that is 100% on the hospital.  Only the man and his wifes opinion on the issue of terminating life care is important,  The rest of the family, the hospital and not even the state of texas have a legal say in anything that goes on.  ONLY the man and his wife get to make this decision.

Also following the law?  Really you are going to go with the godwin defense?  ... You know who else was "just following the law".....  Never has nor will it ever be a valid argument.
 
2014-01-31 06:32:43 PM  

tlars699: parasol: Slam Bradley: brantgoose: Living wills, people.  Living wills.

Not to keep piling it on...but it can't be said enough on this topic.  She had a living will.  It was ignored because she was pregnant and it conflicted with this law:    Sec. 166.049. PREGNANT PATIENTS. A person may not withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment under this subchapter from a pregnant patient (the subchapter being the code regarding living wills)

If hospitals want to be dicks about it, under Texas law it might be impossible to have your living will honored if you are pregnant, no matter how particular you are with the directives.

In fact, in 26 states, there are laws that allow for living wills to be ignored if the patient is pregnant.  26!!!!!!

This is why I think women of child-bearing age should add an addendum to their living wills to the effect of "If I am pregnant within ( x ) trimester/week window ( x further directive x )" - and have bio dad sign it as well.

THAT would make for some serious derpitude

NO. >_< Just NO. This is not a good idea.
Her husband, if she has one? Yes.
But bio dad of the kid involved is just NO.


Having anybody else involved in one's end of life wishes is rather no.
 
2014-01-31 06:33:51 PM  

efgeise: I'm not disagreeing with the sentiment that it's probably a shiatty thing to do, especially when the baby wasn't viable, but they were legally required to follow the law. I'm not sure of how the law is worded, but if the law is quoted like this:
Slam Bradley:
Sec. 166.049. PREGNANT PATIENTS. A person may not withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment under this subchapter from a pregnant patient (the subchapter being the code regarding living wills)

then their hands are tied on the matter.

It's going to be shiatty if they go after the family though.


Their hands were never tied. Look at the bolded part. It NEVER APPLIED TO HER SITUATION. SHE HAD NO LIFE TO SUSTAIN.
 
2014-01-31 06:42:05 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: TV's Vinnie: Smeggy Smurf: TV's Vinnie: IMO, the hospital should only be paid up until the point where the husband asked to have his wife taken off life support.

Any other charges after that is the hospital's obscene violation of human rights, and if they really want to push it, they'd better bring some KY to the courtroom or the husband's lawyers are going in dry.

You know you're farked when I agree with a left wing farktard

That's MISTER left wing farktard to you, boy.

Ha!  That's your new farky.

[www.awsm.com image 620x468]

The first round of whiskey is on me


Hey, that's kinda cool.  Here it be on amazon:  http://www.amazon.com/Crystal-Skull-Pirate-Glass-Cocktail/dp/B007VZGV I C/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1391211665&sr=8-5&keywords=skull+inside+mug
 
2014-01-31 06:42:23 PM  
The insurance will not pay for "treatment" after the patient was dead. The hospital is going to have to eat the cost.
 
2014-01-31 06:55:45 PM  
static3.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2014-01-31 06:56:11 PM  

xria: Billy Bathsalt: Reminds me of how they charge you for the bullet that executes your loved ones in China.

So you think this story is most likely an urban legend?

Or are you thinking of Iran?


how did you get ^ that from ^^ that ?
 
2014-01-31 06:59:18 PM  
 And i'm sure the hospitals decision to keep her on life support had nothing  to do with the insane bill they got to charge every day.
 
2014-01-31 07:02:40 PM  

MBrady: Serious Black: scottydoesntknow: FlashHarry: that poor woman's family. how appallingly awful.

To be fair, it doesn't say they are receiving the medical bills. It says they might.

Don't get me wrong, it's still a sick, appalling story. But subby's headline is acting like it already happened.

I'll reserve my outrage until we're sure the husband is getting billed even one lousy penny.

FTFA:  In an interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper, Erick Muñoz acknowledged that he has been receiving medical bills at his home - although he's not sure exactly what he will be expected to pay.

reading - it's not that hard.

if I were him, I'd send the bills to 0bama and botox


Hold on Captain - he may be getting bills for services provided before this terrible decision was made to keep her on life support.

Regardless of how you feel about the continued application of life support, he (his insurance) should be billed for services up to that point.
 
2014-01-31 07:05:45 PM  
I take it from the general tone of Fark that when it comes to medical decisions, silence is legal assent?

Important safety tip ladies, dont sleep with a Farker unless your living will is very specific about what the hospital should do when the emt's find you choked into an unresponsive state.....

Talk about medieval..... the man says kill the biatch, so lets pull the plug.
 
2014-01-31 07:17:14 PM  

archichris: I take it from the general tone of Fark that when it comes to medical decisions, silence is legal assent?

Important safety tip ladies, dont sleep with a Farker unless your living will is very specific about what the hospital should do when the emt's find you choked into an unresponsive state.....

Talk about medieval..... the man says kill the biatch, so lets pull the plug.


For the public record, if I am dead and rotting on the table like this unfortunate woman, I silently assent to have the plug pulled.  Or I would, if I weren't dead already.  Also, if like this woman, I have a DNR, you assholes best DNR.  Please and thank you.
 
2014-01-31 07:24:38 PM  
She had a DNR; the law was on her side, not the hospital's.

So suck on the bill, hospital.
 
2014-01-31 07:28:14 PM  

mrlewish: Her family doesn't owe anything. The dead woman's estate might but no not the family.

You can't pass debt to another person.


This. And only the executor/executrix can spend on behalf of the estate.

The hospital has placed itself in the role of executor by authorizing unrequested expenses on the body, and has shown conflict of interest by billing the estate they were managing for their own services. Any professional that did this (e.g., an accountant which billed the estate for services not requested by the deceased) would be barred from practicing again.

If the probate judge has any sense, they'll see it this way, and it'll be handled like any other executor which attempts to get reimbursed by an estate for unauthorized expenses. YOU GET NOTHING AND LIKE IT!
 
2014-01-31 07:30:05 PM  
All this talk makes me wonder...

If ghosts were real, would there be little aborted fetus ghosts wandering around all the time?

Great hordes of little fetuses runnin' around the abortion clinics...
 
2014-01-31 07:36:37 PM  

WhoGAS: All this talk makes me wonder...

If ghosts were real, would there be little aborted fetus ghosts wandering around all the time?

Great hordes of little fetuses runnin' around the abortion clinics...


And miscarried fetuses, too.

I hate you forever.
 
2014-01-31 07:39:53 PM  
no obvious tag?
 
2014-01-31 07:45:38 PM  

washington-babylon: genner: Did the child live? Did he ever have a chance of coming out of this alive?

According to the NPR piece about this, The child is alive and will probably survive if they leave her on support. They did detect some possible deformity with one of the child's legs, but that alone is not enough in texas to allow them to pull the plug. Regardless what the woman wanted or what the husband wants, there is another life in the picture that also has rights. Before all the "Women have the right to abort" folks jump on this, I have to point out that this woman is Brain dead. She has no further rights, and the only rights at stake here are the rights of the still living child in her womb. For all intents and purposes, she (her body, at least) has become a strange artificial/natural womb that can continue to support the child until delivery. The father needs to shut up and man up.


Bullshiat. It had severe hydrocephalous and was found to be non-viable. Non-viable means IT CAN'T LIVE. THERE WAS NO BABY TO BE HAD. PERIOD.

Also, if the dead have no rights, I'm sure you'll be okay with me defiling your corpse, right?
 
2014-01-31 07:47:06 PM  

MutantMotherMouse: mrlewish: Her family doesn't owe anything. The dead woman's estate might but no not the family.

You can't pass debt to another person.

spouses owe medical bills


Yes ..

I am a spouse of a person who had massive medical bills. I had to declare chap 13 bankruptcy along with him, even though I had no medical bills of my own, minimal debt and pretty good credit.

To add insult to injury - we were not even officially married at the time of the medical disaster. We were "common law" married in Kansas - because we filed taxes together.

So, yeah - he's gonna get a bill.
 
2014-01-31 08:01:56 PM  

gadian: archichris: I take it from the general tone of Fark that when it comes to medical decisions, silence is legal assent?

Important safety tip ladies, dont sleep with a Farker unless your living will is very specific about what the hospital should do when the emt's find you choked into an unresponsive state.....

Talk about medieval..... the man says kill the biatch, so lets pull the plug.

For the public record, if I am dead and rotting on the table like this unfortunate woman, I silently assent to have the plug pulled.  Or I would, if I weren't dead already.  Also, if like this woman, I have a DNR, you assholes best DNR.  Please and thank you.


I think the issue was the viability of the fetus, which was a legal blind spot for whatever reason. But the more appalling part of the whole issue is the complete cultural insensitivity that the left is bringing to the table. As long as we are talking about the high and mighty moral-ism of the pro-life crowd can we discuss the cultural elitism of the godless? I mean it takes some really highly developed prejudice to condemn an entire state because you happen to differ with their common law regarding life support?

But whatever, it isnt like the left isnt already a bastion of hatred and elitism, adding this issue to that is just an extra lump of sugar in the tea.
 
2014-01-31 08:09:30 PM  

emersonbiggins: washington-babylon: genner: Did the child live? Did he ever have a chance of coming out of this alive?

According to the NPR piece about this, The child is alive and will probably survive if they leave her on support. They did detect some possible deformity with one of the child's legs, but that alone is not enough in texas to allow them to pull the plug. Regardless what the woman wanted or what the husband wants, there is another life in the picture that also has rights. Before all the "Women have the right to abort" folks jump on this, I have to point out that this woman is Brain dead. She has no further rights, and the only rights at stake here are the rights of the still living child in her womb. For all intents and purposes, she (her body, at least) has become a strange artificial/natural womb that can continue to support the child until delivery. The father needs to shut up and man up.

So, is necrophilia back on the menu?


Is it necrophilia if she's only brain dead?
 
Displayed 50 of 200 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report