The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Dec 23, 2013 14:05:07 GMT -5
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602 
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Dec 23, 2013 14:07:38 GMT -5
He doesn't have a DNR or living will. I'm pro-life so I weigh on the side of the baby that deserves a chance at life. Yeah, no one else will agree wtih me...I'm used to that  |
|
swamp
Community Leader
THEY’RE EATING THE DOGS!!!!!!!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,694
|
Post by swamp on Dec 23, 2013 14:27:30 GMT -5
Ooooh, tough call. I was assuming the baby was near full term, but she's about 4 months pregnant right now.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Dec 23, 2013 14:37:32 GMT -5
Wow, so she was only about 14 weeks along when she fell. Article said they could take the baby at 24 weeks - isn't that ridiculously young and giving the kid not so great of a shot of living anyways? Add in being deprived from oxygen at 14 weeks, that baby is going to have a tough go at it.
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Dec 23, 2013 14:41:31 GMT -5
It's my understanding that the longer the baby is exposed to the drugs needed to keep the mom's body alive the more risk exists.
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Dec 23, 2013 14:42:24 GMT -5
He doesn't have a DNR or living will. I'm pro-life so I weigh on the side of the baby that deserves a chance at life. Yeah, no one else will agree wtih me...I'm used to that Tina - IF there was a DNR or living will would your thoughts be different? |
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Dec 23, 2013 15:47:36 GMT -5
He doesn't have a DNR or living will. I'm pro-life so I weigh on the side of the baby that deserves a chance at life. Yeah, no one else will agree wtih me...I'm used to that Tina - IF there was a DNR or living will would your thoughts be different? I actually had this conversation with my husband when I was pregnant (Yes, I am that much of a freak!lol). If anything happened, his priority was to save my baby. So yes, I would want him to keep me alive until our baby could be born. If someone else was carrying my baby, I wouldn't even consider pulling the plug and killing my baby. If she had a DNR that specifically said to let the baby die, then I guess they would have to follow it. But they don't. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 24, 2024 17:38:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2013 15:48:07 GMT -5
pull the plug like they're starting a lawnmower.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,893 
|
Post by Tennesseer on Dec 23, 2013 16:25:21 GMT -5
I am all for giving the fetus a chance. If the mother is on drugs to keep her alive, and they are possibly harming the fetus, then induce birth or perform a C-section once the doctors believe the fetus is viable.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 24, 2024 17:38:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2013 16:29:07 GMT -5
since when if life or death decisions anyone else's business other than the family?
i cant imagine being in his shoes.....
and i wouldnt want to have to make that decision
imo this should be the husbands decision....PERIOD!
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,893
|
Post by Tennesseer on Dec 23, 2013 16:33:58 GMT -5
since when if life or death decisions anyone else's business other than the family? i cant imagine being in his shoes..... and i wouldnt want to have to make that decision imo this should be the husbands decision....PERIOD! That's Texas law for you and maybe coming to your state real soon. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 24, 2024 17:38:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2013 16:58:09 GMT -5
His decision. If it was near end term/viability... But 10 weeks minimum of drugs to take it at 24 weeks... too likely to end in complicated issues. Only the husband should be able to make that determination...
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Dec 23, 2013 17:04:40 GMT -5
Why does my thread need a counter? The law seems pretty clear that even a DNR would not act against life support in the case of a pregnant patient- so what is there to argue about? Texas law states this on pregnant patients: "A person may not withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment under this subchapter from a pregnant patient." And on DNR forms, under the Health and Safety Code, it reads, "I understand under Texas law this directive has no effect if I have been diagnosed as pregnant." |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 24, 2024 17:38:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2013 17:07:22 GMT -5
Oh, I see the issue now. Texas strikes again. Got it now, thanks...
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Dec 23, 2013 17:14:46 GMT -5
Didn't read any angry comments on how much this lady or child was going to cost the taxpayers either.
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Dec 23, 2013 17:17:08 GMT -5
Why does my thread need a counter? The law seems pretty clear that even a DNR would not act against life support in the case of a pregnant patient- so what is there to argue about? Texas law states this on pregnant patients: "A person may not withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment under this subchapter from a pregnant patient." And on DNR forms, under the Health and Safety Code, it reads, "I understand under Texas law this directive has no effect if I have been diagnosed as pregnant." Simply to engage in discussion from a separate angle, nothing more. Well, maybe a bit more - in one case the family wants to remove support and the state is stepping in (according to their law) to force support. In the other case the family wants to keep support and the state is stepping in (on at least a temporary basis) to force support. In both cases the patient apparently has no hope of recovery. That's all. I think cases like this will continue and end of life decisions will grow increasingly difficult as technology continues to advance. |
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Dec 23, 2013 17:17:50 GMT -5
Oh, I see the issue now. Texas strikes again. Got it now, thanks... That was not my intention at all, besides if we were to pick on a state, it would have to be FL or CA, right?  |
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Dec 23, 2013 17:30:04 GMT -5
Didn't read any angry comments on how much this lady or child was going to cost the taxpayers either. I agree, but I will also note that I've read several articles about the case you posted in which the comments in general were very supportive of the family. gma.yahoo.com/court-appointed-neurologist-examine-brain-dead-teen-124140664--abc-news-topstories.html?vp=1Maybe I'm more focused on the positive quotes but I see mostly support for what the mother is going through. There are also two fundamental differences here, in the case I posted the husband has accepted his wife is gone and does not want to prolong the process. In the case you posted, the mother's comments about God sparking the brain back to life and the fact that her daughter's body is warm = life does not put much credibility in her understanding of the situation. |
|
whoisjohngalt
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 9,140
|
Post by whoisjohngalt on Dec 23, 2013 17:40:47 GMT -5
Well, my answer is going to be fairly predictable - get the govt out of as many decisions as possible!
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Dec 23, 2013 17:41:47 GMT -5
Denial can be pretty powerful- but if the buckets of blood is true then you can't blame her for calling lawyers all night- she probably thought they wanted to sweep it under the rug and let her go. I can't imagine. |
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Dec 23, 2013 17:45:01 GMT -5
Agreed. If the hospital is at fault the family needs to do everything in their power to bring it to light and force changes to make sure it never happens again.
The flip side of that is none of this will bring the girl back. In addition, the longer they keep her body artificially alive the more chance there is for the flesh to heal, making it more difficult for an autopsy to uncover evidence of wrongdoing. They are damned either way.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Dec 23, 2013 17:55:23 GMT -5
Well if it is confirmed, can they at least not yank it on Xmas?
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Dec 23, 2013 18:30:15 GMT -5
Interesting question.
If they confirm no brain activity then she already died over ten days ago. What benefit is there from keeping her body hooked up to a bunch of machines?
Some may say to give the parents some comfort, but personally - I honestly don't understand that. If she's gone, she's gone.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,884
|
Post by thyme4change on Dec 23, 2013 18:34:56 GMT -5
How did this thread become a thread about the girl, which we already have a thread on?
Texas sucks. Seriously - that is the husband's decision.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Dec 23, 2013 18:47:13 GMT -5
Didn't read any angry comments on how much this lady or child was going to cost the taxpayers either. Is she on Medicaid? I'm not sure how we can assume she will cost the taxpayers anything unless they do not have insurance. I don't advocate killing babies to save money... |
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Dec 23, 2013 18:50:10 GMT -5
The baby was oxygen starved at 14 weeks for an unknown period of time, is being subject to god only knows what kind of drug cocktail to keep the mother's body alive, and will be delivered at 24 weeks. I'd say it's a pretty safe bet the kid will end up costing the taxpayer's money. The kid has a near 100% chance of pretty severe medical complications, and could already be basically brain dead.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,884
|
Post by thyme4change on Dec 23, 2013 18:52:09 GMT -5
If the baby is brain dead, does the state of Texas require it to stay on life support until they get Jesus to sign off on the death? Or do they stop protecting the sanctity of life the minute it is outside a woman's body?
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Dec 23, 2013 19:07:51 GMT -5
This really is a shame. That poor man! What a terrible thing to have to face.  The law, though, appears to be very clearly written. It's hard to imagine him being able to have life support removed, considering that law. I'd hope they'd wait as long as possible before delivering, even though the drugs may cause further problems. You can pretty much bet there are already significant problems if she was down for awhile and the fetus was deprived of oxygen for any significant amount of time. The father has a 1-year-old to care for, and the professions these two people are in aren't known for high pay and great benefits, in most cases. There may very well be a real nightmare ahead. So sad. |
|
DVM gone riding
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 23:04:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,383
Favorite Drink: Coffee!!
|
Post by DVM gone riding on Dec 28, 2013 20:08:47 GMT -5
One major difference between this case and the girl in CA is that the women has NOT been declared brain dead as far as I can tell. If she was brain dead I would think the fetuses chances near zero but in a vegetative state no actual harm is being done to her she is acting as an incubator and completely an aware of the situation. Given a chance the baby may be normalish. We don't know how can we kill it because its mother is non-responsive?
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Dec 28, 2013 20:14:16 GMT -5
Some of us would choose to abort normalish babies instead of having them. Especially if we already had young kids to take care of. This woman may feel the same way, if she wasn't a vegetable right now.
|
|
