Yes. Texas law says that hospitals cannot remove life support from a pregnant woman. Period.
see, this is where I think there's a good valid Roe challenge to the current situation.
At the point where she is, mom has a right to have a first trimester abortion under Roe (right? or is she second already? I never remember where the cut off is, but bear with me here) WITHOUT the interference of the state.
Mom is brain dead... but Dad is a surviving parent... can't he exercise rights under Roe?
...or do we not want to walk down that path because we don't want to give fathers any rights under Roe?
...I think that if mom's brain dead, and it's the state's interest in fetuses generally VS. the interest of a surviving parent, the surviving parent should triumph... I don't want it to turn into a parent v. parent thing, tho.
I don't think you even have to go that far, though. Legally, doesn't the body belong to the next of kin? Which would be the husband in this case. So shouldn't he get to decide what to do with it i.e. remove the ventilator? Or shouldn't via her own explicit, written wishes she get to exercise her own Roe rights?
Legally she's dead. And we have all kinds of laws and ethics on what you can and cannot do with dead bodies. I think a challenge could come from that angle without having to involve Roe. Keeping a brain dead body alive for a few months, and a gestating one at that, I'm sure is far more involved and complicated than keeping one alive for a few days to allow family to fly in.
But now I'm going to go all googling on what exactly it entails. I've had patients with multiple organ failure, but that was prior to brain or cardiac death. I don't know how long functioning organs can be artificially maintained after brain death.
see, this is where I think there's a good valid Roe challenge to the current situation.
At the point where she is, mom has a right to have a first trimester abortion under Roe (right? or is she second already? I never remember where the cut off is, but bear with me here) WITHOUT the interference of the state.
Mom is brain dead... but Dad is a surviving parent... can't he exercise rights under Roe?
...or do we not want to walk down that path because we don't want to give fathers any rights under Roe?
...I think that if mom's brain dead, and it's the state's interest in fetuses generally VS. the interest of a surviving parent, the surviving parent should triumph... I don't want it to turn into a parent v. parent thing, tho.
I don't think you even have to go that far, though. Legally, doesn't the body belong to the next of kin? Which would be the husband in this case. So shouldn't he get to decide what to do with it i.e. remove the ventilator? Or shouldn't via her own explicit, written wishes she get to exercise her own Roe rights?
see...
one of the basic tenets of Roe, though, is that the state's interest in the fetus doesn't kick in from the word go... they only have that kind of absolutist interest in the fetus in the third trimester.
First trimester, no state interest. Second trimester, only some. Third tri, big state interest.
So... where does Texas get off saying that this woman and her family can't control her body when we're talking about the First Tri? They need to step the fuck off.
...if she was like 36 weeks pregnant, different story... and I think almost everybody would agree with that.
Ask the google and ye shall find. This is an interesting read. At least according to this site time of death is listed at time the pt is declared brain dead, not when taken off machines, at least in TN.
I don't think you even have to go that far, though. Legally, doesn't the body belong to the next of kin? Which would be the husband in this case. So shouldn't he get to decide what to do with it i.e. remove the ventilator? Or shouldn't via her own explicit, written wishes she get to exercise her own Roe rights?
see...
one of the basic tenets of Roe, though, is that the state's interest in the fetus doesn't kick in from the word go... they only have that kind of absolutist interest in the fetus in the third trimester.
First trimester, no state interest. Second trimester, only some. Third tri, big state interest.
So... where does Texas get off saying that this woman and her family can't control her body when we're talking about the First Tri? They need to step the fuck off.
...if she was like 36 weeks pregnant, different story... and I think almost everybody would agree with that.
she was 14 weeks when she died. She is 18-19 weeks now. So well before the trimester analysis kicks in. That is what I am saying; she is technically denied an abortion. Why? Because she cn't consent. But she is given futile care DESPITE not being able to consent to them and in fact having stated desires to never consent to them. I know the busband is probably exhausted and in sorrow and probably not as savvy or sensitive to the feminist implications here, that we see, so I can't blame him for not wanting to walk down the legal path that is this case, but I so wish it would happen.
Yes I understand the pregnancy and the fucked up nature of Texas laws. What I don't understand is why the husband can't move her to another state without the fucked up laws.
I'd imagine Texas law wouldn't allow that. And/or would charge him with murder.
Yes I understand the pregnancy and the fucked up nature of Texas laws. What I don't understand is why the husband can't move her to another state without the fucked up laws.
I'd imagine Texas law wouldn't allow that. And/or would charge him with murder.
Murder of who? The dead woman? Or the fetus (that another state legally allows to be aborted)?
Yes I understand the pregnancy and the fucked up nature of Texas laws. What I don't understand is why the husband can't move her to another state without the fucked up laws.
I'd imagine Texas law wouldn't allow that. And/or would charge him with murder.
Murder of who? The dead woman? Or the fetus (that another state legally allows to be aborted)?
I feel terribly sorry for them, but I think it's cruel to take any other action. She's dead, nothing will fix that.
Logically, this is how I feel. But, when I think of either of my babies in that situation, the irrational side of me takes over. I have no idea how I would react in this situation, and I really don't like thinking about it, either. I can't blame her parents.
Logically, this is how I feel. But, when I think of either of my babies in that situation, the irrational side of me takes over. I have no idea how I would react in this situation, and I really don't like thinking about it, either. I can't blame her parents.
I am sure I am annoying about this, but I am taking this case very personal. My son was not brain dead, but had zero normal brain activity and severe brain damage. I am judging these parents hard core. How they can sit there and let her keep going on like this is unfathomable to me. Sure, I did decide to extend his DNR by one day to remove his vent because I wasn't quite ready, but to keep his dead body lingering on for this long is horrible and disgusting.
I don't think that you are being annoying at all. Honestly, I feel I would have done what you did for your son because the alternative is unfathomable to me as well. I'm just saying that merely thinking about this happening makes me feel irrational.
How long can a brain-dead person be kept in that state? The woman in TX was only 11 weeks, right? Is there any chance that the fetus will be able to make it to viability, or is this just an exercise in futility and a colossal waste of money?
and if the fetus is viable, will it be healthy, or was it deprived necessary oxygen?
Also, who pays for keeping this woman alive? Is it on the family's insurance policy or the state? And then if the child requires lifelong care, who pays that?
Right? I can see Texas telling the man, "here's your brain damaged, premature, special-needs baby! You can thank us later!"
Legally she's dead. And we have all kinds of laws and ethics on what you can and cannot do with dead bodies. I think a challenge could come from that angle without having to involve Roe. Keeping a brain dead body alive for a few months, and a gestating one at that, I'm sure is far more involved and complicated than keeping one alive for a few days to allow family to fly in.
But now I'm going to go all googling on what exactly it entails. I've had patients with multiple organ failure, but that was prior to brain or cardiac death. I don't know how long functioning organs can be artificially maintained after brain death.
Andplusalso, getting that baby out at some point will involve surgery, which seems all sorts of squicky, morally, when we're talking about someone who is dead.
My thought were basically echoing Momi's. According to the federal government, a woman has a right to an abortion in the first trimester. Her husband is now legally allowed to make medical decisions for her. Ergo, it shouldn't be Texas making those choices.
Logically, this is how I feel. But, when I think of either of my babies in that situation, the irrational side of me takes over. I have no idea how I would react in this situation, and I really don't like thinking about it, either. I can't blame her parents.
I am sure I am annoying about this, but I am taking this case very personal. My son was not brain dead, but had zero normal brain activity and severe brain damage. I am judging these parents hard core. How they can sit there and let her keep going on like this is unfathomable to me. Sure, I did decide to extend his DNR by one day to remove his vent because I wasn't quite ready, but to keep his dead body lingering on for this long is horrible and disgusting.
I don't think you're being annoying at all. I'm sure hearing about this case has to be very hard for you.
According to local news (I'm in the same state) this morning she will not be taken off the ventilator until January 6th or 7th (can't remember the date).
How long can a brain-dead person be kept in that state? The woman in TX was only 11 weeks, right? Is there any chance that the fetus will be able to make it to viability, or is this just an exercise in futility and a colossal waste of money?
and if the fetus is viable, will it be healthy, or was it deprived necessary oxygen?
Also, who pays for keeping this woman alive? Is it on the family's insurance policy or the state? And then if the child requires lifelong care, who pays that?
I haven't read the TX law, but I looked at some of the similar laws in other states when we were writing our AD. Most of them said that the state would pay the costs of the care for the mom in this situation. It didn't clarify whether the costs the state paid would be the entire cost of care or only the after-insurance portion. However, I have a really hard time seeing an insurance company paying the what I imagine to be insanely high costs of a months-long medical stay when the insured is brain dead. Given how insurance tends to balk at paying for treatments that can actually diagnose/treat actual conditions in living people, I would expect them to contest paying for (very expensive) treatment given to an insured who is technically deceased.
With regard to the lifelong care for the child, I suspect that Texas will leave the family on the hook for that (absent any programs that are generally available to the populace). Theoretically, say the baby was born in a PVS with no chance of recovery -- could the father, instead of having to deal with what I assume would be insane medical costs, just relinquish his rights to the child to the state? Or would the state consider giving up one child as evidence he is an "unfit parent" and jeopardize his custody of his older child?
Legally she's dead. And we have all kinds of laws and ethics on what you can and cannot do with dead bodies. I think a challenge could come from that angle without having to involve Roe. Keeping a brain dead body alive for a few months, and a gestating one at that, I'm sure is far more involved and complicated than keeping one alive for a few days to allow family to fly in.
But now I'm going to go all googling on what exactly it entails. I've had patients with multiple organ failure, but that was prior to brain or cardiac death. I don't know how long functioning organs can be artificially maintained after brain death.
Andplusalso, getting that baby out at some point will involve surgery, which seems all sorts of squicky, morally, when we're talking about someone who is dead.
My thought were basically echoing Momi's. According to the federal government, a woman has a right to an abortion in the first trimester. Her husband is now legally allowed to make medical decisions for her. Ergo, it shouldn't be Texas making those choices.
Isn't it unethical, from a medical standpoint, to perform surgery on a dead body?
Isn't it unethical, from a medical standpoint, to perform surgery on a dead body?
Well, it is-- which is what we're seeing in the CA children's hospital right now. But it is apparently acceptable to violate medical ethics when it comes to pregnant women.
Even if the husband could legally move his wife out of Texas, he may struggle to find a hospital willing to take her. There is so much stigma about abortion and all the pro-life crap that I don't think many institutions want to make news as "the hospital that let the pregnant woman die when her baby had a chance to live." It's bullshit, but I think that's how many people would view the situation.
She underwent a tonsillectomy and two other procedures at Children's Hospital Oakland on Dec. 9 to treat sleep apnea and other issues. After she awoke from the operation, her family said, she started bleeding heavily from her mouth and went into cardiac arrest and was later declared brain dead. I had no idea that this was really even a possibility with something that routine. That's horrible.
DD had a ruptured artery and a blood clot after her tonsillectomy. Her doctor said there was a 2% risk of bleeding after the surgery. The bad thing about the tonsillectomy is that it started bleeding down into her stomach, so we didn't realize she was bleeding until she threw the blood up. She was also taking a nap at the time. They were able to cauterize the bleed, but she lost so much blood that she needed a blood transfusion. On the way to the hospital, I was googling bleeding after tonsillectomies and there was a teenage girl that died from the same thing DD had.
That's terrifying. I'm so sorry, and so glad your DD is alright!
Directive aside I don't see why the Husband can't move her to another state. I just don't get it. There just seems to be so many ways to legally challenge this fuckery.
Sec. 166.005. ENFORCEABILITY OF ADVANCE DIRECTIVES EXECUTED IN ANOTHER JURISDICTION. An advance directive or similar instrument validly executed in another state or jurisdiction shall be given the same effect as an advance directive validly executed under the law of this state. This section does not authorize the administration, withholding, or withdrawal of health care otherwise prohibited by the laws of this state.
I think this might answer the question...?
eta: since she has no AD, and even if she did it would be rendered invalid, the law follows her? What stands in place of an AD is TX. Pplease tell me this is not true.
So then, are pregnant women in Texas allowed to refuse other types of medical care? Is it a crime for a pregnant woman to knowingly avoid prenatal care? If they state is so concerned with unborn babies, why do they not provide free prenatal care and delivery to all women and babies? This shit makes me so angry. So, so angry.
I'd imagine Texas law wouldn't allow that. And/or would charge him with murder.
Murder of who? The dead woman? Or the fetus (that another state legally allows to be aborted)?
And how did they even know that this woman was pregnant? She was only 11 weeks along. Did the husband offer up that information, or do hospitals in TX give women pregnancy tests before it's determined if their family members have any say over what happens to them while they're unconscious? Does this mean that if I'm in an accident where all of my limbs have to be amputated at the torso to save my life (a condition which I have specifically forbidden), but I'm 5 weeks pregnant at the time, I could wake up as a torso with no quality of life, and no right to ever end my own life, all because I need to continue to incubate a baby?? Fuck that noise.
ETA: I am now instructing DH to never ever tell a hospital that I'm pregnant if I'm rushed to the ER for reasons unrelated to pregnancy.
So then, are pregnant women in Texas allowed to refuse other types of medical care? Is it a crime for a pregnant woman to knowingly avoid prenatal care?
This is the road the anti-choice movement takes us down with every step they take, with all legislation they pass.
Murder of who? The dead woman? Or the fetus (that another state legally allows to be aborted)?
And how did they even know that this woman was pregnant? She was only 11 weeks along. Did the husband offer up that information, or do hospitals in TX give women pregnancy tests before it's determined if their family members have any say over what happens to them while they're unconscious? Does this mean that if I'm in an accident where all of my limbs have to be amputated at the torso to save my life (a condition which I have specifically forbidden), but I'm 5 weeks pregnant at the time, I could wake up as a torso with no quality of life, and no right to ever end my own life, all because I need to continue to incubate a baby?? Fuck that noise.
ETA: I am now instructing DH to never ever tell a hospital that I'm pregnant if I'm rushed to the ER for reasons unrelated to pregnancy.
He probably volunteered the information. It's important information for them to know when they're considering what procedures (especially imaging procedures) to do or medication to give.
And how did they even know that this woman was pregnant? She was only 11 weeks along. Did the husband offer up that information, or do hospitals in TX give women pregnancy tests before it's determined if their family members have any say over what happens to them while they're unconscious? Does this mean that if I'm in an accident where all of my limbs have to be amputated at the torso to save my life (a condition which I have specifically forbidden), but I'm 5 weeks pregnant at the time, I could wake up as a torso with no quality of life, and no right to ever end my own life, all because I need to continue to incubate a baby?? Fuck that noise.
ETA: I am now instructing DH to never ever tell a hospital that I'm pregnant if I'm rushed to the ER for reasons unrelated to pregnancy.
He probably volunteered the information. It's important information for them to know when they're considering what procedures (especially imaging procedures) to do or medication to give.
this. Also I'm going to hazard the guess that when the information was given it was not yet clear that she was beyond saving.
I don't get flying her to NY. So they are gonna fly out to NY from CA all the time to visit her?
It's RSV season. Vents are in high demand. And you're glad one is being used on a dead body for longer? You're glad a judge is ruling against the standards and ethics of medical professionals for the appropriate treatment of a dead body?
Post by cattledogkisses on Dec 31, 2013 13:46:26 GMT -5
Yeah, all the stay does is continue to tie up medical equipment being used on a dead body instead of being available to save other people who still have a chance.
Someone in the medical field can correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't ICUs pretty small? So she could also be occupying a bed that someone else may need.
Prolonging her state is selfish on multiple levels, IMO.
I don't get flying her to NY. So they are gonna fly out to NY from CA all the time to visit her?
It's RSV season. Vents are in high demand. And you're glad one is being used on a dead body for longer? You're glad a judge is ruling against the standards and ethics of medical professionals for the appropriate treatment of a dead body?
Aren't things like bedsores, sepsis, secondary infections, etc. also a concern the longer she is kept in a facility? And what are the family's relocation plans, if any, for themselves? I almost feel like the family wants her to rot away rather than having any measure of dignity in death.
My dad passed due to a head injury, after which he was in a coma for a week. His best case prognosis was PVS, so me and my brother had to make a decision about keeping him on a ventilator. Granted, he had lived a long, happy life, but it was still one of the worst decisions we ever had to make. When it was finally the day to say goodbye, it meant the world to me that (a) hospital staff gave him a bath and groomed him neatly, and (b) that he could be surrounded by his family and friends as the machines were disconnected. There was nothing good about the situation, but it would have been infinitely worse if he had passed alone in who knows what kind of state.