The situation in Texas is "complicated" by a statute that requires life-sustaining treatment if a woman is pregnant, regardless of any directive or known wishes.
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.
The state has an interest in the well-being of the fetus, so the state can prevent her transport to another facility.
Yes, this is where brain death and persistent vegetative state or coma get confused. Brain death means the brain is dead - there is no activity at all. There is no possible recovery from this and it is a legal definition of death.
A persistent vegetative state means there is minimal, but some, brain activity. There are documented cases of people recovering from this, though many (most) do not and many people do not wish to be kept alive in such a state.
Ok, that must be where I am getting messed up.
In this case, where she is brain dead, but has been kept alive, can her organs be used at all?
As long as they use them quickly, then yes. That's the main reason for keeping a heart pumping in a dead person's body like this - to keep blood circulating long enough to harvest the organs. But if they wait too long, then the organs atrophy and can't be used.
Her organs should be able to be used. That's what the machines give time for. However, there's a time limit. The longer they wait the more likely other organs will fail.
So, the extension for yet another week makes me even more furious. Child dead child could potentially save others, but time is running out.
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.
The state has an interest in the well-being of the fetus, so the state can prevent her transport to another facility.
Interesting how they have more interest in the well-being of a fetus that can't sustain life outside of it's host but no interest in the well-being of the mother.
The situation in Texas is "complicated" by a statute that requires life-sustaining treatment if a woman is pregnant, regardless of any directive or known wishes.
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.
Probably because the TX law specifically doesn't allow for transfer of a person in such a situation. Just a guess since I haven't read the full TX statute.
Ok, so I was totally mixing up brain death with PVS, which is why I was surprised this was such a 'big deal', as I thought this kind of thing was often 'up for debate'...whereas I think that in most cases when families are explained what brain death is they 'get it'.
The situation in Texas is "complicated" by a statute that requires life-sustaining treatment if a woman is pregnant, regardless of any directive or known wishes.
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 have 2 ideas. The first is that the state has an interest in protecting fetal life; this is the language of Roe, and one of the reasons this case can't possibly be truly legal (it de facto prevents an abortion). The second theory is that the same problem arises as in the CA case; who will take a deceased woman?
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.
The state has an interest in the well-being of the fetus, so the state can prevent her transport to another facility.
I don't think so. For example the state can't prohibit a TX woman from seeking an abortion in another state.
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.
Probably because the TX law specifically doesn't allow for transfer of a person in such a situation. Just a guess since I haven't read the full TX statute.
I just don't see how they could legally prevent a person from leaving the state.
Probably because the TX law specifically doesn't allow for transfer of a person in such a situation. Just a guess since I haven't read the full TX statute.
I just don't see how they could legally prevent a person from leaving the state.
I don't understand this either. All I can think is that maybe the transfer would be cost-prohibitive? Also, if she's legally dead, then they would need the coroner's permission and who knows if they could get that.
Probably because the TX law specifically doesn't allow for transfer of a person in such a situation. Just a guess since I haven't read the full TX statute.
I just don't see how they could legally prevent a person from leaving the state.
I don't know how they can legally overrule a woman's directive, but they did. If you're grieving, how much energy are you going to expend to fight a legal battle? Not to say some people wouldn't do it (obviously, since they're fighting for a dead girl), but just because some things are probably not legal doesn't mean they don't actually happen.
Post by NewOrleans on Dec 30, 2013 21:36:02 GMT -5
"The state has a compelling interest in preserving the life of its unborn citizens," criminal defense attorney Danny Cevallos told CNN's New Day. "And that interest is superior to even the interest of the remaining family that might be charged with raising an ill child."
From CNN article. I am trying to find out law name or # to look it up and see what it says about leaving the state.
Post by SusanBAnthony on Dec 30, 2013 21:36:38 GMT -5
Is there any way the husband of the TX woman can just go in and pull the plugs? Would he then get charged with killing her? Or would the nurses/docs get back in there fast enough to save the patient? Could the husband time it at 3am on a Saturday, when a doc would likely not be on the floor, and hope they can't get a doc paged fast enough to save her?
Is it creepy that I have been thinking about this?
My mom "killed" my uncle when he was in hospice. She turned off his oxygen. He was obviously near death anyway, but it kept him from lingering for days.
I just don't see how they could legally prevent a person from leaving the state.
I don't know how they can legally overrule a woman's directive, but they did. If you're grieving, how much energy are you going to expend to fight a legal battle? Not to say some people wouldn't do it (obviously, since they're fighting for a dead girl), but just because some things are probably not legal doesn't mean they don't actually happen.
Her husband said he doesn't want a legal battle.
The state owns her body, so far as I can tell. I am not being snarky or flippant; she doesn't own it, and her next of kin does not own it, so...?
I just don't see how they could legally prevent a person from leaving the state.
I don't know how they can legally overrule a woman's directive, but they did. If you're grieving, how much energy are you going to expend to fight a legal battle? Not to say some people wouldn't do it (obviously, since they're fighting for a dead girl), but just because some things are probably not legal doesn't mean they don't actually happen.
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.
Post by cattledogkisses on Dec 30, 2013 21:41:51 GMT -5
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?
Is there any way the husband of the TX woman can just go in and pull the plugs? Would he then get charged with killing her? Or would the nurses/docs get back in there fast enough to save the patient? Could the husband time it at 3am on a Saturday, when a doc would likely not be on the floor, and hope they can't get a doc paged fast enough to save her?
Is it creepy that I have been thinking about this?
My mom "killed" my uncle when he was in hospice. She turned off his oxygen. He was obviously near death anyway, but it kept him from lingering for days.
I've been wondering the same thing. I would certainly be tempted to do so in this circumstance, but only if I knew I could avoid prosecution. The last thing their 2 year old needs is his father jailed.
I don't know how they can legally overrule a woman's directive, but they did. If you're grieving, how much energy are you going to expend to fight a legal battle? Not to say some people wouldn't do it (obviously, since they're fighting for a dead girl), but just because some things are probably not legal doesn't mean they don't actually happen.
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.
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?
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...?
I don't think so. If this is a Texas statute it's just saying the state of Texas will honor an AD executed in another state.
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.
I know the TX woman has made me schedule an appt to go back in and update my AD. I want it to include no Catholic hospitals unless there is no other way of saving my life, and that I don't want to be a human incubator. You never know if I'll be driving through TX, 2 weeks pregnant, and get hit by a bus. No, I'm serious. That's enough to make me put it in my documents.
I know the TX woman has made me schedule an appt to go back in and update my AD. I want it to include no Catholic hospitals unless there is no other way of saving my life, and that I don't want to be a human incubator. You never know if I'll be driving through TX, 2 weeks pregnant, and get hit by a bus. No, I'm serious. That's enough to make me put it in my documents.
It doesn't matter. Texas law overrides your AD.
ETA: AlthougH I could think of no greater way to honor you than by using your case as a legal challenge to this law.
NewOrleans, when H and I were making out our ADs, we actually had them written for different states. His was for our state of residence since he was deploying. Mine was for the state where I'd be currently residing. The advice we were given is, though I'm a resident elsewhere, and my AD might be upheld, I'd have a much better chance if it covered the location where I was spending most of my time.
I know the TX woman has made me schedule an appt to go back in and update my AD. I want it to include no Catholic hospitals unless there is no other way of saving my life, and that I don't want to be a human incubator. You never know if I'll be driving through TX, 2 weeks pregnant, and get hit by a bus. No, I'm serious. That's enough to make me put it in my documents.
It doesn't matter. Texas law overrides your AD.
ETA: AlthougH I could think of no greater way to honor you than by using your case as a legal challenge to this law.
That ETA is exactly why I'd include it You'll force me to be an incubator over my dead body. Literally.
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...?
I don't think so. If this is a Texas statute it's just saying the state of Texas will honor an AD executed in another state.
Post by cattledogkisses on Dec 30, 2013 22:26:06 GMT -5
I think the answer is yes ( ), but would this fucked up law also override a medical POA? I don't have an AD, but I have a legal document granting H medical power of attorney for me. If he wanted to stop life support, they would be able to disregard the POA as well?
I think the answer is yes ( ), but would this fucked up law also override a medical POA? I don't have an AD, but I have a legal document granting H medical power of attorney for me. If he wanted to stop life support, they would be able to disregard the POA as well?
My guess is yes, at least until the courts sorted it out. They'd probably make the case that it gave your H rights over your body but not the fetus, so the state would argue their "right" to protect the child matters more. I'm guessing it would play out, at least on the surface, similar to when courts intervene to get a Jehovah's witness child a transfusion.
I have both POA and AD. I take this shit seriously. I pretty want nothing done to prolong my life if quality is gone. I'm not even sure I want CPR done, although if it were something like me dropping of a heart attack on the street it would be done anyway, so I haven't bothered to specify for emergency situations, just in end of life.
I think the answer is yes ( ), but would this fucked up law also override a medical POA? I don't have an AD, but I have a legal document granting H medical power of attorney for me. If he wanted to stop life support, they would be able to disregard the POA as well?
Yes. Texas law says that hospitals cannot remove life support from a pregnant woman. Period.
I think the answer is yes ( ), but would this fucked up law also override a medical POA? I don't have an AD, but I have a legal document granting H medical power of attorney for me. If he wanted to stop life support, they would be able to disregard the POA as well?
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.