Texas Father Barred from Taking Pregnant Wife Off Life Support

[modrepub]

Source: Yahoo Shine

On Nov. 26, Erick Munoz woke to the sound of his year-old son crying and found his 14-weeks-pregnant wife, Marlise, lying on the kitchen floor, blue in the face and without a pulse. A firefighter and paramedic, Munoz called 911 and performed CPR, to no avail. When they arrived at the John Peter Smith Hospital (JPS) in Fort Worth, Texas, he thought he would have to make an agonizing decision: refuse life support even though that meant losing both his wife and his future child. Munoz said in a WFAA News report that four years ago, when Marlise's brother was killed in an accident, she told him that she would never want to be on life support — something they had discussed many times since.

A month later, against his requests, she is still on a ventilator. Not only does Munoz want to honor his wife's wishes, but also he believes that the fetus she is carrying has been seriously harmed. "I don't know how long she was there prior to me finding her," he said. Munoz, who could not be reached for comment, wrote on WFAA's Facebook page, "All I know is that she was without oxygen long enough for her to have massive brain swelling. I unfortunately know what that type of damage could do to a child during crucial developmental time." Doctors say it's likely that Munoz's wife suffered a pulmonary embolism, and no longer has brain activity.

When Munoz first arrived at the hospital, he discovered that, according to Texas law, life-sustaining procedures may not be withheld or withdrawn from a pregnant woman, — even if she has an advance health care directive (also called a living will) stipulating that she does not want to be kept alive on a machine. There are conflicting reports about whether Marlise Munoz had an official DNR (Do Not Resuscitate order), and the family could not be reached for comment. But according to the Center for Women Policy Studies, as of 2012, Texas and 11 other states have automatically invalidated pregnant women's advance directives to refrain from using extraordinary measures to keep them alive, and others have slightly less restrictive but similar laws. A spokesperson from the hospital told Yahoo Shine, "Our responsibility is to be a good corporate citizen while also providing quality care for our patients. At all times, JPS will follow the law as it applies to healthcare in the state of Texas."

Marlise Munoz's mother and father say they support their son-in-law's request to take their daughter off life support. "She absolutely DID NOT EVER want to be connected to Life Support," her mother, Lynne Machado, wrote on WFAA's Facebook page. "This issue is not about Pro Choice/Pro Life. Our intent is purely one of education about how this [statute] null and voids any woman's DNR [if she is] pregnant. We know our daughter well enough, after numerous discussions about DNR, that she would NEVER EVER consent to being hooked up to Life Support." While the family's tragic situation hits a nerve in a state where abortion debates rage, Munoz also said he doesn't want to participate in arguments over right-to-life verses pro-choice issues, but instead wishes to honor his wife and inform the public about a little-known law.



Read more: http://shine.yahoo.com/parenting/texas-father-barred-taking-pregnant-wife-off-life-200600388.html

---

Sad on many levels

[riderinthestorm]

1. Forced birth even when you're technically dead!!!

Against your will and the will of your family. Gah

[Ilsa]

2. I wonder if an ultrasound would

Prove his point that life support is pointless for the fetus, and that Texas Legislature shouldn't be making laws governing detailed decisions about medical crises.

On edit: only time will tell if the fetus can continue this way. I doubt it.

[LisaL]

7. They can certainly do tests to see if the fetus is o'key.

I don't see why fetus couldn't continue. Similar situtions have happened in the past. While the woman didn't want to be on life support, presumably she did want the child.

[loudsue]

12. WTF? She might have wanted the child under different circumstances.

But you can't believe she wanted to bring in a brain damaged child that other people would have to take care of WITHOUT her. Having a basically dead body that is only 14 weeks pregnant carry a child to term is beyond sick.

[LisaL]

36. You do realize that under TX law doctors have no choice but to keep her on life support?

Or don't you?

[loudsue]

40. And the law makes it less sick?

What did you think I was talking about? Yes. I know it's the law....that is what the entire post was about. That is what is sick.

[LisaL]

43. My post was about testing the fetus.

It is sick to test the fetus to see how it's developing? Really?

[loudsue]

51. Why test the fetus? To satisfy your curiosity? I'm sure if that was an issue for the family

it would have already been done. It appears it is your issue, not theirs.

[LisaL]

53. Maybe you should actually read the article and see that the father is concerned

about them only doing minimal tests on the fetus.
Obviously you didn't bother to read it.

[loudsue]

61. I actually read the whole article, and took what I said BECAUSE of the context of why

the dad wanted the tests done.....to prove that the baby was going to have problems due to the fact that the mother went without oxygen for so long.

It is obvious that it is in the context of PULLING THE PLUG for the mom....not of keeping the pregnancy going.

[cosmicone]

63. There is no test that would determine if

the fetus will have normal brain functioning at full-term when its gestational age is only 14 weeks and when the damage is from anoxia rather than a genetic disorder.

Such a test doesn't exist.

[LisaL]

67. It could tell if the brain appears normal or missing, for instance.

[cosmicone]

80. A 14 week old fetus is about 1.5" long

and the brain so tiny that no imaging technique could tell if it is normal or not.

[LisaL]

81. It's not going to stay 14 weeks forever.

[cosmicone]

89. It gets harder and harder to terminate

as the fetus grows larger and while the degree of difficulty in terminating increases, the brain imaging accuracy does not keep pace.

Trust me, I specialize in brains.

And -- one can have a normal brain MRI and a normal EEG but an IQ of 60 or less. So even a normal test is not diagnostic.

[Igel]

59. I'd rephrase it.

I have a hard time believing that she should have wanted to bring a cognitively impaired child into the world under those circumstances.

But that doesn't answer the question, because there's no evidence that the kid's cognitively impaired.

Then again, I've known some women that let their optimism make them pollyannas, convinced that the ultrasound and tests that showed massive fetal problems were all wrong and their little bundle of joy would be born healthy.



Doesn't matter. In this case it really is pro/anti-choice, because it goes to the very heart of the debate. The extremes would be whether the fetus no right to existence without the woman's consent until it's outside her body or whether it has a fairly absolute right to existence from conception. There are a heckuvalot of views in between the two extremes, of course. The TX law says that the fetus has an independent right of survival, esp. if the woman's only real choice is death; the opposing view is that the woman, even if probably in a vegetative state and unable to continue to live independently of artificial means still has the full panoply of rights.

[niyad]

96. the fetus is not a kid, it is an 18-week FETUS, a biological parasite.

no, the whole argument here is the state legislature (mostly male, and almost none in the medical profession [and even if any of them were, still does not qualify them to make these woman-hating, insane laws]) deciding that women are nothing more than incubators, that being pregnant means you give up all rights. it really is not hard to understand that, to such people, women have no worth as independent, thinking, rational beings. you know--like men.

[idwiyo]

22. That's sick on so many levels, I don't even know where to start. Don't "presume" for starters.

Incubator. That's what that poor woman is reduced to.

[LisaL]

37. I can presume whatever the hell I want.

[idwiyo]

52. Her body, Her choice. Keep your presumptions to yourself.

Even suggesting that someone should be kept on life-support without their consent is sick. Forced-birtherism at it's friggin worst.

[MNBrewer]

58. Obviously

[Feral Child]

70. Yes, you may.

And we are free to judge you for your inhumane stance.

This man already has to deal with losing his wife and the responsibility of being a single father. Those are severe burdens by themselves.

Add to that the moral pain he has to face, helpless, as the state defies his wife's wishes and forces a vegetative state. And if that isn't enough torture, he also has the prospect of raising a severely impaired child.

He has become the putative "mother" of this fetus. As such, he should have the right of choice.

Have a little heart.

[idwiyo]

71. You raised an issue I never thought about: in this case the father is also denied a choice.

What a horrible situation.

After reading this I realised even more how lucky I am that I live in UK. Not a perfect country by any means, but at least I can't imagine something like that to happened here.

[loudsue]

42. It looks like we have an advocate for forced pregnancy right here in our midst.

[LisaL]

45. Maybe you should figure out what I was talking about first.

I don't advocate for "forced pregnancy."

[idwiyo]

55. According to your posts that's exactly what it is - forced-birtherism.

Never mind that her entire family want her off life-support.
As far as I can see yours was the only post suggesting ultra-sound.

[LisaL]

68. No, according to my post, the doctors can test the fetus to see if it's even viable.

[MH1]

75. It sounds like you're suggesting that if the test result was "non-viable"

then there would be a stronger case for ending life support, and that you feel the test should be done.

I think that's a reasonable position although I don't necessarily agree with it. Also, I suspect that under Texas law it won't make a whit of difference. There could be incontrovertible proof that the child is brain-dead and I bet the law in Texas would provide that it needs to be brought to term anyway. And if it was found the law DIDN'T mean that, then the legislature would rapid-fire pass an amendment to "fix" it.

I think the sensitivity of other posters on this issue is due to the horrendous immorality of what we think the Texas law is.

Whether it's worth testing the fetus, I don't know. It seems to me that in this case the father should have a choice; and we aren't even talking about the 20-week threshold here. Frankly it seems to me that in a case like this, where the mother is all but dead and only kept on life-support due to the fetus, the right of choice passes to the father. At 14 weeks that right of choice would not require a viability test.

[idwiyo]

77. And if it's viable, screw woman's wish? She is an incubator at that point because she can't even

protest. How is that different from forced-birtherism?

[nomorenomore08]

85. Viable at 14 weeks??? I don't think you know what the word "viable" actually means...

[seattledo]

76. Great point

They do see us as only incubators.

[madrchsod]

3. 14 weeks?

i was on life support for around 7 days and my bill was around 400,000. of course that was before medicare paid all but a small fraction. the cost of keeping this woman`s reproductive system going is staggering. worse the baby would probably suffer some form of birth defect.

[SharonAnn]

72. And he will have maximum OOP expenses for at least two years.

If he or she has insurance, there is an annual maximum "Out Of Pocket" dollar amount that the policy holder/responsible party has to pay for medical care. Since this is December 2013, and we can presume that the life support will continue until January 2014 when the maximum OOP expense resets, he will have to pay maximum OOP for both 2013 and 2014.

Talk about adding insult to injury.

[davidpdx]

4. I read about this and was wondering if someone would post it

It is very sad. The guy is going to lose his wife. I am glad that his in-laws are on the same side as he is in terms of life support. They should respect his wishes and remove her from life support.

I wondered what might happen in terms of the child and decided to Google it to see if I could find information.

Here's a case from 2006, very similar. The woman had an aneurysms and they did a c-section at 24 weeks:

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

Another one from Hungary in 1993, they kept her alive 92 days and delivered the child:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/14/baby-born-brain-dead-mother-3-months_n_4274609.html

[Ilsa]

26. 24 week c-section means a higher likelihood

of birth defects including developmental, vision, pulmonary, etc. Raising a disabled child is not just expensive, but life-changing, and very difficult for single (widowed) parents.

I wonder if her meds are adversely affecting the fetus, too.

[rucky]

5. All your fetus are belong to us

Sincerely,

The State of Texas

[TBF]

10. Except they don't want to take care of the fetus

when it is born. They do want it to sweep the floor of the Senate, but that's about it.

[Rozlee]

49. Oh, no problem taking care of the baby once it's born. Especially if it suffered the same

brain damage in utero as its mother did and will be on life support. Sun Hudson, anyone? While George W. Bush and Republicans were running all over the place trying to keep Terry Schiavo alive, Bush had passed legislation in Texas that allowed hospitals to remove patients from care that were costing them too much money. They didn't bat an eyelash as an indigent African-American infant was taken off life support against its mother's wishes but they fought tooth and nail to keep a brain dead upper middle class white woman from having her plug pulled.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

98. I remember both of those tortures cooked up by the extreme rw

I'm really speechless. They're so twisted...I just ....
Just can't even process this. How is it possible for people to live in this sick world view??

[Rozlee]

102. Bizarro World has nothing on them.

[Ninga]

6. A living will would have saved this husband from the heartache. Put your wishes in

Writing.

[LisaL]

9. No. Apparently in TX it's illegal to tund off life support if the woman is pregnant.

[elehhhhna]

101. and we have a futile care law that lets the doc unplug your ass is you can't pay

what utter bullshit. None of this is about life. It's about control.

[msanthrope]

13. No...the point of the article is that in 11 states, your advanced directive doesn't mean

squat if you are pregnant.

[freshwest]

87. I was surprised going over the WA State Medical Association form yesterday...

There are several items under Heatlh Care Directives, about the different conditions one might end up with, and unable to express one's wishes.

But item (E) clearly states:

If I have been diagnosed as pregnant and that diagnois is known to my physician, this directive shall have no force or effect during the course of the pregnancy.

This is a pro-choice state, but I can see the reasoning. For this and for the family in Texas as well. What an awful dilemma, especially if the child was also injured. I've known children that themselves had strokes in the womb that cut off the flow of oxygen in their development, and the effects were permanent, severe disabilities requiring care all day and night.

.

[Iggo]

66. She had one. Read the article.

[Enthusiast]

8. Texas and Freedumb are synonymous!

[DURHAM D]

11. Poor woman.

The state has dictated that she is just an incubator.

[pnwmom]

14. I wonder if they could transfer her to another state

without such a stupid law.

[Demit]

16. That's a good question.

I wonder, too.

[Ilsa]

24. Just don't tell them why she is being

Transferred, or someone will try to take guardianship of her to stop it.

[LisaL]

39. What hospital is going to take a patient on life support with apparently no hope of recovery?

From a different state, no less?

[pnwmom]

48. A hospital with administrators with compassion?

What would happen if the husband got a job out of state? Would he be expected to leave his wife in Texas?

[mountain grammy]

15. And conservatives support this intrusion of government into our lives?

Yes, it's well beyond sad. I would call it sick. Let this grieving family mourn their wife/daughter in peace.

[niyad]

47. of course they do, because women, after all, are only chattel, not actualy human beings.

[pnwmom]

17. Yikes! Washington state has a similar law

that says advance directives have "no effect" during a pregnancy.

Here's a list by state.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/state-laws-pregnancy-health-care-directives.html

[LiberalElite]

25. New York

has no statute. That's because we're Godless Communist Fascist Government Meddlers in people's lives!

[cosmicone]

64. In California

Advanced Directive supersedes.

[progressoid]

97. Wow, that's a lot of states that want to mess with women's choice.

[alarimer]

18. Once again, this proves that, to many people, a fetus is more important

than the woman.

Fuck right-to-lifers, who have enabled these laws even in blue states.

[mikki35]

19. Big Brother writ large, indeed

Doncha just love the depth of the hypocrisy? They just simply hate ALL government, UNLESS, of course, it can be used to regulate a woman's uterus. Any uterus, but most especially those in any stage of gestation. Sick.

First, if she is truly 'brain-dead' - as in, all brain activity has ceased, then it is very unlikely that the best medicine available will keep her alive for long. There are many, many bodily activities that require a minimum of 'direction' from the brain. When the base of the brain (the 'brain stem') is no longer functioning, things start getting wonky pretty quickly. And that would apply doubly if the body is pregnant.

Second, the fetus desperately needs some testing done, i.e., anoxic brain damage is a high probability. If proven, perpetuating this kind of slow-motion train wreck would be the ultimate bastardization of government.

Lastly, somebody needs to let Mr. Munoz know that the state cannot legally impose medical bankruptcy on his family. If they want to supercede his judgment, they can also pick up the tab for it.

[Ilsa]

30. I wonder if the doctors are

nervous about taking on pRick Perry's consortium of uterus-regulators.

[Hestia]

46. Not true - go to PBS.org and see their Death & Dying series, specifically on respirators -

a person can be kept alive on a respirator for 20 years - the US is spending billions of dollars a year on people who's children cannot/will not pull the plug and Medicare/Medicaid is being billed for the costs.

The series specifically showed a woman with advanced stage Alzheimer's who's daughters put her on a respirator and now cannot pull the plug. They do not want to be responsible for her dying. She most likely now may outlive her daughters.

Even with a DNR, if a person is put on a respirator, 80% of the time they will stay on for as long as their bodies will allow it.

Disgusting and heartbreaking to watch.

[niyad]

54. thank you for that reminder about the series.

[mikki35]

57. Agreed

Its very true that a person CAN be kept technically alive on a respirator for many years, IF they still have a teeny bit of functioning brainstem. What I said that IF she is truly 'brain-dead,' i.e., NO discernible brain function, then the time that she can be maintained, even with a respirator, is limited. The brain regulates much more than just lung function. Heart rate, temperature control, regulation of numerous glands and hormones which control a myriad of the body's functions - all are affected and, at least to some extent, controlled by brain stem function.

[rocktivity]

20. They intend to use her as a human incubator for 6.5 months?

rocktivity

[idwiyo]

23. Yes. Exactly.

[rocktivity]

28. "Doctors say it's likely that Munoz's wife suffered a pulmonary embolism,

and no longer has brain activity."

If there's no brain activity, which ought to be determined one way or the other, how can her body complete the pregnancy?


rocktivity

[Igel]

60. She almost certainly has some sort of activity.

The often say "no brain activity" when they really are talking about things like consciousness, awareness, that sort of thing.

She's probably able to breathe on her own, her heart's beating, other autonomic processes are going apace. But she probably wouldn't be able to deliver, to the extent that delivery depends on reducing or increasing the effect of contractions.

[LisaL]

69. She is on ventiallator, so she isn't able to breathe on her own.

[pnwmom]

21. They should seek to transfer her to a hospital in New Mexico

where they have better care, for their particular situation.

And have no statute like the one in Texas.

[niyad]

31. since she is, in effect, owned by the state, would guess the state will not allow her to be moved.

[azureblue]

92. and she is a ward of the state

then the state is responsible for all medical bills incurred.

[cosmicone]

29. Sad story and

every time I think Texas has reached the bottom of fucked-up-ness, they shock me and do something worse.

[smirkymonkey]

32. No shit.

This is beyond f***ed up. Poor family.

[svpadgham]

33. So much for following God's will.

[Fla Dem]

34. Gruesome, absolutely gruesome. A brain dead woman, being kept alive by a machine. Frankenstienian.

Let the poor woman go so her family can grieve and move on with their lives.

[burnsei sensei]

86. +1

nt

[valerief]

35. Haven't we been here before with the Bugman? nt

[toby jo]

38. She sounds like a great candidate for organ donation.

Choice is:

Take off the machines so death occurs naturally and harvest the organs - save lives.

Leave on the machine, draw out the agony and divert funds from saving healthy lives to her and her fetus' vegetative ones.

The great state of Texas declares for the vegetative being.

[LisaL]

41. When brain dead patient is kept for a long time on life support, organs deteriorate

and likely won't be any use for anyone.

[dembotoz]

44. i do hope the poor husband is not going to be stuck with the bill

sorry to be pragmatic and looking as if i do not care.
but i speak from some experience.
some 30 years ago late in her 3rd trimester, my dear wife developed leukemia
She was far enough along that we were able to do a c-section and the child was born relatively healthy.
but with having both in icu for a while--the bill fills most of a file drawer--i still have it.

I was fortunate at the time to have her covered by 2 major medical policies (long story) so that we were not ruined--at least not financially

Someone is getting billed for this

[Hestia]

50. After 2 years it will be Medicaid if they do not pull the plug before then.

This guy is probably financially ruined for the rest of his life. The cost, if he has insurance, the balance that they don't pay along with all the medical bills that the kid will rack up from being in Neonatal ICU. All because some asshole in TX legislature said that families can't be trusted with their own advanced directives, pregnant or not.

[niyad]

56. many years ago, I read about a couple (don't remember the state) whose son was born with almost

unimaginable birth defects. the couple were told that the child would likely not survive past the age of two or so, even with massive, invasive surgery, plus which, the child would be in constant pain. the couple decided that they wanted to just keep the child comfortable for what brief time he would have, without medical interference. the hospital somehow overrode the parents' wishes, did all kinds of surgeries, and the parents had to pay for all of it. it was heartbreaking to think that the hospital could go against the parents' wishes like that, without regard for the child's welfare either, AND make the parents pay.

(sorry I don't remember more details. as I said, it was many years ago)

[enlightenment]

74. I remember that story -

pretty sure it was also in Texas. Houston, I think. The hospital applied for and received legal guardianship over the child so they could continue to torture it.

I decided then that I would never live in that state.

[bucolic_frolic]

62. Get the Government Off Our Backs

and put it in our bedrooms where we can control your body,
restrict your freedom, and manipulate your mind.

Just saying.

[mazzarro]

65. Yes indeed

And reThuglicans have the gall to shout about Obama coming between patients and thier doctors - eh?

[awoke_in_2003]

73. THe same religious whack jobs...

that got this law passed are the first to say "it was god's will" when things go bad. Well, I guess it was god's will, until a fetus became involved. I hope that, before I die, I see religion in this country treated as it should be- a laughable fairy tale.

[EC]

78. Can't they have her moved somewhere

else out of state?

[bucolic_frolic]

79. She's too sick to move

moving her could be detrimental to her health

[Squinch]

83. You're kidding, right?

[bucolic_frolic]

88. *Stardust*

it's so dripping with sarcasm and absurdity I thought it went without saying

Their argument would be moving her might jeopardize the unborn's life

and the hospital and doctors wouldn't want to take the risk and liability

So I doubt this situ is changing

[Squinch]

82. Barbaric.

[alfredo]

84. If the state wants to keep her n life support, then they should pay the bills.

[jsr]

103. +1.

[pansypoo53219]

90. will the bill be sent to the texas govt?

[azureblue]

91. the easy way to end this

have an attorney prepare a document that says that the hospital, will be responsible for any and all medical bills.

[freshwest]

95. The hospital is not the one forcing this. It's the State of Texas. They won't pay for anything, even

the transvaginal ultrasounds they have forced on women there. And the doctors and hospitals can lose their right to practice if they don't follow it. The State of Texas has taken many rights of the people there away. This is just one of many.

[Harmony Blue]

93. This is just wrong

[BlueCollar]

99. kick...

just to keep this debate on the front page

[fasttense]

100. PA also has a law like this

If the mother is dead, unconscious or in a coma and the fetus is possibly viable, hospitals can NOT induce an abortion even to save the life of the mother.

Fetus life trumps mother's life. Zombie women forced to birth.

[Tippy]

104. The only thing that can be done to stop this madness is to stop Republicans

VOTE THEM OUT