Tough Call!

Just came across this story and thought it might be a good subject for debate. Would love to hear your thoughts and I'm sure they will be pretty diverse?

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/2014/01/09/17/04/petition-to-take-brain-dead-mother-off-life-support

Interesting and touchy topic Hellon! Never heard of a case quite like this..... I'm reading comments as well to get perspective so I'll put in my two cents.

I think the patient's needs should be considered, but her wish was to be taken off the machine, never mentioning if she was pregnant or not. I doubt she thought in the context of if she was pregnant and on life support. I'm not familiar with the laws there but I do think it must be decided between family. Personally, and in my faith, I believe that taking someone off of life support is legitimate because they will die a natural death.... it will not be euthanasia. We are obligated to provide basic needs like food and water, but not required to provide extraordinary means to extend a life. In this scenario, I wonder if they could wait for the baby to be born then take the mother off of life support like she wanted? I don't think it's fair or ethical to assume that the baby has been deprived oxygen, has damage to the brain, and shouldn't be worthy of saving. There is a possibility of brain damage but no one can know how much for sure. Personally, if I was aware my child might have Autism (just an example) or any signs of brain damage during the pregnancy, I would obviously still want to carry him/her to full term. How far along is the mother and is the baby still viable? That is a very tough call indeed.

But because Munoz, 33, was 14 weeks pregnant at the time, doctors were prevented from ending her life due to a Texas law that overrides family wishes in case there's a chance the fetus may be carried to term - and that possibility can't be determined for at least another six weeks.

I would be lying if I pretended to have strong feelings on what the Texas courts decide about forcing healthcare on a brain dead patient for the sake of an 18 week fetus but the irony is the group that is fighting for government intervention is the same one that deems the government as a necessary evil in most cases.

Pregnancy is typically broken into three periods, or trimesters, each of about three months.[20][21] Obstetricians define each trimester as lasting for 14 weeks, resulting in a total duration of 42 weeks, although the average duration of pregnancy is actually about 40 weeks.[22] While there are no hard and fast rules, these distinctions are useful in describing the changes that take place over time.

The precise law being touted is:
TEXAS HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE
SUBCHAPTER B. DIRECTIVE TO PHYSICIANS
Sec. 166.049. PREGNANT PATIENTS. A person may not withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment under this subchapter from a pregnant patient.

BUT:
Sec. 166.002. DEFINITIONS.
(10) "Life-sustaining treatment" means treatment that, based on reasonable medical judgment, sustains the life of a patient and without which the patient will die. The term includes both life-sustaining medications and artificial life support, such as mechanical breathing machines, kidney dialysis treatment, and artificial nutrition and hydration.

There is no question that Marlise Munoz was declared brain dead prior to any controversy arising.

At that point the statute became irrelevant because no life-sustaining treatment would sustain her life,while the fetus (even if considered a patient) is not pregnant.

Interesting news...

Question though, was there a mention how the law defines a "pregnant patient"? At which chapter of pregnancy?

Loosely speaking, I don't think the euthanasia issue is heavily burdened here since (1) The patient herself has asked to be taken out of life support if such dire event occurs, and (2) She's brain dead, not in a coma, but brain dead - there is no collective consciousness anymore that exists that may deem her "alive"

She is merely, like the article said, an incubator. I think the decision should lie to her loved ones and how they wish to proceed with this. The burden is passed to them, would they want to keep the potential child, and risk months of challenging events fighting financial troubles, seeing their loved one as an incubator, not to mention the risk of her body living at such a long state.

I do hope they get some privacy though because now that the media has intervened (which is unfortunately hard ti ignore since this is a controversial topic), their decision making may be tainted and even if they avoid bias decisions and decide from their heart there will definitely be people who would criticize them.

After doing a little more research it would appear that other states in America feel the same if you look at the map. I'm just wondering how many of you live in these dark red states and...where you aware of this law already?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/08/pregnant-living-will-_n_4562964.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009

Now I'm trying to find out if there's any similar law here in Australia.