13 Year old gir declared brain dead has now officially died

[Lorelei Lee]

There is going to be a court hearing tomorrow. Should be interesting. Haven't seen the pleadings but I imagine there are constitutional challenges to the Texas law.

 

[hereyago]

I haven't seen the outcry as with Jahi's case, but then again with Jahi and I think with this case, some people think she is still "alive". Or they get too hung up on the if it was me and pregnant I would want someone to do everything they could thing, but it isn't them, it's what the individual has stated or even written down that is being disregarded.

Now, I think if she were still alive, no fetus there would be more of an outcry like Terri Schaivo's case.

What is sad is that people don't get that this really isn't a fetus thing, even though there is that stupid law, but ignoring the rights and wishes of the patient is more of the crux of the issue.

I hope the judge tomorrow says this law in being misinterpeted even one of the writer's of the law has said it's not the case of which it was written.

 

[okeydokey]

It's not the hospital, it's TEXAS LAW. The hospital isn't ignoring anything in this case.

No, it is the way the hospital is interpreting the law. The lawmaker who wrote this bill says this is not the way the law was meant to be used.

 

[Lorelei Lee]

Skylizard,

It IS the hospital. You can't make a blanket statement about Texas law.

There are two issues here. The first is whether the law, as written, applies to Marlise Munoz. The hospital interprets the law as applicable to Munoz' situation, her family disagrees. The author of the law sides with the family, that the law is being misapplied.

The broader question is whether the law, as written and applied in accordance with legislative intent, is constitutional or whether it violates the rights of patients and their families.

The Texas judge who will hear this case does not have to rule on the broader constitutional issues if he accepts the family's contention that the hospital has misapplied the law.

 

[Viva Las Disney]

So disturbing that this Texas hospital thinks it can ignore the family's wishes.

This is why I always prefer fewer laws to more laws, if the law didn't exist the hospital couldn't abuse it. We have a lot of laws passed with good intentions that are perverted into all kinds of abuses.

It's tragic that once again politics and third parties are deciding what should be a very personal decision.

 

[Mokat76]

I feel for her family and the hospital. They're both in terrible positions. The hospital is applying the law as it's lawyers interpret it. The family disagrees. Unfortunately, there is a law and all laws are subject to interpretation. Doesn't matter what the author of the law intended; his point of view is irrelevant at this point. It's how the words on paper are interpreted.

 

[pryncess527]

I feel for her family and the hospital. They're both in terrible positions. The hospital is applying the law as it's lawyers interpret it. The family disagrees. Unfortunately, there is a law and all laws are subject to interpretation. Doesn't matter what the author of the law intended; his point of view is irrelevant at this point. It's how the words on paper are interpreted.

I think the hospital adminstrators are pushing their own agenda. The law is really not that confusing and it's kind of ridiculous for the hospital to act like there is any realm of possibility it could apply to a dead woman. The law was clearly written to apply to terminal patients -- not DEAD people.

 

[Lorelei Lee]

I feel for her family and the hospital. They're both in terrible positions. The hospital is applying the law as it's lawyers interpret it. The family disagrees. Unfortunately, there is a law and all laws are subject to interpretation. Doesn't matter what the author of the law intended; his point of view is irrelevant at this point. It's how the words on paper are interpreted.

Not exactly. When a court has to interpret a law, if there is an ambiguity, the judge will look to legislative intent. Which means the records of the legislature when debating the law become relevant. The individual who authored the bill and brought it to the legislature, well, his opinion is not binding on the court, but would certainly be considered relevant to the court's analysis.

 

[Lorelei Lee]

I think the hospital adminstrators are pushing their own agenda. The law is really not that confusing and it's kind of ridiculous for the hospital to act like there is any realm of possibility it could apply to a dead woman. The law was clearly written to apply to terminal patients -- not DEAD people.

I need to see the wording of the statute, but I think you are correct about the hospital's agenda.

 

[pryncess527]

I need to see the wording of the statute, but I think you are correct about the hospital's agenda.

The Texas Advance Directives Act, Section 166.049, provides that "a person may not withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment under this subchapter from a pregnant patient."

The Texas Advance Directives Act defines "life-sustaining treatment" as that which "sustains the life of a patient and without which the patient will die."

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/comm...upport-20140116,0,3476520.story#axzz2rEgiK7BC

It seems obvious that the law was intended to keep living people alive. She's not alive. The patient is defined as the pregnant woman, not the fetus, so it's her state that is relevant. Her life isn't being sustained, the law does not apply.

 

[Lorelei Lee]

I seem to have maxed out on my LA Times freebies -- they won't let me read unless I subscribe.

 

[JanaDee]

I seem to have maxed out on my LA Times freebies -- they won't let me read unless I subscribe.

Clear your cookie from that site.

 

[pryncess527]

I seem to have maxed out on my LA Times freebies -- they won't let me read unless I subscribe.

You might enjoy the actual full text of the bill anyway -- here you go: http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/HS/htm/HS.166.htm

 

[Lorelei Lee]

Clear your cookie from that site.

Thanks, I'll try that.

 

[Lorelei Lee]

So ok, I read the Texas Advanced Directive Act and the Texas Determination of Death statute.

Texas defines death as:

(a) A person is dead when, according to ordinary standards of medical practice, there is irreversible cessation of the person's spontaneous respiratory and circulatory functions. (b) If artificial means of support preclude a determination that a person's spontaneous respiratory and circulatory functions have ceased, the person is dead when, in the announced opinion of a physician, according to ordinary standards of medical practice, there is irreversible cessation of all spontaneous brain function. Death occurs when the relevant functions cease. (c) Death must be pronounced before artificial means of supporting a person's respiratory and circulatory functions are terminated.


The Advance Directive Act defines "life sustaining treatment" as:

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. The term does not include the
administration of pain management medication or the performance
of a medical procedure considered to be necessary to provide
comfort care, or any other medical care provided to alleviate a
patient's pain.

There are extensive provisions about what must be in an "advanced directive", how it must be signed and witnessed, who may make advanced directives on behalf of a child or an incompetent adult, considerable discussion of a medical provider's responsibilities and liabilities. It defines a patient as someone with a terminal illness, defines terminal illness, etc. Tells you what to do if someone has not executed an advance directive. All very detailed.

And then there's this:

Sec. 166.049. PREGNANT PATIENTS. A person may not withdraw or
withhold life-sustaining treatment under this subchapter from a
pregnant patient.


In fact, the standard form for Advanced Directives includes this language:


I understand that under Texas law this directive has no effect if I have been diagnosed as pregnant.



Seems pretty clear, right?

Not necessarily. Has Marlise Munoz been officially pronounced dead? If the hospital won't pronounce her, they can't legally remove the respirator or other treatments.

 

[pryncess527]

Not necessarily. Has Marlise Munoz been officially pronounced dead? If the hospital won't pronounce her, they can't legally remove the respirator or other treatments.

But it isn't the law stopping them from declaring her dead, right? That is their own decision, since she is medically dead. Or her husband says that is what he is being told -- I suppose that could be in question, that was part of what was going to be addressed at the hearing.

If they pronounced her dead, they would be in their legal rights to do so as medical professionals and then would legally be able to remove her from the respirator.

 

[Lorelei Lee]

But it isn't the law stopping them from declaring her dead, right? That is their own decision, since she is medically dead. Or her husband says that is what the tests say.

If they pronounced her dead, they would be in their legal rights to do so as medical professionals and then would legally be able to remove her from the respirator.

How I see it . . . She remains a "patient" until she's officially pronounced dead. If your agenda is to keep her "alive" long enough to allow the fetus to mature to viability, you use that "pregnant patient" statute to justify continued treatnent and refuse to pronounce her brain dead despite evidence to the contrary.

But that's just my speculation. No doubt we will hear more on the parties' positions after today's court hearing.

 

[sunshinehighway]

But it isn't the law stopping them from declaring her dead, right? That is their own decision, since she is medically dead. Or her husband says that is what he is being told -- I suppose that could be in question, that was part of what was going to be addressed at the hearing.

If they pronounced her dead, they would be in their legal rights to do so as medical professionals and then would legally be able to remove her from the respirator.

From what the husband and her parents say and what the hospital says, I get the impression that the hospital knows she's brain dead but aren't saying it publically or declaring her dead because they know the law wouldn't apply if she is dead.

 

[Lorelei Lee]

From what the husband and her parents say and what the hospital says, I get the impression that the hospital knows she's brain dead but aren't saying it publically or declaring her dead because they know the law wouldn't apply if she is dead.

Exactly.

 

[robinb]

Not necessarily. Has Marlise Munoz been officially pronounced dead? If the hospital won't pronounce her, they can't legally remove the respirator or other treatments.

According to a report I read Mr. Munoz said that a doctor did declare her dead, but the hospital maintains that she is merely in "serious condition".