13 Year old gir declared brain dead has now officially died

[nicolita3]

http://www.star-telegram.com/2014/01/22/5506250/fetus-in-munoz-case-is-distinctly.html

I wonder if in this case the family has to pay for all the medical bills. I mean she's been kept alive for weeks when the family wants to let her rest in peace and are keeping her alive against her/their wishes. Also if she had insurance would they even cover the hospital stay or would it be considered prenatal care?

 

[mom2rtk]

Dios mio I hope they let them both "go"...

And soon. That poor man needs for this to end. What more information do they need at this point? Hopefully the judge on Friday will see what needs to happen.

I wonder if in this case the family has to pay for all the medical bills. I mean she's been kept alive for weeks when the family wants to let her rest in peace and are keeping her alive against her/their wishes. Also if she had insurance would they even cover the hospital stay or would it be considered prenatal care?

I think that's an interesting question.

 

[Lorelei Lee]

Interesting question about insurance. I hardly think it could be excluded as "prenatal care". But it does raise the question of who is paying for this fiasco.

 

[bittybabygrower]

The hospital is going to bill someone and you better bet if insurance doesn't want it then it goes to the family. Then he will have to go to court to fight paying it.

They need to let her and the baby go... I hope to God they don't deliver her at 22 weeks

 

[mnrose]

So disturbing that this Texas hospital thinks it can ignore the family's wishes. It would be a travesty if they now try to bill either the family or their insurance. The HOSPITAL chose this....let them pay.

Abhorrent.

 

[StitchesGr8Fan]

So disturbing that this Texas hospital thinks it can ignore the family's wishes. It would be a travesty if they now try to bill either the family or their insurance. The HOSPITAL chose this....let them pay. Abhorrent.

Did the hospital choose this, or do they think they are following the law?

 

[robinb]

Did the hospital choose this, or do they think they are following the law?

I'm sure their lawyers think they are following the law.

 

[skylizard]

So disturbing that this Texas hospital thinks it can ignore the family's wishes. It would be a travesty if they now try to bill either the family or their insurance. The HOSPITAL chose this....let them pay.

Abhorrent.

It's not the hospital choosing this. They have no say in it. It's Texas law that is forcing the hospital to keep her body "alive" until the fetus can survive outside of the womb. Unfortunately, the family and the hospital have no say in what is going on whatsoever.

I hope that this case can be used to change the current law in Texas. A woman should not be kept artificially alive to support a fetus that is not able to survive outside the womb. It's just wrong. Let nature run it's course and this woman rest in peace.

 

[StitchesGr8Fan]

I'm sure their lawyers think they are following the law.

Thanks. That's kind of what I thought. But sometimes it is made to sound like it is someone at the hospital with a pro-life agenda making the decision to continue life support.

 

[Beka]

So disturbing that this Texas hospital thinks it can ignore the family's wishes. It would be a travesty if they now try to bill either the family or their insurance. The HOSPITAL chose this....let them pay.

Abhorrent.

Hospitals ignore the wishes of patients all the time. If you have a living will, you had better hope that your family decides to adhere to it, instead of prolong your life to get that check. Yes, it happens. Makes me sick.

 

[mnrose]

Did the hospital choose this, or do they think they are following the law?

My understanding it is the HOSPITAL's interpretation of the law. There's been no court deciding this. The law required the continuation of LIFE SUPPORT for a pregnant woman. Even one of the bill's author says it is a gross misinterpretation of the law to apply it to a corpse...keeping a corpse as an incubator is not LIFE support, but DEATH support.

So, yes, I do blame the hospital. If the hospital had followed the entire family's wishes (and, BTW, the expressed wishes of the pregnant woman!), this never would have happened. They took it upon themselves to interpret the law in the way that they did, and keep this woman's body hooked up. They should pay. If they bill the husband, I hope he sues them into oblivion.

 

[skylizard]

Hospitals ignore the wishes of patients all the time. If you have a living will, you had better hope that your family decides to adhere to it, instead of prolong your life to get that check. Yes, it happens. Makes me sick.

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

 

[sunshinehighway]

Thanks. That's kind of what I thought. But sometimes it is made to sound like it is someone at the hospital with a pro-life agenda making the decision to continue life support.

At least one of the lawyers for the hospital is a big pro life advocate.

JPS legal counsel, Neal Adams, has taken a clear stance against abortion rights. According to the Star-Telegram, Adams led the drive to end abortions at JPS in 1988, and is also an advisory board member at the Northeast Tarrant County Right To Life Educational Association. According to the groups website, its focus is to educate the public on the value of human life from the moment of conception in the hope that the life of the unborn child will be protected from conception to natural birth.

 

[LilyWDW]

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

Actually, according to one of the people who created the bill, the hospital is interpretation the law incorrectly. If it is (and I tend to believe a person who wrote the law as to what it means), then it is the hospital who is ignoring what should be happening and is making the decision themselves.

 

["Cinder" Ella's Mom]

Actually, according to one of the people who created the bill, the hospital is interpretation the law incorrectly. If it is (and I tend to believe a person who wrote the law as to what it means), then it is the hospital who is ignoring what should be happening and is making the decision themselves.

I heard this as well...that the law does not apply to a brain-dead mother.

 

[kamik86]

IN the case of keeping someone alive just for the baby. I can see this in some cases. If a mother became brain dead while in the hospital (so no long lack of oxygen) and was close to being full term (say 30 weeks) I could see monitoring the baby for distress but leaving them as long as possible in the hope of avoiding and NICU stay and complications for the baby.

But we are talking a fetus of an age that if this mother walked into a clinic could legally choose to abort the fetus. Now I'm not advocating abortion and in most cases disagree with it but if the parents could legally abort the fetus why would you need to keep the dead mother alive to keep the fetus alive?

 

[pryncess527]

My understanding it is the HOSPITAL's interpretation of the law. There's been no court deciding this. The law required the continuation of LIFE SUPPORT for a pregnant woman. Even one of the bill's author says it is a gross misinterpretation of the law to apply it to a corpse...keeping a corpse as an incubator is not LIFE support, but DEATH support.

So, yes, I do blame the hospital. If the hospital had followed the entire family's wishes (and, BTW, the expressed wishes of the pregnant woman!), this never would have happened. They took it upon themselves to interpret the law in the way that they did, and keep this woman's body hooked up. They should pay. If they bill the husband, I hope he sues them into oblivion.

I completely agree. If they had quietly pulled the plug and just told anyone who asked that the woman was dead, there would not have been an issue and the hospital would have been completely truthful while also upholding the rights of the deceased.

But we are talking a fetus of an age that if this mother walked into a clinic could legally choose to abort the fetus. Now I'm not advocating abortion and in most cases disagree with it but if the parents could legally abort the fetus why would you need to keep the dead mother alive to keep the fetus alive?

Texas would require her to get counseling, view an ultrasound of the fetus, and then think about her decision for 24 hours. I'm guessing that her inability to meet those requirements might be part of what keeps this law in place.

 

[PaulaSB12]

I was on the fence about this but after seing this its time to let them both go

http://guardianlv.com/2014/01/brain-dead-texas-woman-has-fetus-which-has-developed-abnormally/

Brain Dead Texas Woman Has Fetus Which Has Developed Abnormally
Added by Kimberly Ruble on January 22, 2014.
Saved under Brain, Health, Kimberley Ruble
Tags: brain dead
Brain Dead Texas Woman Has Fetus Which Has Developed Abnormally

The Texas woman, who has been declared brain dead and is being kept alive because she is pregnant, despite her family’s objections, is carrying a fetus that has signs of having developed in a distinctly abnormal way, the woman’s husband’s attorneys stated on Wednesday. Marlise Munoz is hooked up to life support machines in a Fort Worth, Texas hospital, while her spouse and the hospital continue to be locked up in a court battle about whether to keep her body on the life support.

The case has caused many questions to be raised about care at the end of a person’s life and whether a woman who is pregnant is considered to be both medically and legally brain dead and should their bodies be kept on life support due to the sake of a fetus. The case has grabbed the attention of groups on both sides of the abortion debate.

Erick Munoz has stated numerous times that Marlise, who was also a paramedic like him, was very clear about her end of life wishes. She let him know that she ever happened to fall into this type of condition; she wanted any life support terminated. However, the hospital she is in has stated that it is duty bound by the state laws of Texas which forbid the withdrawal of treatment from a brain dead pregnant patient. However several experts in this field have stated that the hospital is abusing the law.

Heather King and Jessica Hall Janicek, Munoz’s lawyers, released a statement on Wednesday which told of the medical condition of the fetus, now thought to be around the 22 week gestation mark. Janicek and King stated that their findings were from medical records they had gotten from the hospital. They said that the medical records that they had been given showed that the fetus was distinctly abnormal. Even at such an early stage of development, the bottom extremities are said to be so deformed that the gender cannot even be figured out. There is also fluid building up inside the fetus’ skull and there is also a major possibility of a heart problem.

Tragically, such information as this is not at all surprising due to the fact that the fetus, after having been deprived of oxygen for an unknown amount of time, has to try and gestate within a dead body which is beginning to now deteriorate. Even worse, her horrified family has to watch this terrible scene while in distress and total anguish, the attorneys declared.

So deformed they can't even identify what sex the baby is let them go.

 

[pryncess527]

However, the hospital she is in has stated that it is duty bound by the state laws of Texas which forbid the withdrawal of treatment from a brain dead pregnant patient.

This wording bothers me. My understanding is that the law does not in any way address brain death, so the law is not compelling them to continue treatment. The law states that "you cannot withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment for a pregnant patient."

This treatment is not life-sustaining for the pregnant patient. There is serious doubt as to whether it is life sustaining for the fetus, but that doesn't even seem to be part of the law. They are not sustaining the life of the pregnant woman because she's already dead, the law does not apply. It seems crystal clear.

 

[PaulaSB12]

This wording bothers me. My understanding is that the law does not in any way address brain death, so the law is not compelling them to continue treatment. The law states that "you cannot withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment for a pregnant patient."

This treatment is not life-sustaining for the pregnant patient. There is serious doubt as to whether it is life sustaining for the fetus, but that doesn't even seem to be part of the law. They are not sustaining the life of the pregnant woman because she's already dead, the law does not apply. It seems crystal clear.

I agree and what this says of women is worrying from the moment you are pregnant you are just an incubator not a human.