Fetus of brain dead pregnant woman, "Deformed" and "Abnormal"

trollz

FriedBabelBroccoli
The irony of you using other people's feelings being hurt to justify the dignity of the dead woman and aborting the fetus . . .

...Except that I didn't do that.
You asked something along the lines of "Who would care about a dead woman's dignity?", to which I responded that her family would. That was in response to something you said, not me. Are you debating the assertion that her family cares about her dignity? Am I incorrect in assuming her family cares?

I'm making it a point to express my opinion that I believe the child should be left to die, as would be natural, rather than keeping it alive just because some people would be offended by letting it die. That opinion has nothing to do with my response to your question.
Yes, some people would be offended by the child being allowed to die. Yes, her family probably cares about her dignity. You have two opposing sides involved in this story... There's nothing ironic about pointing out the obvious.

My statement was in regard to the family caring about her dignity having anything to do with the decision to be made in regards to pulling the plug or not. A difference in perception of the context as I agree that her family probably does care about her dignity, but the irony came from my perception that you were including it as somehow being relevant to the decision making process.

-FBB

bigfatfurrytexan
I share his opinion; he was dead. he was meant to die. The system that demanded extraordinary measures to save him should now be burdened with providing for him.

This is a major point of contention to what Year1 and my viewpoint is. Year1 seems fine with accepting that responsibility. I do not. Thus, you get the gist of my somewhat hyperbolized response.

Do we care to split hairs, or just eat broccoli?

ETA: clarifying my uncles condition: he spent 5 months in a coma, and continues to suffer from ischemic damage to his legs, thus making him incapable of walking. Being 6'6", it isn't likely he'll regain his feet.

edit on 1/23/2014 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)

So you make a proclamation to ATS that Year1 is going to provide for the fetus because your uncle was in a bike accident and you are upset that he is still alive?

Mark this, everyone. User Year1, on their second post on ATS, has offered to provide care for this child if it lives to term.

Okay . . . .

I think I am starting to agree more and more with trollz about mentally retarded people being aborted.

-FBB

windword
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

 

The mother is brain dead and cutting the life support would result in the death of the fetus. Abortion is indeed the correct term to be used here.

Abortion is a medical procedure, performed with the purpose of ejecting a fetus from a living woman's womb. Unplugging a machine that is keeping a "corpse" alive, stopping life support to the body of dead woman serving as a human incubator, uterus donor, is not abortion. The natural death of a pregnant woman, resulting in the death of the fetus is not abortion.

I should apologize as I linked you to the wrong definition (how embarrassing). I meant to link you to abort in the meaning I was using it but ended up linking you to the medical procedure of abortion.
Abort
www.merriam-webster.com...

Full Definition of ABORT
intransitive verb
1: to bring forth stillborn, nonviable, or premature offspring
2: to become checked in development so as to degenerate or remain rudimentary
3: to terminate a procedure prematurely

Discontinuing CPR, because of the patient is non-responsive isn't murder, and allowing her fetus to die isn't abortion.
No one has the "right" to demand or expect to be saved by extraordinary and extreme measures, especially with someone else's money and means. What we do to save lives and better the quality of life for the disenfranchised is altruistic. It's voluntary and charitable, not forced by robbing other's of peace of mind, dignity and free will.

So you are saying that people should not expect to have their healthcare subsidized by others?

Okay thank you for that sentiment . . . I guess. I sure wish you expressed this same sentiment in other threads regarding women's health being subsidized by others, but that is a topic for a different thread.

-FBB

I did notice in this thread and the other thread, many people view ending life support as an abortion.
I don't see it in that way.

You cross a very dangerous line once you start allowing the State to control the medical care of a pregnant woman. What next, no chemo if a woman is pregnant, forced flu shots, jail time for not eating certain foods?

So you make a proclamation to ATS that Year1 is going to provide for the fetus because your uncle was in a bike accident and you are upset that he is still alive?

If that is what you took out of what i posted, fine. I have neither the time nor desire to take part in your dishonest discourse.

Okay . . . .

I think I am starting to agree more and more with trollz about mentally retarded people being aborted.

-FBB

You don't say...

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

So you are saying that people should not expect to have their healthcare subsidized by others?

Now who's putting words in other people's mouths?

Perhaps you should consider aborting this type of argument.

reply to post by muse7


We are all deformed and abnormal in the eyes of YHWH hebrew god and arch enemy devil fallen angel god.


Fukem if they cant take a joke.

windword
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

 

So you are saying that people should not expect to have their healthcare subsidized by others?

Now who's putting words in other people's mouths?

Perhaps you should consider aborting this type of argument.

edit on 24-1-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)

The definition of subsidize:
www.merriam-webster.com...

sub·si·dize
transitive verb \ˈsəb-sə-ˌdīz, -zə-\
: to help someone or something pay for the costs of (something)

Your quote;

No one has the "right" to demand or expect to be saved by extraordinary and extreme measures, especially with someone else's money and means.

That is literally the definition of subsidize. You spewed the words from your own mouth . . . or are you saying this woman or her husband never once paid taxes and so they would be receiving a full ride without any contribution?

-FBB

TheToastmanCometh
reply to post by intrepid

 

Sounds like it, Wolverine.

That's why I'm not having any children, and if I'm braindead, make me fully dead any way possible.

Stake through the chest?

Haha im sorry i couldn't resist

I really do sympathise with the father for being in such a terrible situation, but do you want to know what really bugs me?

People dont seem to be giving him any consideration when it comes to the simple fact that, if his baby survives, he will be a single parent. That alone will either make him or break him - He should have a say.

reply to post by muse7


That article is meant to tug at your emotions. Doesn't really tell the whole story.

My feeling on it is this : Let them both die.

It's the right thing to do. But something tells me there's a bit more to this story. The hospital is probably reluctant to pull the plug because they don't want the family coming back and suing them.And believe me they will. Shouldn't even be in the news. This should've been kept private. It stinks of a setup of a lawsuit by the family. Just my opinion.

I propose a new way to look at parentage and rights of both parents regarding children. Mother has %60 say. Father has %30. Grandparent share the remaining %10. This way if mom cant consent to abortion the family can. Also no one can out say the mom as it is her body. Thoughts?

Me:
Discontinuing CPR, because of the patient is non-responsive isn't murder, and allowing her fetus to die isn't abortion.
No one has the "right" to demand or expect to be saved by extraordinary and extreme measures, especially with someone else's money and means. What we do to save lives and better the quality of life for the disenfranchised is altruistic. It's voluntary and charitable, not forced by robbing other's of peace of mind, dignity and free will.

You
So you are saying that people should not expect to have their healthcare subsidized by others?

HERE ^^ You are putting words in my mouth.

No one has the "inalienable right" to expect or demand extraordinary and extreme measures be taken to save ones life. This case is an example of extreme and extraordinary, "heroic" measures being taken to save one "potential" life.

You
So you are saying that people should not expect to have their healthcare subsidized by others?

The definition of subsidize:
www.merriam-webster.com...

sub·si·dize
transitive verb \ˈsəb-sə-ˌdīz, -zə-\
: to help someone or something pay for the costs of (something)

Your quote;
"No one has the "right" to demand or expect to be saved by extraordinary and extreme measures, especially with someone else's money and means."

That is literally the definition of subsidize. You spewed the words from your own mouth . . . or are you saying this woman or her husband never once paid taxes and so they would be receiving a full ride without any contribution?

-FBB

This subsidy would be tax money? Do you think that you have the right to expect tax money to keep you alive in the event of some accident, even though the odds of your survival are abysmal, and the costs are astronomical.

Who do you think is going to pay for this? The woman is dead, so I doubt that her insurance will pick up the bill. Pre-natal insurance? Well, in most cases, insurance won't pay for experimental procedures. Now, seeing how this law has been in effect in no less than 13 states, and on the Texas books since the 1990's, and only 2 twin babies have survived this scenario nationally, and only 3 globally, I doubt that insurance will see this as a viable cost. That leaves the state of Texas (taxpayers) holding the bag, or spending valuable resources suing the insurance company.

Insurance companies deny life saving procedures every day. Sometimes based on viability, like organ transplants that are only given to the most optimum cases, or based on "experimentation", etc.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out in court. Hopefully, the court will clarify a distinction between "brain dead" and "vegetative states", so that this may not be so painful for families in the future.

John Peter Smith Hospital has said Texas law prohibits it from ending "life-sustaining treatment" of a pregnant patient. Some medical and legal experts have said the hospital is misconstruing and misapplying the law.

A court hearing is scheduled for Friday. Munoz, also a paramedic, has sued to force the hospital to disconnect life support and return his wife's body to her family. He argues that the state statue regarding pregnant patients "does not apply to the dead."

"Were that to be true, then it would be incumbent upon all health care providers to immediately conduct pregnancy tests on any woman of childbearing age who becomes deceased, and upon determining the deceased body was pregnant, hooking the body up to machines in an attempt to continue gestation," the attorneys' statement reads. "Surely, such a result was never intended nor should it be inferred."

www.usatoday.com...

reply to post by windword


you don't need to defend your assertion that FBB is putting words in folks mouths. The same moron tried to say that I wanted my uncle dead. LOL, that user is going to be a real peach if they make it to the next election cycle.

muse7
It's just surprising to me, that a lot of people thought this fetus would develop into a healthy baby, it was deprived of oxygen for an unknown amount of time and has been developing inside a decaying body.

The reason people - including most of the doctors - said that the baby was probably developing healthy is because most of the 'dead' women who give birth to children have healthy children and no one knows for sure just how long the baby may have been without oxygen. (those stats are on a previous thread). Side note - the body of the woman isn't decaying.

The law says they can't unplug a pregnant woman on life support.

I don't know if these medical reports will change that or not. I would think that by the time the courts hear the case to get the law changed, then the baby will already be born. (born alive or dead ... either way) The woman is more than 5 1/2 months pregnant and a child is viable outside the womb as early as 6 months ...

It's a sad case ... I feel for everyone involved.

FlyersFan
It's a sad case ... I feel for everyone involved.

I second that emotion. There's pain a plenty to go around in the world. I hope that the situation resolves itself as painlessly as possible. May random chance favor the family and all involved.

reply to post by FlyersFan

The reason people - including most of the doctors - said that the baby was probably developing healthy is because most of the 'dead' women who give birth to children have healthy children and no one knows for sure just how long the baby may have been without oxygen. (those stats are on a previous thread).

Do you have a link for that thread and those stats?

So I would think this family would not want the expense or " burden" of caring for a special needs child. We're just a hassle, not really wanted. That's the cold hard truth.

edit on 23-1-2014 by violet because: (no reason given)

I'm so sad to read this - and I couldn't disagree more. We had a special needs son for just 6 years, and he brought us enough joy for a lifetime. I would never trade my time with him for anything in the world, and I would trade the rest of my life just to get one more day with him.

Yes it was hard, but he was most certainly not a burden. He was worth everything it took. I learned more from him than any other person on the planet, and I was at my best when I was caring for him. His brothers and his father and I still miss him and talk about him all the time - it's been a little over 4 years, and I still don't go a day without thinking of him.

He was not just a hassle, and he was absolutely really wanted. It just kills me to read that you feel this way - I hope you reconsider your worth. You are priceless, and most definitely worth it.

reply to post by followingpythagoras


Special needs....that isn't the same as a child born missing the majority of its brain. Incapable of interaction.

I have worked with special needs kids in the past. I agree completely that it is a rewarding and enriching experience. Downs Syndrome, in particular.

Vegetative state isn't really a good name for what it is. It is a mindless being. Human genetically, but not quite human by any real measure of the taxonomy.

ETA: that last sentence feels harsh. For that I apologize.

Now that the fetus is already growing up deformed they should pull the plug.

Here is a video with George Carlin and abortion.