Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    15 Jan '14 01:27
    http://news.msn.com/us/pregnant-brain-dead-womans-husband-sues-hospital

    Should the State be able to keep the body of a brain dead woman still functioning because she is pregnant even though she expressed wishes that she not be left on life support?

    Is this Big Government Conservatism at work again?
  2. Standard member caissad4
    Child of the Novelty
    15 Jan '14 02:40
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    http://news.msn.com/us/pregnant-brain-dead-womans-husband-sues-hospital

    Should the State be able to keep the body of a brain dead woman still functioning because she is pregnant even though she expressed wishes that she not be left on life support?

    Is this Big Government Conservatism at work again?
    Just when I think people here in Texas cannot get any more stupid they show me that I am wrong. The only precedent I can think of is that our governor has been brain dead for years. Hmmm, Texas.
  3. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    15 Jan '14 03:02 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by caissad4
    Just when I think people here in Texas cannot get any more stupid they show me that I am wrong. The only precedent I can think of is that our governor has been brain dead for years. Hmmm, Texas.
    Is this really that simple a case?

    I get that a person has a right to refuse medical treatment and that right can be expressed before the fact by a healthcare directive, but here we're talking about ending the life of the fetus to protect what? The mother's liberty interest? She's brain dead. She can't feel pain; she can't make decisions; she can't think. She will never be able to do any of those things. For all intents and purposes, she's a corpse. Does a person have the right to govern his or her own body's disposition? Perhaps. Are those rights stronger than the right to life of a now viable fetus? Doubtful.

    I'm not saying this isn't a close case. It is; but to characterize one side of this debate as being "stupid" does not ring true to me.
  4. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    15 Jan '14 03:04 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    http://news.msn.com/us/pregnant-brain-dead-womans-husband-sues-hospital

    Should the State be able to keep the body of a brain dead woman still functioning because she is pregnant even though she expressed wishes that she not be left on life support?

    Is this Big Government Conservatism at work again?
    I don't think that the value one puts on the life interest of a fetus necessarily correlates to how big one thinks government ought to be.
  5. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    15 Jan '14 03:12
    Originally posted by sh76
    I don't think that the value one puts on the life interest of a fetus necessarily correlates to how big one thinks government ought to be.
    The zero value that the Texas government puts on the dead woman's and her family's right to have made such decisions does.

    You do realize that she is actually dead, right? Brain dead IS dead.
  6. 15 Jan '14 03:23
    Originally posted by sh76
    I don't think that the value one puts on the life interest of a fetus necessarily correlates to how big one thinks government ought to be.
    Don't be ridiculous. Anyone giving a fetus value should be openly mocked and ridiculed. A fetus is lower than dirt. I can prove it because most never seem to attain a higher level of functioning.
  7. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    15 Jan '14 03:24
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    The zero value that the Texas government puts on the dead woman's and her family's right to have made such decisions does.

    You do realize that she is actually dead, right? Brain dead IS dead.
    I don't think "not enough value to justify ending the life of a viable fetus" is the same thing as "zero value."

    Assuming that brain dead is dead, that's even more of a reason to keep the machines going to preserve the life of the fetus. the mother has no more right to privacy to protect. The only rights at issue against the right to live of the fetus are the rights of to make post mortem decisions regarding one's own remains and the right to dispose of the corpse of a family member. You tell me: Are those natural rights?
  8. 15 Jan '14 03:24
    Originally posted by caissad4
    Just when I think people here in Texas cannot get any more stupid they show me that I am wrong. The only precedent I can think of is that our governor has been brain dead for years. Hmmm, Texas.
    Actually being a brain dead stooge is a criteria to serve in government, not a disqualification.
  9. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    15 Jan '14 13:11 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sh76
    I don't think "not enough value to justify ending the life of a viable fetus" is the same thing as "zero value."

    Assuming that brain dead is dead, that's even more of a reason to keep the machines going to preserve the life of the fetus. the mother has no more right to privacy to protect. The only rights at issue against the right to live of the fetus are th ...[text shortened]... nd the right to dispose of the corpse of a family member. You tell me: Are those natural rights?
    The fetus still isn't viable and it was at only 14 weeks when the woman became dead. The State is using a corpse as a vehicle to protect the non-existent "rights" of a non-viable fetus against the wishes that the woman expressed and that her husband and family have strongly asserted.

    Sure I would say your right to personal autonomy includes the right to make decisions as to what happens to your remains. Certainly that has been a decision traditionally respected by the State. And who is in a better position to assert it but the surviving family members? To say the State can use your remains as they please based on some disputed religious belief is monstrous.

    EDIT: From the article cited:

    Munoz, has been on life support since he found her unconscious in their North Texas home on Nov. 26. She was 14 weeks pregnant at the time.
  10. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    15 Jan '14 15:38
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    The fetus still isn't viable and it was at only 14 weeks when the woman became dead. The State is using a corpse as a vehicle to protect the non-existent "rights" of a non-viable fetus against the wishes that the woman expressed and that her husband and family have strongly asserted.

    Sure I would say your right to personal autonomy include ...[text shortened]... und her unconscious in their North Texas home on Nov. 26. She was 14 weeks pregnant at the time.
    She was 14 weeks pregnant on November 26. That was 7 weeks ago. 21 weeks is about on the borderline between viable and nonviable. Once the fetus is viable, the fact that the state caused her the stay alive, even wrongfully, is irrelevant. You can't kill something with a life interest because it never should have been allowed to progress that far just as Norma McCorvey was not allowed to kill her three year old after Roe v. Wade was handed down.

    As for a natural right to autonomy over one's remains, even assuming it is a right, it's still a balancing test that is not necessarily governed by the abortion line of cases. Abortion is always about balancing rights. The right to dispose of one's own remains may not be as strong a liberty interest as the right to privacy during one's own life.
  11. 15 Jan '14 16:01
    Originally posted by sh76
    She was 14 weeks pregnant on November 26. That was 7 weeks ago. 21 weeks is about on the borderline between viable and nonviable. Once the fetus is viable, the fact that the state caused her the stay alive, even wrongfully, is irrelevant. You can't kill something with a life interest because it never should have been allowed to progress that far just as Norma M ...[text shortened]... n remains may not be as strong a liberty interest as the right to privacy during one's own life.
    I kind of wonder about the actual wording of the woman's request to not be sustained in case of brain death.

    When writing wills, people make such choices in many cases because the lawyer runs through a list of choices as a matter of routine. I can't even remember all the exact choices I made or my wife made when constructing our will.

    But I do not for sure that when I discussed these choices with my wife about whether or not to sustain her in case of brain death, we absolutely did not consider the possibility that it would happen while she was pregnant. She may have checked the "do not sustain" box flippantly. I can say for sure that if my wife were pregnant and the baby was alive, she'd want to be sustained long enough to save the baby regardless of what her will might technically say.

    Did the news say that this woman knowingly decided that it would be better to kill her baby rather than sustain her long enough to save the baby? Or did she just casually check the "do not sustain" box like most of us?
  12. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    15 Jan '14 16:21
    Originally posted by techsouth
    I kind of wonder about the actual wording of the woman's request to not be sustained in case of brain death.

    When writing wills, people make such choices in many cases because the lawyer runs through a list of choices as a matter of routine. I can't even remember all the exact choices I made or my wife made when constructing our will.

    But I do not f ...[text shortened]... ough to save the baby? Or did she just casually check the "do not sustain" box like most of us?
    Her injury appears to have been sudden. It seems unlikely that she would specifically contemplate and discuss the possibility of being brain dead while pregnant, an exceedingly rare scenario. Articles I've seen say that the husband said she'd expressed a wish to be taken off life support; though I have not seen anything indicating that she is purported to have discussed the scenario of brain death while pregnant. It's very possible that a person would generally want to be taken off life support if terminally ill to avoid pain, but would also want to be kept on machines after brain death (where there is no pain) to preserve the life of her child.
  13. Standard member vivify
    rain
    15 Jan '14 16:25
    This is an interesting, but useless thread. Pro-lifers will agree that Texas has at least a defensible reason for keeping the woman alive, while pro-choice folks will argue it's completely wrong.

    End thread.
  14. 15 Jan '14 16:30
    Originally posted by sh76
    Her injury appears to have been sudden. It seems unlikely that she would specifically contemplate and discuss the possibility of being brain dead while pregnant, an exceedingly rare scenario. Articles I've seen say that the husband said she'd expressed a wish to be taken off life support; though I have not seen anything indicating that she is purported to have ...[text shortened]... e kept on machines after brain death (where there is no pain) to preserve the life of her child.
    Yeah, I checked out some news sources. She had a traumatic injury and most likely never contemplated being on life support while pregnant. I'd bet that if I polled 100 women who have ever been pregnant, that 95+ would want to be kept alive if it would save the baby. Also, I'll bet that none of them say that in a will.

    Interesting that no news sources seem to be interested in this angle.

    From where I'm sitting, this is all the more reason to sustain the woman until the baby can be given a good chance to make it.
  15. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    15 Jan '14 17:29
    Originally posted by vivify
    This is an interesting, but useless thread. Pro-lifers will agree that Texas has at least a defensible reason for keeping the woman alive, while pro-choice folks will argue it's completely wrong.

    End thread.
    Aside from being an intellectually lazy way of looking at it, that's also false. I'm pro-choice and I think that Texas' reason for keeping the woman alive is defensible.