- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Judge orders brain-dead pregnant woman removed from ventilator
Posted on 1/24/14 at 6:29 pm to catholictigerfan
Posted on 1/24/14 at 6:29 pm to catholictigerfan
quote:
than by your logic we should go into mental institutions and kill all those who hare physical and mental malformations
this is only a valid analogy if you are talking about those who are institutionalized because their mothers were kept alive on ventilators against her wishes and the wishes of those who have the authority to make decisions on her behalf.
1
Posted on 1/24/14 at 6:29 pm to NoHoTiger
quote:
second; disagree...the husband/father did not want medical intervention and that should have been honored. The woman had a DNR and that should also have been honored. The state should not have interfered.
the pregnancy changes everything though, because there is another human person involved nothing should be done that puts at risk the life of another human being. If the woman had legal procedures that would prevent hospitals from keeping her alive than after the baby can be deliver she should be allowed to die. Because she is pregnant the life of the other person shouldn't be sacrificed.
legally she should die
but I have huge moral issues with this.
Human life > non government intervention philosophy.
Posted on 1/24/14 at 6:29 pm to NoHoTiger
quote:
This is more of a the-state-should-keep-it's-nose-out-of-my-business issue.
I was on the fence on this issue with a potential life involved in this. If she wasn't pregnant, I'd support her being taken off life support. From what I've read, the couple didn't plan accordingly for her DNR in the event of being brain dead.
The baby made things complicated as hell, it's a potential life still inside of the woman. We have no idea if the woman would like to be taken off life support even with being pregnant so I had to assume that she would object to it and consider it murder of the child to take her off life support but that doesn't matter without a written and recorded request from her. I wanted to let nature take its course with the pregnancy and ironically I still have that same position since its clear that the baby is not viable.
Viability was the issue for me in this case.
Posted on 1/24/14 at 6:30 pm to BlackHelicopterPilot
quote:
That's because my desire to stalk you overrides that fear of the restraining order you served on me!
Woo Hoo my very own stalker. Doing very well, thank you. Hope you are also well.
PS: Get your Advanced Care Directives in order
Posted on 1/24/14 at 6:32 pm to NoHoTiger
quote:
The woman had a DNR and that should also have been honored.
Did the DNR specify what should happen if she was pregnant at the time too? That's a grey area IMO.
Posted on 1/24/14 at 6:33 pm to NoHoTiger
quote:
PS: Get your Advanced Care Directives in order
No kidding.
Sheeesh...I sure hope that no one wants to keep me alive beyond my wishes (and that of Mrs. BHP) just so they can harvest something.
We should have no idea that this was even going on. this is a private tragedy and it should be decided privately.
Their wishes should be honored and that is it
Posted on 1/24/14 at 6:36 pm to catholictigerfan
quote:
because there is another human person involved nothing should be done that puts at risk the life of another human being.
the woman's death put the fetus at risk. If left up to nature, the fetus would also die since it was not at the point of viability.
quote:
Because she is pregnant the life of the other person shouldn't be sacrificed.
Her pregnancy did not put another life at risk, her death did.
quote:
but I have huge moral issues with this.
Neither you, the government, nor any other person should be passing moral judgement on this woman or her husband. They had already made their decision regarding life support, that decision was furthered by the husband, and should have been respected without state interference.
quote:
Human life > non government intervention philosophy.
I disagree. The government should not interfere in the husband's wishes for his wife. It sets up a precedent for government intervention where one should never be allowed.
Posted on 1/24/14 at 6:37 pm to catholictigerfan
quote:
legally she should die
but I have huge moral issues with this.
Human life > non government intervention philosophy.
The woman is dead. To use a dead woman /cadaver/corpse to harvest an abnormal blob of fetal tissue , against her wishes, is the only morally repugnant thing I see.
Posted on 1/24/14 at 6:39 pm to Sentrius
quote:
From what I've read, the couple didn't plan accordingly for her DNR in the event of being brain dead.
Which is why the husband was consulted. His decision should have been the final decision and respected.
quote:
We have no idea if the woman would like to be taken off life support even with being pregnant so I had to assume that she would object to it and consider it murder of the child to take her off life support but that doesn't matter without a written and recorded request from her.
This is why even with a DNR someone else has to make the final call. Her husband did.
quote:
Viability was the issue for me in this case
And I respect this, but this isn't your issue to deal with or handle. It was her husband's and he made the decision.
Posted on 1/24/14 at 6:40 pm to Sentrius
quote:
Did the DNR specify what should happen if she was pregnant at the time too? That's a grey area IMO
It doesn't matter. Her husband has the final say as her next of kin. He made his decision and the state should not have stepped in.
Posted on 1/24/14 at 6:40 pm to NoHoTiger
quote:
s not a patient. All treatments were to the dead person. This should never have been an issue; the state should never have gotten involved; it was the husband/father's decision. Regardless of how you personally feel, his decisions should have been honored WITHOUT interference from the state
Explain that to the doctor or nurse that unplugs her when a DA with a hard-on and greater aspirations rolls up.
The ruling protects the hospital and its staff.
Posted on 1/24/14 at 6:44 pm to catholictigerfan
quote:If that is the way you see my statement, fine.
than by your logic we should go into mental institutions and kill all those who hare physical and mental malformations.
This fetus has severe malformations of the lower extremities and genitals to the point where they can't even confirm its sex. There are countless physical issues that arise out of that one aspect alone. Then, you take into account the hydrocephalus and the congenital syndromes that it is commonly involved with and this infant would have spent its life in and out of the hospital.
That doesn't take into account the possible mental retardation associated with it as well.
Look, it isn't a happy situation no matter what side you choose, but I do believe that they are showing this infant mercy. IMO, keeping this fetus alive is the equivalent of using every means necessary to keep an elderly individual alive, no matter how they are physically or mentally.
It is selfish. But that is just my opinion. The side I support could be deemed selfish as well for allowing it to die.
This post was edited on 1/24/14 at 6:47 pm
Posted on 1/24/14 at 6:49 pm to udtiger
quote:
Explain that to the doctor or nurse that unplugs her when a DA with a hard-on and greater aspirations rolls up.
And herein lies part of the problem. Conflating the issues when not needed. This is an issue that should have been decided solely by the husband and that decision honored.
Posted on 1/24/14 at 6:52 pm to catholictigerfan
quote:
the pregnancy changes everything though, because there is another human person involved
No there is not. No amount of you wishing this was true makes it true.
quote:
Because she is pregnant the life of the other person shouldn't be sacrificed.
Another person's life was not sacrificed.
Be happy for this woman and her husband. Her death turned into a three-ring circus thanks to people like you who meddled into her affairs.
For shame.
Posted on 1/24/14 at 6:56 pm to NoHoTiger
quote:
this is only a valid analogy if you are talking about those who are institutionalized because their mothers were kept alive on ventilators against her wishes and the wishes of those who have the authority to make decisions on her behalf.
so your telling me you know that the fetus is human person and you ok with giving him/her a death sentence because of some legal code. Mercy means nothing in this situation because you think it is ok for a legal code to kill someone even if innocent.
or you are saying that the fetus isn't human and that it doesn't matter
or you could be saying that we should kill the fetus due to mercy because if the fetus should be allowed to live than it would have a miserable life so we would be doing it a favor. By that same logic mercy killing can be applied to any living human being who is mentally or physically handicap.
the problem with the first option, IMO, is that even if a patient has a DNR and is pregnant, that DNR should be removed because there is a second life at stake, the second life trumps the DNR, if the fetus is living and will live through the pregnancy you should do what ever you can to keep it alive, even if that means violating a DNR order.
the problem with the second one is that a fetus is a human person, the only think you can bring into question is it's personhood does it have rights.
the third one is the issue I brought up with the logic.
the correct course of action (not taking into account the legal system, because legality can't determine morality) is determined in one of three ways
the fetus is either not a person or doesn't have rights meaning DNR should be applied
or
the fetus does have rights and the women should be kept alive in order to protect the fetus.
you may disagree but I think I can reason with you to show you one of these two options is the only two. I think every reasonable human being believes that no innocent human should be killed to protect the rights of another human being. If this women has a will that has a DNR it should only be violated if another human being would be killed if that DNR was allowed to stay.
Posted on 1/24/14 at 6:59 pm to asurob1
quote:
Another person's life was not sacrificed.
Be happy for this woman and her husband. Her death turned into a three-ring circus thanks to people like you who meddled into her affairs.
For shame.
0f course you would say this
if the fetus is a person than yes my statement is correct.
Posted on 1/24/14 at 7:00 pm to catholictigerfan
quote:
if the fetus is living and will live through the pregnancy
this creates a biological-existential question: what is "the pregnancy" when teh host is dead?
we wouldn't be having this discussion 15-20 years ago, because the fetus would clearly be considered non-viable
this is similar to allowing an elderly person to die when medical care may save the person
Posted on 1/24/14 at 7:03 pm to NoHoTiger
quote:
Which is why the husband was consulted. His decision should have been the final decision and respected.
I disagree.
If it was clear the baby was viable and had a good chance of being born healthy, I would've supported bringing the pregnancy to term.
quote:
This is why even with a DNR someone else has to make the final call. Her husband did.
When the patient(s) are clearly dead, yes.
When there's a potential life inside of her and it's clearly viable and there's nothing on the DNR regarding this issue, the state should have an interest in taking steps to protect that.
quote:
It was her husband's and he made the decision.
Not when it comes to viability IMO.
IMO, I believe the right to determine viability should shift from the mom to qualified doctors when it was determined she was brain dead and once they determine the baby was not viable, it's all on the husband.
This whole story is so full of grey areas and that's what makes it such a clusterfrick.
quote:
It doesn't matter. Her husband has the final say as her next of kin. He made his decision and the state should not have stepped in.
See above.
Posted on 1/24/14 at 7:05 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:That is exactly what it is. There are countless instances where people choose to extend the lives of their parents or grandparents because they simply can't let them go. That isn't helping them. That is helping yourself.
this is similar to allowing an elderly person to die when medical care may save the person
I will state though, had this infant been healthy and wasn't malformed, I'd probably be on the other side of the aisle.
It is the same debate as the viability issue for me. These issues aren't a simple "yes" or "no", imo. There are many variables involved.
Posted on 1/24/14 at 7:06 pm to Scruffy
quote:
Look, it isn't a happy situation no matter what side you choose, but I do believe that they are showing this infant mercy. IMO, keeping this fetus alive is the equivalent of using every means necessary to keep an elderly individual alive, no matter how they are physically or mentally.
It is selfish. But that is just my opinion. The side I support could be deemed selfish as well for allowing it to die.
this is something I need to take into consideration
but I still don't think it is enough to kill it. You are forcing your own view point on this living human person. I have no issue with allowing an elderly person to die by removing a breathing tube, a DNR, removing other life supports. But this is because a legal guardian or the person itself says DNR.
this is a complex issue I just hold the side that human dignity matters and not quality of life. The rights of the fetus that I believe should be had trumps the rights of the women have a DNR.
I've made my points and will no longer argue this have a good night.
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News