Texan woman kept artificially alive due to pregnancy

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/01/09/dead-woman-incubate-fetus/


Part of the message is hidden for the guests. Please log in or register to see it.

This entire situation is completely screwed up. There is so much wrong with this.

• ignoring someone's specific wishes re: bodily autonomy
• ignoring the wishes of next-of-kin re: bodily autonomy
• disregarding the possible medical and legal ramifications of incubating a fetus in a legally dead body
• showcasing their complete and total inability to interpret law in a consistent fashion

Ah, the life of the baby is what's complicating things....it's , in a sense, murder to let it die just to honor the wishes of anyone...this is why a living will is so important, and why stipulations should be considered....

You should check out my apprenticeship lesson on anencephalic babies...there are ,unfortunately, ocassional situations that have no easy solution...one has to weigh the options carefully and decide, then be willing to live with that decision...

These are situations where I think the lines of light/dark and right/wrong are often blurred. I really don't feel comfortable sharing my thoughts on this, but I'm sure there is more to the story that what the media is saying. They have a bad habit of taking a very biased view these days, so I don't put much stock in what I read in the media anymore.

I disagree with this I think. I dont believe a hospital would be able to provide the proper nutrients via IV and I feel like it will have pyscological issues without the mother being around that long. If the family of the unborn child can say it should not happen then that should be that. They would be the people who cared the most and would have to care for it. This is a sad situation all the way around. One can't really imagine or sympathize. May the Force be with them

I think, ultimately, the best solution would be to attempt to save the child and let the mother go (personally, which many may not agree with.)

I also think, ultimately, that it's a ridiculous oversight of science that this sort of thing can't be easily or readily done, or that it hasn't been done commonly enough for it to be considered an option, and that sort of infuriates me just a little.

I find it interesting that because of the actions of a few doctors, the legal department and the approval of the person in charge of a privately owned medical institution an entire state and a law is demonized.

Laws do not always keep up with medical technology and laws cannot be written to cover ever situation. Perhaps we should have fewer laws and more common sense! I noticed that in each article I read (and I researched this) the unborn child was referred to as a fetus. Some made arguments as to when the child obtains legal protection and there was one author that argued the legal protect a fetus doesn’t have under the constitution. Umm... it is a state law, not federal.

If a DNR was signed then there would be legal grounds for accusations of rights violation.

Where the story sounds odd and does not make complete since, I have the feeling there are things left out of it. This has the feel of something use in a smear campaign.

Perhaps the title should read, “Doctors try to save unborn child.”
Or, “State held accountable for the interpretation of a law by a private institution.”

What I think the title would be if the author was honest, “Fear tactics and slander used to support bias agenda at the expense of the misfortunes of others.”

Wescli Wardest wrote: What I think the title would be if the author was honest,

eh, I'm already dishonest. no loss there

hahahahha :laugh:

I was not refering to the title you gave the thread sidvkili. I meant the authors that wrote their articles. :whistle:

I know, .

poor sods though....that's really all I can say