In November of 2013 a young woman, Marlise Munoz, had a blood clot in her lung and collapsed to the kitchen floor. When she was taken to a Texas hospital she was put on life support but later pronounced brain dead. Being brain dead is considered synonymous with no longer being alive. By all medical and legal standards, Marlise was now dead. But Marlise was also 14 weeks pregnant. Her husband and parents both wanted Marlise removed from life-support and said it was also Marlise’s wish should such an event ever occur. The hospital said no, citing a Texas law that states, “A person may not withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment under this subchapter from a pregnant patient.” There are several links below to articles related to this story. Read them and then decide for yourself if Marlise should have been removed from life support as the husband and family requested or if the hospital did the right thing in an attempt to save the fetus. You can feel free to use any other sources for information as well. The point is that you make an informed decision. Be sure to write professionally and be respectful in your posts and responses – no matter what you opinion is, we are talking about a tragic situation here.
In the end, you should have one original post with your opinion on what should be done in this case and at least one response to someone else’s post.
Due: Sunday 1/26/14 at 11:59:59 PM
Anderson Cooper 360 (a 10 minute video segment debating the issue)
When a patient is brain dead, she is dead. There is no disputing this. Since her life has ended, her end-of-life choice to be taken off of life support must be honored, regardless of her situation. People cannot make the argument that she would have wanted to keep her fetus alive, because they don’t know her stance on an issue like this. There is no way an issue like this could have been predicted, so this must be tackled from an ethical point of view. From an ethical standpoint, it is not right to keep a dead person alive against family’s wishes, first of all. Second of all, it is not ethical to allow a fetus to grow abnormally, knowing that it will die and or have major medical complications in the future. There is no denying that, even if the baby lives until full term, it will suffer greatly in life. How can the hospital, fully knowing this, allow the baby to continue developing? Its life won’t actually be a life. Most likely, if the baby is even born alive, it will suffer and die very quickly. If not, it will endure many long term medical issues that will seriously impair its ability to live a happy life. Just for the sake of this deformed baby being born, the hospital is willing to ignore and agonize Marlise Munoz’s family, as well as ruining the baby’s potential future. There is no way it is healthy to raise a baby in a dead body. Although the baby might be getting oxygen and basic survival, it does not have the proper nutrition and stimulation it needs from the mother in order to properly develop. There is no way this baby will be born properly. With that, I believe that Marlise needs to be taken off of life support, to honor her wishes and her family, in addition to saving the deformed fetus a lifetime of agony, if it lives that long.
I agree with Shraddha, in that it is ethically unacceptable to allow a baby that is likely to die or major medical complications be born merely for the hospital to avoid any legal issues. This will harm not only the baby, but also the family who will have to pay the plethora of medical bills that are sure to come. The hospital is only prolonging the family’s agony, by not allowing them to properly grieve. So hopefully the court will allow the family’s wishes to be honored.
I see your argument from an ethical standpoint, but you have to remember the hospital is keeping her body on life support due to a law. The hospital cannot legally remove her body from life support because it is sustaining life. And also, you cannot know how serious the problems the baby will have are. They could be life ruining as you suggested, or they could be fixable. Even if the baby is born with a long-term medical condition, isn’t that better than never being born? I don’t think all babies with heart murmurs, HIV, anencephaly, or other such abnormalities should not be given a chance to live life.
From an ethical standpoint, it is also not right to take away the life of a human being—no matter if they are healthy or are sick and have disabilities. I disagree with the point that it is unethical to allow a child to continue to develop in the womb, even if the parents are aware that it will face medical challenges and possible death. By saying this, are we then accusing other families who find out during pregnancy that their baby will face medical complications and choose to allow the baby to live of being unethical? I feel that you are basing your “medical explanations” more on personal beliefs than actual fact. I do believe that a family should honor one’s wishes of being taken off of life support. However, when the case involves a second life, and when there was no previous wish legally recorded to terminate a second life, the state law must be upheld and enforced.
Mrs. Munoz should be taken off of life support. My three reasons are: she is no longer alive, the baby is not the patient, and the baby WILL suffer if it is ever born.
When Mrs. Munoz collapsed on the floor of her kitchen and was taken to the hospital, she was declared brain dead. By both legal and medical definition, when a patient is declared brain dead, they are no longer alive. They are no longer a patient, they are a corpse. The Texas law that is being referenced relates only to live patients, those that are in a vegetative state or otherwise comatose. The law was created to protect against the deaths of babies that are close to birth when their mother goes comatose. That is to say 36 to 40 weeks pregnant. When Mrs. Munoz died, the baby was 14 months pregnant.
14 months is within the legal limit for a mother to have an abortion. That is to say, if Mrs. Munoz had not dropped dead that day in November, she could have legally walked into an abortion clinic and had an abortion. LEGALLY. But as soon as she died, the hospital decided that killing the baby would be an unlawful abortion. Also, proponents of keeping Mrs. Munoz on the life support argue that the baby is now the patient. This is an incorrect assumption; the body being kept working is that of Mrs. Munoz, the body of the baby is being kept barely alive indirectly because of the machines keeping its mother alive. The baby is not the patient, the law does not apply to it, the life support should be removed from the mother because she is dead.
Lastly, the baby is horrifyingly deformed. If the baby does end up being born, its life will be short, and painful. Babies are meant to develop inside living mothers, an important part of the process are the hormones released by the brain of the mother. This baby is developing inside a brain dead mother, so we don’t even know if the baby is getting any of those hormones that it needs. We already know that it has excess fluid on the brain, an unidentified heart condition, and lower limbs so deformed that the doctors are unable to identify its gender. At 25 weeks pregnant, gender is usually determinable. That’s how deformed this baby is.
Mrs. Munoz is dead and she should be allowed to rest.
Are you sure that they poor little fetus is not the patient? Who determines that? Doctors take an oath at the begining of their carrer to uphold a number of professional ethical standards and practice medicine honestly. Ethically, all life is worthy of being saved and the doctors in that Texas hospital have taken it upon themselves to take care of this child who’s mother has died and has been rejected by the rest of it’s family. The child does have some deformities and issues, but most children do have issues or some sort of disability these days and you don’t see people going around and pulling the plug on them. So they shouldn’t pulll the plug on this child.
Thank you for correctly identifying that this law does not apply to the fetus. The clause in question solely regards the mother, and is intended to keep a LIVING person alive long enough for the fetus to be viable. Whether or not one believes that this unviable fetus is a patient is completely irrelevant to the case, and while that may be an ethically correct statement, the fact that the case went to the courts means that the doctors beliefs will not effect the outcome.
I fully concord with your ideas on removing Marlise Munoz from life support. All three reasons you mentioned prove that this case is merely a way for Texas to impose its pro-life beliefs on the Munoz family and not commit an abortion. As you pointed out, the weak argument that the baby is the patient falls apart when truly the life support machines are keeping a dead corpse warm and hospitable. Therefore, the baby is indirectly helped and the law is no longer applicable since Marlise is dead. Additionally, the unborn fetus will surely be victimized if it is ever miraculously born. It already suffers from horrifying deformities that are likely to become worse and will make life for it brutal if it ever comes out of the womb successfully. Clearly, no one has given thought to who might care for this child throughout its life or how enjoyable that life may be. There lies no other choice than to respect Marlise and her family’s wishes and remove her dead body from life support.
In my opinion, they should take Marlise off life support. She has clearly stated that if a situation like this were to arise, that she would want herself taken off of life support. It doesn’t matter under what conditions because she didn’t specify, but she simply stated one thing that she wanted honored, and it clearly was not. You cannot assume that if she was still alive that she would still want the baby. Under the conditions, the baby would be so deformed and it wouldn’t be fair to bring it into the world against their wishes. How would they raise it? They can’t even tell the gender through the deformities and it was deprived of oxygen for a good time, in addition to the hydrocephalus it is suffering. It would have a hard life, and the family has declared they don’t want it. So who will raise it? The state that kept it alive against the family’s will? From the people that know her best, her parents and own husband, I’m sure she had confided in them about personal opinions so that they would know her best and know what she would do. The hospital knows nothing about her except her medical records, and her family knows everything. So why not respect the family and their decision for their own kin? It’s rude in my opinion. Also, a body isn’t just a vessel to raise a child. She’s a person first, not a vessel to grow a child. They shouldn’t treat her as one. In addition, who is paying for the growing medical bills? It isn’t ethical to bill the family because their decision is not being honored, and if it were their choice, they wouldn’t have any more of this growing hospital bill. Overall, the state is doing an injustice to the family by being extremely disrespectful, and they should follow the wishes of the family and take Mrs. Munoz off life support.
Exactly! The hospital’s effort’s seem fruitless. Not only are they burdening the family financially, but they are also disadvantaging the fetus by giving it a life of suffering. If this fetus comes to term and is delivered dead, then the family will mostly likely suffer more trauma. I agree 100% that the state commits an injustice, especially since it deprives the family an opportunity to properly grieve. They should release her body from life support!
I agree with you, as keeping Marlise on life support is unethical. Keeping someone on life support can cost up to $10,000 dollars a day. The very least it will cost is $2,000 dollars a day. Marlise has been on life support since November. Most families do not have the money to pay that much money a day for 3 months. To make the family pay the hospital bill is not fair, as they had said that they did not want to keep her on life support back in November. By keeping Marlise on life support, her family suffers more. She should be taken off of life support.
In my opinion, a few reasons make it seem unethical to sustain a dead body on life support to continue the “survival” of a fetus . First, and foremost, the hospital in Texas simply prolongs a family’s suffering, especially when the said dead patient wished to not be on life support. Secondly, there is a strong possibility that this fetus will be born either dead or with many physical and, or mental disabilities.
Many may argue that if Marlise, the dead woman, had known that a situation such as this had the chance of occurring, she would not have wished to be taken off of life support; however, many of these people did not know Marlise the way her family does. They can assume many things about the decisions that this woman may have wanted to take if she could have fathomed that a situation like this had the possibility to arise, but they can not know more than her family would know. The hospital should respect the wishes of this woman and honor her last wishes.
People claim that any mother would wish for her baby to have the opportunity to survive if anything detrimental were to occur to her. However, many mothers and wives would not wish for either their children or their family to suffer in any sort of way. By keeping the body on life support, the grieving family now faces court dates, financial burdens,the loss of a proper funeral, and worst of all they must watch as a beloved one deteriorates away while being kept artificially “alive”. Although it may seem crude to point out, the hospital should assess the long term consequences. A father would not wish to abandon a newborn child; however, if this fetus births into this world alive, it will have many ailments accompanying it. With the previous hospital bills, court bills, and a previous child, it may be nearly impossible to pay for a new and extremely ill child. A mother and wife would never wish anything of this nature upon her family!
In addition to taking Marlise’s last wishes into account, the hospital should also take into account the developing health of the unborn child. Although the baby is receiving nutrients from machines and other sources, the fetus continually suffers with many abnormalities. It is true that they service this baby by bringing it to life, but they will bring the fetus into a life that will most likely be full of agony. Also, there is a very strong possibility that this baby may not even survive birth. The birth of a stillborn baby after many months of strenuous effort to keep it going would be very harmful to the emotional status of Marlise’s family. This decision is not only unfair to Marlise’s family, but also to the fetus.
The hospital should release Marlise’s body from life support to honor her last wishes,to finally allow the family a chance at grieving and properly lay Marlise’s body to rest, and to save the fetus from a life of pain and suffering.
I agree that Marlise wouldn’t wish this upon her whole family. The hospital shouldn’t deliver this to the husband, and force him to raise a child that the state demanded be kept alive. It’s a burden upon him, just as you stated! Their wishes should be honored and this shouldn’t even be a court case.
I personally believe that Marlise should be taken off life support. After being declared brain dead, which essentially translates to literal death, it’s clear that Marlise will not be able to give her opinion on the subject of whether or not she should be kept on life support while pregnant. However, not only did she previously state her wish to stay off life support, but also her family and husband have clearly expressed their opposition towards the hospital’s decision. There are many consequences to allowing Marlise to stay on life support, both morally, psychologically, and medically. Morally, it woud seem just to give the baby a chance at life, because after all, a life is a life. However there are many more factors that contribute to making a life a good one. For this baby, he/she will constantly have to contend with his/her laundry list of medical problems that are sure to await the baby. Yes, there are many physically and/or mentally disabled people who grow to lead successful lives. However in this case, the baby isn’t going to just have one or two disabilities but multiple. Not only is his/her mother dead, but the mother went without breathing for at least an hour before she was found unconscious. This lack if oxygen is sure to inflict irreversible damage to the baby’s health. And on the psychological side, if this child manages to go through life with out any serious complication, he/she will have to struggle with the fact that it grew up inside a corpse. However not only will the baby have their fair share of problems, but also the family will. The parents and husband have been robbed of a proper funeral, and for many, funerals are a form of closure. The family has also been subjected to seeing their loved one breathing yet still very much dead, and that alone is quite disturbing. With that, I hope that the court’s ruling will bring peace to the family, and that their wishes are granted.
I completely agree with your opinion. It isn’t fair to the family to put them through this burden. First, they must deal with all of the problems that the child will have in the future which will cost them a lot of money in addition to the medical bills they’re already paying to keep Marlise on life support against the family’s will. Also, I can’t imagine having to see a loved one basically dead only to be used as an incubator to a baby that is deformed and will have many problems in the future.
I believe that this is a very complicated situation, and that arriving to a judgement of whether she should be removed or not is not as simple as black and white. There is no dispute that Ms. Munoz is a dead woman, and there is no dispute that in any normal circumstance she would want to removed from life-support. Yet, this is not a normal situation. She is pregnant. The hospital is keeping her body hooked to machines because of a law in Texas that states: “A person may not withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment under this sub chapter from a pregnant patient.” The way this law is written, I believe it is easy to see how the hospital must keep Ms. Munoz’s body on life support; the life support is doubtlessly the only thing keeping the baby alive. But this is not the only issue with pulling the plug, it is questionable if her end of life request applies her. The life support is not supporting her life, it is supporting the babies life (if you want to call it alive at this point), so does this mean that her end of life request even apply here? One could argue that because she is dead, her request is fulfilled — she is not being kept alive by a machine. While these arguments would support keeping the body on life support and letting the fetus mature into a baby, it is also easy to argue the other way. It was made clear that her and her family never wanted her to be hooked up to machines like this. It is wrong to defy the wishes of a dead person and their family, especially when the baby that is growing inside of her body has a high chance of being deformed or abnormal (recent testing shows it may already be abnormal in more than one way). Even with this, however, in most cases where we know the baby is abnormal before it is born families take no action and just accept the baby how it is. This is why as an ethical case, it is too far in the gray area for any real decision to be made, which is why it is going court. And looking at this case from a legal standpoint, I do not believe the hospital can remove her body from life support because of the wording of the law. Ethically, she should have been removed a long time ago, but due to this law (which is not really meant to apply for this situation) I don’t believe the hospital can legally remove Ms. Munoz’s body from life support.
I agree with you in the fact that the hospital is doing what they have to do. They must follow the law even though it does not make any sense to not listen to the family. The family is able to make that decision when it comes to a person who is not pregnant, so just because she is pregnant doesn’t mean that what the family wants should be completely ignored. But I think your point on following the law is what the hospital is required to do even though the doctors may even want to do what the family wants.
I do agree with your stance that they cannot legally remove her from life support regarding the law. The hospital is simply following what the law states, in it’s one-sentence entirety. This law shows the difficulties for pregnant women in Texas, as they also have a lot of debate over abortion laws as well. This case can be used to change this law, so it is reworded so this situation does not occur again. By taking the hospital to court about it, the family tried their best to do what’s right, and hopefully it’s a step towards fixing this law so another family is not put in the same situation.
In my opinion, I think that Marlise Munoz should have been removed from life support a long time ago. Her husband and parents have wished for her to be removed from life support, and I believe that you must carry out their wishes no matter what the Texas law states. Marlise is brain dead, which technically means that she is dead. It seems way out of the ordinary to have a baby developing inside of a dead women. Now however the law clearly states that “You cannot withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment for a pregnant patient.” So I personally think that because this case has gone to court, the court will continue to keep the baby on life support because they will have to abide by the law, even though I completely disagree with that decision. A lot of the people’s views in the articles that we read states that because Marlise is dead, she is not considered a patient anymore, so the law should not apply. I think this is the only way that the court can rule in favor of the family. However some people may say that the baby can now be viewed as the “patient” and therefore must be kept on life support. But if the baby is considered the new “patient” than the family should be able to make the decision on whether they want to pull the plug. I realize that I have gone back and forth with my own argument, but I think that this is how the court will go. The situation is so extreme, and the law is so unclear that it is going to be very hard to make a decision. I think that judge will have to take in the fact that baby has already been seen to have certain abnormalities and disorders and if born will have difficulty surviving. The family does not want to have to deal with these circumstances, and ultimately wants their deceased loved one (Marlise) to be removed from the hospital and buried properly. I mean Marlise has been dead for about 2 months now, and her family has not even been able to have a funeral for her. It is not fair to the family at all which is why I believe that it should have been the families decision, and that decision should have been made a long time ago.
I agree with Robbie because yes, the baby is greatly deformed. It is obviously ethical to deliver this baby, regardless of any deformities because there is life, however, there is honestly no purpose when the baby will not be able to live properly. I simply do not believe the baby should be put through this as its chances of survival stand so slim. Along with that, the deliverance of this baby will only prolong the suffering for the Munoz Family. Especially after losing their daughter, losing another young one would be extremely difficult.
Timing is everything. If Marlise had collapsed 14 weeks prior, the hospital would honor her and her family’s wishes to be taken off life support in an end of life situation. If she had known she was pregnant, which most women begin experiencing symptoms for a week or two after fertilization, and she wished to abort the baby, she most likely would’ve made some advances in a timely manner. But she didn’t. So arguing that Marlise would not want the baby to grow, doesn’t seem likely since she took no actions against it nor did she discuss with her husband. If she didn’t wish to kill it, let’s presume that she would like to bear this child and let it grow inside of her. Unfortunately she experienced a blot clot in her lungs and collapsed, cutting off oxygen to the fetus for an extended period of time before she was found, sent to the hospital and put on life support. The hospital pronounced her brain dead, synonymous with dead, and the family expressed their wishes to have Marlise be taken off of life support because she no longer had a life to sustain. However, as a mother, she was sustaining a life: the life of the 14 week old baby growing inside of her womb. Texas law requires that a female patient be kept on life support if she is pregnant. It is the law and laws are meant to be followed because they have beneficial qualities. This law will keep a growing baby alive until it can function on it’s own. The baby becomes a patient when it enters the hospital, the doctors are required to care for it. Arguing that the patient doesn’t need life support because the patient is dead is an improper identification of the patient. The medical professionals must do their job and care for the life of those in danger of death, it’s what they are paid to do. It is especially important for doctors to take care of babies who are helpless to the world around them, unable to take care of themselves or make decisions. The Munoz Family decided that they do not want the child to be born and they do not want to take care of it, but they will not necessarily be receiving it after it’s birth; it has yet to be decided where the child will end up, but wherever that is will be better than a premature death. Some argue that the child’s quality of life is not worth the anguish the family is currently going through, but who is to judge that? The doctors identified deformities of the lower limbs, hydrocephalus, heart problems and a possibility of other complications, yet these are not death sentences. Hydrocephalus is treatable in children and with a prognosis after treatment of a normal, active adult life. the heart problems and deformities are also manageable in today’s modern world of medicine and technology. The child, once born could lead a decent life, but it must be given the chance to do so.
Seeing as I am not a discriminatory, baby-hating, anarchist, I agree with the law and believe that the child should continue to be supported and allowed a chance to live.
In my opinion, your argument is far too idealistic. Yes, it’s nice and perfect and ethical to say that the baby should be allowed to live. But based on sheer medical fact and intuition, the baby won’t survive. With such major medical complications in such early stages, coupled with the fact that it is developing in a dead body, it is safe to realistically assume that the baby will not live. Even in such an early stage of development, it is so severely deformed and suffering from hydrocephaly and heart problems, which are difficult to treat even in normal adults, let alone babies. If, by some medical miracle, it is born, it will die soon after. Realistically, the baby won’t survive with its escalating developmental problems.
In that case, it is far kinder to both the potential baby and Marlise Munoz’s family to pull the plug on her life. The hospital is prolonging the Munoz family’s agony by disrespecting Marlise’s wishes to be taken off of life support as well as prolonging the suffering of the poor fetus, which will inevitably develop even more medical complications in the highly unlikely event that it survives.
Also, it’s completely illogical to assume that Marlise would have wanted to keep the baby in her dead body, simply because she didn’t abort the baby when she was alive. Marlise is dead. We will never know her response to this situation, so no one should ever assume that she wanted to keep the baby growing after she died. Instead, the only wish that matters, the only wish that needs to be honored, is her wish to be taken off of life support.
As for your argument that laws are meant to be followed because they are supposedly beneficial, I disagree. There have been plenty of laws in history that have been wrong on many counts, and have been changed as a result. Just because a law is a law does not make it set in stone, or ethically right. Laws can easily be amended if situations arise that throw it into scrutiny, which is clearly happening in Mrs. Munoz’s case. This law can easily be changed, and I believe that it should be changed, to respect the Munoz family’s wishes and save the future baby a lifetime of suffering.
Shraddha, it is actually incorrect to say that the child would die. Clearly, the diseases it presently has are treatable and the child could live a proper life. Now, that quality of life could be called into question. The sheer amount of money and strength it would take to raise this child, who has severe medical conditions, cannot be forced on the family. What if they cannot support the child? What will be the quality of life then? I know that we (people) should not be allowed to choose that. But in the case of an unborn fetus that cannot survive outside of the womb, I think the family should be able to choose whether or not to have the child. Just like the decision to end life is with the family, the decision to end the life of a barely alive fetus should also be with the family.
I agree with you on some accounts Shraddha but not on all of them.
There are some fallacies in Lexi’s argument, namely the argument about “improper identification of the patient,” which is fallacious because the law clearly states that life sustaining support may not be withdrawn, but Mrs. Munoz was already clearly declared dead, so by the law she should not have been kept on life support because there was no life to be sustained (in the mother). However, the argument in this case shouldn’t be about the law since, like I said in my initial post, the only argument that matters is the moral one.
Now on the larger issues I agree with Lexi: Mrs. Munoz should be kept on life support so the child can be kept alive if possible. Now, like I discuss in my post below, the principle key to this issue is whether or not the child would go through unreasonable pain and suffering, and whether or not allowing the child to grow in this way would exacerbate its pain. I simply believe that in this instance that is not the case. The medical complications that this child currently has are simply not incredibly severe (which is what they would have to be to justify termination of the pregnancy) or they are unknowns. The heart defect is totally unknown, all the doctors know is that there is an irregularity, it could be nothing or it could be something but we just don’t know yet. Also hydrocephaluse is easily treatable and the deformity may very well just be a physical deformity but not one that would cause unreasonable pain and suffering.
Ultimately, at this point I think that the child could be effectively sustained with the measures we have available, and I don’t think we should take away that infant’s fairly sizeable chance at life offhand based on unknowns.
I believe that the family of Marlise Munoz had every right to take Marlise off of life support. As paramedics they have probably been exposed to many cases of traumatic illnesses, diseases, injuries, etc. to justify their decision of being taken off of life support, if the time were to come . Although, Marlise stated her wishes clearly to her husband and mother, they probably did not get a chance to sign the papers yet because they were not expecting Marlise’s death so soon and thought they would get around to it eventually. In addition, it does not make sense that one law would say, “A person may not withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment under this subchapter from a pregnant patient.” if Texas allows abortion to up to 20 weeks. They baby was only 14 weeks old at the time of the collapse. It must be hard for the Munoz family to witness a loved one be used as an incubator to a highly deformed fetus. Help for Marlise came an hour later, which is a huge amount of time for an extremely young fetus to go without oxygen. The fetus’s gender can not be determined and their is fluid build up in the skull and possible heart problems. Life support can cost up to $10,000 per day, that is an enormous amount of money to keep a brain dead women and deformed fetus alive for 2 months. The hospital is making the family pay the bill which is unethical and an extreme burden to the family when they wanted her to be taken off in the first place.
Thank you for pointing out the flaws in the law and the terrible monetary burden being put on the family. I completely agree, she should be taken of life support, especially because of the damage being done to the fetus. No one should have to experience the pain that baby would feel during its short life if it would have been born.
Thank you for pointing out the absurdity of keeping this women’s corpse on life support from a financial side. The idea of Mrs. Munoz’s dead body being used as an incubator for her baby is likely as horrifying for her family as it is to other people not attached to the situation. What makes it worse is the idea that this hospital is either using their own money to keep her on life support to hold their ground in this disagreement over the law, or they are forcing her family, against their wishes, to spend this kind of money on the unborn child’s incubator. It is an unfathomable thought that this hospital would hold a family to this kind of financial responsibility for their loved one’s unborn child, who is clearly showing signs of a difficult and financially draining life once born.
I totally agree with you that the burden that the hospital was trying to place on the family is too much. Life support is very expensive and one might even argue that the hospital may have been doing this on purpose just to lengthen the bill… The thought of that is frightening and I don’t even really wish to begin to try to understand people who would wish to do that.. but money is a powerful motivator.
In my personal opinion, the hospital should have immediately followed the family’s desire to take Marlise Munoz off of life support, and the judge that recently resolved the case made the correct decision to remove her from life support. While my beliefs have no effect on this situation, the semantics of the law in question confirm that life support should be removed. Since the hospital ignored the family’s wishes based on a provision in Texas law, this absolutely becomes a legal matter, and it is correct for a judge to interpret the law and decide the case. The law specifically states “A person may not withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment under this subchapter from a pregnant patient.” The key word here is sustaining. The actions performed on Marlise’s dead body were in no way life-sustaining, since there was no life to sustain. Therefore, her situation does not fall under this clause. The hospital’s claim that removing life support would be illegal is thus voided. Another potential point to be made lies in the legality of an abortion in Texas before a fetus is viable. Had Mr. and Mrs. Munoz agreed to abort the fetus at the time of her death, they could have. Since Mrs. Munoz is dead, her husband represents the family’s wishes, so for those who believe the life support was keeping this fetus alive, Mr. Munoz’s desire to remove the support, thus killing the fetus, his decision to make. Without any documented decision from Mrs. Munoz of what to do in this situation, assuming what she would have wanted is of no use in this case. While the case was recently resolved in favor of the family to remove the life support, I believe the family should still take action against the hospital for the expense and emotional trauma of having a dead wife/child wrongly “sustained.”
While I agree that the family shouldn’t have to pay for all of the medical expenses of the life support, it is a little harsh to sue the hospital for emotional trauma. I understand that the family went through a lot of difficulties, but it isn’t the hospital’s fault that they had to keep Mrs. Munoz on life support. They were just trying to follow the letter of the law just as they would in any other situation.
The hospitals decisions made a private family problem into a huge legal disagreement and a national story. The family obviously did not want their family matters turned into a huge nationally televised issue. The hospital did cause a lot of pain for the family and they should be sued for what they have done.
In my opinion, Marlise Munoz should indeed be taken off life support. Mrs. Munoz had told her family that if she were ever to encounter a situation when she was in need of life support, that she would simply want to pass away. This was the patient’s desire and although it was never officially documented, it should certainly still be honored. Also, many people may argue that if she had known she would be pregnant at the time of her death, that Mrs. Munoz would strongly desire to be put on life support. However, this is nothing but an assumption that cannot be made. If Mrs. Munoz made this statement prior to her death, then the solution is simple. However, because she did not, it is unfair to assume that this is what the patient would have wanted. Finally, this baby is greatly deformed. Doctors have diagnosed the baby with Hydrocephalus and cannot tell whether the baby is a boy or a girl due to deformations of the lower extremities, along with a heart condition. Knowing this, it would not be right to keep Mrs. Munoz on life support in order to deliver this baby. It is obvious that this baby will not be able to live a normal life, or even a long life, so there is no point to put the Munoz Family through an extended period of agony and pain. In the end, the decision should be determined by the family and not by law, thereby removing Mrs. Munoz from life support.
I agree with Sam. It is hypocritical for the hospital to not honor her wish to be taken off life support because it is not “officially documented”, yet the hospital believes they can keep Marlise on life support because they believe she would want to save her child. The hospital is making assumptions despite what Marlise’s family claims Marlise thinks about life support. I also agree when Sam says the fetus is greatly deformed and will not live a normal life.
Marlise Munoz should be taken off life support. She has been declared brain dead and her body is only functioning due to the aid of life support machines. There is no chance that she can be brought back to life, and she is only being kept “alive” to support a fetus. For sake of not just repeating what everyone else says I have two points.
One, the law states that the pregnant woman must be kept on life support. Life support is expensive. Mr. Munoz and possibly his family will have to pay large amounts of money to keep the brain-dead Mrs. Munoz on life support. Many people have had their lives ruined due to large amounts of medical bills and that could be a possibility for Mr. Munoz as he has to keep his wife “alive” against his wishes but still has to pay. Keeping the fetus alive until it can survive out of the womb will be expensive. And if the child does live long enough to be born, Mr. Munoz will then have to take care of a disabled child, which will continue to cost him. Yes it sounds insensitive, but Mr. Munoz is a firefighter already raising a child. These expenses will put a large burden on him, and he has already expressed no desire in them when he wanted his wife taken off life support. In my opinion, spending that money to only have a potential of life for the fetus isn’t worth it.
Also, the law is stating that once a woman is brain dead, the hospital is in charge of keeping the fetus alive. There is no room for a father to make decisions for the fetus. If a 10 year old only has a father, the father makes the decisions for the child. This is no different for the fetus in the womb. The law allows the hospital to disregard the father’s wishes. The fetus is no different from a child, and the father should have rights to decide for it. And Mr. Munoz’s wishes to terminate its life should be respected.
I believe, like many above, that Mrs. Munoz’s corpse should be taken off of life support. For this hospital to believe that they are in the right for keeping her on life sustaining treatment when there is no life left in her beside the other human being growing (in a deformed way) is ludicrous. I realize that you could argue the baby as the patient, but the one on life support is still the dead mother who is nothing more than a host for this baby. If her wishes, regardless to the circumstances, were to not be kept on life support if it ever came up, than they should consider her wishes when making the decision. Since she is pregnant, yes, her opinion might have changed, but none of it was written down or further explained so we can’t be sure. The decision should be left up to the man who would be raising this child if it were ever born. I think it would be wrong to accuse them of being unethical for not wanting a damaged baby, because that is most likely not the reason that they would want her taken off of life support. To raise a deformed child is 100% possible and done by many. They are no less human than the rest of us, but there is a significant financial burden for treatments, aids, and other expenses that come up throughout their life. If Mr. Munoz or his wife’s parents are not ready to take on such a burden, then their wishes should have been received and allowed the day that Marlise collapsed and she was still within the 20 week window for a legal abortion. The hospital is in the wrong and should take her off of life support instead of forcing a financial burden on the family as well as an emotional one.
Marlise Munoz should have been taken off of life support the day she was legally declared brain dead. When Marlise passed away, her husband and family requested she be taken off life support, while they were fully aware she was 14 weeks pregnant. Like many of my classmates have said, at 14 weeks Marlise could have legally gotten an abortion. However, the hospital claims that pulling the plug with a 14-week old fetus is unmoral and an illegal abortion. The hospital is not only denying the family their wish of taking Marlise off life support, they are causing the Munoz family much distress. The hospital should be sympathetic to the husband who just lost his pregnant wife, and instead they have put him in the public eye by refusing his simple demand to take his DEAD wife off life support. Now instead of merely burying his deceased wife, he may face the harsh reality of burying the “deformed” child his dead wife births. The fact that this fetus is growing inside a deceased body is absurd. The fetus needs the natural hormones and nutrients for proper fetal development. Additionally, it is believed that the fetus went without oxygen for a dangerous amount of time when Marlise collapsed and passed away. This baby is found to have deformed lower extremities to the point where the gender cannot be determined, and also suffers from hydrocephalus. If this baby survives, it will most likely suffer throughout life. The child would go through countless surgical procedures in order to survive, and would have a poor quality of life. The hospital has no right to birth this child, considering they will not be the ones taking care of the child or financially supporting the medical expenses for the child, it will be a single father, Marlise’s husband, dealing with all this despite his wish to have the child and his wife taken off life support weeks ago. This situation seems more like a sick science experiment to me than the Texas hospital simply following the law. This hospital has turned a dead woman into an incubator for a non-functioning fetus, despite the request from the family to take both the mother and fetus off life support.
I completely agree with all the arguments that you made! Although Marlise Munoz and the fetus might seem like the two victims of this case; it is really the husband, Erick Munoz. Erick Munoz and his lawyer have been battling the hospital and the state for a solid two months. I cannot imagine the pain and agony, Erick Munoz must live with knowing that his wife is dead, and the hospital won’t even respect his wishes and take his wife off life support. Erick had to take this case to the courts so he can finally get the justice that his family deserves. All Erick Munoz wants is to properly bury his deceased wife, and eventually move on with his life. The judges recent decision to take Marlise Munoz off of life-support has finally given Erick Munoz and his family some peace of mined. Although the sad reality remains, Erick Munoz lost his wife and unborn child and that will never be easy for anybody.
I feel bad for all of the different parties who have been thrust into this difficult situation. This crazy situation could not have been foreseen by the lawmakers who caused this mess. Honestly, I believe that even though the hospital is getting a lot of flak for being unethical and cruel, they are just trying to follow the law. This can’t be the first time that the hospital have had to go against a family’s wishes to obey the law and they made the right decision not to break the law which could put the hospital’s future of helping people in jeopardy. However, I believe that when this case reaches the courts, the ethical decision will be made and Marlise will be taken off life support. Hopefully, the law will be reworded and no more families and hospital will be put in this horrible situation again.
I completely agree with this statement because yes, the law should be upheld over all things. And I also believe that when this case is brought to the court they will look at all the conflicting ideals and situations and allow the family the decision to take Marlise off life support. The case being brought to the courts now is also another factor because this family has already waited so long to fight their side so in all honesty they deserve to win this one. But more importantly you are right in saying that the government really needs to focus on this law again and make an acceptable decision on how to handle this problem if it ever comes up again because this is truly ridiculous. So change the law and were good.
I believe there is no question that Marlise Munoz should be taken off life support even if there is a living baby inside of her. In early November, Marlise Munoz suffered a blood clot in her lung which resulted in her becoming brain dead. Being brain dead is basically a synonym for deceased, and as a paramedic she would have known there is simply no coming back from being brain dead. However, this Texas hospital was “supposedly” only following a law that required any patient to stay on life-support if they are pregnant, even when Marlise Munoz requested in her will that she be taken off life-support if ever a situation like this occurred. I strongly believe that this Texas hospital had more intentions then simply following the law. Keeping a brain dead woman alive on life-support with a 14 week old fetus has never been done before. I think the hospital wanted to take this terrible tragedy, and try to make a scientific miracle by birthing a very premature fetus a very unnatural way. Of course, politics had to play a role in the hospitals decision to keep her on life support. Texas is known for being quite the conservative state, and being a conservative means pro-life/ anti-abortion. Many ideologue conservatives are strongly against ending the life of an unborn baby even if the baby is tragically deformed or terminally ill. Staunch Republicans will always argue that a life is a life. So based on these die-hard conservatives, it is moral to birth this extremely deformed and sickly fetus knowing it will live a short and painful life without its mother because simply put: every life is so precious. Some people have to learn to honor the dead and their wishes regardless if their wishes conflict with their political and religious beliefs.
When it comes to the decision of whether or not one should be kept on or taken off life support, the decision should obviously be made by the person on life support. But, when that person is no longer able to make that decision, or in this case, brain dead, someone else has to make the decision. In the case of Marlise Munoz, the decision is now being fought over by the the family of Marlise and the hospital. When you disregard all of the legal complications and you solely look at which party can make a better decision for Marlise Munoz, it is clearly the family. They knew Marlise as a person rather than as a brain-dead patient. It is clearly stated that Marlise told her family that if the case ever arrived that she would have to go on life support, she would want to be taken off. Even though Marlise originally did not know that she was carrying a fetus, the family can more accurately guess what she would have wanted than the hospital can.
In my opinion, Marlise Munoz should be taken off life support solely because it is the choice of the family and they want her off.
I agree with the fact that Mrs. Munoz’s wish to be taken off of life support should be honored by the hospital, but in this case, taking Mrs. Munoz off of life support will end the life of the child that is inside of her. While Marlise Munoz is declared brain dead, the baby that she is carrying is not. It does not matter how expensive the cost to keep the child alive is, the value of a sustaining a life is worth far more than that of how expensive it is to keep one on life support. If the Munoz family does not want to care for the child and does not agree to keep Mrs. Munoz on life support, then they should not have to pay for the hospital expenses. The hospital should take care of the expenses based on what the Texan law states about pregnant patients on life support. The life support that Mrs. Munoz is on is no longer supporting her own life, it is supporting the baby’s life. I believe that the hospital should do whatever they can to keep this child alive and give it the opportunity to live. I did not form my opinion lightheartedly, for I still take the wishes of both Mrs. Munoz and her family into account. Ultimately, I believe that although Mrs. Munoz is declared brain dead and cannot be saved, due to the fact that the hospital placed her on life support and as a result kept the child alive, the next course of action is to uphold state law and continue to save the life of the child.
In my opinion, the moment Marlise Munoz was declared brain dead she should have been taken off life support. Life support is meant to keep someone in critical condition alive, therefore, if the patient is dead, life support will have no effect. The fact that she is pregnant should not have made this situation any different. Yes, the Texas law states: “A person may not withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment under this subchapter from a pregnant patient.” However, between the patient being brain dead and the family’s wishes being to take her off of life support, the hospital should not have continued to keep her on life support. Also, this “life-sustaining treatment” was not actually sustaining Mrs. Munoz’s life, for she had already been declared brain. It is possible that if Mrs. Munoz had known she was pregnant her wishes of being taken off life support would have been different, however, because it can’t be determined for certain, it is right to listen to her, and her family’s, original wishes. If Mrs. Munoz had not died, with the fetus only at 14 weeks old she and her husband could have decided to get an abortion. With this knowledge, why can Mr. Munoz not choose to get an abortion now that his wife has been deemed brain dead? Tests have determined that the fetus is deformed and there are speculations that it may also be terminally ill. By not respecting the wishes of Mr. Munoz, the hospital will cost the family a fortune between the cost of life supporting machines and later costs of taking care of a child that is deformed. I don’t think this decision should have made it to a court. The decision should have been up to the family of Marlise Munoz right from the start.
When a patient is declared brain dead, they are dead in both legal and medical standards. Although Texas law states that a patient cannot be removed from life support if they are pregnant, the law was created for comatose or vegetative state patients. A comatose or vegetative state patient has a chance at returning to a normal life, a brain dead patient is legally dead. The law was also created to protect close to birth fetus’s if their mother goes into a coma or vegetative state. Marlise was 14 weeks pregnant when she passed. The hospital should removed Marlise from life support, as her family have said that they do not want to keep Marlise on life support. Marlise had also said that she did not want to be kept on life support.
Legally, Marlise could have had an abortion at 14 weeks pregnant. Her family has stated that they do not want the baby. But because Marlise is in the hospital, letting the fetus die would be immoral and unlawful. The fetus is also severely deformed. Its lower extremities are deformed to the point where the gender cannot be determined. The fetus also has hydrocephalus, and a possible heart condition. The deformities are not because the mother died, as she passed when she was 14 weeks pregnant. At the end of 12 weeks, a fetus has fully developed its legs, arms, head, brain and heart. These physical conditions suggest that there also may be a chromosomal abnormality. If this is the case, the fetus is in a situation which is incompatible with survival. Even if the fetus does not have a genetic disorder, the baby will live a painful life if it does make it to full term and survive past six months. By keeping Marlise on life support, the hospital is denying the Munoz family of saying goodbye to their daughter/wife. The hospital is not saving the baby, as the fetus will most likely not make it past birth. In conclusion, Marlise should be taken off of life support.
I completely agree that Marlise should be taken off life support. The child being as deformed as it, and having so many complications, likely will not survive birth as it is. And, on the off chance that the fetus does survive, when born, the child will live a very difficult, and expensive, life. It is important to note that life support is used when there is the possibility of the patient coming back to life, as you stated. In this situation Marlise is already declared brain dead and should not be given life support any longer.
I can understand why this is such a controversial case, because in some ways I would agree with both sides of the argument. If the definition of abortion states that the act may be recognized as voluntary abortion then those who fight the fact of the case being an abortion case, may not have much support. In this case the woman is not alive, therefore she has not given consent to an abortion. Marlise did not intend on going to the hospital to have an abortion that day, nor was it her choice to have suffered from a blood clot in the lung and become brain dead. This being said the case at large can not be supported with a fight against abortion by consent. I also understand that the law in Texas, although hazy in certain ways, states that a pregnant woman may not be taken off life support. Anyone has the right to argue this but another problem is brought forth in this case being that the family has come to a common agreement in taking her off life support. In my personal opinion I believe that this agreement should be upheld because every family deserves the right to have a proper burial of a loved one and not be forced to weight to do so because of something that seems more like a science experiment. I do think that in one situation if the doctors had not known she was pregnant and she had become brain dead, she would be in the hands of her family and their decision on keeping her off life support. In this case her family would have complete rights to the decision of life support. Lastly, even though this may seem a little far fetched if the woman was announced brain dead then she is dead in life and law. I do not see how a woman could be charged for breaking a law if she is dead and cannot take part in following any law. Therefore if her family agreed to take her off life support I think they do deserve that right and because the woman is dead she can’t be blamed or accused in any way of breaking a law saying that she must be kept on life support being that she is pregnant. Being that this is not a battle of consensual abortion and a dead woman cannot actually be breaking a physical law I think it is fair to say that the family deserves to make the decision and the law in one state shouldn’t deny their right.
I agree, that laws aren’t always correct in all situations. This is one example of a time when a law isn’t completely clear and I hope that it is amended accordingly. If another case like this happens in the future I would certainly hope the family would be spared all the commotion and just be able to have their peace.
I’m so glad someone brought up that this is not an abortion battle! I understand how the issue tugs at the same core question about “when does life begin?” but this is not an abortion battle. If we did not have life support, the fetus would have died with the mother as God had intended. I think people need to try to place themselves in the situation more, even those conservatives who are pro-life. This was NOT a voluntary decision, and by trying to start an abortion battle on top of this tragedy, the family is only being hurt more.
The abortion case was shakey from the start. How does a corpse have an abortion? This is not an underlying abortion battle because this has nothing to do with abortion. It’s about a brain dead mother on life support. I 100% agree with you that it’s the family that should have the say not the law and not the doctors because in the end it’s the family that has the hardest time dealing with the death of a loved one.
At my first glance, I felt that the case of Marlise Munoz was black and white. I felt that the doctors should have pulled the plug months ago. The unborn fetus now has hydrocephalus, a heart murmur, and leg deformities, so why did they use the mother as an incubator? But this isn’t just a single solitary case. Texas law states that “a person may not withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment under this sub chapter from a pregnant patient.” So the doctors were obligated by law to keep the child (somehow construed as the living patient) alive. The major problem, however, is in the law, not the doctors. When Marlise was confirmed brain dead, she was confirmed dead. Therefore, she is not a pregnant patient, she is a pregnant corpse. She is no longer in need of life sustaining treatment because she is not alive and her fetus cannot sustain life outside the womb! Her fetus was not viable at 4 weeks, and it still is not fully viable at 26 weeks. So her case seems to not even fit the Texas law that stopped doctors from fulfilling the Munoz’s family wish to have her unplugged. And in cases of pregnancy, humans emotionally think about the fetus and its quality of life. But in order to sustain a good quality of life, this fetus will require dozens of treatments for its present abnormalities, not including ones that could come up in the next few weeks! But if the family cannot afford to do so, the fetus would die within weeks if not days of its birth. IN my head it is simple: Marlise had the rights over what to do with her child, but now she is dead. So if her family has the right to unplug her, don’t they have the right to unplug her child as well? Sadly, we cannot assume that she wanted to have her child or she wanted to have an abortion. However, we can decide that Marlise would not want to burden her family with a child that they clearly do not want. If Marlise entrusted her own life with her husband and her family, I am sure that she would entrust them with her child’s life as well.
“So the doctors were obligated by law to keep the child (somehow construed as the living patient) alive.”
The law specifically addresses “pregnant” patients. Regardless of whether one considers the fetus a patient or not, the law does not apply to the unborn child. So, I have to disagree with you here.
However, I do agree with you when you say that she is no longer a patient but a corpse who was/is, unfortunately, pregnant. Apart from the fetus, there is no life to support here. Although it may seem heartless to say so, Munoz’s belongs in the morgue not on a hospital bed. I also agree with you when you say we cannot assume whether Munoz would want an abortion or not in this case. In this scenario, I also believe the best course of action would be honoring her family’s wishes.
I agree with you Anish, I think–you are kinda confusing, I had a hard time figuring out what side you were on. You are one of the few people that actually took time to think about the fact that the law doesn’t really apply to her. Under legal definition, she is dead. We don’t really have laws for dead people–dead people never really did anything that warranted a law being passed. But also, if you think about it, because the mother is dead, the father is the guardian of the baby and can determine course of treatment (although I admit, I’m not an expert on the laws regarding the custody of fetuses–we don’t often hear about custody battles over fetuses). Basically, my thinking is everything happens for a reason, and they need to just go with it. The doctors are doctors, not god, so they need to stop using the corpse to grow a baby.
Marlise Munoz should be taken off life support. The hospital has misinterpreted the law under which they justify their decision to keep her on a hospital bed.
Texas Statutes – Section 166.049: PREGNANT PATIENTS
“A person may not withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment under this subchapter from a pregnant patient.”
The law does, in fact, apply to pregnant patients. However, Munoz is no longer a patient of the hospital. She has been declared legally dead. It is an unfortunate turn of events that Munoz died 14 weeks into her pregnancy, but that does not change the fact that the hospital has no legal obligation to deny the family’s wishes. Once the declaration of death is made, a patient ceases to be a patient: being pregnant or otherwise is irrelevant. The Texas law no longer applies to Munoz. Some may argue that the law applies to the fetus, but this is untrue. The law specifically addresses “pregnant patients.” Unless the fetus is pregnant, which I highly doubt, the hospital is not obligated to provide life support for the unborn child. I think my response to this situation would be different if the family supported the hospital’s decision, but the hospital did the exact opposite of the what the family wanted. The worst part out of this whole situation is that the hospital has managed to drag the issue out for so long. With a 20+ week fetus, some may argue that removing Munoz’s life support would be in direct violation of Texas law (Texas Senate Bill 5). Given the extenuating circumstances and the hospital’s initial refusal to grant the family’s wishes, I believe the law can be disregarded in this situation.
I disagree with the hospital’s course of action. I believe that Marlise Munoz should have been taken off of life support–in accordance with her family’s wishes–from the very beginning. The hospital is only prolonging the family’s grief by refusing to remove Munoz’s life support.
Section 166.049
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/HS/2/H/166/B/166.049
TX Senate Bill 5
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/831/billtext/html/SB00005H.htm
I agree that Munoz should be taken off life support. The Texas law is directed toward Marlise Munoz, not her fetus. Since Marlise is dead the law does not apply, and the family’s wishes should be followed. I agree with your legal definition of a patient. A patient is defined as alive – once a human being is declared dead the hospital has no legal obligation to care for him/her. In this case Marlise Munoz has been declared legally dead, and therefore her body should be taken off life support.
Is disregarding a mother and family’s wishes in order to impose one’s own convoluted beliefs about abortion and life valid? The John Peter Smith hospital, its doctors, and Sunny from Anderson Cooper 360 clearly think so. They seek to not respect Marlise Munoz’s written request that if she dies, she wants to be taken off life support. They substantiate this with arguments of a murky Texas law on mandating to keep patients alive if they are pregnant as well as their own pro-life beliefs. These misguided citizens think that Marlise Munoz would have changed her mind if she were alive and wanted to keep her deformed, likely-to-die fetus in her dead corpse if she became brain dead (aka legally dead). Evidently, Marlise’s wishes have been ignored and the John Peter Smith hospital is keeping a dead body on life support on the extremely off-chance that the 14 week fetus will miraculously live. To make matters worse, the baby is riddled with health issues from hydrocephalus to leg deformities to heart murmurs that would make it’s potential life–if it lives at all–unbearable for both the child and its family. Many opponents of this view argue that Marlise’s written request never included taking her off life support if she was pregnant. They and other mothers argue that if they were in that position, they would want to stay on life support to avoid abortion. However, the falsely assume that their wishes coincide with those of Marlise. Surely, every permutation cannot be addressed in Marlise’s written request but she clearly wanted to be taken off life support in the situation she is in as substantiated by her husband and father. Evidently, there lies no argument in keeping her on life support for personally warped, selfish beliefs.
Luckily, the Texas judge on this case read my mind and recently decided to remove Marlise from life support. The hospital will comply with his wishes. Hopefully, after these weeks of unnecessary life support, Erick Munoz, Marlise’s husband, is not billed an exorbitant amount for the medical expenses.
I completely agree. The entire Marlise Munoz situation of whether she should remain or be taken off life support was used as an opportunity for pro-life individuals to vouch for their stance on abortion. While I myself tend to be pro-life, arguing a stance on abortion in this tragic case is simply immoral. These arguments to keep Marlise Munoz on life support have little to no substance. The hospital is interpreting the Texas law incorrectly. Since Munoz is no longer living and has been pronounced brain-dead, the law cannot be applicable in this case. Furthermore, one cannot argue that “Marlise Munoz would want to be kept on life support if she knew she was pregnant.” This is simply an assumption and has zero credibility. Rather, the wishes of the family of Marlise Munoz should be honored, and Marlise should be taken off life support immediately.
Marlise Munoz should be taken off life support. The hospital has misinterpreted the law under which they justify their decision to keep her on a hospital bed.
Texas Statutes – Section 166.049: PREGNANT PATIENTS
“A person may not withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment under this subchapter from a pregnant patient.”
The law does, in fact, apply to pregnant patients. However, Munoz is no longer a patient of the hospital. She has been declared legally dead. It is an unfortunate turn of events that Munoz died 14 weeks into her pregnancy, but that does not change the fact that the hospital has no legal obligation to deny the family’s wishes. Once the declaration of death is made, a patient ceases to be a patient: being pregnant or otherwise is irrelevant. The Texas law no longer applies to Munoz. Some may argue that the law applies to the fetus, but this is untrue. The law specifically addresses “pregnant patients.” Unless the fetus is pregnant, which I highly doubt, the hospital is not obligated to provide life support for the unborn child. I think my response to this situation would be different if the family supported the hospital’s decision, but the hospital did the exact opposite of the what the family wanted. The worst part out of this whole situation is that the hospital has managed to drag the issue out for so long. With a 20+ week fetus, some may argue that removing Munoz’s life support would be in direct violation of Texas law (Texas Senate Bill 5). Given the extenuating circumstances and the hospital’s initial refusal to grant the family’s wishes, I believe the law can be disregarded in this situation.
I disagree with the hospital’s course of action. I believe that Marlise Munoz should have been taken off of life support–in accordance with her family’s wishes–from the very beginning. The hospital is only prolonging the family’s grief by refusing to remove Munoz’s life support.
Mrs. Munoz is dead. They need to let it be. Keeping her on life support is useless—there is simply no life to support. When a woman is pregnant, her body does numerous things that our medical techniques can’t mimic. Even though they are pumping the mothers corpse full of hormones to help the baby, it won’t quite be the same. After 26 weeks inside of a corpse, the baby can’t hope to be normal. They need to give up their attempt to save the baby, it’s against the family’s wishes, it’s disrespectful to the mother, and its going to harm the child in the future. The mother is dead, so let her be dead. Think of all the prolonged grief the family is going through now, they just want to say good bye and let Mrs. Munoz rest in peace, but are not allowed to. We should all respect the dead and their bodies, and that means not using Mrs. Munoz’s corpse as a literal incubator. At 20 weeks, the fetus’s skin is transparent, its bones are barely hardened, and its organs are barely formed let alone functioning. Mrs. Munoz’s baby should have a sex by now, but due to the disfiguration, gender cant be determined. The baby is so disfigured at 20 weeks, but the pregnancy is barely half over (if the pregnancy even goes as normal, we have no way to tell how growing a baby in a dead woman will go), imagine what disfiguration can happen in the coming 20 weeks. Under Texas state law, under any other circumstances, the family could have an abortion still. So why is it any different to give up a baby under these circumstances. In my opinion, keeping the baby, going against the family’s wishes to keep the mother on life support, using her as an incubator, and allowing this baby to be born with the horrible disfiguration is a little worse than an abortion. But an abortion is allowed, and just letting Mrs. Munoz rest in peace isn’t. They also need to address the fact that there is a possibility of resentment toward the child in the years to come. It could be that the father will just remember these terrible months, when the hospital forced him to keep this baby—when they used his dead wife as an incubator—every time he looks at his baby. Lastly, think of the medical bills. not just the ones from keeping the mother on life-support, but how expensive is it to grow a baby in a dead woman (is there even a term for that medical procedure?). Also the bill for the countless hospital and doctor visits the child will have to go through– all the medical procedures the child will inevitably have to fix his/her disfigurements. So they need to just go with the family’s wishes: let Mrs. Munoz rest in peace.
I completely agree, there are other factors such as medical bills and after the baby is born (if it is successful) that come into play. Who says the father would even take care of this baby when it comes out? he might put it up for adoption, which could make this child’s life miserable. Plus he is basically being forced to pay medical bills when it should have been over when the mother was pronounced brain dead.
I totally agree. This makes me think: in the end, what if the baby is a stillborn, or, as you said, born with complications? The poor family. Referring to a woman as an “incubator” is harsh, but that’s exactly what the hospital is doing to Mrs. Munoz.
Having a pregnant woman on life support is a rarely seen occasion with few precedents, so it would hard to call a decision on whether or not to keep Marlise Munoz on life support. Through research, I learned that there was a similar case of a woman being on life support in the 90’s but she was much farther along in her pregnancy (about 26 weeks) and was on life support for 100 days (about 14 weeks) and she was able to give birth to a healthy baby boy. In The Munoz case, it was too early on in pregnancy so know the baby is vastly deformed, to the point where doctors cannot even tell the gender. Because she is brain dead, which is defined as meaning the same as dead, then it is in the hands of the family to how the baby is treated. Munoz wanted to be taken off life support before, and the family agrees, so the hospital should respect that. Some arguments say that the doctors should make the final say in the baby, but it is almost like an abortion. If a couple wants to have an abortion it is their choice, and the doctor can’t have a say in whether or not they should keep it, but only if the baby is still early in it’s development period which in the case of Munoz, it was. The law should become more detailed and changed in this case of Munoz because technology is not advanced enough to keep that baby healthy from such an early stage, and must also respect the wishes of the family.
I agree that the real issue is the abortion of the baby, and that it is the family’s decision in that matter. In reply to your argument about the 90s case with the woman who gave birth to a healthy boy, was she still considered alive? That is the difference in these two situations, because Marlise has medically and legally been declared brain dead, which means she is no longer alive. Therefore she should be legally allowed to be taken off life support, because the California state law only applies to those still living.
I am pleased to say that hours ago, Mrs. Munoz, under order of the court was removed from life support. I thoroughly agree with this decision and am appalled that it did not happen sooner. When it comes down to it, when a patient is declared brain dead, necessary involuntary functions of the body are not able to continue unaided. So, someone like Mrs. Munoz who is actually dead, was placed on life support. The machines were the only thing keeping her “alive”. Also the Munoz family had stated that she did not want to kept alive on ventilators in the event that she be brain dead. I can’t imagine the torture that the family must have been in to see their loved one in a hospital bed lifeless, pale, and deteriorating all because a hospital was “trying to obey a Texas law”. The pregnant patient is dead and no longer in need of life support. Her fetus was still alive but badly disfigured and still several months would pass until it came to term. Even then, if it were to come to that, what would they do? Cut open and mutilate a deteriorating body to give birth to a disfigured child who would most likely have to come back to the hospital numerous times due to the complications of the pregnancy? This is just sick. I am glad that it did not come to this. Just imagine if the hospital had their way… some horrible science experiment for them to brag about. Shame on them for not listening to the family, and trying to shove their way onto someone else’s life.
In my opinion, the hospital should take Marlise Munoz off life support, and return her body to her family and be given a proper death. Marlise should not be treated as a science experiment – her body is not able to produce a viable fetus. This is evident in the information doctors have accumulated about the fetus. The fetus displays numerous abnormalities, such as hydrocephalus and deformed lower extremities as well as a heart problem of some sort. Plus, doctors cannot determine the gender of the fetus even though it has been 22 weeks due to the deformed state the fetus is in (gender can typically be determined between 18 to 20 weeks). After considering all of this information, how can the hospital justify their decision to keep Marlise on life support? The fetus that Marlise is carrying is heavily deformed, and will probably lead to a miscarriage.
Another factor to consider is the amount of money the Munoz family is paying to keep Marlise on the respirators. The Munoz family has stood by their stance of removing Marlise from the life support machines, yet have been continually denied of that opportunity. Due to the hospital’s reluctance to overlook an Texas law that states “A person may not withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment under this subchapter from a pregnant patient”, the hospital has forced substantial financial debts onto the Munoz family.
Considering the facts, Marlise Munoz should be taken off life support. The decision to continue a patient on life support should not be in the hands of the hospital, especially when Marlise herself has been cited saying she is against being on life support. The situation created by the hospital continues to attract negative publicity, and should be resolved quickly and morally, with Marlise Munoz taken off life support and returned to her family.
I believe that Marlise Munoz should be taken off life support, for the main reasons being that the law is misinterpreted, and that this is putting the entire Muniz family through unnecessary anguish.
The law clearly states that life-sustaining treatment may not be removed from a pregnant patient. However, the moment that the hospital announced Marlise as brain dead, she clinically and legally died, which therefore ended her time as a “patient” at the hospital. In addition to that, the treatment can no longer be considered “life-sustaining” because the poor woman no longer has a life to sustain. As mentioned earlier in these comments, the law applies to the mother, not the fetus, which is why it can not be applied in this situation any longer.
Another point to be made is the hardship this is putting on the Munoz family. They just lost a daughter, wife, mother, and now are being forced to watch her body deteriorate while sitting as an incubator for the poor child inside. Not only that, but this goes specifically against Marlise’s wishes to not be held on life support. The fetus growing inside has been proven so deformed that the gender cannot be determined, plus a multitude of other problems including water on the brain. If the child is even born alive, it will have a very small chance of survival and will require a huge amount of care.
Given the following reasons, the court made a wise decision to order the hospital to remove the life support and return the body to the Munoz family so that Marlise can finally rest in peace.
I believe that Marlise should be taken off life support. To me, the idea of keeping her on and just trying to see what would happen to the fetus if put under these conditions… it all seems like a science experiment, and when it comes to life, that shouldn’t be messed with. Even if the fetus survives in the womb long enough to survive in external conditions, the child would suffer tremendous deformities which would probably not allow it to live, according to ultrasound.
The family wanted to have her off, so the hospital should have let her off, regardless if they were breaking the law. I think that this sort of decision should be up to the family and I do not think that the hospital should not have the power to overrule that. It’s that simple.
I don’t think that the hospital should be able to mess with the family like this. The family can’t even get the body of their loved one to bury her, and they see the baby as a lost cause. I think it is just wrong for the hospital to ignore the family’s wishes.
There have been arguments made that the law is not clear over this subject. The solution to that problem is to clarify them.
It is right for the family to sue.
I completely agree with Spencer. The fact that in no one knows how many ways, the child will be deformed to a certain extent and have many abnormal characteristics. This sounds like an opportunity to study this rare scenario and learn how grow babies in dead women’s wombs. It is appalling that a family needs to go through such agony just because there is a 14 week old fetus and they are not legally aloud to have an abortion while God knows how many abortions were done today.
I believe Munoz should be taken off life support for the reason that it’s the family’s and Munoz’s wish. The family obviously had a hard time making this decision and came to terms with the death of a loved one, why make it any harder? In addition, there is a written statement from Munoz that if she was ever on life support, for her to be taken off of it, what more do you want?
If the law is in place to save the baby, the baby cannot be save. The mother, brain dead, provides little to no support for the baby, as Munoz’s father stated is just a host for the fetus. Also,the baby already has major deformities to the point where doctors cannot determin the gender of the baby. The likeihood of this child surviving after birth, if not already dead, is very slim.
As the lovely Anderson Cooper said, the law only applies if the life support determinds life or death like in a coma. In this case however, she’s already clinically dead, whether on life support or not, and therefore no longer a patient of the hospital. Since she’s not a patient how does this law apply to Munoz.
If this would have happened 50 years ago, none of this would have been an issue. Why? Because we didn’t have the techonology to keep someone alive while being dead. Keeping someone alive when they’re dead isn’t “normal” (for a lack of better words). By nature we’re supposed to die and if we’re pregnant while we’re dead, oops, sorry the fetus dies too.
The patient is always right, but in this case the patient is no longer with us, so the it’s the family’s call. The courts made a hard, but rational decision for Munoz to be put off life support. Rest in peace Marlise Munos.
I definitely agree with Minjie’s statement on how it is the family’s call to make a decision when the patient is no longer alive. It isn’t right for the hospital to take control over Marlise’s body when her wishes aren’t being granted. Marlise is not affected by any of the support given to her because she is brain dead. Many complications will arise if the baby is born and leave the family with much to handle. I also think it is very true when Minjie pointed out how Marlise is just a host for the fetus and she is not given a proper death. I feel this is wrong on many levels because there is no respect given to Marlise and her family. I believe it is right for the husband to sue the hospital because giving life support to his wife isn’t doing any good. She has no affect of the support given to her, leaving no purpose of having it. The patient should be given what she initially asked for.
I agree with most of your reasoning except the 50 years ago one. It’s precisely because we have the technology of life support (although probably insufficient life support for Mrs. Munoz’s fetus) that this is an issue. I don’t think we should take Mrs. Munoz off of life support because of the reason that this situation is not “normal” (I think it she should be taken off because of her family’s wishes as you already stated). For example, I believe everyone would agree that life saving surgeries are extremely abnormal from nature because of obvious reasons (i.e. cutting someone open, messing around inside him, and then stitching/stapling him back together doesn’t happen naturally). But this “it’s not normal” argument says those who need surgeries shouldn’t receive them because surgery is not “normal.” Therefore, I don’t think going by this “not normal” argument should apply here.
There is absolutely no reason for Marlise Munoz to remain on life support. She has been declared brain dead, which means she is no longer alive; therefore, the “life” support is having zero effect on her. The argument being made is that the baby is now the patient, but I believe that decision is an assumption that the doctors are not in a position to make. This seems like a play by the hospital just to suck more money out of this suffering family. Any argument of morality for keeping the baby alive is invalid due to the condition of the fetus. Weeks ago it was confirmed that the fetus was deformed so badly that doctors couldn’t even determine the gender. Legally, the fetus was still young enough to be aborted at the time of Marlise’s death. Therefore, any question of whether or not the baby’s right to life is being violated is also invalid. This child, if it even survives to birth, will be so disabled that it would be a crime to see it through. Not to mention the fact that Marlise and her family all asked for her not to be put on life support. Marlise should be taken off life support, and the fetus should be aborted.
There are many arguments to take with regards to this case. However, I’m going to discuss the moral argument since it inherently supercedes all others, and therefore is inherently the most important.
The key issue I seem to be picking up on in this case is whether or not any good can come from allowing this child to continue to grow. The next question then is whether or not the child will be viable, and whether or not the child would be put through extra or unreasonable pain and suffering as a result of its growth inside of a brain-dead mother. In this case I believe that the child will most likely be viable since even those it has displayed some problems so far, these problems will most likely not result in death before or even soon after birth. Hydrocephalus usually isn’t a problem for children since their heads are still growing, and thus they can expand to prevent extra pressure on the brain. This problem is also easily solved with a shunt that drains the excess cerebrospinal fluid into a blood vessel in the neck. The one wild card is the heart defect that is still unidentified and unable to be identified. That could develop into nothing, a significant problem, a problem that can be treated, or a problem that can’t be treated, at this point we simply don’t know. Thus I don’t believe it can tilt the argument in favor of one side or another (although if anything it provides a slight but still very minor advantage to the argument for removing life support). That being said the question still remains: can any good come from allowing the child to continue to grow? I believe good can come of it, for a few reasons. Firstly, I believe the growing environment for the child can be pretty well replicated using the measures currently available. Even though the brain of Mrs. Munoz may not be maintaining the system of her body anymore, that system can still be adequately maintained by machines and the treatment options available. Various mechanisms can keep her breathing, keep her blood flowing, and treatment can keep her sufficiently supplied with whatever nutrients and other materials her body requires to remain biologically alive. Now, one could argue that there are things that cannot be replicated by machines or treatment that are still required for proper develop of an infant, i.e. hormones. However, hormones generated play little role in development of the infant after 14 weeks of pregnancy, and more importantly these hormones can be replaced with treatment, since these hormones (mainly progesterone and estrogen), as well as many others, can be given to a patient as a treatment option. However, that still leaves the possibility of other things that we can’t understand or conceive of right now that play a role in infant development during pregnancy that can’t be replicated. As for possible developments that may arise from these possible unknowns I believe they fall into the same boat as the heart defect. They are simply unknowns, complications may or may not arise because of them, and they may or may not be treatable. Furthermore, there is also a little evidence that supports the possibility of the baby coming out viable. In a study performed by the University of Heidelberg, “researchers found that a viable child was delivered in 12 of the 19 cases for which information was available.” This study examined cases similar to those of Mrs. Munoz, where a pregnant woman had died but was being kept mechanically alive in order to allow a fetus to grow. Now the study does note that the cases have widely diverse circumstances and that there are not enough cases for them to make a definitive conclusion about whether or not a child can effectively grown inside of a brain dead mother. However, this earliest data is still a successful birth rate of almost 63%. If the likelihood of a child surviving this type of birth was virtually nonexistent or highly unlikely, these numbers would most likely be much lower.
To sum up, I believe that the child can be sufficiently sustained through the care that we currently have available until such time as it can be removed from Mrs. Munoz and survive. Furthermore, I do not believe that the infant in question would go through unreasonable pain and suffering (pain and suffering that would provide plausible reason to terminate the pregnancy that is) during its growth, and that its pain and suffering would not be exacerbated by allowing it to grow in this manner. This moral issue is a difficult one because it involves a key principle: reconciling theory and practice, ideals and pragmatism in this case. Ideally or in theory it would be great if we could save this child, and give it an opportunity for a life. But the key question is if in practice that is actually possible. In this case I believe it is. I believe some good can come from this. And unless it can be definitively said that the life of the child would not be worth living, all good that is possible should be achieved.
Personally, I think Mrs. Munoz should have been taken off life support because it’s what her family wishes. While alive, Mrs. Munoz had not wanted to be kept alive on a life support machine. However, some say that context matters and had she known that she was pregnant, Mrs. Munoz’s wish to be taken off life support might have been different. I agree that context matters. But in context, the fetus is clearly abnormal and if it lives, would be a burden on her family to take care of it. The life of the fetus is not the sole life in concern here; if they take on this anomalous baby, the lives of Mrs. Munoz’s family are affected negatively too. Either way though, this debate about Mrs. Munoz’s would be decision does not matter because Mrs. Munoz is dead. In addition, discussions over the what constitutes death do not matter because she is still incapable of providing her own opinion. Consequently, the only people left that would know her desires best is her family, so they should have the right to take Mrs. Munoz off of life support.
All that said though, laws do exist for moral reasons, so I understand why, in this morally murky situation, the hospital chose to follow the law and refused to take Mrs. Munoz off of life support.
Examining the law: “Texas law overrides women’s wishes when they are pregnant: ‘Section 166.049 Pregnant Patients. A person may not withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment under this subchapter from a pregnant patient.'”
The definition of patient is a person who is under medical care or treatment. This definition is irrelevant if the person is dead or alive (e.g. oftentimes, people who’ve passed away undergo massive treatments to look more presentable for their funeral viewing).
According to that definition, Mrs. Munoz would still be considered a pregnant patient and fall under the law. However, again, context matters and I doubt the Texas legislators ever considered the unfortunate possibility of a pregnant, brain-dead women while passing the law. Therefore, I believe that the law should be amended to consider deceased patients and possible future situations similar to this one, and perhaps give the family the authority to make the final decision.
I believe Marlise Munoz should be taken off life support for several reasons. With Munoz being declared “brain dead”, she will not be affected by any of the support given to her. This leaves medical practitioners treating her as a science experiment and having the fetus experience multiple defects. The father and family would face unpredictable complications if the child is born. It is all too early to say what exactly will happen, but many difficulties are bound to come with the Munoz family. The hospital should honor Marlise’s wishes and her family’s desire to give her a proper funeral. It is not fair for the doctors to keep someone who is legally dead on life support when it is not even wanted. Many expenses will go into the child’s treatment if he or she is born and arise more questions regarding adoption. Following the law can sometimes result in more trouble when the situation can be handled much more easily. Marlise and her family should be granted the wish that they are asking for and have them live in peace.
The first thing that came to mind when reading the summary about Mrs. Munoz was the never ending debate over pro-life vs. pro-choice. Not specifically in the sense of what to do with a growing fetus, but of the lack of control women these days have over our bodies. After reading the New York Times article, the most heart-wrenching statement came from her father: “all she is is a host for a fetus.” Ouch, that really hits home. It makes me feel that my sole purpose of living is as a reproductive vessel, undermining my mental or any other capability I possess.
The hospital has no right to decide the fate of the Munoz’s unborn child. The doctors and nurses at John Peter Smith Hospital are without a doubt educated people who have the best interest of the patient in mind. But they must also follow the law, which was created by people who presumably would want their loved one’s dying wish granted. Beside the legal and medical issues at stake, this situation boils down to ethics. The decision of Marlise and her family was to cut off life support if the issue arose, which should have been satisfied out of respect during this sad tragedy.
I completely agree with this. it does really all boil down to ethics. So is there really a right or wrong decision? Who knows? We as humans can only state our personal opinions and carry our beliefs into this whole discussion. Personally i believe that she should be taken off, and i strongly think this. But out there somewhere there’s a person who strongly believes she should not be taken off, and we should respect one another’s opinions because again, there is no right or wrong. Your statement about being referred to as a vessel is something i fully agree with. In my opinion i believe that everyone involved is at peace now that the court reached its decision, but do i really know? Of course not, and maybe none of us will.
From an opinion stand point, I have to say that she should be taken off the ventilator. The cons outweigh the pros in this circumstance. Her family wants her to be buried, which was her wish; however, a 14 week old fetus kept that from happening. While I can understand why this occurred, it did not make sense to me. Her fetus was 14 weeks old, and, compared to a 36 week old fetus, that is a huge difference. If the fetus is formed and is ready to be born, then I can appreciate the hospital’s attempt to save it; however, this was not the case. If i was the dad, i would rather my child rest in peace than have to live a hard life full of mishaps and uncertainty, especially if my unborn child was only 14 weeks old. This is obviously all opinion and tons of factors like religion and law come into play, but about 12 hours ago, in reality, Munoz was taken off the ventilator as per court ruling. May she rest in peace and her family’s minds be at peace.
The Marlise Munoz situation is horrific. While the death of a young woman is hard enough, the argument over the fetus growing inside her non-living body is nothing short of a tragedy. While I can fully understand the arguments from the views of the Texas hospital and the Munoz family, I definitely side with the Munoz family. Normally I am pro-life when it comes to abortion, however, I believe that abortion is not the main issue in this case at all. Rather, the hospital’s interpretation of a loose law is the main issue. The hospital incorrectly interprets a Texas law that says “A person may not withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment under this subchapter from a pregnant patient.” The hospital believes this means that Marlise should be kept on life support. However, the hospital fails to understand that this law applies to “life-sustaining treatment.” Marlise Munoz was pronounced brain-dead, so this law cannot be applicable in this case. While some may refer to the wishes of the Munoz family, I believe that the hospital’s misinterpretation of a Texas law is the primary argument for taking Marlise Munoz off live support.
I personally believe that the mother should have been taken off of life support as soon as she was declared brain dead. As Mark Geragos said in the Anderson Cooper video, when the argument breaks down to the core its really an issue of pro life versus abortion. The entire process is an act against God if you want to look at it from that standpoint. In a sense, keeping the baby alive is like playing God! She died and so the baby should have as well, the way nature intended. Additionally, Eric Munoz and the family did not want the child seeing that the deformed baby with hydrocephaly would be far from anything representative of the Munoz family and would also be mechanically developed. The connection between the family and the baby was lost when they found out how long Marlise was pregnant for and the fact that she was legally dead and a baby was being grown inside of her. To ask a family to watch their dead mother and wife being used as an experiment is the only unethical thing about this situation. In conclusion it is legally ok to have an abortion when your alive but not dead? Something is wrong here!