Playing God (Marlise Munoz discussion)

[Quantum Windbag]

Well, the fetus, the nonchild, will never have an opportunity to develop into a child handycaped or otherwise. Would anyone position of this be different there were no medical problems with the fetus?

I guess fetuses just don't matter!

Just how ghoulish do you have to be to try and force a dead body to give birth? Furthermore how much was it going to cost the family to keep a dead body on "life support" for 6 months? Who was going to pay that enormous bill?

Just goulish enough to force people to pay for birth control when they don't use it.

 

[emilynghiem]

It is sadly backwards that the system fought against the family in this case to keep someone alive who gave instructions and had family support to die
but the court authority in Terri Schiavo's case had NO PROOF from her of her wishes
in writing, only the testimony of people with conflicts of interest, and they went AGAINST
the family who wanted to take over responsibility for her care to LIVE.

it looks like bad karma, for every case that goes wrong in one direction
you have one that goes the other way. And the point remains that
why should courts override family decisions. this is a spiritual decision
where the families should reach agreement, and then teh authorities should respect that.

If the private hospital staff cannot abide by wishes, they should transfer to facilities and support that will. We need to organize health resources where such impositions and conflicts do not happen.

At least this conflict was resolved in agreement, which didn't happen in Schiavo's case.
We should learn from ALL such cases, and promote legal mediation before it reaches this point of dragging out and causing more pain, suffering and expenses on top of the tragedy.

Why is this discussion even happening. In the face of the wishes of herself, her husband, her parents, why do "small government" conservatives believe that the government should have a say in whether this woman lived or died, when she would have had no extraordinary measures taken, were she not pregnant.

When Pro-life Goes Frankenstein: The Case of Marlise Munoz | Morgan Guyton

Indeed, Rachel Cox at LifeNews berates Erick for wanting to honor his wife's wishes about her end-of-life care:

Why is this father trying to find all the reasons why his wife and unborn child should be removed from life support and left to die, and not the reasons why they shouldn't? I find it very frustrating and disheartening that Erick Munoz thinks this way and also frightening that so many people actually agree with him. I believe these hopeless, negative attitudes about the Munoz family's situation are caused mainly by one thing: abortion. Abortion causes society to devalue human beings. When the abortion industry, media, and politicians pound in our heads over and over that unborn babies are blobs of disposable tissue, it's easier to see why someone would not be motivated to preserve the life of their "clump of cells."

Of course. It's all abortion's fault. That's why Erick and his wife's parents, all of whom want to end life support, are seeking closure and the ability to grieve their loss. Because the abortion industry has corrupted their minds. That's why Erick doesn't want a brain-dead body that is only a shell of a person to be artificially respirated as a super-expensive, organic fetus incubator. Elizabeth Landau writes that using the terms "brain-dead" and "life support" is a big part of the problem. When the brain no longer functions, a person is not just "brain-dead"; they are all the way dead. "Life support" is a misnomer in such cases because what's happening with the person's body is not life, but just a sort of zombie un-death, no different than if a mad scientist figured out how to create an organ plantation in which livers and kidneys and stomachs and hearts could be harvested from recently dead people and incubated outside of human bodies to be transplanted in the future (hey, it might not be a bad idea, but it isn't human life).

A truly Christian pro-life position is concerned with not letting people play God by ending unborn children's lives unnaturally with technology. The pro-life position becomes Frankenstein when it demands that technology be used to disallow nature from taking its course with human life. According to NIH data, God is the ultimate abortionist, terminating about half of all fertilized eggs, and about 15-20 percent of the fetuses of known pregnancies. If it became technologically possible to extract brand-new zygotes from the uterus and grow them in fail-proof incubators in which God would not be allowed to play God with human life so that the gestation rate would be absolutely 100 percent, would the pro-life movement call for that too?

She was removed from life support today, not just per a judge's order, but because the hospital chose not to appeal.

We should never have heard of her. Her husband should have found her, she should have been allowed to die, and that should have been the end of the story.

Texas hospital removes brain-dead pregnant woman Marlise Munoz from life support - CBS News

DALLAS - A Texas hospital removed life support from a pregnant, brain-dead woman following a judge's order that it was misapplying state law to disregard her family's wishes, the family's lawyers said.

Attorneys for Erick Munoz, the husband of Marlise Munoz, released a statement Sunday afternoon saying the order had been followed.

"Today, at approximately 11:30 a.m. central time, in accordance with the order of the 96th District Court of Tarrant County, Texas, issued Friday, January 24, 2014, Marlise Munoz’s body was disconnected from 'life support' and released to Mr. Munoz," Heather L. King and Jessica H. Janicek, Munoz's attorneys, said in a statement emailed to the press. "The Munoz and Machado families will now proceed with the somber task of laying Marlise Munoz’s body to rest, and grieving over the great loss that has been suffered. May Marlise Munoz finally rest in peace, and her family find the strength to complete what has been an unbearably long and arduous journey."

May she rest in peace.

The case has raised questions about end-of-life care and whether a pregnant woman who is considered legally and medically dead should be kept on life support for the sake of a fetus. It also has garnered attention on both sides of the abortion debate, with anti-abortion groups arguing Munoz's fetus deserves a chance to be born.

Hospital officials have said they were bound by the Texas Advance Directives Act, which prohibits withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment from a pregnant patient. But in his brief ruling, Wallace said that "Mrs. Munoz is dead," meaning that the hospital was misapplying the law. The ruling did not mention the fetus.

The hospital has not pronounced her dead and has continued to treat her over the objections of both Erick Munoz and her parents, who sat together in court Friday.

Next, I hope to see a lawsuit if the hospital attempts to bill the family for anything more than her arrival at the emergency room.

No, I would support mediation and conflict resolution.
this family has gone through enough heartbreak and being dragged through the media.
they deserve to have some peace, not more legal mess, would not wish that on anyone.

 

[Two Thumbs]

the chance of being born disabled is not a valid excuse for abortion

it's a selfish excuse

nothing more

What about the living? The father and the other child? What about her family?

Who will pay the bill to deliver a dead fetus from a dead mother?

If they can keep the fetus breathing, who will pay to keep the it breathing? (I say "it) because it is so horribly malformed, they cannot tell the sex.)

If you are one of those "christians", why not let your god decide?

The mother is dead.
The fetus is dead.

Give the family some peace.

that was a general statement about using a birth defect as an excuse, since it's a common whine from leftist that think money is more important than life.


I made it clear, earlier that it was her wish not to be kept alive

 

[BDBoop]

The behavior of the pro-lifers with regard to this situation has been obviously, blatantly uncaring in the extreme. Nobody indicated any degree of empathy for her husband, her parents, her child, or Marlise herself and her wishes. No. It was all about the fetus.

Of course not.

For most on the right it was solely about exploiting this family’s tragedy for some perceived political gain.

Like the left is doing now.

right now, in this very thread.



I might have missed it, but I'm the only one to be concerned for the family.

the leftist are hate spewing

You missed it. The left has been talking about the family since we all found out that this particular level of torture was being perpetrated on them. It's always and only been about the family because to US, they are who matter.

 

[BDBoop]

It is sadly backwards that the system fought against the family in this case to keep someone alive who gave instructions and had family support to die
but the court authority in Terri Schiavo's case had NO PROOF from her of her wishes
in writing, only the testimony of people with conflicts of interest, and they went AGAINST
the family who wanted to take over responsibility for her care to LIVE.

it looks like bad karma, for every case that goes wrong in one direction
you have one that goes the other way. And the point remains that
why should courts override family decisions. this is a spiritual decision
where the families should reach agreement, and then teh authorities should respect that.

If the private hospital staff cannot abide by wishes, they should transfer to facilities and support that will. We need to organize health resources where such impositions and conflicts do not happen.

At least this conflict was resolved in agreement, which didn't happen in Schiavo's case.
We should learn from ALL such cases, and promote legal mediation before it reaches this point of dragging out and causing more pain, suffering and expenses on top of the tragedy.

Why is this discussion even happening. In the face of the wishes of herself, her husband, her parents, why do "small government" conservatives believe that the government should have a say in whether this woman lived or died, when she would have had no extraordinary measures taken, were she not pregnant.

When Pro-life Goes Frankenstein: The Case of Marlise Munoz | Morgan Guyton

Indeed, Rachel Cox at LifeNews berates Erick for wanting to honor his wife's wishes about her end-of-life care:



Of course. It's all abortion's fault. That's why Erick and his wife's parents, all of whom want to end life support, are seeking closure and the ability to grieve their loss. Because the abortion industry has corrupted their minds. That's why Erick doesn't want a brain-dead body that is only a shell of a person to be artificially respirated as a super-expensive, organic fetus incubator. Elizabeth Landau writes that using the terms "brain-dead" and "life support" is a big part of the problem. When the brain no longer functions, a person is not just "brain-dead"; they are all the way dead. "Life support" is a misnomer in such cases because what's happening with the person's body is not life, but just a sort of zombie un-death, no different than if a mad scientist figured out how to create an organ plantation in which livers and kidneys and stomachs and hearts could be harvested from recently dead people and incubated outside of human bodies to be transplanted in the future (hey, it might not be a bad idea, but it isn't human life).

A truly Christian pro-life position is concerned with not letting people play God by ending unborn children's lives unnaturally with technology. The pro-life position becomes Frankenstein when it demands that technology be used to disallow nature from taking its course with human life. According to NIH data, God is the ultimate abortionist, terminating about half of all fertilized eggs, and about 15-20 percent of the fetuses of known pregnancies. If it became technologically possible to extract brand-new zygotes from the uterus and grow them in fail-proof incubators in which God would not be allowed to play God with human life so that the gestation rate would be absolutely 100 percent, would the pro-life movement call for that too?

She was removed from life support today, not just per a judge's order, but because the hospital chose not to appeal.

We should never have heard of her. Her husband should have found her, she should have been allowed to die, and that should have been the end of the story.

Texas hospital removes brain-dead pregnant woman Marlise Munoz from life support - CBS News



May she rest in peace.

The case has raised questions about end-of-life care and whether a pregnant woman who is considered legally and medically dead should be kept on life support for the sake of a fetus. It also has garnered attention on both sides of the abortion debate, with anti-abortion groups arguing Munoz's fetus deserves a chance to be born.

Hospital officials have said they were bound by the Texas Advance Directives Act, which prohibits withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment from a pregnant patient. But in his brief ruling, Wallace said that "Mrs. Munoz is dead," meaning that the hospital was misapplying the law. The ruling did not mention the fetus.

The hospital has not pronounced her dead and has continued to treat her over the objections of both Erick Munoz and her parents, who sat together in court Friday.

Next, I hope to see a lawsuit if the hospital attempts to bill the family for anything more than her arrival at the emergency room.

No, I would support mediation and conflict resolution.
this family has gone through enough heartbreak and being dragged through the media.
they deserve to have some peace, not more legal mess, would not wish that on anyone.

The hospital intends to bill them. There is no mediation - and the people who would decide to sue are the family. Are you saying they would be victims of their own decision?

That would certainly be better than what they just got done being victims of.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Of course not.

For most on the right it was solely about exploiting this family’s tragedy for some perceived political gain.

Like the left is doing now.

right now, in this very thread.



I might have missed it, but I'm the only one to be concerned for the family.

the leftist are hate spewing

You missed it. The left has been talking about the family since we all found out that this particular level of torture was being perpetrated on them. It's always and only been about the family because to US, they are who matter.

Did the left ever notice that the particular level of torture was overruled because the judge said the hospital got the law wrong? Or does the left continue to want to blame conservatives?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Why is this discussion even happening. In the face of the wishes of herself, her husband, her parents, why do "small government" conservatives believe that the government should have a say in whether this woman lived or died, when she would have had no extraordinary measures taken, were she not pregnant.

When Pro-life Goes Frankenstein: The Case of Marlise Munoz | Morgan Guyton

Indeed, Rachel Cox at LifeNews berates Erick for wanting to honor his wife's wishes about her end-of-life care:

Why is this father trying to find all the reasons why his wife and unborn child should be removed from life support and left to die, and not the reasons why they shouldn't? I find it very frustrating and disheartening that Erick Munoz thinks this way and also frightening that so many people actually agree with him. I believe these hopeless, negative attitudes about the Munoz family's situation are caused mainly by one thing: abortion. Abortion causes society to devalue human beings. When the abortion industry, media, and politicians pound in our heads over and over that unborn babies are blobs of disposable tissue, it's easier to see why someone would not be motivated to preserve the life of their "clump of cells."

Of course. It's all abortion's fault. That's why Erick and his wife's parents, all of whom want to end life support, are seeking closure and the ability to grieve their loss. Because the abortion industry has corrupted their minds. That's why Erick doesn't want a brain-dead body that is only a shell of a person to be artificially respirated as a super-expensive, organic fetus incubator. Elizabeth Landau writes that using the terms "brain-dead" and "life support" is a big part of the problem. When the brain no longer functions, a person is not just "brain-dead"; they are all the way dead. "Life support" is a misnomer in such cases because what's happening with the person's body is not life, but just a sort of zombie un-death, no different than if a mad scientist figured out how to create an organ plantation in which livers and kidneys and stomachs and hearts could be harvested from recently dead people and incubated outside of human bodies to be transplanted in the future (hey, it might not be a bad idea, but it isn't human life).

A truly Christian pro-life position is concerned with not letting people play God by ending unborn children's lives unnaturally with technology. The pro-life position becomes Frankenstein when it demands that technology be used to disallow nature from taking its course with human life. According to NIH data, God is the ultimate abortionist, terminating about half of all fertilized eggs, and about 15-20 percent of the fetuses of known pregnancies. If it became technologically possible to extract brand-new zygotes from the uterus and grow them in fail-proof incubators in which God would not be allowed to play God with human life so that the gestation rate would be absolutely 100 percent, would the pro-life movement call for that too?

She was removed from life support today, not just per a judge's order, but because the hospital chose not to appeal.

We should never have heard of her. Her husband should have found her, she should have been allowed to die, and that should have been the end of the story.

Texas hospital removes brain-dead pregnant woman Marlise Munoz from life support - CBS News

DALLAS - A Texas hospital removed life support from a pregnant, brain-dead woman following a judge's order that it was misapplying state law to disregard her family's wishes, the family's lawyers said.

Attorneys for Erick Munoz, the husband of Marlise Munoz, released a statement Sunday afternoon saying the order had been followed.

"Today, at approximately 11:30 a.m. central time, in accordance with the order of the 96th District Court of Tarrant County, Texas, issued Friday, January 24, 2014, Marlise Munoz’s body was disconnected from 'life support' and released to Mr. Munoz," Heather L. King and Jessica H. Janicek, Munoz's attorneys, said in a statement emailed to the press. "The Munoz and Machado families will now proceed with the somber task of laying Marlise Munoz’s body to rest, and grieving over the great loss that has been suffered. May Marlise Munoz finally rest in peace, and her family find the strength to complete what has been an unbearably long and arduous journey."

May she rest in peace.

The case has raised questions about end-of-life care and whether a pregnant woman who is considered legally and medically dead should be kept on life support for the sake of a fetus. It also has garnered attention on both sides of the abortion debate, with anti-abortion groups arguing Munoz's fetus deserves a chance to be born.

Hospital officials have said they were bound by the Texas Advance Directives Act, which prohibits withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment from a pregnant patient. But in his brief ruling, Wallace said that "Mrs. Munoz is dead," meaning that the hospital was misapplying the law. The ruling did not mention the fetus.

The hospital has not pronounced her dead and has continued to treat her over the objections of both Erick Munoz and her parents, who sat together in court Friday.

Next, I hope to see a lawsuit if the hospital attempts to bill the family for anything more than her arrival at the emergency room.

The hospital followed the law. Wife's wishes don't countermand law thus her wishes and her husband's attempts to fulfill them don't enter into it.

Isn't for any of us to say who does or doesn't deserve life, that's called eugenics. Pleanty of disabled people give enormous benefits to those who've met them that argueing babies with known defects shouldn't be allowed to be born is monstrous. If everyone were born flawless would we be able to demonstrate compassion for those that weren't?

In this case the baby was significantly malformed, yet we don't practice euthanasia for people following horrible accidents, or veterans who've suffered massive damage in wars. So why propose we do so for unborn babies?

If the baby has brain activity, it has a soul and deserves a chance to live. My opinion.

 

[Mertex]

Why is this discussion even happening. In the face of the wishes of herself, her husband, her parents, why do "small government" conservatives believe that the government should have a say in whether this woman lived or died, when she would have had no extraordinary measures taken, were she not pregnant.

When Pro-life Goes Frankenstein: The Case of Marlise Munoz | Morgan Guyton

Indeed, Rachel Cox at LifeNews berates Erick for wanting to honor his wife's wishes about her end-of-life care:



Of course. It's all abortion's fault. That's why Erick and his wife's parents, all of whom want to end life support, are seeking closure and the ability to grieve their loss. Because the abortion industry has corrupted their minds. That's why Erick doesn't want a brain-dead body that is only a shell of a person to be artificially respirated as a super-expensive, organic fetus incubator. Elizabeth Landau writes that using the terms "brain-dead" and "life support" is a big part of the problem. When the brain no longer functions, a person is not just "brain-dead"; they are all the way dead. "Life support" is a misnomer in such cases because what's happening with the person's body is not life, but just a sort of zombie un-death, no different than if a mad scientist figured out how to create an organ plantation in which livers and kidneys and stomachs and hearts could be harvested from recently dead people and incubated outside of human bodies to be transplanted in the future (hey, it might not be a bad idea, but it isn't human life).

A truly Christian pro-life position is concerned with not letting people play God by ending unborn children's lives unnaturally with technology. The pro-life position becomes Frankenstein when it demands that technology be used to disallow nature from taking its course with human life. According to NIH data, God is the ultimate abortionist, terminating about half of all fertilized eggs, and about 15-20 percent of the fetuses of known pregnancies. If it became technologically possible to extract brand-new zygotes from the uterus and grow them in fail-proof incubators in which God would not be allowed to play God with human life so that the gestation rate would be absolutely 100 percent, would the pro-life movement call for that too?

She was removed from life support today, not just per a judge's order, but because the hospital chose not to appeal.

We should never have heard of her. Her husband should have found her, she should have been allowed to die, and that should have been the end of the story.

Texas hospital removes brain-dead pregnant woman Marlise Munoz from life support - CBS News



May she rest in peace.

The case has raised questions about end-of-life care and whether a pregnant woman who is considered legally and medically dead should be kept on life support for the sake of a fetus. It also has garnered attention on both sides of the abortion debate, with anti-abortion groups arguing Munoz's fetus deserves a chance to be born.

Hospital officials have said they were bound by the Texas Advance Directives Act, which prohibits withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment from a pregnant patient. But in his brief ruling, Wallace said that "Mrs. Munoz is dead," meaning that the hospital was misapplying the law. The ruling did not mention the fetus.

The hospital has not pronounced her dead and has continued to treat her over the objections of both Erick Munoz and her parents, who sat together in court Friday.

Next, I hope to see a lawsuit if the hospital attempts to bill the family for anything more than her arrival at the emergency room.

The hospital followed the law. Wife's wishes don't countermand law thus her wishes and her husband's attempts to fulfill them don't enter into it.

Except the law doesn't apply to "dead" women.

Isn't for any of us to say who does or doesn't deserve life, that's called eugenics.

Except the woman was already dead....there was no question about that, no measures were being taken to bring her back.

Pleanty of disabled people give enormous benefits to those who've met them that argueing babies with known defects shouldn't be allowed to be born is monstrous.

Yes, but who is willing to fork up the money required to keep a fetus alive, who will most likely have mental and physical issues that is not even viable and who's mother is dead. Most disabled people were born to someone that either didn't know they were disabled or if they knew chose to have them anyway. Why would they impose that kind of cost on another.....is it really worth hundreds of thousands of dollars to invest in trying to save a fetus, who may or may not live to be born? That is unreasonable and plain looney.

If everyone were born flawless would we be able to demonstrate compassion for those that weren't?

The reason for taking the mother off life support isn't because anybody thinks the child must be flawless.....I would think that the prohibitive cost to keep the woman on life-support (over $300K) just to keep the fetus alive with no guarantee that it would survive until viable, and if it did whether it would have a meaningful life is more the reason for ending it. Would you spend $300K to take a chance that a mentally ill and physically ill fetus "might" live long enough to be born? I seriously doubt it.

In this case the baby was significantly malformed, yet we don't practice euthanasia for people following horrible accidents, or veterans who've suffered massive damage in wars. So why propose we do so for unborn babies?

Maybe because that is the more humane thing to do.

If the baby has brain activity, it has a soul and deserves a chance to live. My opinion.

That is selfish. If the fetus has a soul, then he is innocent and will go straight to heaven, but you want to bring him into this cruel world, where he will have to depend on others for everything, won't be able to enjoy the things you do, may not be able to see or hear and definitely not have sex and marry.....you think that is better....yeah, you do.

 

[Mertex]

the chance of being born disabled is not a valid excuse for abortion

it's a selfish excuse

nothing more

What about the living? The father and the other child? What about her family?

Who will pay the bill to deliver a dead fetus from a dead mother?

If they can keep the fetus breathing, who will pay to keep the it breathing? (I say "it) because it is so horribly malformed, they cannot tell the sex.)

If you are one of those "christians", why not let your god decide?

The mother is dead.
The fetus is dead.

Give the family some peace.

that was a general statement about using a birth defect as an excuse, since it's a common whine from leftist that think money is more important than life.


I made it clear, earlier that it was her wish not to be kept alive

Since money is no object for you, why don't you send the hospital the $300K they are billing the husband, who didn't want his wife kept on life-support to begin with.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

He wont have to pay any hospital bills from the point he said 'pull the plug' onwards. A first-year law student could win that judgement.

 

[Agit8r]

I am just glad that I don't live in Tejastan

 

[Luddly Neddite]

the chance of being born disabled is not a valid excuse for abortion

it's a selfish excuse

nothing more

What about the living? The father and the other child? What about her family?

Who will pay the bill to deliver a dead fetus from a dead mother?

If they can keep the fetus breathing, who will pay to keep the it breathing? (I say "it) because it is so horribly malformed, they cannot tell the sex.)

If you are one of those "christians", why not let your god decide?

The mother is dead.
The fetus is dead.

Give the family some peace.

that was a general statement about using a birth defect as an excuse, since it's a common whine from leftist that think money is more important than life.


I made it clear, earlier that it was her wish not to be kept alive

No one, either left or right, would or has even hinted that money is more important than life and saying such things adds nothing to the discussion.

That you have so much money that you never have to think about how much your medical care is costing or how you will manage to pay the bill, that's nice for you.

It is a sad fact that most people have no choice but to make many of life's hardest decisions based on the amount of money they have.

If that were not true, we would never again see a big pickle jar on the counter of the convenience store asking for spare change for a little child's brain surgery.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear BDBoop:

I AGREE, and I think most agree with us, that the family being in CONSENSUS with WRITTEN PROOF of the mother's wishes had well established their consent in this matter.
(If you want to be technical, she only agreed not to extend her life, but other people at the hospital did not assume this applied to the baby as well.) The Court confirmed proof that the baby could not be born alive first, because the hospital did not want this responsibility for making that determination. You cannot force the HOSPITAL to play God either, so that is why it ended up in Court.

I AGREE the Court should not play God, but should endorse the consensus of the family, not impose a decision they don't agree with. The conflicts should be resolved, and in this case, the Court was used to confirm medical evidence so consensus COULD be reached with the family and with the hospital that agreed AFTER the Court confirmed it was legal.

I WISH the Court would have resolved the conflict in the case of Terri Schiavo, where the opposite happened: the Court "took one side" and IMPOSED that to "play God" while the rest of the family fought to prove (a) conflict of interest with the ex-husband who wanted her dead because he already started a new family and should have been removed as guardian (b) there was no written proof of the wife's wishes. Despite these conflicts, the Judge agreed with HIM over the rest of HER family who were willing to take over her care since he refused.

So remember there are cases going the other way, which MAY require Court protection of the family's interest, in case the hospital disagrees and the family needs more time:
Brain-dead Canadian woman kept on life support to save fetus - chicagotribune.com
SCHINDLER: My sister Terri Schiavo was alive like Jahi McMath - Washington Times

In cases where the family WANTS to keep the person alive, the Court can be used to DEFEND the family's beliefs in moving the person to a hospital that supports the same.

So the court should ONLY have been used to make sure there was no MURDER going on by falsifying documents or statements, no funny business, in the case of PREEXISTING DISPUTE between FAMILY MEMBERS.

In both cases, the family should be counseled to reach a consensus; in the case of any family member having an objection, it should be REMEDIED to reach consensus.

The Court should be used to CONFIRM the consensus of the family is legal, with no conflicts of interest or complaints of covering up evidence of a crime or wrongdoing (such as obstructing a case of abuse charges, for example, or other suspicious injury or death)

Why is this discussion even happening. In the face of the wishes of herself, her husband, her parents, why do "small government" conservatives believe that the government should have a say in whether this woman lived or died, when she would have had no extraordinary measures taken, were she not pregnant.

When Pro-life Goes Frankenstein: The Case of Marlise Munoz | Morgan Guyton

Indeed, Rachel Cox at LifeNews berates Erick for wanting to honor his wife's wishes about her end-of-life care:

Why is this father trying to find all the reasons why his wife and unborn child should be removed from life support and left to die, and not the reasons why they shouldn't? I find it very frustrating and disheartening that Erick Munoz thinks this way and also frightening that so many people actually agree with him. I believe these hopeless, negative attitudes about the Munoz family's situation are caused mainly by one thing: abortion. Abortion causes society to devalue human beings. When the abortion industry, media, and politicians pound in our heads over and over that unborn babies are blobs of disposable tissue, it's easier to see why someone would not be motivated to preserve the life of their "clump of cells."

Of course. It's all abortion's fault. That's why Erick and his wife's parents, all of whom want to end life support, are seeking closure and the ability to grieve their loss. Because the abortion industry has corrupted their minds. That's why Erick doesn't want a brain-dead body that is only a shell of a person to be artificially respirated as a super-expensive, organic fetus incubator. Elizabeth Landau writes that using the terms "brain-dead" and "life support" is a big part of the problem. When the brain no longer functions, a person is not just "brain-dead"; they are all the way dead. "Life support" is a misnomer in such cases because what's happening with the person's body is not life, but just a sort of zombie un-death, no different than if a mad scientist figured out how to create an organ plantation in which livers and kidneys and stomachs and hearts could be harvested from recently dead people and incubated outside of human bodies to be transplanted in the future (hey, it might not be a bad idea, but it isn't human life).

A truly Christian pro-life position is concerned with not letting people play God by ending unborn children's lives unnaturally with technology. The pro-life position becomes Frankenstein when it demands that technology be used to disallow nature from taking its course with human life. According to NIH data, God is the ultimate abortionist, terminating about half of all fertilized eggs, and about 15-20 percent of the fetuses of known pregnancies. If it became technologically possible to extract brand-new zygotes from the uterus and grow them in fail-proof incubators in which God would not be allowed to play God with human life so that the gestation rate would be absolutely 100 percent, would the pro-life movement call for that too?

She was removed from life support today, not just per a judge's order, but because the hospital chose not to appeal.

We should never have heard of her. Her husband should have found her, she should have been allowed to die, and that should have been the end of the story.

Texas hospital removes brain-dead pregnant woman Marlise Munoz from life support - CBS News

DALLAS - A Texas hospital removed life support from a pregnant, brain-dead woman following a judge's order that it was misapplying state law to disregard her family's wishes, the family's lawyers said.

Attorneys for Erick Munoz, the husband of Marlise Munoz, released a statement Sunday afternoon saying the order had been followed.

"Today, at approximately 11:30 a.m. central time, in accordance with the order of the 96th District Court of Tarrant County, Texas, issued Friday, January 24, 2014, Marlise Munoz’s body was disconnected from 'life support' and released to Mr. Munoz," Heather L. King and Jessica H. Janicek, Munoz's attorneys, said in a statement emailed to the press. "The Munoz and Machado families will now proceed with the somber task of laying Marlise Munoz’s body to rest, and grieving over the great loss that has been suffered. May Marlise Munoz finally rest in peace, and her family find the strength to complete what has been an unbearably long and arduous journey."

May she rest in peace.

The case has raised questions about end-of-life care and whether a pregnant woman who is considered legally and medically dead should be kept on life support for the sake of a fetus. It also has garnered attention on both sides of the abortion debate, with anti-abortion groups arguing Munoz's fetus deserves a chance to be born.

Hospital officials have said they were bound by the Texas Advance Directives Act, which prohibits withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment from a pregnant patient. But in his brief ruling, Wallace said that "Mrs. Munoz is dead," meaning that the hospital was misapplying the law. The ruling did not mention the fetus.

The hospital has not pronounced her dead and has continued to treat her over the objections of both Erick Munoz and her parents, who sat together in court Friday.

Next, I hope to see a lawsuit if the hospital attempts to bill the family for anything more than her arrival at the emergency room.

I find lawsuits add to the trauma and conflicts that make these matters worse.
For sake of healing and closure, and return to normalcy, I recommend mediation and consensus, and cases like this won't happen if more people resolved conflicts themselves.

 

[BDBoop]

If the hospital attempts to bill the family, then there should be a lawsuit unless they agree to eat the costs of the decision THEY made to ignore the family's wishes.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

If the hospital attempts to bill the family, then there should be a lawsuit unless they agree to eat the costs of the decision THEY made to ignore the family's wishes.

I agree but, if I remember correctly, this happened in TX where they had the law on their side.

One more example of where we need to get government out of our private lives.

 

[BDBoop]

If the hospital attempts to bill the family, then there should be a lawsuit unless they agree to eat the costs of the decision THEY made to ignore the family's wishes.

I agree but, if I remember correctly, this happened in TX where they had the law on their side.

One more example of where we need to get government out of our private lives.

I would sue anyway.

I would never honor a bill that I did not create.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

If the hospital attempts to bill the family, then there should be a lawsuit unless they agree to eat the costs of the decision THEY made to ignore the family's wishes.

I agree but, if I remember correctly, this happened in TX where they had the law on their side.

One more example of where we need to get government out of our private lives.

I would sue anyway.

I would never honor a bill that I did not create.

I would too and credit just isn't all that important to me so would not pay either.

I feel so bad for people in this kind of situation because they're really against a wall. He's young, has a child to raise alone and instead of being able to mourn his wife and child, he's beset by meddling do-gooders who wanted to force him into a miserably untenable situation.

My bet is that not one of them has donated one red cent to help this poor man and his child.

 

[Mertex]

If the hospital attempts to bill the family, then there should be a lawsuit unless they agree to eat the costs of the decision THEY made to ignore the family's wishes.

I agree but, if I remember correctly, this happened in TX where they had the law on their side.

One more example of where we need to get government out of our private lives.

I would sue anyway.

I would never honor a bill that I did not create.

I think the husband is suing.....

 

[Mertex]

Like the left is doing now.

right now, in this very thread.



I might have missed it, but I'm the only one to be concerned for the family.

the leftist are hate spewing

You missed it. The left has been talking about the family since we all found out that this particular level of torture was being perpetrated on them. It's always and only been about the family because to US, they are who matter.

Did the left ever notice that the particular level of torture was overruled because the judge said the hospital got the law wrong? Or does the left continue to want to blame conservatives?

The hospital did misinterpret the law, but conservatives have been on the side of the hospital even if the hospital had been within the law....so maybe you all need to fork up some money and pay the bill?

 

[BDBoop]

And to those who were sneering that her husband couldn't get her off life support fast enough.

Marlise Muñoz's husband tells CNN, 'I asked God to take me instead' - CNN.com

(CNN) -- Erick Muñoz tried to keep hope alive, but he knew his wife was dead.

"Many a night, I asked God to take me instead," he said in an exclusive interview with CNN's "AC360" on Wednesday. "But you can't turn off that knowledge, that you know how bad it was. ... And I promised her, I told her I will honor her wishes."

On Sunday, someone switched off the machines inside a Texas hospital that kept Marlise Muñoz's heart and lungs working.

Her family spoke to CNN on Wednesday in their first national television interview since they won their battle to disconnect the ventilator from the pregnant woman's body.

The baby was a girl, and they named her Nicole.