Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/08/us/pregnant-and-forced-to-stay-on-life-support.html?_r=0
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/experts-weigh-in-on-texas-law-keeping-brain-dead-pregnant-woman-alive/
An extremely troubling case has been developing since
November in Texas, regarding a man and his brain dead wife. After suffering a
blood clot in her lungs, Marlise Munoz fell brain dead. However, at this time,
Marlise was 14 weeks pregnant. Marlise and husband had made a plan that if
anything were to happen to them so that they became brain dead or needed life
support, they agreed that they would want to be allowed to die. In the wake of
Marlise’s tragedy, her husband and parents made the difficult decision to end
her life, but the hospital in Texas where she was receiving life support
wouldn’t let them. Texas state law “states that a person may not withdraw or withhold
‘life-sustaining treatment’ from a pregnant patient”(Fernandez, Eckholm).
Proponents of anti-choice
legislation as this one in Texas defend their actions and opinions on the basis
of the sanctity of life. That is, respect for human life in all of its forms.
Well what about the sanctity of life in death? Where the hell is the respect
for human life when Marlise Munoz is being used as a human incubator for an
unborn fetus?
I urge everyone to read an
article about this case; it raises important dilemmas about a person’s rights
and entitlements for when they die, the authority of the Texas legislature, and
the abortion debate. Please comment on these themes as you see fit.
3 comments:
After discussing the head-scratching details and proceedings of the Terri Schiavo case in class last week, I was surprised to see both the Marlise Munoz case and the Jahi McMath case on my homepage. While I hold the issue of a person’s rights and entitlements after death to be entirely personal, both cases reminded me of the complex political factors involved.
Regarding the Munoz case, I am disturbed by the claims the hospital has made. While it explains, “A person may not withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment under this subchapter from a pregnant patient,” the CBS article states that “three experts interviewed by The Associated Press, including two who helped draft the law, said a brain-dead patient’s case wouldn’t be covered by the law” because the patient was legally dead. I share the concerns expressed in the CBS article, which points out that the John Peter Smith Hospital may be misinterpreting the law. Since Munoz is legally dead, the conditions she asked for in such a situation should be honored and not put under the priorities of an unborn fetus. Even if studies have shown babies can be born to women who are brain dead (albeit rarely), the situation should be resolved in the interest of the mother and her family, not the fetus.
While it makes some sense to connect this to a discussion on abortion, I agree with Lynne Machado, Marlise Munoz’s mother when she said, “It’s not a matter of pro-choice and pro-life … It’s about a matter of our daughter’s wishes not being honored by the state of Texas.” Texas is a state that values life, and in recent months has had various legal battles over new abortion laws. I am not certain of the legal time window women have to make the abortion decision in the state of Texas, but it is possible that time has elapsed since this debate began. Regardless, this issue would likely have played out in different ways depending on the state.
Some interesting links about abortion in Texas and the debate it has faced in the last few months:
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/1/5/in-texas-abortionclinicsclose.html
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/11/19/21538068-supreme-court-wont-block-texas-abortion-law?lite
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/judge-rules-controversial-texas-abortion-law-unconstitutional/
Due to the fact that the chances of Marlise Munoz delivering the baby are slim, I believe that the state of Texas has gone a little too far in meddling with an individual's wishes, especially because she and her husband had agreed to not have life support. I feel that in other cases, if the baby is further along or if the chances of being born are higher, then the law may interfere if the state is strongly against abortion. I agree with Annika in that the outcome of Munoz's wishes should not be placed under the priorities of an unborn fetus that may or may not even be able to be delivered.
Post a Comment