Will libs fight to pull the plug on this girl

[Vox]

so the rights of the unborn should be more than the rights of the born?

which rights of the born? to kill the unborn?

yes, the right of the unborn to life supersedes the right to convenience of those already born.

 

[Vox]

the parents, the father, the everybody around, including the doctors have no indicators that the baby has any injury whatsoever, if the baby is growing and progressing normally.

Killing the healthy unborn child just because they fear the child might have some impairment - is ludicrous.

And against the law.

 

[S.J.]

The father knows their baby is in there. Do you really think he, and her parents, for crying in the proverbial beer, would be looking to take her off life support if they thought there was a healthy little nother guy in there? She was BLUE when he found her. Lack of oxygen for her, lack of oxygen for baby.

The state of Texas sure is happy playing God. Hell, I bet if he knew then what he knows now? He wouldn't have taken her to the hospital.

Seems to me like you're the one who wants to play God.

 

[Sherry]

The father knows their baby is in there. Do you really think he, and her parents, for crying in the proverbial beer, would be looking to take her off life support if they thought there was a healthy little nother guy in there? She was BLUE when he found her. Lack of oxygen for her, lack of oxygen for baby.

The state of Texas sure is happy playing God. Hell, I bet if he knew then what he knows now? He wouldn't have taken her to the hospital.

So, that doesn't mean he wants the burden of even a healthy baby. He could still be fighting to take her off life support even if it was a certain guarantee that the baby would be born without any issues by claiming she didn't want to be on life support under ANY circumstances. The article only states that he wants the ventilator turned off because she told him that she didn't want to be kept alive by machines, and he's aware of the challenges he might face.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

But because Marlise is 18-weeks pregnant, state law prohibits her being taken off life support.

This is a decision the family alone should be allowed to make, without interference from the state.

 

[Vox]

Her brain was half the size it should have been. The autopsy refuted the claims made by the parents. She was not cognitive of her surroundings and she was blind. According to her autopsy results "doctors said her reactions were automatic responses and not evidence of thought or consciousness". From Schiavo autopsy shows irreversible damage - US news | NBC News

so what? cognitive function is not always dependent on brain size.
it might be present albeit impaired even if 1/3 of the brain is gone.

should we kill all blind people? preferably by starving them to death?

Half her brain was gone. The entire upper portion of her brain was no longer there. This is not something that someone recovers from. The brain had developed hydrocephalus ex vacuo. This is a condition in which the empty spaces her brain tissue had occupied were now occupied by cerebrospinal fluid. You do not regrow brain tissue. and that fluid does not do what brain tissue does.

You say cognitive function might be present if even 1/3 of the brain is gone? It would have had to regrow around 250 grams of brain tissue to get up to only having lost 1/3.

The normal human brain weights between 1,300 and 1,400 grams. Terri's weighed 615 grams.

repeating - should we kill all the blind, deaf and otherwise mentally impaired people just because their functioning is impaired and their brain weight is less than in the other people ( what an idiocy to concentrate on how much somebody's brain weighs - as if it matters)

preferably by starving to death - even Nazi's did not do that. Commies did.

Is it what you advocate?

all the left are stalinists in embryonic stage of development and would kill all the "inconvenient" populace to "save the costs".

maybe it is the left which should be aborted while it is still in embryonic state of development?

 

[novasteve]

The left devalues life

 

[WinterBorn]

so what? cognitive function is not always dependent on brain size.
it might be present albeit impaired even if 1/3 of the brain is gone.

should we kill all blind people? preferably by starving them to death?

Half her brain was gone. The entire upper portion of her brain was no longer there. This is not something that someone recovers from. The brain had developed hydrocephalus ex vacuo. This is a condition in which the empty spaces her brain tissue had occupied were now occupied by cerebrospinal fluid. You do not regrow brain tissue. and that fluid does not do what brain tissue does.

You say cognitive function might be present if even 1/3 of the brain is gone? It would have had to regrow around 250 grams of brain tissue to get up to only having lost 1/3.

The normal human brain weights between 1,300 and 1,400 grams. Terri's weighed 615 grams.

repeating - should we kill all the blind, deaf and otherwise mentally impaired people just because their functioning is impaired and their brain weight is less than in the other people ( what an idiocy to concentrate on how much somebody's brain weighs - as if it matters)

preferably by starving to death - even Nazi's did not do that. Commies did.

Is it what you advocate?

all the left are stalinists in embryonic stage of development and would kill all the "inconvenient" populace to "save the costs".

maybe it is the left which should be aborted while it is still in embryonic state of development?

We should not kill the blind, deaf or mentally impaired. But there is a difference between mentally impaired and the condition Terri Schiavo was in. Her entire upper brain was gone. Not damaged, but gone. There was no higher function of thought or memory, or personality.

 

[Vox]

So why do libfags want her rotting in a coffin?

she IS dead.

brain death is a legal declaration of death in the US.

her brain won't recover. She will not live much longer anyway as brain function is needed for regulation of other organs and as time passes everything will simply "shut down" and eventually the heart will also stop.

I would probably let the family adjust for couple of more days. the costs of keeping her on life support are big, but they won't ruin the hospital and may help the family to have a closure not a never-ending feeling of guilt that they did not prevent the hospital from "killing" their child.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

She is 18 weeks pregnant and has been on life support for nearly a month, after collapsing at home. She and her husband are both paramedics, and neither want to be kept alive by artificial means. He wants to take her off life support, in accordance with her wishes, but the law puts the fetus ahead of her wishes, so he is banned from taking her off life support - I guess she has to be a brain dead incubator until baby arrives?

A TEXAS man has been barred from taking his pregnant wife off life support because state laws prioritise the rights of the foetus.

Marlise Munoz, 33, has been unconscious since November 26, when her husband Erick Munoz found her collapsed on the living room floor.

Now ABC News reports Erick wants to turn off her ventilator. He said that years ago, Marlise had specifically told him she would never want to be kept alive by machines.

But because Marlise is 18-weeks pregnant, state law prohibits her being taken off life support.

The couple, both paramedics, never signed a do-not-resuscitate order, and family lawyers say it will be difficult to convince a judge to grant an injunction or restraining order to put the mother's wishes ahead of her child.

Texas man barred from taking pregnant wife off life support | News.com.au

So they didn't sign a DNR - but who does at such a young age? Because doctors don't know how long her brain was starved of oxygen, the baby, when born, could be severely brain damaged - and will cost the healthcare system, and her husband, a fortune.

Excuse me, genius, they did sign a DNR which actually includes the understanding that it doesn't apply if she is pregnant. Want to try again?

 

[mskafka]

"Does it matter now?"

Yes, it does when people are questioning whether or not her husband can be implicated in her sudden illness. I guess you've seen more cardiac arrests secondary to PE's than I.

No and it won't show anything.

At what point does fetal electrical brain activity commence? Has there been a consensus on the number of weeks?

I found this interesting:

Fetal cerebrovascular resistance a... [Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012] - PubMed - NCBI

 

[Vox]

Half her brain was gone. The entire upper portion of her brain was no longer there. This is not something that someone recovers from. The brain had developed hydrocephalus ex vacuo. This is a condition in which the empty spaces her brain tissue had occupied were now occupied by cerebrospinal fluid. You do not regrow brain tissue. and that fluid does not do what brain tissue does.

You say cognitive function might be present if even 1/3 of the brain is gone? It would have had to regrow around 250 grams of brain tissue to get up to only having lost 1/3.

The normal human brain weights between 1,300 and 1,400 grams. Terri's weighed 615 grams.

repeating - should we kill all the blind, deaf and otherwise mentally impaired people just because their functioning is impaired and their brain weight is less than in the other people ( what an idiocy to concentrate on how much somebody's brain weighs - as if it matters)

preferably by starving to death - even Nazi's did not do that. Commies did.

Is it what you advocate?

all the left are stalinists in embryonic stage of development and would kill all the "inconvenient" populace to "save the costs".

maybe it is the left which should be aborted while it is still in embryonic state of development?

We should not kill the blind, deaf or mentally impaired. But there is a difference between mentally impaired and the condition Terri Schiavo was in. Her entire upper brain was gone. Not damaged, but gone. There was no higher function of thought or memory, or personality.

It does not matter. the size of her brain or what was gone. She was not on life support, she was hemodynamically stable, she was functioning on a very primitive level but she was functioning.
If there was time on her to "pull the plug" - that was the time when she was in ICU on life support after her accident - then should it have happened, not years after she recovered to the extent that she was even able to move.
Killing her in the most cruel way by starving just to satisfy the greediness of so-called husband is beyond any norms of civilized society.
which we proved are not.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If they felt that strongly about it, they both should have signed a DNR. Too late now, they have to follow the law.

Another link says that even if they signed a DNR, it would be ignored because she is pregnant. Her wishes don't matter, regardless. She has to stay on life support until the fetus is viable, then be sliced open, baby delivered, potentially brain damaged, and who foots the bill?

If the Texas government want to keep her alive, fine - they can pay her medical expenses. If the baby is brain damaged, they can foot the bill for his/her health care. That's fair.

DNRs are not legally binding, the final decision always lies with the nearest relative.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Another link says that even if they signed a DNR, it would be ignored because she is pregnant. Her wishes don't matter, regardless. She has to stay on life support until the fetus is viable, then be sliced open, baby delivered, potentially brain damaged, and who foots the bill?

If the Texas government want to keep her alive, fine - they can pay her medical expenses. If the baby is brain damaged, they can foot the bill for his/her health care. That's fair.

You don't know the baby will be brain damaged. The woman could quite possibly want her baby to live, you don't know if she would or not. It's not like she's gonna suffer through the pregnancy, so why not try to save the baby?

Why keep her alive and keep the medical bills mounting? Are you going to help pay for them? How would the husband feel, knowing his wife is only being kept alive to remain an incubator?

Money is more important than human life, what a surprise.

 

[novasteve]

Half her brain was gone. The entire upper portion of her brain was no longer there. This is not something that someone recovers from. The brain had developed hydrocephalus ex vacuo. This is a condition in which the empty spaces her brain tissue had occupied were now occupied by cerebrospinal fluid. You do not regrow brain tissue. and that fluid does not do what brain tissue does.

You say cognitive function might be present if even 1/3 of the brain is gone? It would have had to regrow around 250 grams of brain tissue to get up to only having lost 1/3.

The normal human brain weights between 1,300 and 1,400 grams. Terri's weighed 615 grams.

repeating - should we kill all the blind, deaf and otherwise mentally impaired people just because their functioning is impaired and their brain weight is less than in the other people ( what an idiocy to concentrate on how much somebody's brain weighs - as if it matters)

preferably by starving to death - even Nazi's did not do that. Commies did.

Is it what you advocate?

all the left are stalinists in embryonic stage of development and would kill all the "inconvenient" populace to "save the costs".

maybe it is the left which should be aborted while it is still in embryonic state of development?

We should not kill the blind, deaf or mentally impaired. But there is a difference between mentally impaired and the condition Terri Schiavo was in. Her entire upper brain was gone. Not damaged, but gone. There was no higher function of thought or memory, or personality.

Yet libfags love snail darters with all their mental abilities

 

[novasteve]

More libfag fantasy world. If she isn't alive then a tree isn't alive either.

 

[WinterBorn]

More libfag fantasy world. If she isn't alive then a tree isn't alive either.

The question was never whether or not she was alive. The question was whether or not she wanted to live as a vegetable. The fact that her heart was still beating simply shows the lower brain was still functioning.

 

[Vox]

"Does it matter now?"

Yes, it does when people are questioning whether or not her husband can be implicated in her sudden illness. I guess you've seen more cardiac arrests secondary to PE's than I.


by that angle that is reasonable to question what the husband did. Since pregnancy is usually a factor in effective CPR if the husband is claiming he successfully resuscitated her ( which is unprovable without monitoring) then either he is simply mistaken and she never was in cardiac arrest, but severely hypotensive ( which I think is the issue) or he is not telling the full truth ( kind of unlikely for me, but one never knows)

I have seen plenty cardiac arrests and the ones secondary to PE are usually not able to resuscitate unless a patient is basically already in the OR.

No and it won't show anything.

At what point does fetal electrical brain activity commence? Has there been a consensus on the number of weeks?

I don't think so, but my objection is mostly not on when the brain activity appears but on the possibility of reliable detection - it is not possible by nowadays technology and invasive monitoring is too dangerous. not even talking about detection of any abnormality


I found this interesting:

Fetal cerebrovascular resistance a... [Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012] - PubMed - NCBI

thanks, will look into it.

did look into it - the sample size is so small that it is really impossible to think this observation has much potential.
But it is not that invasive - can be evaluated. However which CPR measurements should be considered NORMAL?

 

[Vox]

You don't know the baby will be brain damaged. The woman could quite possibly want her baby to live, you don't know if she would or not. It's not like she's gonna suffer through the pregnancy, so why not try to save the baby?

Why keep her alive and keep the medical bills mounting? Are you going to help pay for them? How would the husband feel, knowing his wife is only being kept alive to remain an incubator?

Money is more important than human life, what a surprise.

for a wingnut noomi? money is everything for her, it is all she cares about - anytime there is a conversation about preserving life she intrudes with a money-money-money hysteria.

 

[S.J.]

But because Marlise is 18-weeks pregnant, state law prohibits her being taken off life support.

This is a decision the family alone should be allowed to make, without interference from the state.

You would be saying the opposite if the family wanted to keep her alive and don't say you wouldn't.