Brain Dead Pregnant Woman On Life Support

[Meenah]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-ju...-life-support/

This just breaks my heart. I would never want the responsibility of being a Judge. I feel that the hospital was wrong, and should have followed the family's wishes. Now that it is almost eight weeks later is the fetus now viable? I feel so sad for this family.

[SuzySunshine]

The fetus isn't viable - the family announced earlier in the week they had medical testing that showed the fetus wasn't viable and the hospital finally relented and said they agreed. I think its absolutely RIDICULOUS she was kept alive this long and my question now is who is going to pay that bill? Because I guarantee you if I was that husband and that bill showed up on my door step I'd be at the TV station the next minute and that hospital will be getting killed in the public eye, and also possibly sued for mental distress!!

[HouseofWool]

No kidding. The story would be different if the fetus were viable.

The cost of her care is staggering and there is no way in hell I would pay for a penny of what was rendered after I told them to pull the plug.

[SoonerTexan]

It's JPS in Ft Worth. Id be surprised if anyone but the hospital was going to be paying the bill anyway.

[diggitydot]

DH made a comment the other day that the hospitals admin/attorneys had misinterpreted the law in the first place. It was never supposed to be used for someone declared dead, only someone in a persistent vegetative state.

They've set themselves up for the mother of all lawsuits.

It's a charity hospital, so the people paying for her care are all us taxpayers.

[SuzySunshine]

She has been removed.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...usaolp00000009

[GrayMatterWife]

If I remember correctly, under Texas law, a "person" is a person only if he/she is alive. If she/he is not alive--and brain death can be a determination of death--then he/she is not a "person" for legal person. The issue seems to be not whether a brain dead person must be kept alive on life support for purposes of gestating the baby, but whether a dead body must be kept functioning for purposes of gestating the baby. I do not believe that Texas law requires that.

[Pollyanna]

It's horribly sad for everyone involved. I think there was just a lot of people really trying to do the right thing on both sides. No outcome was going to be a good one here. So awful for everyone involved. I do feel confident that mom and baby are together right now and for me that is comforting.

[moonlight]

If I remember correctly, under Texas law, a "person" is a person only if he/she is alive. If she/he is not alive--and brain death can be a determination of death--then he/she is not a "person" for legal person. The issue seems to be not whether a brain dead person must be kept alive on life support for purposes of gestating the baby, but whether a dead body must be kept functioning for purposes of gestating the baby. I do not believe that Texas law requires that.

I think you are right. I saw a more detailed report on the Texas law and it seems JPS wasn't in the right legally keeping her on life-support. From what I understand the law was intended for pregnant women that we only temporarily needing life support type assistance. I know I'm not saying that right. But anyways, the law wasn't intended for a woman that was brain dead or someone that isn't viable at all. Apparently JPS misunderstood the law. Not sure if it was the doctors or hospital council or admin. I guess that's what the lawsuit will tell us.

[SoonerTexan]

I feel for the doctors who had to handle this case regardless. They had the choice of potentially breaking the law or being sued by the family. Lucky them.