Pregnant, brain-dead woman's husband sues hospital

[Dos Equis]

These cases are brutal.

Pregnant, brain-dead woman's husband sues hospital
By NOMAAN MERCHANT, Associated Press

DALLAS (AP) — The husband of a brain-dead, pregnant Texas woman on Tuesday sued the hospital keeping her on life support, saying doctors are doing so against her and her family's wishes.

The lawsuit filed in state district court asks a judge to order John Peter Smith Hospital in Fort Worth to remove life support for Marlise Munoz, a North Texas woman who fell unconscious in November while pregnant.

Erick Munoz has said a doctor told him his wife is considered brain-dead. Munoz says that he and his wife are both paramedics and are very familiar with end-of-life issues. He says his wife had made her wishes clear to him that she would not want life support in this kind of situation. Marlise Munoz's parents agree.

But John Peter Smith Hospital in Fort Worth says it can't follow Erick Munoz's directive due to a state law that prohibits life-saving treatment from being denied to pregnant patients. Experts familiar with the Texas law say the hospital is incorrectly applying the statute because Munoz would be considered legally and medically dead.

Munoz found his wife unconscious in the early morning on Nov. 26. The family says it doesn't know the exact cause of her condition, though a pulmonary embolism is a possibility. Marlise Munoz was 14 weeks pregnant at the time.

The health of the fetus is unknown. Munoz is believed to have been without oxygen for some time before her husband found her.

http://hosted2.ap.org/HIHON/aee9b8599e9e4e98b1993fdb31c3baf3/Article_2014-01-14-US-Brain-Dead-Pregnancy/id-19cc12ce4c614dce9300438434766b81

[temple_of_dis]

government idioocy

[24KT]

Texas forces a dead woman to incubate a fetus


Just when it seems the state of Texas couldn’t be any more cruel in its treatment of women, it forces a dead woman to incubate a fetus. This is in spite of the wishes of the woman, clearly expressed during her life, as well as the wishes of both her husband and her parents.

Already dead, but put on life support anyway.

Marlise Munoz collapsed on her kitchen floor shortly after Thanksgiving and died, apparently from a pulmonary embolism. Her husband, Erick, found her not breathing and with no pulse. Her brain may not have had oxygen for up to an hour. Erick performed CPR and called an ambulance. After Marlise was taken to John Peter Smith Hospital, in Ft. Worth, her heart was artificially restarted with electric shocks and drugs. She was put on life-support because she was 14 weeks pregnant and, at that point, a fetal heartbeat could be detected. However, her brain showed no activity and she was legally dead.

Marlise and Erick were both paramedics and agreed together, in no uncertain terms, that they never wanted to be kept alive artificially. They had seen the bad outcomes of such cases too often in their work. But when the family requested that Marlise be taken off of life support, the hospital refused because of the pregnancy.

Ernest Machado, Marlise’s father, said, “That poor fetus had the same lack of oxygen, the same electric shocks, the same chemicals that got her heart going again. For all we know, it’s in the same condition that Marlise is in.”

Nevertheless, the hospital insisted that Texas law prohibits them from disconnecting a pregnant woman from life support. The law overrides a woman’s own choices about the end of her life. Never mind that, at 14 weeks, the pregnancy could have been legally terminated by abortion. Never mind that the family wanted to peacefully release Marlise, who was already dead. Never mind that Erick already had a living child, now 15 months old, to care for and support. As a single parent trying to cope with his grief, he’s being forced to split his time between his son and his wife’s hospital room.

According to the New York Times, the 1989 Texas law states that a person may not withdraw or withhold ‘life-sustaining’ treatment from a pregnant patient. Medical ethicists think the hospital is misinterpreting state law. Thomas Mayo, an expert on biomedical ethics with the Southern Methodist University law school, told the NYT, “If she is dead, I don’t see how she can be a patient.”

Medical experts agree, the hospital is misinterpreting the law.
Three medical experts interviewed by the Associated Press agreed. Two of them helped write the law. Dr. Robert Fine, an ethicist with the Baylor Health Care System, said, “This patient is neither terminally nor irreversibly ill. Under Texas law, this patient is legally dead.”

In the meantime, Marlise’s husband and parents have no part in making decisions about what will happen to her, or how the medical team will proceed with the fetus. They hope that their story will prompt others to change the law. Their already long, hard process of saying good-bye was made tortuous by the state of Texas. Plus, the media attention over the controversy has triggered ugly accusations against the family by the anti-woman right.

Ernest Machado expressed his sadness over the personal ordeal of not being able to say good-bye. He said that when he touched his daughter’s skin, she felt like a mannequin. “That makes it very hard for me to go up and visit. I don’t want to remember her as a rubber figure.” Her mother put their situation more bluntly, describing it as being “in hell”.

In hell? Of course they are. They’re in Texas. It’s up to the voters to hold their lawmakers accountable — and deliver future families from such a heart-rending fate.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/01/09/dead-woman-incubate-fetus/

[Dos Equis]

Texas forces a dead woman to incubate a fetus


Just when it seems the state of Texas couldn’t be any more cruel in its treatment of women, it forces a dead woman to incubate a fetus. This is in spite of the wishes of the woman, clearly expressed during her life, as well as the wishes of both her husband and her parents.

Already dead, but put on life support anyway.

Marlise Munoz collapsed on her kitchen floor shortly after Thanksgiving and died, apparently from a pulmonary embolism. Her husband, Erick, found her not breathing and with no pulse. Her brain may not have had oxygen for up to an hour. Erick performed CPR and called an ambulance. After Marlise was taken to John Peter Smith Hospital, in Ft. Worth, her heart was artificially restarted with electric shocks and drugs. She was put on life-support because she was 14 weeks pregnant and, at that point, a fetal heartbeat could be detected. However, her brain showed no activity and she was legally dead.

Marlise and Erick were both paramedics and agreed together, in no uncertain terms, that they never wanted to be kept alive artificially. They had seen the bad outcomes of such cases too often in their work. But when the family requested that Marlise be taken off of life support, the hospital refused because of the pregnancy.

Ernest Machado, Marlise’s father, said, “That poor fetus had the same lack of oxygen, the same electric shocks, the same chemicals that got her heart going again. For all we know, it’s in the same condition that Marlise is in.”

Nevertheless, the hospital insisted that Texas law prohibits them from disconnecting a pregnant woman from life support. The law overrides a woman’s own choices about the end of her life. Never mind that, at 14 weeks, the pregnancy could have been legally terminated by abortion. Never mind that the family wanted to peacefully release Marlise, who was already dead. Never mind that Erick already had a living child, now 15 months old, to care for and support. As a single parent trying to cope with his grief, he’s being forced to split his time between his son and his wife’s hospital room.

According to the New York Times, the 1989 Texas law states that a person may not withdraw or withhold ‘life-sustaining’ treatment from a pregnant patient. Medical ethicists think the hospital is misinterpreting state law. Thomas Mayo, an expert on biomedical ethics with the Southern Methodist University law school, told the NYT, “If she is dead, I don’t see how she can be a patient.”

Medical experts agree, the hospital is misinterpreting the law.
Three medical experts interviewed by the Associated Press agreed. Two of them helped write the law. Dr. Robert Fine, an ethicist with the Baylor Health Care System, said, “This patient is neither terminally nor irreversibly ill. Under Texas law, this patient is legally dead.”

In the meantime, Marlise’s husband and parents have no part in making decisions about what will happen to her, or how the medical team will proceed with the fetus. They hope that their story will prompt others to change the law. Their already long, hard process of saying good-bye was made tortuous by the state of Texas. Plus, the media attention over the controversy has triggered ugly accusations against the family by the anti-woman right.

Ernest Machado expressed his sadness over the personal ordeal of not being able to say good-bye. He said that when he touched his daughter’s skin, she felt like a mannequin. “That makes it very hard for me to go up and visit. I don’t want to remember her as a rubber figure.” Her mother put their situation more bluntly, describing it as being “in hell”.

In hell? Of course they are. They’re in Texas. It’s up to the voters to hold their lawmakers accountable — and deliver future families from such a heart-rending fate.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/01/09/dead-woman-incubate-fetus/

The headline is false.  The hospital, not the state of Texas, is refusing to withdraw life sustaining care. 

[24KT]

Texas denies pregnant woman's grieving family the right to say goodbye


Jacquielynn Floyd
Published: 03 January 2014 02:51 PM
Updated: 14 January 2014 11:59 AM



The Munoz family, from left: Erick, Mateo and Marlise. Marlise Munoz suffered a
pulmonary embolism the week after Thanksgiving. She has since been kept on
life support as required by state law because she was pregnant.


Marlise Munoz died the week after Thanksgiving.

Doctors believe she suffered a pulmonary embolism -- a blood clot to the lungs -- that cut off her oxygen. When her husband, Erick, found Marlise in their Tarrant County home, she wasn’t breathing and had no pulse.
She was gone.

If there is any mercy in the sudden loss of this happy young wife and mother, it’s that she doesn’t know she has since lingered in a hopeless twilight, her respiration artificially supported by machines.

She made it clear she didn’t want this. Her grieving husband and parents don’t want it either. But a not-very-well known statute under state law says Marlise, 33, doesn’t have the same right to a peaceful, natural death as other Texans because she is pregnant.

“All we want is to let her rest, to let her go to sleep,” said Marlise’s 60-year-old father, Ernest Machado of Azle. “What they’re doing serves no purpose.”

Marlise and Erick Munoz, the parents of a young son, both worked as paramedics for the town of Crowley. Because their jobs brought them into routine contact with sudden death and suffering families, they had conversations about their end-of-life wishes.

Marlise had made it clear she would never want to be kept artificially alive with no hope of recovery.

“Being active paramedics and knowing the facts, they know that people who have this happen to them don’t come out of this very well,” said Crowley Fire Department Lt. Tim Whetstone, a member of the town’s firefighters association that has rallied around the Munoz family.

Erick found Marlise at home Nov. 26. He performed cardiopulmonary resuscitation and called for an ambulance, and Marlise was taken to John Peter Smith Hospital in Fort Worth.

Electric shocks and drugs started her heart again and it continued beating with mechanical support, but her brain waves were completely flat. She had gone without breathing for too long to ever recover.

But when the heartbroken family was ready to say goodbye, hospital officials said they could not legally disconnect Marlise from life support. At the time she collapsed, she was 14 weeks’ pregnant.

And because doctors could still detect a fetal heartbeat, state law says Marlise Munoz’s body -- against her own and her family’s wishes -- must be maintained as an unwilling incubator.

“That poor fetus had the same lack of oxygen, the same electric shocks, the same chemicals that got her heart going again,” Machado said. “For all we know, it’s in the same condition that Marlise is in.”

Because of the fetus’ poor prognosis, the family has said publicly that they want to allow it to die peacefully, along with its mother.

But after the bewildered family protested the fine print in the law during television interviews shortly before Christmas, the case exploded into an online argument between vehement anti-abortion and abortion-rights factions.

Some of the posted comments were vicious, accusing Erick Munoz -- a grief-stricken father and husband -- of wanting to “pull the plug” and “get rid” of his wife and baby.

Others -- strangers who don’t know these people -- claim Marlise “might wake up” or cling to slim odds that the oxygen-deprived fetus might be miraculously healthy.

“It turned into a right or left argument,” Whetstone said, explaining that Munoz has declined public comment on the case since reading some of the more vitriolic online comments. “That’s not really how the family sees this.”

Hospital authorities have declined all comment, other than to say they have no choice but to follow state law.

According to a 2012 report by the Center for Women Policy Studies, laws governing end-of-life preferences for pregnant women vary by state. Texas is one of 12 that automatically invalidates a woman’s legal prerogative if she “is diagnosed with pregnancy.”

“These are the most restrictive of the pregnancy exclusion statutes, stating that, regardless of the progression of the pregnancy, a woman must remain on life-sustaining treatment until she gives birth,” the report says.

Marlise’s mother has said publicly that the family is “in hell.” Erick, exhausted, has said he wants to shield the couple’s toddler son, Mateo, from the savage debate.

Machado said the family is hoping to find an attorney willing to challenge the statute.

“This very emotional and personal crisis for the family is their responsibility,” he wrote in an online posting a few weeks ago, trying to answer some of the more uninformed critics.

He’s right, of course. What the state of Texas is doing to this family is unconscionable.

“This isn’t about pro-life or pro-choice,” Machado said Friday. He apologized for crying as we spoke.

“We want to say goodbye. We want to let them rest.”

[24KT]

The headline is false.  The hospital, not the state of Texas, is refusing to withdraw life sustaining care. 

"Sustaining Care?" WTF!  She's been turned into an unwilling incubator without any rights over her own body.

The State of Texas requires the woman's wishes to be overridden. It's has Ben argued by many, including those who wrote the very law itself that this case is a misapplication of the law, ...nonetheless, it precipitates from the law of the state of Texas.

[Dos Equis]

"Sustaining Care?" WTF!  She's been turned into an unwilling incubator without any rights over her own body.

The State of Texas requires the woman's wishes to be overridden. It's has Ben argued by many, including those who wrote the very law itself that this case is a misapplication of the law, ...nonetheless, it precipitates from the law of the state of Texas.

Nutrition, hydration, and ventilator (when the person cannot breath on his or her own) are defined as life sustaining care. 

The hospital isn't under some court order to continue providing life sustaining care.  They are relying on their interpretation of state law.  So yes, the headline is incorrect.  That's why the husband is suing the hospital and not the state of Texas. 

[24KT]

Nutrition, hydration, and ventilator (when the person cannot breath on his or her own) are defined as life sustaining care. 

The hospital isn't under some court order to continue providing life sustaining care.  They are relying on their interpretation of state law.  So yes, the headline is incorrect.  That's why the husband is suing the hospital and not the state of Texas. 

The proper care for A DEAD BODY is burial or cremation, not being hooked up to a set of jumper cables.

ps: I didn't select the title for the article, it's author did. Take it up with him.

[Dos Equis]

The proper care for A DEAD BODY is burial or cremation, not being hooked up to a set of jumper cables.

ps: I didn't select the title for the article, it's author did. Take it up with him.

Just trying to help you understand the terminology, which I now see was a waste of time.

I know you didn't select the title of the article.  It's still false.  And you still don't understand that the state of Texas isn't keeping the woman alive. 

[24KT]

Just trying to help you understand the terminology, which I now see was a waste of time.

I understand the terminology fine.

I know you didn't select the title of the article.  It's still false.  And you still don't understand that the state of Texas isn't keeping the woman alive.

No one, not the hospital, or the state of Texas is keeping her alive.
The woman is not alive, ...she is dead, and her dead body is being used as an incubator against her wishes.

I am well aware the decision was made by the hospital, however, since the role of the state has been brought into question, I would say believe the state of Texas bears some responsibility or culpability for this travesty.

I realize an institution going through the motions of indifferently covering their butts can sometimes lead to temporary inconvenience, but this goes beyond inconvenience. it's heaping, compounding and delivering horrific tragedy onto the living. She's dead, ...let her go.

If you're going to craft legislation compelling others to act, it needs to be clear & decisive without the wiggle room and subjective interpretation that leads to compounding the pain and horror of people's circumstances.

If I became pregnant, could I show up on Agnostic007's door, and demand he both house and feed me for the next 9 months? Can he be held accountable if he refuses?

[Dos Equis]

I understand the terminology fine.

No one, not the hospital, or the state of Texas is keeping her alive.
The woman is not alive, ...she is dead, and her dead body is being used as an incubator against her wishes.

I am well aware the decision was made by the hospital, however, since the role of the state has been brought into question, I would say believe the state of Texas bears some responsibility or culpability for this travesty.

I realize an institution going through the motions of indifferently covering their butts can sometimes lead to temporary inconvenience, but this goes beyond inconvenience. it's heaping, compounding and delivering horrific tragedy onto the living. She's dead, ...let her go.

If you're going to craft legislation compelling others to act, it needs to be clear & decisive without the wiggle room and subjective interpretation that leads to compounding the pain and horror of people's circumstances.

If I became pregnant, could I show up on Agnostic007's door, and demand he both house and feed me for the next 9 months? Can he be held accountable if he refuses?

It certainly doesn't sound like you understand the terminology. 

The state of Texas doesn't bear any responsibility for the hospital's failure to understand its obligations under the law. 

It's almost impossible to draft legislation that it is completely "without wiggle room and subjective interpretation."  But anyone with a 160 IQ, who is one of the smartest persons on the planet, would understand that.

[24KT]

It certainly doesn't sound like you understand the terminology. 

The state of Texas doesn't bear any responsibility for the hospital's failure to understand its obligations under the law. 

It's almost impossible to draft legislation that it is completely "without wiggle room and subjective interpretation."  But anyone with a 160 IQ, who is one of the smartest persons on the planet, would understand that.

A 160 IQ doesn't make me smart, ...it is simply a measure of intellectual potential or capacity.

Not all pieces of legislation can be so cut & dry, ...perhaps the solution would be for MEN to stop trying to control what takes place with women's bodies. That's a good place to start.

[Dos Equis]

A 160 IQ doesn't make me smart, ...it is simply a measure of intellectual potential or capacity.

Not all pieces of legislation can be so cut & dry, ...perhaps the solution would be for MEN to stop trying to control what takes place with women's bodies. That's a good place to start.

Or is it 140?  You've said both. 

Legislation is often difficult to read.  I think they do it intentionally. 

And this particular issue isn't about men and women trying to protect unborn babies, it's a misunderstanding about a hospital's obligation to withhold life sustaining care when directed to do so by a proper surrogate. 

[24KT]

Or is it 140?  You've said both. 

It was 160 the last time I was tested... shortly before my private conversation with McFarland the gossip.

Legislation is often difficult to read.  I think they do it intentionally. 

And this particular issue isn't about men and women trying to protect unborn babies, it's a misunderstanding about a hospital's obligation to withhold life sustaining care when directed to do so by a proper surrogate. 

Well if the State intentionally crafts legislation that is difficult to read, and easily misinterpreted, does the State not then bear some culpability in the it's faulty application?   

[Dos Equis]

It was 160 the last time I was tested... shortly before my private conversation with McFarland the gossip.

Well if the State intentionally crafts legislation that is difficult to read, and easily misinterpreted, does the State not then bear some culpability in the it's faulty application?   

So today it's 160?  That's your story and you're sticking to it?  Why did you say it was 140?

Quote
Quote from: jaguarenterprises on June 26, 2008, 03:00:42 PM
 wtf?!

{blush}      oh poop! ...I made a mistake.     It's actually 140, not 160.

My mistake. It's only 140. I knew it was a number that just barely squeeked me into the category of "genius", but I'm not claiming to be on the same level as Einstein. It's no big deal, it's just a number that represents potential.

Thanks for posting that link BB.

And no, the state of Texas isn't responsible for the hospital's inability to properly follow the law.   

[24KT]

So today it's 160?  That's your story and you're sticking to it?  Why did you say it was 140?

And no, the state of Texas isn't responsible for the hospital's inability to properly follow the law.   

This has been well explained to you many times. The fact that you keep bringing it up tells me one of two things

Either you have a severe comprehension problem, or you desperately want to keep this dead non-issue going.
...perhaps paralleling the subject matter of this very thread.

As I stated many times, for me the number was irrelevant. I couldn't care less what it was. The only reason I remembered it was because it was the bare minimum cut-off to get into Mensa. Had it been 1 point lower, I would have been ineligible. That was how I was able to remember it as being 160 because quite frankly I do not care what it is.

On one of the many needless times it was brought into discussion, it was incorrectly stated (by you, if memory serves me correctly) that 140 had instead been the minimum entry requirement. Not realizing at the time what a bellicose, immature, devious and transparently manipulative passive/ aggressive little prick you are, I simply accepted your statement at face value, and assumed I had been mistaken, that it was only 140, ...especially when you also stated 160 was also Einstein's IQ. Upon further checking, I realized, I had NOT been mistaken after all, and it was indeed 160.

But you already know all this don't you, since its been explained to you at least 5 x's already?  

 I hope GetBig does not experience a huge influx of new members anytime soon,
...I fear you will feel compelled to resuscitate this dead non-issue all over again.

Hope we're good till mid 2015 at least, ...when I'm sure you will no doubt bring it up yet again, ...if not sooner.  

[Dos Equis]

This has been well explained to you many times. The fact that you keep bringing it up tells me one of two things

Either you have a severe comprehension problem, or you desperately want to keep this dead non-issue going.
...perhaps paralleling the subject matter of this very thread.

As I stated many times, for me the number was irrelevant. I couldn't care less what it was. The only reason I remembered it was because it was the bare minimum cut-off to get into Mensa. Had it been 1 point lower, I would have been ineligible. That was how I was able to remember it as being 160 because quite frankly I do not care what it is.

On one of the many needless times it was brought into discussion, it was incorrectly stated (by you, if memory serves me correctly) that 140 had instead been the minimum entry requirement. Not realizing at the time what a bellicose, immature, devious and transparently manipulative passive/ aggressive little prick you are, I simply accepted your statement at face value, and assumed I had been mistaken, that it was only 140, ...especially when you also stated 160 was also Einstein's IQ. Upon further checking, I realized, I had NOT been mistaken after all, and it was indeed 160.

But you already know all this don't you, since its been explained to you at least 5 x's already?  

 I hope GetBig does not experience a huge influx of new members anytime soon,
...I fear you will feel compelled to resuscitate this dead non-issue all over again.

Hope we're good till mid 2015 at least, ...when I'm sure you will no doubt bring it up yet again, ...if not sooner.  

Thank you for that non-explanation.  So, just so we're clear, when you said it was 160, you were telling the truth.  When you said it was 140, you were mistaken, even though you said "My mistake. It's only 140."  And you maintain that you have an IQ that puts among the most elite on the planet. 

You also said it was 140 right here:

{blush}  Oh man, ...I can just see this now. You'all are never gonna let me live this down are you? {lol}

1^st of all, IQ really means nothing to me. If it did, I probably would have remembered it.
2^nd I had no idea Einstein's IQ was 160. When I read that, I realized there was no way I was on par with Einstein.
3^rd I know my IQ is the bare minimum that places me in the 'genius' category by the skin of my teeth. When I saw the link BB posted, I realized the number was infact 140 and not 160. It was an error on my part. Even a genius like me can make the occasional error. 

And here was Hugo's response:

1^st of all, if it really doesn't mean anything to you, why did you draw that impressive number to shoot down Deicide?  LOL, you're still lying...
2^nd bullshit, you were all over the net looking up shit about IQ.  You're only singing this tune now because of the grand p'wnage the Einstein perspective hits you with here.
3^rd you are a pathological liar

I agree with Hugo.  You are a liar.  I think you might be reasonably intelligent, but that is greatly watered down by the fact that you are a friggin nut.  But that's ok.  You're part of the reason the board is entertaining.  Thanks for your participation.   

[OzmO]

You would think a person with an IQ of 140-160 would be smart enough to see how stupid they are.   

[macos]

They should sue the docs and the hospitals.
You guys will be shocked if I told you how much profit these people make out of YOUR illness.

[Dos Equis]

The judge got it right.

Texas hospital ordered to remove life support from pregnant, brain-dead woman
Published January 24, 2014
Associated Press

FORT WORTH, TEXAS –  A judge on Friday ordered a Texas hospital to remove life support for a pregnant, brain-dead woman.

Judge R. H. Wallace Jr. issued the ruling in the case of Marlise Munoz. John Peter Smith Hospital in Fort Worth has been keeping Munoz on life support against her family's wishes. The judge gave the hospital until 5 p.m. CST Monday to remove life support.

Munoz was 14 weeks pregnant when her husband found her unconscious Nov. 26, possibly due to a blood clot.

Erick Munoz says he and his wife are paramedics who were clear that they didn't want life support in this type of situation. His attorney argued that keeping the woman alive would set a dangerous precedent for future cases of pregnant, brain-dead women.

But John Peter Smith Hospital had argued that it had to protect the life of the unborn child.

Hospital officials have said they were bound by a state law prohibiting withdrawal of treatment from a pregnant patient. Several experts interviewed by The Associated Press have said the hospital is misapplying the law.

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 gripped attention on both sides of the abortion debate, with anti-abortion groups arguing Munoz's fetus deserves a chance to be born.

Earlier this week, Erick Munoz's attorneys said that the fetus, now believed to be at about 22 weeks' gestation, is "distinctly abnormal." They attorneys said they based that statement on medical records they received from the hospital.

The Tarrant County District Attorney's Office, which is representing the hospital in the lawsuit, said the hospital was expected to issue a statement later Friday in response to the ruling.

Not much is known about fetal survival when mothers suffer brain death during pregnancy. German doctors who searched for such cases found 30 of them in nearly 30 years, according to an article published in the journal BMC Medicine in 2010.

Those mothers were further along in pregnancy -- 22 weeks on average -- when brain death occurred than in the Texas case. Birth results were available for 19 cases. In 12, a viable child was born. Follow-up results were available for six, all of whom developed normally.

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2014/01/24/texas-hospital-ordered-to-remove-life-support-from-pregnant-brain-dead-woman/

[Dos Equis]

Pregnant, brain-dead woman at center of legal fight between hospital and family, removed from life support
Published January 26, 2014
FoxNews.com

Erick Munoz stands with an undated copy of a photograph of himself with wife Marlise and their son Mateo, in Haltom City, Texas. (AP)
A Fort Worth, Texas hospital has removed a pregnant, brain-dead woman from life support after agreeing to comply with a judge's order, her lawyers say.

"Our client, Erick Munoz, has authorized us to give notice that 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 King and Jessica Janicek said in a statement. "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."

The hospital said earlier Sunday that it would remove life support from Munoz following a judge's order that it was misapplying state law to disregard her family's wishes.

J.R. Labbe, a spokeswoman for John Peter Smith Hospital in Fort Worth, issued a statement Sunday that says the hospital "will follow the court order" issued Friday in the case of Munoz.

"From the onset, JPS has said its role was not to make nor contest law but to follow it," the statement says. "On Friday, a state district judge ordered the removal of life-sustaining treatment from Marlise Munoz. The hospital will follow the court order."

Judge R.H. Wallace had given the Fort Worth hospital until 5 p.m. Monday to comply with his ruling to remove Munoz from life support, which Erick Munoz says is what his wife would have wanted.

She was 14 weeks pregnant when her husband found her unconscious Nov. 26, possibly due to a blood clot.

Both the hospital and family agreed before Wallace's ruling that Marlise Munoz meets the criteria to be considered brain-dead -- which means she is dead both medically and under Texas law -- and that her fetus, at about 23 weeks, could not be born alive this early in pregnancy.

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.

Munoz described in a signed affidavit Thursday what it was like to see his wife now: her glassy, "soulless" eyes; and the smell of her perfume replaced by what he knows to be the smell of death. He said he tried to hold her hand but can't.

"Her limbs have become so stiff and rigid due to her deteriorating condition that now, when I move her hands, her bones crack, and her legs are nothing more than dead weight," Munoz said.

But the hospital argued it was bound by Texas law that says life-sustaining treatment cannot be withdrawn from a pregnant patient, regardless of her end-of-life wishes.

Legal experts interviewed by The Associated Press have said the hospital was misreading the law and that the law doesn't have an absolute command to keep someone like Munoz on life support.

Larry Thompson, a state's attorney arguing on behalf of the hospital Friday, said the hospital was trying to protect the rights of the fetus as it believed Texas law instructed it to do.

"There is a life involved, and the life is the unborn child," Thompson said.

But on Sunday, the hospital said it would respect the judge's order and back down.

"The past eight weeks have been difficult for the Munoz family, the caregivers and the entire Tarrant County community, which found itself involved in a sad situation," the hospital's statement says. "JPS Health Network has followed what we believed were the demands of a state statute."

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2014/01/26/texas-hospital-says-it-will-follow-judge-order-to-end-care-for-brain-dead/

[Skip8282]

This has been well explained to you many times. The fact that you keep bringing it up tells me one of two things

Either you have a severe comprehension problem, or you desperately want to keep this dead non-issue going.
...perhaps paralleling the subject matter of this very thread.

As I stated many times, for me the number was irrelevant. I couldn't care less what it was. The only reason I remembered it was because it was the bare minimum cut-off to get into Mensa. Had it been 1 point lower, I would have been ineligible. That was how I was able to remember it as being 160 because quite frankly I do not care what it is.

On one of the many needless times it was brought into discussion, it was incorrectly stated (by you, if memory serves me correctly) that 140 had instead been the minimum entry requirement. Not realizing at the time what a bellicose, immature, devious and transparently manipulative passive/ aggressive little prick you are, I simply accepted your statement at face value, and assumed I had been mistaken, that it was only 140, ...especially when you also stated 160 was also Einstein's IQ. Upon further checking, I realized, I had NOT been mistaken after all, and it was indeed 160.

But you already know all this don't you, since its been explained to you at least 5 x's already? 

 I hope GetBig does not experience a huge influx of new members anytime soon,
...I fear you will feel compelled to resuscitate this dead non-issue all over again.

Hope we're good till mid 2015 at least, ...when I'm sure you will no doubt bring it up yet again, ...if not sooner. 

Don't worry Jag, I know how you feel.

My IQ normally scores about 626 (when I'm bored).

But my exceptionally poor memory means I usually report it at 480 or so (I think...hard to remember).

Anyway, it happens at our level of exceptional intelligence.

Hang in there sport.