Jump to content

Photo

Texas Man Wants Pregnant Wife Off Life Support Despite State Laws


  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

#1 JerryNumbers

JerryNumbers

    Life is about Jesus, not self

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,276 posts
2,524
Excellent
  • LocationIn the south

Posted 23 December 2013 - 11:15 PM

The case brings to mind the long legal battle surrounding the case of Terri Schiavo, who was left in a permanent vegetative state after collapsing in her home in 1990. While Schiavo's husband declared she would not want to be kept alive, her parents fought to keep her feeding tube intact. In 2005, after a long legal battle that went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, Schiavo's feeding tube was removed and she died shortly thereafter. 

 

Full story



#2 Miss Daisy

Miss Daisy

    Super Contributor

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
484
Excellent
  • LocationUSA

Posted 24 December 2013 - 12:39 AM

Can the baby be brought to full term if mother stays on life support?



#3 Miss Daisy

Miss Daisy

    Super Contributor

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
484
Excellent
  • LocationUSA

Posted 24 December 2013 - 12:40 AM

Schiavo case was sad, very sad. Starving someone to death is murder.



#4 JerryNumbers

JerryNumbers

    Life is about Jesus, not self

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,276 posts
2,524
Excellent
  • LocationIn the south

Posted 24 December 2013 - 02:39 AM

Its been done before, so it might can be done once again.

 

And yes the Schiavo case was a very sad situation.



#5 Kitagrl

Kitagrl

    Long Time Member

  • Moderators
  • 15,814 posts
578
Excellent
  • LocationPhilly 'burbs

Posted 24 December 2013 - 05:11 PM

Oh man.   This is a hard one.   I do not think it is the same as Schiavo because that one was just a feeding tube.   This one is full life support.

 

its interesting to me that you can abort an 18 week baby but you cannot  let your wife pass in peace?

 

im not saying she should be left on or off.....but I'm just not sure the government should be making this decision.   I think the husband should.   It's just too hard to figure this one out.



#6 John81

John81

    Running to Win

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 61,445 posts
5,564
Excellent

Posted 24 December 2013 - 05:18 PM

Yes, these matters should be left up to the spouse. Government intervention only serves to complicate the matter and further opens the door for the government to take control of even more life and death situations...which they are already working on.

 

I'm speaking in general here, not to the specific people above or to the previous case.



#7 quinkie

quinkie

    Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 298 posts
57
Excellent

Posted 24 December 2013 - 07:06 PM

First- I am against abortion. However, I am surprised that the authorities will allow the mother to abort an 18 week "fetus" but not the father. As I said, I am against all abortion.
Edited to add: Seems they might think this "fetus" is an actual person.

Edited by quinkie, 24 December 2013 - 07:08 PM.


#8 JerryNumbers

JerryNumbers

    Life is about Jesus, not self

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,276 posts
2,524
Excellent
  • LocationIn the south

Posted 25 December 2013 - 01:22 AM

The out come of this will be interesting.
 
I hope they don't kill this baby.


#9 JerryNumbers

JerryNumbers

    Life is about Jesus, not self

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,276 posts
2,524
Excellent
  • LocationIn the south

Posted 25 December 2013 - 01:26 AM

Yes, these matters should be left up to the spouse. Government intervention only serves to complicate the matter and further opens the door for the government to take control of even more life and death situations...which they are already working on.

 

I'm speaking in general here, not to the specific people above or to the previous case.

 

I would like to ask a question.

 

Do you think there should be no law against abortion?

 

Do you feel that a husband should be able to pull the plug on his wife if she winds up inn this condition while carrying a child?



#10 John81

John81

    Running to Win

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 61,445 posts
5,564
Excellent

Posted 25 December 2013 - 11:38 AM

I didn't say there shouldn't be any laws. Laws should be set forth and then the government should step aside rather than constantly interfering with the following of those laws.

 

I believe a spouse should have the say over medical matters concerning their spouse. Unfortunately, even when folks go through the trouble of having Living Wills and such made out, which are supposed to be legally binding documents, there are cases where some government worker interferes and decides they know better than those directly involved.



#11 DaveW

DaveW

    Resident Aussie and general dumb bloke

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,451 posts
1,979
Excellent
  • LocationI'm a West Aussie

Posted 25 December 2013 - 05:11 PM

I didn't say there shouldn't be any laws. Laws should be set forth and then the government should step aside rather than constantly interfering with the following of those laws.

I believe a spouse should have the say over medical matters concerning their spouse. Unfortunately, even when folks go through the trouble of having Living Wills and such made out, which are supposed to be legally binding documents, there are cases where some government worker interferes and decides they know better than those directly involved.


I'm sorry John but your first statement just doesn't make sense.
The laws should be there but shouldn't be Enforced? That is what you appear to be saying.
Someone else nailed it when they related this choice to abortion.
If the child will continue to grow while the mother is in this state, then it becomes murder of the child.
No father, under any circumstances should be allowed to murder his own child.
The authorities SHOULD step in to stop this crime.
(They should also stop abortion, but won't).

This is no longer about the wife - as hard as it is for the husband (horrendous I would imagine), the child should be allowed to live if at all possible, and the law should step in to protect the child who cannot protect itself.

#12 Miss Daisy

Miss Daisy

    Super Contributor

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
484
Excellent
  • LocationUSA

Posted 25 December 2013 - 07:31 PM

I agree. It's still murder. The mother is going to die anyway. Why murder the baby too?



#13 John81

John81

    Running to Win

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 61,445 posts
5,564
Excellent

Posted 25 December 2013 - 08:06 PM

What I sad is that laws should be in place and then followed. The problem is when government social workers, judges and others stick their noses in and try to force their will regardless of the law.

 

As I also said above, my comments were in general and had nothing in particular to do with this case or any other.

 

What is the point of laws which give a spouse the legal right to determine medical matters for their spouse if government workers can decide their views outweigh that of a spouse? The same applies to Living Wills and such as well. What's the point of having these legal documents if a government worker can make them worth less than the paper they are printed on.

 

The government workers and agencies should have to abide by the law as well, rather than having the ability to thwart the law at their discretion and against the legal will of a spouse.

 

Closer to the case at hand, we come back to the need for clear laws, clearly followed. We don't have that. We have laws that turn babies into trash to be thrown out at will while at the same time having laws which calls bringing death to an unborn child murder. Added to this confusion is government workers who seem able to step in whenever they please and based upon their particular views and whims, make life/death choices with little or no regard for the law.

 

We need clearly set and defined laws that all must follow.



#14 DaveW

DaveW

    Resident Aussie and general dumb bloke

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,451 posts
1,979
Excellent
  • LocationI'm a West Aussie

Posted 25 December 2013 - 10:10 PM

But this is what doesn't make sense John - if the laws are there but not being obeyed, what happens then?

Someone must enforce the laws surely?

I understand your intent - govt shouldn't stick their noses in without just cause - but your words confuse.
And especially in the context of this thread (I know you said not particular to this, but it is the vital point of this thread), this is a perfect example of when the spouse's rights should be overruled in favour of the child.

I think we agree to both principles in fact (general and particular).

#15 Miss Daisy

Miss Daisy

    Super Contributor

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
484
Excellent
  • LocationUSA

Posted 25 December 2013 - 10:55 PM

DaveW, you're in Australia. You don't understand how messed up American laws are. They enforce some when they want to for some people, some not at all if you're rich, celebrity or politically connected.



#16 JerryNumbers

JerryNumbers

    Life is about Jesus, not self

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,276 posts
2,524
Excellent
  • LocationIn the south

Posted 26 December 2013 - 12:04 AM

But this is what doesn't make sense John - if the laws are there but not being obeyed, what happens then?

Someone must enforce the laws surely?

I understand your intent - govt shouldn't stick their noses in without just cause - but your words confuse.
And especially in the context of this thread (I know you said not particular to this, but it is the vital point of this thread), this is a perfect example of when the spouse's rights should be overruled in favour of the child.

I think we agree to both principles in fact (general and particular).

 

Maybe I'm wrong, but some seem to say the husband ought to be left along, & he should be able to pull the plug & let the wife & baby die right now just as he wishes. That the government has no right to protect the life of the child.

 

As for me in this situation the child has every right to have the opportunity to live.

 

If there was no baby it would be a whole different situation. That is if there was no baby involved being as he is her husband & she is brain dead them they should respect the husbands wishes.

 

But I have to add this I am a bit leery of doctors when they declare someone brain dead. Reason, I know a man that was declared brain dead with the doctors insisting the plug be pulled & the family refused. The doctors kept on & kept on until finally the family decided to pull the plug. They did & he lived & walked out of the hospital a few weeks later living a normal life. If they had let the doctors pull the plus when they 1st wanted to it may have killed this man.

 

My idea is the doctor should advise the family of what they think letting the family make up their own mind, & not try to talk them into to pulling the plug.



#17 OLD fashioned preacher

OLD fashioned preacher

    Termite in a yoyo

  • Moderators
  • 1,938 posts
773
Excellent
  • Locationunder a rock, but crawl out occasionally

Posted 26 December 2013 - 01:53 AM

What's going to get interesting is this: Husband wants plug pulled, government says no, hospital does C-section 4 months from now (baby is currently 18 weeks) while mother has been on life support in ICU for 4 months, hospital gives husband bill for over $200,000 (easily that much), husband says "I didn't want the continued care, you or Uncle Sam pay the bill -- the government ordered the extended care".

 

Even more so if the baby dies anyway and must be buried. That'll open up a new can of worms!






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

The Fundamental Top 500IFB1000 The Fundamental Top 500