BillsFan-4-Ever Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 (edited) http://gma.yahoo.com...-195417004.html A) who pays the medical bills when the courts force you to keep he on life support. B) IF the fetus survived who pays for the lifetime of medical needs? On Wednesday, the family's lawyers announced that the 22-week-old fetus was "distinctly abnormal," with water on the brain, a possible heart condition and lower extremity deformities. Edited January 27, 2014 by BillsFan-4-Ever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 Did you read your link ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 On Wednesday, the family's lawyers announced that the 22-week-old fetus was "distinctly abnormal," with water on the brain, a possible heart condition and lower extremity deformities. And posting as "gatorman." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted January 27, 2014 Author Share Posted January 27, 2014 (edited) Did you read your link ? My bad. I made corrections. the topic(s) I wanted to discuss here is - should the Gov't / courts State laws stay the hell out of our lives in these matters? especially when the "fetus" may not have been viable at the time of the aneurism. and IF you are being forced to do this are you responsible to pay for what the State Law dictates actions? Edited January 27, 2014 by BillsFan-4-Ever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 http://gma.yahoo.com...-195417004.html A) who pays the medical bills when the courts force you to keep he on life support. B) IF the fetus survived who pays for the lifetime of medical needs? On Wednesday, the family's lawyers announced that the 22-week-old fetus was "distinctly abnormal," with water on the brain, a possible heart condition and lower extremity deformities. Your title to this thread is wrong, wrong, wrong. Read the article from your link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted January 27, 2014 Author Share Posted January 27, 2014 (edited) Fixed it. Did some TEXAS LAW dictated it? She was kept "alive" from November until last week because she was pregnant. The family of Munoz had sued to get the 33-year-old paramedic off life support after she was found to be brain dead. A pregnant Texas woman has been removed from life support after months of legal wrangling between her family, who wanted her removed from the machines, and the hospital, which said it had a "legal duty" to keep her alive while her fetus was viable. Your title to this thread is wrong, wrong, wrong. Read the article from your link. Munoz has been on life support since a suspected pulmonary embolism rendered her brain dead in November. On Friday, a judge ordered John Peter Smith Hospital, the Texas hospital where Munoz was treated, to remove her from life support by 5 p.m. Monday. Edited January 27, 2014 by BillsFan-4-Ever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 And posting as "gatorman." Man, that was far too cheap and easy... ... but I laughed anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 (edited) Fixed it. Did some TEXAS LAW dictated it? She was kept "alive" from November until last week because she was pregnant. The family of Munoz had sued to get the 33-year-old paramedic off life support after she was found to be brain dead. A pregnant Texas woman has been removed from life support after months of legal wrangling between her family, who wanted her removed from the machines, and the hospital, which said it had a "legal duty" to keep her alive while her fetus was viable. Munoz has been on life support since a suspected pulmonary embolism rendered her brain dead in November. On Friday, a judge ordered John Peter Smith Hospital, the Texas hospital where Munoz was treated, to remove her from life support by 5 p.m. Monday. I know this, I read the article. You must not have read it at first, to have such a wrong original title to the thread. Edited January 28, 2014 by 3rdnlng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 A) who pays the medical bills when the courts force you to keep he on life support. That's an interesting question. If the hospital were smart, they would let it drop and eat the cost. They really do not want a counter-suit for committing a battery on the deadite by performing medical procedures on her without permission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 My only issue in this case is this: The main reason the husband, in every account I've read - and heard him speak, gives for wanting the life support taken off is that the mother "didn't want life support." It's always quoted with the fact that they were both paramedics and had talked about these things. Putting aside the fact that if they are paramedics and this was such a big topic for them yet they never did a living will, I keep asking "Would she have said the same knowing she was pregnant." Most mothers I believe would step in front of a train to save their own flesh and blood........And, most would want to be kept on life support in order to deliver their child. Yet, it's never noted in any story. It's just "She didn't want life support."............I am not saying the family shouldn't be the ones to decide, or anything political.........All I want is a better reason than "She didn't want life support" when obviously the variables have changed. I never once saw where he said "even if she was pregnant." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 If the mother is brain dead, so too is the fetus. There is no miracle occurring here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 That's an interesting question. If the hospital were smart, they would let it drop and eat the cost. They really do not want a counter-suit for committing a battery on the deadite by performing medical procedures on her without permission. Or bill the state for the costs, since it's their law. No way the hospital should incur any fiscal or civil liability for following state law against the husband's wishes. Reasonable people would split the costs equitably - the husband (and his insurance) would pay for the initial care, the state and hospital would split the following support care. I guarantee that not a single party in this case will be reasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts