Following your article, Alison, one poster makes an interesting point: Did Munoz ever discuss wishes about life, death, and support in the context of her being pregnant? What about in the context of gestational age?
Did Munoz express her wishes about life, death, and support and the likely outcome of a pregnancy and birth in this kind of situation?
Related is one consideration that I haven't seen addressed: whether Munoz expressed her beliefs regarding fetal anomaly, disability, CTT and TFMR before or during either or her pregnancies.
This is a separate issue from Munoz's expressed desire to be removed from life support in the event of her own demise.
You state in your article that the family would still have fought to remove Munoz from life support if the fetus was considered unaffected and potentially viable.
Do we know that? Does the family even know what they would have decided if the fetus was assumed to be unaffected and potentially viable?
Despite protestations from all directions, I'll venture to say, "I doubt it". In reality, no one knows what he or she will do until actually faced with the dilemma.
Arguments for removing life support due to fetal conditions were made by lawyers and the press after Munoz had been brain dead for several weeks.
With the available information, we can only surmise the reasons behind this argument, its timing, and why particular parties and not others gave voice to it.
Oxygen deprivation was presumed and fetal damage probable from the day of Munoz's collapse.
For a moment, let's set aside the particular wishes Munoz presumably expressed and didn't about life support and context.
If, from the outset, her husband cited fetal prognosis as his reason for wanting to remove life support, what would the public, civic, and governmental response be?
Theoretically, do you think he would be supported, particularly if he referenced his wife's (theoretical) wishes for TFMR in the event of fetal anomaly? What if, as the other, and only living parent, he cited his ***own*** wishes for TFMR?
Would the public find it more palatable to end life--and therefore, fetal--support--ONLY AFTER the grotesque and macabre aspects of continuing grew unbearably uncomfortable and undeniable?
More palatable ONLY AFTER a certain degree or kind of anomaly was revealed or "proven" through tests?
What I found most odd and thought-provoking was the media's repeated references to the fetus's genitalia as being undefined or undefinable.
What you said was perfect. Perfectly perfect.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Elizabeth!
DeleteThis case sparks many complex questions.
DeleteFollowing your article, Alison, one poster makes an interesting point: Did Munoz ever discuss wishes about life, death, and support in the context of her being pregnant? What about in the context of gestational age?
Did Munoz express her wishes about life, death, and support and the likely outcome of a pregnancy and birth in this kind of situation?
Related is one consideration that I haven't seen addressed: whether Munoz expressed her beliefs regarding fetal anomaly, disability, CTT and TFMR before or during either or her pregnancies.
This is a separate issue from Munoz's expressed desire to be removed from life support in the event of her own demise.
You state in your article that the family would still have fought to remove Munoz from life support if the fetus was considered unaffected and potentially viable.
Do we know that? Does the family even know what they would have decided if the fetus was assumed to be unaffected and potentially viable?
Despite protestations from all directions, I'll venture to say, "I doubt it". In reality, no one knows what he or she will do until actually faced with the dilemma.
Arguments for removing life support due to fetal conditions were made by lawyers and the press after Munoz had been brain dead for several weeks.
With the available information, we can only surmise the reasons behind this argument, its timing, and why particular parties and not others gave voice to it.
Oxygen deprivation was presumed and fetal damage probable from the day of Munoz's collapse.
For a moment, let's set aside the particular wishes Munoz presumably expressed and didn't about life support and context.
If, from the outset, her husband cited fetal prognosis as his reason for wanting to remove life support, what would the public, civic, and governmental response be?
Theoretically, do you think he would be supported, particularly if he referenced his wife's (theoretical) wishes for TFMR in the event of fetal anomaly? What if, as the other, and only living parent, he cited his ***own*** wishes for TFMR?
Would the public find it more palatable to end life--and therefore, fetal--support--ONLY AFTER the grotesque and macabre aspects of continuing grew unbearably uncomfortable and undeniable?
More palatable ONLY AFTER a certain degree or kind of anomaly was revealed or "proven" through tests?
What I found most odd and thought-provoking was the media's repeated references to the fetus's genitalia as being undefined or undefinable.