CNN/AP: Brain-dead woman dies after childbirth

[DeepModem Mom]

Brain-dead woman dies after childbirth
She was kept on life support, as fetus developed
Wednesday, August 3, 2005


ARLINGTON, Virginia (AP) -- A brain-dead woman who was kept alive for three months so she could deliver the child she was carrying was removed from life support Wednesday and died, her family said.

Susan Torres' plight attracted worldwide sympathy after she suffered a stroke in May as she battled cancer. She gave birth Tuesday to a daughter, Susan Anne Catherine Torres, by Caesarean section....

***

With the consent of her husband, Jason Torres, doctors at Virginia Hospital Center in Arlington turned off Torres' life support early Wednesday after she received the final sacrament of the Roman Catholic Church....


http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/08/03/braindead.pregnancy.ap/index.html

[Kraklen]

1. Where's the outrage?

[Mike Daniels]

34. It was apparently her choice to do be kept alive

Any outrage from outsider busybodies would be totally inappropriate given that fact....

[Canuckistanian]

36. The fundies don't care about the mother

AS LONG AS THAT BABY IS BORN, DAMMIT!

[question everything]

58. Uh uh... you are going to hear about that

as I did http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4249982

[Initech]

64. I wondered that too

I guess the same sort of insanity that surrounded Terri Schiavo doesnt apply if the case doesnt go through every level of the courts possible!

[Maat]

2. May she rest in peace.

And may the surviving children bring great joy to her husband and family, for she lives on through them.

[DeepModem Mom]

3. Amen, Maat. nt

[rodeodance]

4. yes, may she rest now.

Seems the Repugs have learned their lesson??

[SW FL Dem]

88. Beautiful

This was a heartbreaking case. I agree with the outcome because it was the family that made the choice. I don't know them and I can't judge them.

[warrens]

5. Like her husband said

She would have wanted that baby to live. Aren't we all happy that we live in an age where so few children grow up with no mother? It was common until this century for women to die in childbirth and never see their child.

Imagine the gift this baby will be to those poor parents, not to mention her husband. They'll be able to see a big chunk of the girl they lost. Only 26, what a pity.

Wonder why the Repukes didn't jump all over this one? Perhaps because they didn't have a family tragedy to exploit? Filthy bastards.

[lumpy]

6. Bless her heart.

Not a word from the righteous ones?

[slackmaster]

7. Since she was officially brain-dead there's not much they can say

Brain-dead people don't suffer.

[HeeBGBz]

27. Plus there was no abortion

The Rightous are at bay.

[Caoimhe]

8. honestly.. it makes me ill

as women are we now nothing but vessels for reproduction? We don't even need to be aware for our bodies to be used? I know she probably would have wanted the baby to live, and maybe even consented to the keeping her alive for that time but the whole idea of it makes me sick to my stomach. I would never want to be used as an incubator. Call me selfish. There are plenty of BORN children in this world that need homes and families that will love them and give them what they need.

Where were the repukes this morning, demanding she be kept alive? Oh.. yeah.. she had fulfilled her purpose, so it doesn't matter.

[Jack_DeLeon]

9. Fine I will.

you are selfish.

[Maat]

10. Actually, her husband kept her alive at HER request.

This was the way she wanted it; so, I can feel good about this one, for this is exactly what she wanted, and she expressed it clearly before she collapsed, apparently, per her family.

He actually talked about regretting her being used as a vessel. But she had told him she wanted it that way.

May the children bring him great joy as I said above.

He carried out her wishes as I would want my husband to do.

[LisaL]

16. She didn't tell him she wanted it that way.

I believe her collapse was rather sudden. The only thing her husband knew is that she wanted that baby. So, in that respect, he followed her wishes.

[Maat]

20. I had heard she made a statement to him ..

but perhaps it was not as clear as I thought then.

My understanding is that while her collapse was sudden, her medical problems were not; and she had clearly expressed how much she wanted to carry the pregnancy to term. That would be close enough for me.

In light of how much she wanted to carry the baby to term, I'd have done the same thing if I'd have been him.

[LisaL]

65. She had wanted to carry the baby to term, but

they have never discussed what should be done if she is brain dead but the baby is still alive.
"On a high school religion test, he once tackled a similar ethical problem — can you harm an unborn child in order to save its mother? But that was hypothetical. The exercise didn't offer much help here.

He and Susan had never talked about what to do in such circumstances. But Torres remembered that when Susan was pregnant with Peter, the couple had been offered tests to determine whether the child had Down syndrome or other genetic disorders. Susan, Torres recalls, was offended by the implication that if the child was compromised, she should end her pregnancy. She turned down the test.

That memory, and a nurse's advice to "think of what Susan would want," clarified matters for Torres, he says.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-06-15-saving-baby-cover_x.htm"
The husband went by what he thought his wife would have wanted, not by what he KNEW his wife would have wanted.

[Thtwudbeme]

48. Were you there during their conversations?

How in the hell can you contradict what was said in the news reports?

Good God, either you are a close relative, or live an extremely active fantasy life. If it's the latter, might I suggest you take up reading the Harry Potter books; it will be a lot more fun for you to believe you are a wizard and can affect the outcome of other's actions.

Stephanie

[LisaL]

63. WTF are you even talking about?

No, I wasn't there. But the husband was interviewed, on LKL and other shows, and according to him, his wife and he never discussed what to do in a situation such as that.
He definitely knew she wanted the baby, but they haven't discussed what to do if she was brain dead but the baby was still alive.
So, what freaking news reports are you talking about?

[KoKo]

19. I don't think in this case she was really being used as an incubator,

I see your point that someone could be used that way. It depends on the circumstances and the RW could carry something like this to extremes.

In this case though, she seemed to want it that way. I would have, if it was me. These seem to be loving people. :shrug:

[BlueIris]

23. I guess only the husband knows if he carried out her wishes.

I wouldn't want to be kept alive to be used like a breeding device so that my child could be raised motherless by strangers. I also wouldn't want it delivered prematurely after it had continued to develop under those conditions, increasing the potential for birth defects already so prevalent for even "moderately" premature deliveries.

[LisaL]

39. You aren't her. And you aren't married to her husband.

So, it's irrelevant what your wishes would be in this case, but I advice you to let them know to your husband in case the situation such as this arises.

[Guaranteed]

73. Apparently, she was fine with "being used as an incubator"

for the first four months of her pregnancy. One would think that she would have said something before then if she didn't want to be "used as an incubator."

I don't think the phrase is appropriate in this case.

[loyalsister]

24. I agree

Notice also that there is no outrage.
The right is not outraged this time because of joy of the the handmaiden tale scenario and look who's going along with it.......

The selfishness here is a person using a woman's body as a vessel to console their own grief.
Not to mention the fact that the infant was born under less than optimal circumstances and is probably not going to have the greatest developmental pattern. AND we have yet to consider what will happen when this child begins to try to understand this birth. I can't imagine the confusion.
All to console this man's grief. THAT is selfish!

[Thtwudbeme]

28. Pardon me. How exactly did this woman suffer?

Why shouldn't she have been kept "alive" so that baby could be born?

[loyalsister]

44. Well

She is being discussed at length here for one thing. Nice way to be remembered. It's a matter of dignity.

[wrlwnd]

33. Yep, just kill the baby that she and the family wanted

Makes SO much more sense :eyes:

[loyalsister]

45. Produce the document

where she stated she would happily serve as an incubator in order to ease the pain of her family as the world watched her should she find herself in that particular situation, and I will have no problem with this decision.

[Thtwudbeme]

47. What???

The husband SAID in the reports about them that that is what she wanted.

That's the ONLY documentation you are going to get; and quite frankly it's more than the public is entitled to know.

Quite frankly, your comment about "she is being discussed here.." and "that is a nice way to be remembered" or some such statement...let's be perfectly clear: YOU are the one who publically referred to this woman as an "unwilling incubator." Most DUers with very few exceptions are stating "it's none of our business" type posts.

Sorry you didn't agree with a family's personal wishes; however, I find your statements ridiculous.

Stephanie

[loyalsister]

50. The point is

for those who are incapable of relating to a medical ethics dilemma,
the only reason this is being discussed is because of the remarkable circumstances.
Now, she lost dignity. And her child is beginning a difficult life on so many levels and no one here even recognizes that reality.
There was an article recently where a woman stated that giving childbirth in a hospital was like being raped, as ridiculous as such a comment seems to be, I can't imagine what that such comments will do for kids when they question their origins.
In the situation with this newborn there it is hard to imagine what can happen. I had an extensive discussion with a retired pastor about it. He said that he would not know where to begin.
But from the start, only a person with their own political agenda will cannonize this man for using her body to soothe his own grief. As he openly stated.

There are so many ethical problems with this if people could take off their warm fuzzy "if it were me- at least they can hold a baby at a time of death" glasses, they might get a clue. This is not a lifetime movie it is a real situation with real ramifications and reverberations. THINK!

1. If there was any discussion about whether to have children at some point it presumably meant ordinarily life circumstances.
2. If she had a living will he did not end her life at the end of her life, thus he did not fulfill her wishes. Rather he used her body to console his grief- as he openly stated.
3. If she did not have a living will, continueing the pregnancy have on her "quality of life" such as it was? Did it shorten her life? If she did not have a living will and the pregnancy shortened her life we have a problem.

[Thtwudbeme]

51. I was a paramedic; now I am studying to be a minister

a pastoral counselor--

I am well aware of the ethical situations posed here.

What I am arguing about is your egotistial comments on this board concerning YOUR opinion.

This family had to make decisions; they made the ones that were right for them---and that is the best that we can all do given medical decisions, particularly in light of recent medical technology.

Stephanie

[Thtwudbeme]

52. and furthermore

who are you to decide what is "dignified" for this woman in this case?

Your whole holier than thou attitude that comes across in your posts about this just sicken me. Unless you are a family member...you have no more idea about what went on in these people's private conversations than we all do about the Jen/Brad/Angelina crap going on.

[loyalsister]

53. It sends simplifies a complicated situation

Anyone who does not see this as a person selfishly consoling their own grief has not thought through the logistics from the physical standpoint of the woman who was lying there or the child who is struggling to survive and will struggle with development.
I come from this perspective as a person who could easily have found themselves in such a position. I see dignity as relevant and the other ethical questions as valid. Anyone who has studied medical ethics in detail would as well. Being a medical professional does not automatically qualify a person. Living a situation that brings one into proximity and and having an education may offer some perspective, however.
From a personal perspective I relate to this woman's dignity and the situation this infant is now in, and it is really hard to see exactly how much good came from it for them given the medical ethics arguments above, I would hope some people would at least see it as questionable as opposed to simply okay.

[rinsd]

57. Problem solved....

...you can draw up a living will that states should you become braindead and are pregnant at the time, you would to be be removed from life support.

[Centered]

49. you seem very demanding that this child never be born...

Are you prepared to find this child when it comes of age and state your feelings in front of the child and it's family?

<Knock>
"Hi can I come in for a moment... please call your family I need to say something..."

<confused people gather to intently hear what this stranger has to say>

"I just wanted to let you all know that because I feel strongly about the injustice done to your already dead mother.... you should hate yourself for living... please go into the kitchen and end your life NOW."

<you turn to the father who is in shock>

"And YOU!! You selfish heartless Bastard!!! How Dare you keep a brain dead woman's body functioning so that this Devil Spawn may have a chance of life"

<you then beckon your Amazon tribe to come out of hiding with a mighty yalp>

"Now my sisters and I will destroy you and this den of disrespect to women everywhere... FEAR MY VENGEANCE!!!!!"

<as you and your tribe lay waste to all in your path you turn one final time to watch the home burn to the ground>

"I have cleansed the earth where this vile place stood... Women everywhere may now Stand up and once again have the power to choose to forbid the birth of their children (even if they did want them and someone kept their bodies alive it doesn't really matter because we shall set things right anyway)"

<You raise your hand and gesture your servants to you>

"Come now... we have much work to do...we must avenge our fallen sister further... I have the Grandparents address!!"




:sarcasm:

Honestly this is another sad tale of "living will" Please don't fly off your handle... you disagree fine... you said it once... and that's enough.

I disagree with you and I believe that most women would give their lives for their children whether alive or not yet born if something this terrible were to happen. This has little to do with this woman's "Dignity" and more to do with a child's life. Keep your eye on the ball next time. I saw nothing in the news report saying that the mother was on her way to the abortion clinic when she had the stroke.

Centered

[iverglas]

56. so you disagree ...

Too bad you didn't stop there instead of launching a degrading misogynist tirade, consisting of scenarios of your own baseless imagining, at the poster with whom you disagreed.


This has little to do with this woman's "Dignity" and more to do with a child's life.

Gee, I wonder what crowd that might be the motto for.

[Centered]

59. LOL

personally I thought :sarcasm: would have tipped you off but oh well that's quite alright.

What crowd would that be a motto for? I'm all for not desecrating her body and all that but I guess that since I have a respect for life I'm not a Dem?? I thought that since she did not seem to indicate any wish at all to abort that this is NOT a ProLife/ProChoice issue.

Come to think of it though I would go as far to say if you can't respect this woman's right to choose then you aren't really ProChoice. (you = not me... not you = you personally) I am ProChoice which does not mean that I am in favor of aborting a child just because it may have a hard life... I shall support the mothers choice NOT to abort. If we were to do any different then we would need to abort ALL "single parent" children... all "poor" children.... hmmmm all children everywhere come to think about it.

Anyone who disagrees with you is not a true Democrat? Oh please...

You don't agree with my point of view that's fine but since you apparently don't read every post in a thread you are prone to just make conclusions... let's take a moment to chill and go over what I perceived prior to posting.

edit*

1. The poster has posted multiple times in the thread.

2. The poster started to argue with someone who disagreed with them.

3. The poster apparently attempted to convey the message that the "dignity" of a brain dead body was more important than the life of a child of whom she did not seem to have any plans of aborting.

4. I thought I would express the perceived extreme thinking by exaggerating it further to perhaps bring out the understanding of how the post was coming across.

May I ask why you feel the dignity of a brain dead woman is more important than a life she wanted protected?

I didn't notice a


:sarcasm:

after your quote of "Gee, I wonder what crowd that might be the motto for." so I shall assume you meant to implicate I am a Freeper (against the rules by the way)



also on a side note... I thought the tale was worth a chuckle because you seem to think I am a misogynist when I thought the poster was the female equivilent.

For the record though I believe Women and Men are equal... neither is better on the whole nor can they live without each other.

Centered

[iverglas]

62. a whole lot of not getting going on

personally I thought :sarcasm: would have tipped you off but oh well that's quite alright.

Personally, I didn't see anything in what preceded that image that remotely qualified as sarcasm, so I just ignored it. Maybe you should look the word up.

Your little fairy tale was vicious and misogynist and spoken about another person without the slightest foundation, but I saw nothing sarcastic about it.

And btw:

I thought I would express the perceived extreme thinking by exaggerating it further to perhaps bring out the understanding of how the post was coming across.

-- no, you didn't "exaggerate". You didn't follow anything to its logical extension. What you wrote wasn't a bigger weirder version of anything that already existed; as I said, it was imaginings of your own, incorporating allegations and assumptions about the person you were characterizing that you had no basis for making.


This has little to do with this woman's "Dignity" and more to do with a child's life.

Gee, I wonder what crowd that might be the motto for.

I shall assume you meant to implicate I am a Freeper (against the rules by the way)

Guess you should take lessons in assuming. You assume wrong. It's really quite obvious, if you think about it, and it isn't against any rule. Members of the anti-choice brigade have always (inexplicably, to my mind) been welcome in this gaggle of liberals/progressives/Democrats.


The entire anti-choice movement has little to do with a woman's dignity (I won't put that in quotation marks, if you don't mind), and everything to do with sacrificing women's lives and liberty on the altar of someone else's interests. Not any "child's", of course, since there is no child present.


And then off we go down straw thingy lane:

I'm all for not desecrating her body and all that but I guess that since I have a respect for life I'm not a Dem??

Damned if I know why you're asking me. Looking in the mirror should answer that question, but it's no concern of mine.

Anyone who disagrees with you is not a true Democrat? Oh please...

Indeed. Here I am, just a poor foreigner, and you're setting me up as the arbiter of all things Democratic. Sorry, I decline the nomination. And I very certainly never gave any indication that I was seeking it.


May I ask why you feel the dignity of a brain dead woman is more important than a life she wanted protected?

Hmm, have you stopped beating your dog yet?

Or, to put it another way: why are you aiming that loaded question at me?

May I ask why you would ask me why I "feel" something that you have no basis for thinking or alleging that I feel?

Read my other post a tad too late, did you?

I'm not firmly in one camp or the other on this one. I think that people are entitled to exercise their own choices in things like reproduction and end-of-life situations. Problem is, by definition, there will be people incapable of exercising choice in some such situations. I may be firmly convinced, or fervently believe, that if I am brain-dead and pregnant (or in a permanent vegetative state and not pregnant, or whatever), I would not want to be allowed to die. But hell, I don't want to die, so my notions of what I might want if I were thisclose to dead might be coloured just a bit by my desire not to die.

And yes, dignity does come into it. Dignity is an essential element of humanity. And I think loyalsister has a point in that regard. I'm just not sure that our duty to protect the dignity of other human beings should necessarily override the express wishes of a particular individual ... although I think that there are circumstances in which it probably should, given the essential meaninglessness of a "choice" -- whether it be to be kept alive or allowed to die -- made at a time when the choice is not being faced, and when the individual making it cannot, by definition, even know what the nature of the two alternatives really is.


I thought the tale was worth a chuckle because you seem to think I am a misogynist when I thought the poster was the female equivilent.

Uh, yeah. That would be, like, why I described the tale as misogynist.

[Centered]

66. ok I'll bite let's waste time and all that

Define Sarcasm: witty language used to convey insults or scorn.

It was indeed scorn your interpretation of witty may not say this applies... but that's not my concern. I win

Define Exaggerate: to enlarge beyond bounds or the truth.

I believe even you would agree logic or the progression of such is not mentioned. I win

Gee, I wonder what crowd that might be the motto for AND Guess you should take lessons in assuming. You assume wrong. It's really quite obvious, if you think about it, and it isn't against any rule. Members of the anti-choice brigade have always (inexplicably, to my mind) been welcome in this gaggle of liberals/progressives/Democrats.

You are still saying I am "Anti-Choice" which isn't correct nor did you btw care to comment on how I defended my position... and also (almost forgot to mention) your last part of the sentence still implies you don't believe I belong here hmmmm draw

The entire anti-choice movement has little to do with a woman's dignity (I won't put that in quotation marks, if you don't mind), and everything to do with sacrificing women's lives and liberty on the altar of someone else's interests. Not any "child's", of course, since there is no child present.

Interesting thought... but I disagree I always just thought it was about a woman's ability to choose... and the debate about a fetus/child that will never end but if someone can prove one way or another I would be willing to bet that it would still go on unless it was proved to be a child and not parasite. But that's only because I believe we would accept science. Draw

why are you aiming that loaded question at me?

Fair enough... I had assumed you were defending someones position... and not them personally... of course since you did take that side of the issue you really should defend it since the original reply was not attached to your post. You Win

May I ask why you would ask me why I "feel" something that you have no basis for thinking or alleging that I feel?

just curious You Win

Read my other post a tad too late, did you?

actually yes :) I saw there was a response to mine... but I can easily admit to hasty thinking.. I do it all the time. But I did agree with you on your points. Just not this persons. But are you able to see common ground with my line of thinking that the original poster was a tad off base. draw due to technicality

I never said Dignity didn't have a part to play... I just saw the posters opinion of "Dignity" and felt it was misplaced.

I would have liked your comments on the other parts of the post though... we both agree in some things. Sorry you didn't feel like parsing the entire post with your thoughts... It's actually nice to see how we are perceived under this veil of anonymity which is the internet. Sorry you thought I was being vicious but I don't feel I was...

Take care have to go back to work now... (sorry about not bolding or anything but I don't have the time to do that atm)

But still very nice to hear your comments

[JimmyJazz]

70. Once she became unable to make those decisions,

by law, her husband became the person to do so. Remember when people stood behind Michael Schiavo's decisions because that is how the law is written? Well, this case mirrors that one. This woman's husband legally made a decision based on what he thought what she wanted and based on the interests of his family. It was completely within his right to do what he did.

[loyalsister]

72. I'm well aware of that

most spouses have the "life support" conversation.
My point you apparently missed was that they porobably never conceived of this particular convergence of circumstances when they had those conversations.

BTW: Do the people in this thread who think this guy is a saint also support the idea of parents producing children who can be kidney doners for existing children?

[JimmyJazz]

78. No one is saying her husband was a saint. I don't know him from

Adam. I just don't understand why people are villifying the man for acting within his rights. Just because he didn't act in a manner in which you approve, doesn't make him the devil.

And, people have children for all sorts of stupid reasons. I didn't realize there was a form to be completed and approved of by some sort of commission.

on edit: you asked that a document be produced stating she approved of being a human incubator. Again, when there is no document, the spouse makes the decision. I'm sorry that he didn't make one that meets your approval, but that's not how the law is written.

I don't understand your beef. You're pissed that a four month old fetus survived?

[iverglas]

82. and conversely

Just because he didn't act in a manner in which you approve, doesn't make him the devil.

The fact that he *did* act in a manner of which others approve doesn't necessarily mean taht he was "within his rights" to do it.

There's a strong argument that when no other basis is available for decision-making, the spouse or child or parent of the person incapable of deciding for him/herself should be entrusted with the job.

That's because we operate on the assumption that spouses and parents and children will act in good faith and do their best to do what the person would have wanted and/or what is in his/her best interests.

That's just an assumption. It really isn't always true.

So no, there really is no "right" to make life and death decisions for other people who can't make them for themselves. There is a presumption that certain people are qualified to make those decisions, and that they will do so in good faith and should therefore be permitted to make them. That's all.

I find the notion that husbands and wives have some "right" to make these decisions for their spouses, and the state has no business getting involved (which arose during Terry Schiavo discussions as well), to be really quite disturbing. It is that same notion that has put children and the elderly and disabled -- and women -- at risk within the four walls of their families for centuries. The idea that these decisions are "private" just isn't sufficient to justify all decisions in all circumstances.

A individual who holds some fanatical religious (or non-religious) believe and who opposes any cessation of artificial life support for his/her spouse is not necessarily acting either in the spouse's best interests or according to the spouse's wishes.

Ditto a fanatical faith-healing devotee who opposes medical care for his/her children.

And ditto a husband who refuses to let his pregnant brain-dead wife die ... or who refuses to allow her to be kept alive until the end of the pregnancy.

The rest of us *do* have an interest in that woman's life. We do have an interest in ensuring that people are not imposing their wishes on someone who is incapable of choosing for him/herself, contrary to that person's best interests.

There will never be agreement on exactly what is in people's best interests generally, or the best interests of any particular individual, in end-of-life situations for example. And the fact that society has an interest in the matter doesn't by any means imply that public opinion should necessarily determine the outcome where a conflict of opinion exists.

But it just is not satisfactory to say that "X" person has the "right" to make life-and-death decisions for "Y" person just because of the blood or marital relationship between them.


In conclusion ...

I don't understand your beef. You're pissed that a four month old fetus survived?

... I'm seeing someone else who needs to try just a tiny bit harder to understand someone's points ... or maybe just try a tiny bit less hard to pretend to think those points were something they're not.

[JimmyJazz]

84. The law states that when a person is incapacitated and has

no living will stating otherwise, that person's next of kin (determined by law to be the spouse, if that person is married) makes the decisions. According to your post, you agree with Jeb Bush and Congress with regard to the interference they ran in the Terri Schiavo case. Is that really what you mean? You want more government interference in your life?

Without a living will, this man was well within in his rights to make the decision he made. They clearly had a close enough relationship for him to impregnate her - surely he cared enough about her to make a decision she would have wanted. I don't think it's important that he get the opinion of people on a message board.

How do you know the man refused to let her die? Quite frankly, she was dead, what did she know? And, for the record, as a parent, I would die for my children...but, I would also live for them too, even if it meant only long enough to give them life.

[iverglas]

90. "according to my post"

I am not satisfied that you comprehended what you read in my post ... or perhaps that you are acknowledging that you comprehended it.

According to your post, you agree with Jeb Bush and Congress with regard to the interference they ran in the Terri Schiavo case. Is that really what you mean?

Well hot damn. Since it isn't what I SAID, how likely is it that it's what I meant?

The law states that when a person is incapacitated and has no living will stating otherwise, that person's next of kin (determined by law to be the spouse, if that person is married) makes the decisions

First, just to be clear: a "living will" can in fact be disregarded.

Similarly, the person's next of kin's wishes can be disregarded.

The person's next of kin -- shall I say it again now, slowly? -- is PRESUMED to be acting in the person's best interests.

Just as parents are PRESUMED to act in the best interests of their children.

Not ALL next of kin / parents NECESSARILY act in the best interests of the person whose rights they are exercising on the person's behalf.

If it can be made out to a court that someone is NOT acting in the best interests of the person for whom s/he is responsible, the court MAY step in and exercise that person's rights on his/her behalf IN THE PLACE OF the next of kin.

I'm sure you're aware of this sort of thing happening when children with power of attorney are pissing away an elderly person's assets, for instance. Or when loony religious-fanatic parents deny their children life-saving medical care.

IF there had been any real evidence that Schiavo's husband was NOT exercising her rights on her behalf in good faith and in her best interests, THEN I would have agreed that a court should step in. As far as I can tell (and I don't generally form opinions based on seventh-hand knowledge of things), there was no such evidence.

Without a living will, this man was well within in his rights to make the decision he made.

The issue IS NOT his rights. The issue is THE WOMAN'S RIGHTS. As long as she is alive, however artificially, she has rights. (And the right to dignity is indeed one that is very widely recognized as an inherent right of a human being, and one on which many rights, like the right to marry someone of one's own sex, are claimed and recognized.)

His "right" is no more than to exercise HER RIGHTS ON HER BEHALF.

And *I* have still NEVER SAID that he did not do so properly. I am not your straw dummy, thank you very much.

It really is possible for someone to have opinions about ISSUES without having (or expressing) opionions about INDIVIDUAL CASES in which the issues arise. I know that this phenomenon is not commonly seen at DU, but it's real nonetheless.

I don't think it's important that he get the opinion of people on a message board.

Bully for you.

*I*, however, think that this case, like many individual cases of all sorts of things, raises ISSUES that it is quite important for there to be public discourse about.

And I think that it is important that the public discourse about ISSUES be INFORMED, and that the people participating in it by expressing OPINIONS be INFORMED.

And I don't think that a lot of yammering about "he was within his rights!" contributes too terribly much to the discourse.

Nonetheless, I do agree almost entirely with you about the merits of the expression of opinions about individual cases about which the opinion-holders know virtually nothing, in terms of what must be known in order to have a worthwhile opinion about the case.

I say so hereabouts with depressing regularity, in fact. I find the expression of uninformed opinions, particularly when they concern other people in situations in which the circumstances of the case will be as the noses on faces, offensive and counter-productive to the real discourse, which must be about the criteria for making such difficult decisions, not usually the merits of any individual's decision.

How do you know the man refused to let her die?

What the fuck are you talking about?

Maybe the part where I said

a husband who refuses to let his pregnant brain-dead wife die ... or who refuses to allow her to be kept alive until the end of the pregnancy <is not necessarily acting either in her best interests or according to her wishes> ?

The part where I said that hypothetical individuals doing either of the two things might not be acting in the best interests of, or according to the wishes of, the individual?

And just fyi:

Quite frankly, she was dead, what did she know?

-- no, she was NOT dead. That is why some jurisdictions have legislation DEEMING "brain-dead" individuals to be dead -- precisely because they are NOT dead.

But I agree with you: what did she know?

Nonetheless, how we treat people who are NOT dead, however not-there they may be, IS a matter of public concern and a matter subject to public control. That, for instance, is precisely why some jurisdictions have legislation deeming brain-dead individuals to be dead: it is an exercise of that public control, permitting the individuals to be treated as if they are dead.

And, for the record, as a parent, I would die for my children...but, I would also live for them too, even if it meant only long enough to give them life.

And that, you see, is as irrelevant to the merits of any other individual's decision, and to the standards that such decisions made by third parties should be required to meet, as anyone else's personal opinion about his/her own life.

[geek tragedy]

81. That's exactly what Randall Terry said about Terri Schiavo. eom

[loyalsister]

87. Yeah and

notice the right and sentimental left are holding hands on this one, since no baby was aborted and she went gently into that good night soon after the birth.
Well, guess what it's supposed to hurt when people die. We have a life span. Sometimes people get sick and die when they are young. Keeping her alive unnaturally in order to incubate an infant is weird.
The suggestion here is that this child's existance is going to make up for what was lost. That is a hell of a lot of pressure. I would not want to peek in on this family 15 years down the road.
Hypothetical: a person who is an organ doner is "brain dead."
They have stated that they did not want to be kept alive. This person's child suddenly needs to begin to consider the possibility of a kidney transplant.
In order for the operation to have the best possible odds, they need to keep her alive and wait a few months before performing the operation.
The decision is obviously the next of kin's.
What is the ethical choice?
Are we more likely to stop and think when it isn't a pregnant woman?
Does taking a cuddly baby out and inserting a kid with health problems change this equation for people?
I hope people are taking stock here.

[BoneDaddy]

30. shame

Let us not use this woman's death as a springboard for our own politics please. Think of the family for one second and put yourself in their shoes. Think of the husband who had to make this decision to watch his wife become a vegetable and his child struggle to survive.

If this was my wife I would have done the exact same thing, knowing that that is what she would have wanted. Talk about the ultimate sacrifice. It all depends upon how you look at it. You see this as some bizarre parasitical relationship, i tend to look at it as a last chance to save some aspect of my wife in the form of our child and if the mother could not be saved, then I would want to save the life of my child. This is a horror I hope you or anyone you know would NEVER have to go through.

[JimmyJazz]

71. Nice post.

:thumbsup:

[Guaranteed]

74. Absolutely. This is common sense,

which seems to be lacking a little bit in this thread. There's a lot of grandstanding going on.

[fujiyama]

89. I'm frankly surprised

that people are even debating this.

I mean, just a few months ago most of us (rightly) believed that Michael Shiavo was the one who would decide whether or not Terry would be kept on a feeding tube. Well we took his word for it, but it was never explicitly stated that "she would like to end her life if she suffered an eating disorder and became braindead".

The same goes with this woman. According to the father, the mother would have wanted to give birth to their child. We should take his word for it .

[Chartist]

93. hear hear! thank you!

[wrlwnd]

32. Yep, very selfish

That's the only part of your post I agree with.

[JimmyJazz]

69. I feel the same way. I would want my child to live.

:(

Besides - in the Schiavo case, many were decrying the fact that the court was trying to keep her husband from making decisions. Why are people now saying the opposite?

[Guaranteed]

75. That is an excellent point. nt

[JimmyJazz]

79. Thank you. This woman was obviously close enough

to her husband to become impregnated by him. I think he probably knew better than posters on a message forum what she would have wanted.

[Chartist]

94. I don't get that either

So are we now only supposed to support the rights of immediate relatives to take these decisions in the absence of specific instructions from the individual concerned if they take the decision we approve of, or are "comfortable" with? No-one ever demonstrated that Michael Schiavo wasn't doing exactly what his wife would have wanted, and no one has demonstrated that the husband in this case hasn't done just the same. The personal feelings of totally unconnected individuals are irrelevant.

[iverglas]

95. "personal feelings"

The personal feelings of totally unconnected individuals are irrelevant.

I completely agree, as far as that goes.

However, someone's "personal feelings" may in fact coincide with the core values of a society (as often expressed in constitutions, for example).

It is my "personal feeling" that people should not be tortured to extract confessions to crimes. Is that irrelevant? Yes. But our societies' core values, things like the recognition of a right to security of the person and against cruel treatment, *are* relevant.

The question is not whether anyone personally approves of this man's decision.

But the question IS whether this man's decision was consistent with the core values of his society. That question may properly be asked about ANY decision that ANY member of his society makes about ANYTHING that affects SOMEONE ELSE, regardless of how close that person's relationship with that someone-else may be.

Whether a brain-dead pregnant woman should be artificially kept alive solely in order to gestate a fetus to term IS a question that is properly asked -- in a society in which the way in which all individuals are treated by anyone is subject to scrutiny to ensure that it meets the standards that its core values impose.

A question was asked in another post concerning whether it would be appropriate to keep a brain-dead person alive on life support so that his/her kidneys could be harvested, at a later time, to preserve the life of his/her child.

We could also keep people alive on life support indefinitely and use them as blood donors, or bone marrow donors. If they have rare blood types, or are one of the rare matches for bone marrow needed by dying people, this might save several lives.

I AM NOT SAYING that the case of a woman who was gestating a wanted pregnancy, and who, from all available evidence, would probably have wanted to be kept alive in order to complete that pregnancy, CANNOT BE DISTINGUISHED from the other hypothetical scenarios.

THAT IS THE QUESTION, obviously.

And IT IS A QUESTION, and it doesn't go away just because someone says "it was the right decision" *OR* "it was his decision".

It may well have been the right decision.

But it was only his decision as long as he made it in accordance with all of the standards which such decisions must meet.

The decision he made is repugnant to some people, because they apply those core values and conclude that it is contrary to them to keep people alive artificially solely to use their bodies as incubators; that this deprives them of the dignity that is an inherent right of individuals.

The opposite decision would have been repugnant to some people, but that is definitely irrelevant, since there would have been nothing in the society's core values to entitle them to say that it was improper for him to terminate the life support at an early point -- as long as he appeared to be sincerely basing his decision on her best interests, and not his desire to collect life insurance or a large damages claim, for instance.

A decision by a court that he not be permitted to keep her on life support in order to finish gestating the pregnancy would have been repugnant to some people -- but it would have been arguably consistent with the core values of the society.

Disagreement is possible among people of good faith, discussing issues sincerely, candidly, transparently and in good will.

It really is a core value of our societies that people must not be treated like means to ends if the ends are not ends that they themselves have chosen.

We don't know what ends a brain-dead person would choose for herself. The fact that when she was not brain-dead, she thought she would have chosen "X" does not mean that she once she became brain-dead she would not have chosen "Y" instead. ALL of us make choices that are subject to change once the circumstances change, no matter how firmly we thought we had made up our minds.

Regardless of how firmly she had expressed what she thought her choice would be if "Z" occurred, her society still has a responsibility to ensure that the decisions that are made on her behalf are in her best interests -- to the extent that this can be determined. To the extent that it cannot be determined, other considerations that are not inconsistent with her interests may have to prevail.

And yes indeed, that is not a matter of anyone's personal feelings. But it IS a matter of the standards that society applies to the treatment of individuals by other individuals.

[Chartist]

97. so ultimately..

A woman whose immediate relatives believed she would have wanted her baby to have reached gestation, and whose background - in so far as we know - offers nothing but support for this position, could quite reasonably have been denied her probable wishes by the government simply because "society" supposedly believes it is better for her for all intents and purposes lifeless body to be - to speak in the dehumanising terms of others in this thread critical of this decision - a rotting lump of flesh than an incubator. That's a position that makes no consideration for the feelings of the individual concerned- after all, by your argument, ultimately even a living will should be overlooked as unable to represent her wishes after becoming brain-dead.

If there are "core values of society" involved here, the freedom of individuals to make their own decisions about reproduction - and for their probable wishes to be ascertained when they cannot clearly express their wishes, rather than a blanket solution to be imposed by "society" - is far more pressing in this case than the idea that "people must not be treated as means to ends", which, whilst certainly admirable, is such a vague concept that it can be abused with the greatest of ease - and which gets so thoroughly ignored, not least by government and employers, that to describe it as a "core value of society" is, at best, an act of unwarranted generosity.

According to the Republican right, abortion contravenes the "core values of society", as a breach of the right to life. Of course, abortion is not closely comparable to this case principally because with abortion the individual concerned is usually making a decision themselves and can express their wishes clearly. But it raises the question- if the will of individual is to be regarded as sacrosanct in regards to abortion- and I believe it should be- why should the probable will of the individual, as far as it can be determined when the individual can not express it themselves, suddenly be relegated to insignificance below the supposed "core values of society", particularly when ideas that are presneted by various groups as "core values" clearly would not be accepted as such by large sections of the society they are presuming to speak for.

Disagreement is possible among people of good faith, discussing issues sincerely, candidly, transparently and in good will.

And 2+2=4, and Barney is purple.

[iverglas]

98. "So ... supposedly ..."

Such convenient little words, aren't they?

The "so" in your sentence implies that you are restating my position. The "supposedly" is the weak link where the falsehood of your restatement is apparent.

"so ultimately.. A woman whose immediate relatives believed she would have wanted her baby to have reached gestation, and whose background - in so far as we know - offers nothing but support for this position, could quite reasonably have been denied her probable wishes by the government simply because "society" supposedly believes it is better for her for all intents and purposes lifeless body to be - to speak in the dehumanising terms of others in this thread critical of this decision - a rotting lump of flesh than an incubator.

I dunno. You think so? That's you talking there, after all.

Me, I said it was a possibility, and an arguable position that is not wildly inconsistent with the core values of the society.

I don't know what "dehumanizing terms" you are speaking of. If life support had been terminated, the woman would indeed no longer have been an "incubator", which is indeed what she was; there's no other good term for a human body with no brain activity gestating a fetus -- and she would indeed have been "a rotting lump of flesh"; that's what pretty much everybody is once they are dead, which is what she would have been if life support had been terminated.

A society that valued human dignity, that did not pretend that fetuses were precious angel gifts from heaven, that did not harbour not-so-vestigial patriarchal notions about men's interests in women's bodies, that recognized that death was not a "punishment" for brain-dead or vegetative individuals and assisting their death was not a crime or sin, might well come to a consensus that based on those values, and on everything it had learned about the reality of the lives of people in such states, there was greater reason to allow her to die than to keep her alive, even if she had, perhaps sentimentally but at least obviously without an informational basis for her "choice", indicated that she would want to be kept alive.

The "beliefs" of the immediate family members / spouse -- i.e. their (candid and credible) evidence as to what the woman's own choice would be if she could make it -- of course are / would be important. Individual choice *is* of course virtually paramount in such situations.

But individual choice is not always paramount. We *do* prevent some people from committing suicide, because *we* believe it is not in their best interests -- not simply for loony supernatural reasons, but also because we believe that if they had better information or medication or housing or food they would not make that choice, and because we do believe that individuals should stay alive, and "we" do have a vested interest in individuals staying alive.

If someone other than a pregnant woman had expressed a firm wish not to be removed from life support even if s/he were conclusively brain-dead, would the family or physicians be bound by that "choice"? Would society be bound by it, even if the family sought to honour it? Maybe if the family could pay for the indefinite hospital care, and find a hospital to provide it ... but I'd be betting that after a little while, there would be physicians -- acting in what they regarded as their patient's best interests -- applying for permission to terminate life support.

If there are "core values of society" involved here, the freedom of individuals to make their own decisions about reproduction ... is far more pressing in this case than the idea that "people must not be treated as means to ends", which, whilst certainly admirable, is such a vague concept that it can be abused with the greatest of ease ...

Actually, it is a value that lies behind all our rights -- like life and liberty. Slavery is using an individual as a means to someone else's ends, for instance.

... and which gets so thoroughly ignored, not least by government and employers, that to describe it as a "core value of society" is, at best, an act of unwarranted generosity.

Well, you see, the ends to which employees are used as means are ends to which they have agreed by entering into contracts of service. The fact that they may quit their jobs at will is the point not to be omitted here. I did say (with different emphasis this time):

It really is a core value of our societies that people must not be treated like means to ends if the ends are not ends that they themselves have chosen.

Of course, I hardly meant to say that any society, including yours and mine, is perfect, or acts on its core values consistently and always. Given the paradox of conflicting core values -- the old altruism vs. self-interest debate in another framework -- it actually can't.

According to the Republican right, abortion contravenes the "core values of society", as a breach of the right to life.

Fascinating -- but of course the Republican right is hardly the, or even an, authority on the core values of anyone's society, or on what is or is not consistent with them.

The "right to life" that the Republican right asserts is *not* a right, since nothing but human beings have rights. And the Republican right's position is in direct conflict with the *real* core values, the individual's right to life and liberty -- self-determination, not to be used unwillingly as a means to someone else's end.

So the easy answer is: no it isn't.

And so it has nothing to do with anything I have said.

But it raises the question- if the will of individual is to be regarded as sacrosanct in regards to abortion- and I believe it should be- why should the probable will of the individual, as far as it can be determined when the individual can not express it themselves, suddenly be relegated to insignificance below the supposed "core values of society", particularly when ideas that are presneted by various groups as "core values" clearly would not be accepted as such by large sections of the society they are presuming to speak for.

Yeah, that's the question, isn't it just? Are there instances in which an individual's wishes, even if known as they cannot be here because the individual cannot tell us, may or even should be disregarded? Obviously there are; is this one of them?

Too bad you seem so unwilling to consider the possibility that there are two possible answers to be given by people who are being equally sincere and being equally honest and transparent and speaking in equally good faith. Me, I'm perfectly willing to do that. I have in fact still neither approved nor disapproved of the decision made by the husband of the woman in question. It's one of those "I hope I never have to decide" thingies, for me and most people.

Your mockery of the concept as self-evident notwithstanding, you haven't exhibited a lot of evidence that you acknoweldge it.

[JimmyJazz]

67. Honestly - that woman was four months pregnant at the time

she went into the hospital - that's past the time for a first tri-mester abortion. I don't want to get into specifics here, but I've seen ultrasounds of 4 month old fetuses.

Also, you have no idea how this woman and her family felt about abortion. Just because one should have a choice, doesn't mean they should always choose to abort.

Besides, in case you hadn't noticed - this family wanted this child.

[Norbert]

11. What a bittersweet time for her husband and family

May she rest in peace.

[wli]

12. a Republican's wet dream: a true axolotl tank

Doubtless they'll push for more of this.

[BoneDaddy]

92. no

Axolotl tanks? Frank Herbert fan I see. But I doubt she can be considered that as axolotl tanks didn't choose their fate. this woman knew she was pregnant before she went vegetative.

[iverglas]

96. good bleeding dawg

"... axolotl tanks didn't choose their fate. this woman knew she was pregnant before she went vegetative."

Aha. So, in order to be HELD ACCOUNTABLE for her decision, she must be kept alive in a withering brain-dead state, devoid of dignity, to gestate that fetus.

(Nope, you didn't say that, but it's just echoing in my head.)

What the fucking hell does her knowledge that she was pregnant have to do with a decision regarding her "fate" once she became brain-dead through no fault of her own? Or hell ... even through her own fault.

She most certainly DID NOT CHOOSE HER FATE. She DID NOT CHOOSE to become the brain-dead human incubator of a fetus. The distinction you made is utterly specious ... but it's damnably and remarkably similar to (and just as specious as) the one that some people make between women who are pregnant as a result of consensual and non-consensual sex, when it comes to who gets to have an abortion and who doesn't ...

I'm seeing an awful lot of men here applauding this woman's "fate", for an awful lot of the usually suspicious reasons.

NOT that there could not be good reasons for approving of the decision made in her case. I'm just seeing some really bad ones.

[Massachusetts]

13. Brain-dead woman dies after childbirth

That is BEAUTIFUL and the way everything was meant to be.

[rebecca_herman]

14. May she rest in peace

Such a tragedy, she was so young. But I'm glad they got her to a point they could deliver the baby with a good chance for its survival, since it sounded as if she truly would have wanted that.

[raysr]

15. I didn't know

Ann Coulter was pregnant.

[area51]

25. heh-heh.

:evilgrin:

[MODemocrat]

17. I have a lump in my throat while reading this sad story

I sure hope the baby makes it all right, so at least her husband will have something of his wife. That is so sad when a baby is born and won't have it's Mother to love and nurture it. My heart goes out to the whole family.

[Skittles]

21. the baby's mom died before she was born

very strange and very sad.......everyone did the right thing in this case - I believe this is what the mom would have wanted.

[JimmyJazz]

68. I don't think we are going to be in the majority here, but I completely

agree with you.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

86. Thirded. I see nothing wrong with what was done here.

[MODemocrat]

77. I definitely believe the Mother would have wanted it this way

It's just so sad for her other child as well. She fought a hard battle with cancer, then the devastating stroke that took her life, so to speak.

[BlueIris]

18. LIVING. WILL.

At the very least: write it down, notarize that sucker, make friends and family aware of your wishes and the will. There are more formal procedures you can and should pursue, of course. You health care professional and attorney should be able to advise you. If you would not want to be kept alive in this condition, pregnant or not, inform your next of kin NOW.

[ngGale]

22. The baby will be a joy ...

she received the final sacrament, she deserved it. O8)

[Solly Mack]

26. She was dead before childbirth - they just pulled the plug after wards

it's an important distinction....no matter how you feel about it.

[bicentennial_baby]

29. how disgusting...

just my imho, but that just ain't right.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

31. Have we heard how the baby's doing? This was a very premature birth

under way less than optimal circumstances.

While this situation is understandable, since she was already pregnant and it seemed well known that she wanted the baby, I can't help but get creeped out that Mom was "dead", and yet the machinery of modern medicine kept her alive to incubate the baby.

I can't help but feel that there are nefarious sorts taking notes, right now, saying..."Ah, so a living, breathing, thinking woman is not necssary for reproduction..we merely need to keep the body tissues nourished...hmmm"

I wish the family and baby the best. However, this medical "advancement" is not one I cheer. MKJ

[Lars39]

54. There was also the chance that the baby would be affected by the cancer.

[jonkronz2003]

35. No senate diagnosis

How come Frist didn't diagnose her and Tom DeLay rush * a law to keep her alive. How do we know she was really brain dead? Oh, the baby survived so we have no more use for the woman.

Sad story..........

[LisaL]

37. Oh for crying out loud. Her husband wanted her alive to deliver that baby.

Shouldn't that be enough -next of kin decides? So, WTF are you not happy about?

[jonkronz2003]

61. Sorry, should have indicated sarcasm...

I totally agree it's the families business and they should be left alone with their tragedy.

[CTyankee]

38. Since she was Catholic

she might have been against abortion. We don't know. But if that is the case or if she had expressed her wish to be kept alive long enough to incubate the fetus, that would be what I would call her "choice." It was, after all, her body, n'est-pas?

[LisaL]

40. She didn't express her wish to live long enough to incubate the

fetus,as she didn't know she was going to collapse and become brain dead. She was only 26.
Her husband knew she wanted to have the baby, however, so, he did what he thinks she would have wanted in a situation.

[CTyankee]

42. I wondered about that myself

Obviously, if she was brain dead she could not have been able to make that decision. We just don't know if she ever said anything like "If I ever collapse while pregnant and become brain dead I want you to keep me alive long enough to have the baby delivered, then you can pull the plug and let me die." Nor do we know that she wasn't a hard line right to lifer, out picketing abortion clinics. Since we don't know these things, I think we pro-choicers need to be careful in our response to the situation.

[DeepModem Mom]

41. Talking about baby's condition on CNN --

I didn't hear the first part of the interview with the doctor, so didn't hear anything about the consequences of the baby's premature birth. The doctor says the baby has a 20 to 25% chance of having acquired cancer from her mother, but tests done so far indicate she does not have cancer. She will, of course, need to be closely monitored through her life.

[rocktivity]

43. Bad headline--The brain-dead woman was ALREADY dead

The purpose of the life support was to keep her corpse functional enough to incubate the fetus. The life support did NOT "keep her alive," and she did NOT "die" when it was removed. She died when her brain did.

Terri Schiavo was kept on life support for the better part of a decade while her family fought over what her final wishes were. The political/religious/media hysteria surrounding the Schiavos was rooted in the refusal to face the fact that Terri was already dead.

Apparently there was no dispute in this case, and once the baby was delivered, there WAS no point in continuing the life support. To which I say bravo, Mr. and Mrs. Torres!

:headbang:
rocknation

[Mairead]

46. If she and her spouse wanted it that way, nobody else has the right to

say buggerall about it.

It's something that creeps me out a little, and has the potential to wreck the survivors' lives medically, financially, and socially. I can only hope that the child didn't acquire the cancer, and that no pillock will tell her about the circumstances til she's old enough to integrate the information in a mature way. That kind of information is a psychological neutron bomb.

[iverglas]

55. the obvious lesson for the rest of us to learn from this:

I actually proposed this to a bunch of anti-choicers at one of their hangouts on the net a few years ago. They didn't seem too impressed; I suppose they were just jealous that I'd thought of it first.

I can imagine wanting to be kept alive myself in that situation. Of course, the situation is as impossible for me to imagine as any other end-of-life situation, but we plan for them nonetheless.

So, my proposal:

Pregnant women should make living wills specifically in contemplation of catastrophic events during their pregnancies.

They should clearly state their wishes in the event that they become incapable of exercising choice for themselves.

The will should cover the ultimate brain-death situation, and other lesser situations. One might be a more acute situation in which terminating the pregnancy might enhance a woman's chances of recovery -- it should be her choice whether to terminate or continue, not the choice of a partner or parents with interests of their own (whether in keeping her alive no matter what or in continuing the pregnancy no matter what), let alone of a less than Solomon-ish court.

It sounds to me like this woman would have expressed the desire to be kept alive, if she didn't actually do so as she may have done.

It does strike me as an awfully heavy use of resources to do something so very "unnatural", and I'm not certain that I'd want my public health plan paying to do it, but in philosophical terms, it is a matter of individual choice.

[Centered]

60. That would solve so many problems

it really is too bad that after all that has happened... it just happens again.

Centered

[Chicago Democrat]

76. That's fantastic! I am so happy the baby was saved....

Her soul is now at peace and can only be happier with the result! Its like a miracle.

[HockeyMom]

80. A Family's Decision

As long as the Government,i.e., Dr. Frist, Tom Delay, Jeb Bush, or Randall Terry, were not involved, it is as it should be.

Other may disagree, but to each his own, as long as it is not coerced.

[DemBones DemBones]

83. I am sorry for Mrs. Torres's death, happy that her child is alive.

Susan Torres was so young and this is a great loss for her family, including her children.

I completely agree with the decision to keep Susan Torres on life support for three months while the baby continued developing. The baby deserved a chance to live.

I also completely agree that a person who is brain-dead does not have to be kept on life support for moral or ethical reasons.

I oppose what was done to Terri Schiavo because she was not brain-dead.

[Rainscents]

85. I pray for her family, however, there is rejoice in bring new baby to

this ugly world. I wish baby and her husband the best! O8)

[Deja Q]

91. Her usefulness is ended. Lots more women to be impregnated anyway.

Gotta have fry cooks and soldiers, of course.