.
January 14th, 2014
11:38 PM ET

Husband sues to remove wife from life support

The husband of a brain-dead woman has filed a lawsuit to force a Texas hospital to remove his wife from life-support. Marlise Munoz, who is pregnant with her second child, collapsed in November from an apparent blood clot in her lung.  Under Texas law, she is legally dead but the hospital insists its hands are tied by another state law. CNN’s Ed Lavendara reports.

 Post by:
Filed under: Ed Lavandera
soundoff (7 Responses)
  1. christinafellows

    Do they have to pay for the hospital stay? I know it sounds bad, but if the family doesn't have to pay for " the procedure" Then, as unconventional as it is, she should have her baby. 2. When the baby is born where will it go? Adoption or family.

    January 16, 2014 at 2:03 pm |
  2. Shandha L.

    Its clear that they dont want to risk having a child with complications. Though this is difficult they should give this unborn baby a chance. The best way to do that is to keep the mom on life support. The hospital is doing the right thing. They are giving this unborn baby a chance. The family didnt mention that the child inside her still has a heartbeat. My heart goes out to the family as I am sure this is very difficult for them.

    January 16, 2014 at 9:29 am |
  3. Satesh Raju

    The mom is brain dead, legal death. So she is not suffering, merely a body which is still functioning with high level support such as pituitary hormones, BP etc.

    In this situation, what if the mom was an organ donor? Organ donors will be taken to the OR, and have her organs harvested for another patient. They will be kept going in terms of bodily functions till the organs are harvested.

    I see this mother as donating her uterus as an incubator for her unborn child, for up to 5 months. She is clinically and legally brain dead, and no longer suffering. So the suffering argument is balony for ardent feminist pro-choicers. Abort the child at any cost.

    This mother, I am sure if alive would make an organ donation or any other sacrifice for her child to live. This request is not written, but we should give her dead unsuffering body and her unborn child the benefit of the doubt. We have no proof that this child will be damaged. There have been other cases where the children are normal. The most important thing is maintaining perfusion to the fetus and minimizing drugs that affect the fetus.

    I don't see why everyone is up in arms. This mother made a choice to get pregnant and have a child. Let her complete her mission that she desired. I am sick of all these death at all cost pro-choice feminists. This is not some feminist rights issue.

    January 15, 2014 at 2:11 am |
    • Brian

      You can't be serious... so you now know her wishes, more than her family??? She's gone and her body is only functioning under the support of machines. If her spouse/family want to go ahead remove her from life support, they should be able to do so. After all, if she wasn't pregnant that would have already been done. A brain dead body doesn't fill the role of a mother; it's the family that will have to raise the child and find some way to cope (as well as make accommodations for it if it's born with any defects, etc). You can't force something like this on a family that's already tying to cope and bounce back from such a tragedy.

      January 16, 2014 at 2:02 am |
    • Joseph Junior

      If the woman's brain is dead, what is wrong with supporting her body so that a baby has a chance at life?
      I cannot understand any parent wanting to terminate the life of their own baby.
      Did Marlise have a significant other, other than her husband?
      Why doesn't the husband want this child?
      Does the husband have a significant other, other than the wife Marlise?
      Something does not make sense here.

      January 16, 2014 at 1:47 pm |
      • Crystal

        I must agree with you. Why is he trying so hard to terminate this preganacy? A good father and righteous husband wouldn't be trying to take the life of the baby. I believe he doesn't want the added resposnsibility now that she won't be around.

        January 17, 2014 at 4:06 pm |
  4. Yesy

    I completely agree that like most Texas laws, this particular law is vague. The right thing is to turn to courts for clarification. It seems that everyone is focusing on their interst rather than the unborn baby and the woman.

    January 15, 2014 at 2:05 am |

Post a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

« Back to main

Team AC360°