Skip to main content

View Diary: Did Hospital Perform Unauthorized Experiments on Dead Pregnant Woman? (98 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  This appears to be entering CT territory (6+ / 0-)

    Barring any real proof of this, this is a major accusation to make against anyone.  Barring any real evidence beyond speculation, this looks like its heading firmly into conspiracy theory territory.

    •  What part do you need proof of? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      page394

      This story has been all over the media and especially DailyKos - seriously, it happened (i.e., it is NOT a theory in the sense of theory when the word is used with "conspiracy").

      •  Really? The media have been reporting (6+ / 0-)

        that the hospital was keeping her alive as some sort of Nazi-style medical experiment?  And that it was because she's a minority?  There are statements and hospital records available that indicate this was the motive?

        I must have missed those headlines, could you point me to a few?

        •  This type of treatment / use of corpses (4+ / 0-)

          is NOT in medical textbooks so it is clearly experimental.

          And methinks that it is sufficiently ghoulish / evil to be clad with the Nazi reference.  I mean seriously, what other group out there does something like that?

          •  I'm not defending the action itself, (10+ / 0-)

            but I think the implication that this was intended as an experiment -- as in a real thought process of "we have this brain-dead pregnant minority woman, hey wouldn't it be great to do an experiment to see how long we can keep her alive and see what happens to the fetus" is a stretch.  

            Don't get me wrong, here -- I think the hospital should have followed the husband's wishes a long time ago -- but I think ascribing deliberately evil motivations to the hospital and staff is far over the top barring some blatant evidence to the contrary.

            And as for the whole "this wouldn't have happened if she weren't a minority" -- well, don't we all remember the Terry Schiavo case from the W. years?

            •  You might be right, but. . . (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Roadbed Guy, a2nite, OldDragon, ExpatGirl

              Forcing a grieving husband to sit at the side of the  decomposing body of his dead but ventilated wife goes far beyond anything relating to Terry Schiavo.

              Because we in this society abstract the Nazis as the embodiment of evil, we fail to see that they were real human beings who made real choices on many levels.  One set of choices involved engaging in the kinds of unauthorized experimentation, which never would have been performed on ethnic Germans.  

              Constance Hilliard is a professor, who blogs at Soul Wisdom: http://soul-wisdom.blogspot.com

              by Constance Hilliard on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 08:52:22 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  I mean, what else were they thinking? (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              IL clb, OldDragon, ExpatGirl
              hey wouldn't it be great to do an experiment to see how long we can keep her alive and see what happens to the fetus
              Really, just point me to medical precedent where the answer to this question is known, and I'll stop asking.

              But that's not happening.

              Instead this situation fall more under the rubric of: Practicing Medical Procedures on Newly Dead and Nearly Dead Patients

              with the key point worth emphasizing from that article being this:

              Current ethical norms do not support the practice of using newly and nearly dead patients for training in invasive medical procedures absent prior consent by the patient or contemporaneous surrogate consent.
              •  And there was not only no such consent, (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                a2nite, OldDragon, Cassandra Waites

                there was very active, vehement insistence that "HELL NO YOU DON'T!"

                Insistence that was willfully and arrogantly ignored "because fetus".

                That is where this becomes profoundly unethical.

                If it's
                Not your body,
                Then it's
                Not your choice
                And it's
                None of your damn business!

                by TheOtherMaven on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 09:19:50 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  And yet, you have a State law saying that life (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Witgren, Justanothernyer, erush1345

                begins at conception.

                What does a hospital that receives State accreditation and licensing do in that situation?

                My thinking is that the lawyers drove this decision more than any doctor did.  They didn't want to piss any legislators off.  Don't piss of the Attorney General.  

                The perverted thing here is that 300 people could die this year at that very hospital because of hospital borne viruses.  But no State law holds the hospital accountable for those deaths like the law that says life begins at conception.

                It's not racial, except for the possibility that someone of more means could have gotten a judge's ruling more quickly.  

                It's not experimental because hospitals do not have the resources for experiments unless they are teaching hospitals.  You don't do things just to get into the papers.  They simply don't have resources for that.  

                And yes, you can bet there were trade-offs in patient care and treatment capacity because they had to keep a dead woman alive.

                •  This is were I think the road leads also (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Justanothernyer, erush1345

                  It was probably a decision driven largely by potential liability or legal action against the hospital by those who would claim that by taking the mother off of life support was violating state law.  It was probably far less an "experiment to see what happens, etc" and more of a "Worst case, she stays on life support and the fetus dies in utero but then the hospital won't be on the hook with violating state law and facing legal action and/or loss of funding or malpractice suits by pro-life groups."

                  It's a cynical POV to look at things like this through a legal lens like that, but such is the legal world we live in.  If Texas had not had this law on the books, this whole issue might never arisen.

      •  Proof of what? (4+ / 0-)

        Do I need to prove that a dead woman who was 14 weeks pregnant was kept on life support?  Or do I need to prove that this woman's family suffered anguish?  Or do I need to prove that minorities in America as well as the victims of the Nazis have suffered unauthorized and unethical medical experiments.  

        Perhaps you misunderstand my point.  I was not saying that somewhere in that hospital is a file laying out procedures for Nazi experimentation on the pregnant corpse of Marlisle Munoz, i.e. "proof."  But I was saying that this was unauthorized medical experimentation on the corpse of a pregnant woman.    

        Admittedly, not having a time machine hooked to alternative universes I am unable to prove that the doctors would have written medical research papers in prominent academic journals had they been allowed to continue.   Is that what you mean by proof?

        Constance Hilliard is a professor, who blogs at Soul Wisdom: http://soul-wisdom.blogspot.com

        by Constance Hilliard on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 08:26:30 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site