By Mike Appleton, Weekend Contributor
“We strongly believe that the order that let to the termination of life support is in complete contradiction to Texas law that was enacted to protect pre-born babies just like the Munoz child. The courts have failed this baby, the attorneys who should have defended Texas law has failed this baby, and the hospital has failed this baby. May this tragedy serve as a wake-up call to our society, lest others wrongly fall victim to this dehumanizing utilitarian view of life and death.”
-Operation Rescue, Press Release, January 26, 2014
“It never occurred to us that anything in the statute applied to anyone who was dead. The statute was meant for making decisions for patients with terminal or irreversible conditions.”
-Thomas Mayo, associate professor of law, Southern Methodist University School of Law (quoted in Fort Worth Star-Telegram, January 24, 2014)
When Tarrant County district judge R. H. Wallace, Jr. decided the case of Erick Munoz v. John Peter Smith Hospital, the judgment required only two paragraphs. “The provisions of Section 166.049 of the Texas Health and Safety Code,” he wrote, “do not apply to Marlise Munoz because Mrs. Munoz is dead.” Given this conclusion, it became unnecessary to consider the constitutionality of the statute, and the court declined to do so.
The court’s ruling was sane and rational. But in my opinion it was also obvious. And that raises the issue of why the hospital refused to respect the wishes of the Munoz family without a court order, despite its admission in court filings that a medical determination of brain death had been made by November 28th of last year. Continue reading “The Right to Life and the Right to Die”
