posted on June 16, 2005 08:03:07 AM
ARLINGTON, Va. -- A brain-dead woman is being kept on life support in hopes that her 21-week-old fetus survives, and the woman's husband said he is certain that's what she would have wanted.
Jason Torres said doctors believe the fetus could have a chance if Susan Torres lives another month and her cancer stays away from her uterus.
He said he decided to keep his wife on life support when doctors at Virginia Hospital Center offered him the chance to disconnect the machines after concluding she would not recover.
"I hate seeing her on those darned machines, and I hate using her as a husk, a carrying case, because she herself is worth so much more," Torres said in an interview in Thursday's USA Today. "But Susan really wanted this baby. And she's a very--how should I put this?--a willful lady. That's probably why she's made it this far."
Hospital officials are not discussing the case, the newspaper reported.
Susan Torres, a 26-year-old researcher at the National Institutes of Health, lost consciousness from a stroke May 7 after aggressive melanoma spread to her brain. Jason Torres said doctors told him his wife's brain functions have stopped.
Torres said the fetus appears to be thriving, but his wife's doctors have told him they know of no cases in which a brain-dead mother with melanoma has delivered a baby.
If his wife and her fetus live until mid-July, or about 25 weeks' gestation, the fetus could survive delivery, though with a heightened risk of brain damage and other problems, Torres said. A full-term pregnancy is about 40 weeks.
"There's not a glimmer of doubt in my mind that this is what she would have wanted," Torres said. "Any chance at all to save the baby, and Susan would have said, 'Let's go for it.' "
Torres quit his job as a printing salesman and has moved into his wife's hospital room. The couple's 2-year-old son, Peter, is staying with grandparents.
posted on June 16, 2005 08:38:28 AM
I don't see a problem with it. He feels it would have been his wifes wish and it's not as if it has not been done before.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
No, I'm saying -- I'm merely -- I'm saying what I'm saying. I don't know why I'm always having people say, are you trying to say -- you know what you can do if you want to know what I'm saying is listen to what I'm saying. What I'm saying is what I said ...
posted on June 16, 2005 09:02:42 AM
No controversy. He's her husband, just like the other case. If he feels she would want to be kept on life support in an effort to save the child, more power to her, and him.
____________________________________________
Fue por lana y salió trasquilado...
posted on June 16, 2005 09:54:47 AM
"If his wife and her fetus live until mid-July, or about 25 weeks' gestation, the fetus could survive delivery"
Why is this a problem? It's not like she could do the "Push! Push!" thing in her mental state. They would simply surgically remove the baby. I've never had a baby myself, but I would assume this would be LESS traumatic for the baby than a normal delivery.
And yes, as long as the baby appears to be coming along normally, they should keep the mother alive.
There is no mention of a DNR or other legal complications, so I'm not sure why this is even being discussed. I'd guess it's a bored reporter trying to create an issue.
--------------------------------------
Quidquid Latine dictum sit altum sonatur.
posted on June 16, 2005 12:05:12 PM
HOPEFULLY, the baby will survive healthy and be a beautiful ending to this very sad situation.
"I'm going to spend a lot of time on Social Security. I enjoy it. I enjoy taking on the issue. I guess, it's the Mother in me."—Guess Who? Washington D.C., April 14, 2005
posted on June 16, 2005 04:18:20 PMI'm not sure why this is even being discussed. I'd guess it's a bored reporter trying to create an issue.
I dont know replay, I think kids have enough of a burden to bare for the parents. How do you think growing up knowing that your mother was specifically kept alive to birth you will play out on this kids head? Are they planning to pull the plug right after the delivery? Should they now?
spelling : I must need a new keyboard but its funny I type the same way in auctions all day long with no typos until I am over here.
[ edited by dblfugger9 on Jun 16, 2005 04:19 PM ]
posted on June 16, 2005 04:56:25 PM
I can only answer for myself...
If I were in that situation, and there was a possibility my unborn child could live, of course I would want to be kept on life support...so my child could have a chance at life.
Her life has been lost already, to cancer, how could that possibly warp her child? The unborn baby didn't cause her cancer, so the child wouldn't have the "killing mommy" issues.
posted on June 16, 2005 05:00:10 PM
twig, you can tell a kid they didnt kill mommy, but try getting them to believe it until they are an adult and can understand it. I sure do think the kid is going to have some kind of issues being born without a mother to say the least. However, I am not against the father wanting this child, or believing this is what his wife would have wanted. I think his term willful of her is very appropriate here. I just wonder if the husband will then eventually pull the plug. And now he is unemployed because he quit his job??
Why would there be any reason to even tell the child the entire truth before they were ready to handle it? I see this as an extreme expression of a mother's love for her unborn child and I don't think there's a greater sacrifice this mother could make. I also think most children, once old enough to understand it, would also see it this way. I would sacrifice everything for my children and that's what this mother is doing.
My only fear is the media. Would they be able to stay away from the child or the family so that they could live in peace? Or, will they be camped outside the families door once the child begins to mature? I think the family will have to move and will have to keep a low profile for a long time. Isn't it too bad that the media acts so cruely at times just for the sake of a story? This is another case where a very private and personal situation becomes national news.
This story is not like Shiavo. If Shiavo was pregnant and there was a chance to bring a ray of light from an otherwise dark situation, I don't think anyone here would have said that life support should be removed. You can't compare the two cases.
posted on June 17, 2005 05:04:12 AMHe said he decided to keep his wife on life support when doctors at Virginia Hospital Center offered him the chance to disconnect the machines after concluding she would not recover.
Cheryl, apparently he has decided this all on his own. I dont think she is 'doing' anything. She is brain-dead remember?
I find it ironic you can find attributes of 'a sacrifice' and her 'doing something' for this brain-dead person, but not for another?
.
[ edited by dblfugger9 on Jun 17, 2005 05:32 AM ]
posted on June 17, 2005 11:53:50 AM
Geesh, dbl, the two cases are not the same. This woman has life inside her and there is a chance to save that life. I thought all you pro-lifer's would rally beside this. The doctor's have not said there is no hope for the child. Just the opposite, in fact. There are two lives involved here and one has the chance to survive. Don't you think that chance should be taken? There was no hope for Shiavo. Her brain damage was too extensive. Why would you want to force her spirit to stay locked inside a useless body when it could have the chance to soar in the heavens?
Did you miss the line in my post that states: If Shiavo was pregnant and there was a chance to bring a ray of light from an otherwise dark situation, I don't think anyone here would have said that life support should be removed.
posted on June 17, 2005 12:12:22 PM
Terri didn't require the use of machines to stay alive. That's one difference. Second there doesn't appear to be disagreement on what this family would like to see happen - nor on what the PATIENT, herself, wanted. Third taking away food and water from a person that would have survived is MURDER...plain and simple.
--
I've read today that Gov. Bush has approved an investigation into what took Terri's husband 40 -70 minutes AFTER her collapse to call 9-11. So her story will continue to be followed for awhile at least.
---
But dbl...I do disagree with you on this one. If there's a chance the baby could survive if given more time to grow ....I think it should be given that chance. Should her fast spreading cancer endanger this child's live then...maybe different decisions will have to be made at that point. But this isn't the first case of where a mother was kept alive so the baby could grow....maybe the first case where the mother had a fast growing cancer....but not the first case for a mother to be artifically kept alive in order that her child be given a chance at life.
posted on June 17, 2005 01:10:52 PM
Hi Linda -- what do you disagree with me on?
Cheryl, your post just proves my point though Im not sure you can recognize it. The mere thought of life, its essence, in fact, is to be judged by some quality standard by all of you. But everybody keeps denying that's is so.
Or as you so eloquenty put it, by what its doing - not simply that it is living.
There can be no comparison here because of the fact that she is pregnant? If she wasnt pregnant - would her life be just as easily extinguishable to you? How about if she was only six weeks pregnant? Does that make a difference as well?
posted on June 17, 2005 01:34:13 PM
lol, dbl...I guess I was focusing on your questions and on your reply to twig. Sorry.
I was focusing on the comments/questions about how would the baby feel...knowing...
My mother's birth was most likely what caused my grandmother's death...three days after she was born...and she didn't have any problems with it growing up. Her family helped in that way, I guess, by constantly telling her how much her mother wanted a girl...after having only boys....etc.
I do understand we aren't in disagreement about whether or not the mother should be kept alive...so that this baby can have a better chance.
posted on June 17, 2005 01:42:38 PM
That okay, Linda. I was trying to prove a point I dont begrudge this man wanting this baby, but then I did go into sarcastic mode so I could see how it could have been misconstrued..
You know, its like they claim abortion is good. Why have a child when you cant afford for care for? ... blah, blah. So here's this guy with no wife, one kid already, no job...but now all of a sudden its a good thing? This woman is laying there just as dead as they claim terry shiavo was, but because she is pregnant HER life has value?They dont value life for what it is. Somehow they can see a new life as valuable to someone living; but they cant see an old sustained has the same value to somebody else?
I dont get these people's ideas and statements. It is very much a flip-flop game and it all sounds very hypocritical and phoney to me.
.
[ edited by dblfugger9 on Jun 17, 2005 01:53 PM ]
posted on June 17, 2005 02:07:53 PM
I agree...it is VERY difficult to understand.
Some extremists have even gone so far as to label those liberals as being from the 'party of death'. Don't want a child...then abort it, no matter it's gestational age. Be disabled to a point THEY think you SHOULDN'T want to go on living...get a judge to make it happen.
We're walking a very fine line here...and now with this 'create life - to destroy life' and cloning...we're beginning to enter another whole new realm of morality.
~~~~~~~~~~
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
[ edited by Linda_K on Jun 17, 2005 02:11 PM ]
posted on June 17, 2005 02:22:44 PM
Dbl - Just because someone is Pro-Choice does not mean theat they think all fetus's should die. Are you really so extremist and dense that that is what you believe?
If so there probably is no use in pointing this out to you but the answer lies in the title. Pro CHOICE as in women should have a CHOICE whether or not they want children. This woman wanted a child. Not all do and those that do not should not be forced by some third party indivual that will run as fast and far away from the child the moment that it is born to have it.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
No, I'm saying -- I'm merely -- I'm saying what I'm saying. I don't know why I'm always having people say, are you trying to say -- you know what you can do if you want to know what I'm saying is listen to what I'm saying. What I'm saying is what I said ...
posted on June 17, 2005 06:42:21 PMI don't see a problem with it. He feels it would have been his wifes wish and it's not as if it has not been done before.
I have to agree with fenix on this one. What harm does this cause anyone? The mother is already dead. There is a chance the baby can be delivered and live. I'd say go for it and see what happens.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
----------------------------------
President George Bush: "Over time the truth will come out."
President George Bush: "Our people are going to find out the truth, and the truth will say that this intelligence was good intelligence. There's no doubt in my mind."
Bush was right. The truth did come out and the facts are he misled Congress and the American people about the reasons we should go to war in Iraq.
posted on June 18, 2005 05:08:26 AM new
"LOL. Yes, fenix, I am so dense"
well......no arguement in this corner
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Baseball season has started,but they have it all wrong.3 strikes and you're out,4 balls you walk.I can tell you right now a man with 4 balls could not possibly walk
Sorry.