quote:This was the 46th day, which was very much like the 45th day and the 44th: Susan, his 26-year-old pregnant wife, lay in her hospital bed in Arlington, brain dead, and thus by Virginia law dead, yet attached to a ventilator, IVs, tubes and monitors in the slim hope that her body could sustain the fetus at least two more weeks before cancer reached her womb or her body just quit.
Jason Torres of Arlington saw a sonogram Thursday. There is no way to tell if the melanoma has reached the fetus, but it appeared healthy and kicked.
Doctors checked in -- the neurologist, the internist, the perinatologist, the neonatologist, the oncologist, the doctor for nutrition, "all sorts of doctors," said Torres, 26, of Arlington. "You know, the post-op doctor, everything."
By Friday, he said, life and death seemed in a tie: The melanoma had spread to Susan's lungs, but the fetus had grown, too, and even kicked.
posted
Oh jeez - that poor man. I hope he is surrounded by more than just the doctors - I hope that he is surrounded by a loving and kind support group of family and friends. I can't imagine being torn in two between the life that is passing, being eaten away, and yet being kept "alive" for the baby - and the new life that is soon to be here.
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Jason Torres said he struggled a bit initially. A Catholic, he prayed to God and yelled at God, which he still does and figures is all right, "as long as there's a dialogue."
posted
This is terribly sad and has to be hell on the dad...that said, the baby will be a lifelong comfort to him.
Posts: 2711 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess the July 11th date is 25 weeks, and she has been on life support for about 6 and a half weeks. So she was about 19 weeks, agonizingly close to viability.
It is an interesting point of perinatology- babies have survived earlier than 25 weeks, but the chances of permanent damage are so high that a doctor can't do a deliver before then and consider themselves as being a doctor to the baby.
I met a little girl last week who was taken early (24 weeks, I think) due to toxemia, and weighed only 1 lb. 9 oz. That was a case where her mother might have died if they didn't deliver the baby, and they were basically delivering the baby as a treatment to the mother. The baby wasn't expected to live, but did and isn't damaged (she's 4 now), but it certainly goes the other way often.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Werd, jebus. (a note of explanation: Because if God was the cause of the mother's cancer, he's not a good guy to begin with.)
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think God causes bad things to happen. I think God has a more hands off approach. But I hope He steps in in situations like this to at least give this man something hopeful. Forgive me for having such a naive outlook but I do think God can fix things.
Posts: 601 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You read such a horrendous story, and see the Hand of G'd? It is such an attitude that gives G'd a bad name. I don't pretend to understand G'd's actions in this world, but this thread is getting creepy.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No I don't see the hand of God! All I was trying to say was that I hope God could find a way to make ANYTHING good AT ALL come out of this. Like say spare this poor womans child from having cancer! I think I clearly said God doesn't cause bad things that I believe he can make things better. I give up on trying to explain this thought in an understandable way. Apologies for creepy everyone out.
Posts: 601 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I found it funny because it kinda sounds like a baby being born with cancer is God's limit, the point where He has to step in. Nothing worse has ever happened in the history of mankind then this.
<---Not a monster, very much hopes baby survives and doesn't have cancer, by the way.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know - the only thing I don't understand about this whole ordeal was this:
quote:Jason Torres quit his job to be by his wife's side, and last month her fetus passed the 24th week of development — the earliest point at which doctors felt the baby would have a reasonable chance to survive, the brother-in-law said.
Wouldn't it have been wiser to KEEP your job, your insurance and benefits, etc. rather than being by her side 24/7? I mean -- he could still spend several hours after work at the hospital, and I don't see how him being there all the time and not working helped the situation at all. Now they are thousands of dollars in debt.
That said, I also understand that emotional crisis' will cause you to make decisions like that -- which don't seem logical to those around you. Like when I got pregnant with my first child (unplanned) and it freaked me so much I dropped out of college - even though it was only two weeks until finals. Lost a whole semester's worth of credit hours. Just because I was too emotional to deal with it. Perhaps this is what he was feeling.
posted
Yeah, I don't get it either. But he was grieving the death of his wife and has small kids. But his job probably wouldn't make that much difference to the financial situation. I thought his job was rather low-paying. And the big problem was, once the woman was brain dead her insurance company stopped paying the bills anyhow. From their point of view, she was dead.
When someone stays on life support a few hours for organ donation, and then goes to surgery and has the organs taken, guess who pays for that? It's the organ donation group, because the insurance signs off as soon as the brain death is confirmed.
Posts: 1014 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:And the big problem was, once the woman was brain dead her insurance company stopped paying the bills anyhow. From their point of view, she was dead.
It'd be interesting to see if that would hold up in court. Would heavily depend on the state, I'd guess.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sure. But it's only happened about a dozen times on record, right?
It brings up interesting contractual intepretation questions, assuming this situation isn't precisely spelled out in the policy.
Most states require newborns to be covered by their mother's insurance for some period of time after birth. It'd be an interesting case to try, that's for sure.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now that the baby is born, she is covered. But she wasn't old enough to survive out of utero till just recently and she has been on life support for like three months. So I don't think they counted her as a baby. Saved em a lot of money.
Wouldn't the fact that insurance companies routinely stop paying for brain dead victims being prepared for organ donation be like a precedent or something?
Posts: 1014 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not really precedent, but persuasive - I'd mention it if I were on the insurance company's side. However, if these charges are picked up by the recipient, I'd argue on the other side that the recipient is the child, and the child should be covered by the insurance just as if a brain dead donor was kept alive to donate a kidney to the child.
My other arguments on the family's side would be along the lines that the mother was still carrying out an important biological function, was doing so successfully, and that the care was necessary to do so. It would be hard to overcome explicit wording such as "coverage ceases upon a diagnosis of brain death."
From a contract intepretation standpoint, I'd argue that coverage of maternity care and the presence of the clause covering the child once born demonstrates that a fundamental purpose of the contract was to cover care needed for successful birth. Interpreting the brain death clause to be in harmony with this purpose requires an exception be read into it. If the insurance covered in-utero corrective surgery for the child, I'd put that at the top of my brief, I think. Then I'd argue that the care for the mother was of the same type - medical care to promote the health of the infant, not the mother, and therefore covered.
In cases of first impression, you have two tasks: make the judge want to rule in your favor, and give the judge the legal tools needed to make that ruling survive appeal.
This is a case where the first is almost trivial, I think. This wasn't experimental, it was unusual. Long term effects to the viability of insurance contracts are small.
The second task would be very, very tricky and highly dependent on a lot of branches of state law.
This is an interesting problem. I wonder if anyone's been in touch with the father about this.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wait, are you saying that if someone is brain dead, but is kept on life support -- let's say because the family (for religious reasons or otherwise) does not consider them dead -- insurance refuses to pay those bills? At all?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I don't know that much about insurance companies.
But realize there is a HUGE difference between almost brain dead, and brain dead. If there is any brain function, at all, then NOT brain dead. Terry Shiavo was not brain dead. There is no mystery about it. Dead is dead. Doctors don't even have to have "permission" from family to take the patient off life support. The family can choose when, and they can choose organ donation, and in this case they chose to nurture a growing baby, but that mother is still dead.
Posts: 1014 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Theaca: There is no mystery about it. Dead is dead. Doctors don't even have to have "permission" from family to take the patient off life support.
Perhaps medically. And I don't think you are correct (at least in some states) about "pulling the plug" without the family's permission.
In any case, I do not consider brain dead unequivocally dead. Not that I think someone who is brain dead will recover; just that I think taking them off life support may be tantamount to murder.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wouldn't even call it "pulling the plug." Pulling the plug usually refers to people whose families have chosen to take them off life support because of a poor chance of recovery, or because that is what the patient wanted. True brain death is different.
Here are some of the explanations about the criteria for brain death.
posted
One: I am sorry if you felt I was implying you, or anyone else who has been involved in taking someone who is brain dead off life support, was a murderer. That was not my intent. Nor is it my belief. I don't impose my religious beliefs on others.
Two: I am familiar with the criteria for brain death. Jewish law as to whether brain death constitutes actual death is highly controversial at the moment. Most authorities do not consider brain death to be true death. I am . . . conflicted about the issue. I hope to never have to deal with the question. Meanwhile, I have been doing a fair bit of research on the subject.
I don't consider abortion to be murder, but I accept that many others do sincerely believe that to be the case.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
One life lost, one can only hope the other can be saved.
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Wait, are you saying that if someone is brain dead, but is kept on life support -- let's say because the family (for religious reasons or otherwise) does not consider them dead -- insurance refuses to pay those bills? At all?
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
That's terrible.
