THE OATH

BECAUSE the Obamacare is at the top of the front page......

homeagain wrote: BECAUSE the Obamacare is at the top of the front page......

???

Rick wrote:

homeagain wrote: What part of NONVIABLE do you NOT understand??? I am speaking of(posting)
about a arbitrary decision to NOT HONOR the wishes of the family,husband,and in fact, the
woman herself (brain dead body decaying in the hospital bed)......YES, if the fetus WAS viable
and there was a good chance of survival I'm betting the FAMILIES decision would have been
different.....

I LISTENED very carefully to the mother of this woman, to the man who was her husband.....
they BOTH stated (in an in depth interview,which by the way, was a heartbreaking AND
disturbing segment)......that they could SMELL the body decaying (in death)...while it/she was
laying in the hospital bed.....THINK about that for one moment.....viewing your loved one body
in repose,watching a MACHINE manipulate the lungs,watching the chest move up and down and KNOWING that the person you knew and loved was DECAYING into DEATH and the smell emanating from the body was your BELOVED daughter (wife).....

WHAT PART OF NONVIABLE do you not understand

I think PS was referring to the abortion industry in general and how "the Oath" applies to those acts. He can correct me if I'm wrong about his point.

No, I was referring to this situation Rick. homeagain went and bumped this thread in response to a discussion we were having in another one and so I responded to her here.

Though she still declines to state why the child wasn't viable, which means that it had nothing to do with damage to the child as a result of what happened to the mother and everything to do with how far along the pregnancy was at the time the mother's health was harmed to the point where she was hospitalized and placed on life support to try and save her life. What that means is that the doctors still felt that the child had a chance to reach viability and would be harmed if the life support to the now brain dead mother was removed. And that is why I challenged home to apply the oath to the unborn child and see where that left her argument. The first duty of a physician is to do no harm. Removing the life support would have harmed the unborn child. The mother was already dead by law, so there is no further harm that the doctor could subject her to by trying to ensure that no harm was done to the unborn child by their actions.

The fetus was NONVIABLE at 14 weeks, it suffered from multiple abnormalities.....the doctor
KNEW it, the hospital KNEW it and the family KNEW it.....do your OWN research, I brought it
up....YOU can too.....your self-righteous view is frightening.....one would only hope YOU will
never have to endure what this family bravely confronted.....and with DIGNITY I might add.

In addition to the SMELL OF DEATH emitting from her decaying body (while prone in a hospital
bed) the family had to endure the SOUND OF HER BONES CRACKING when the staff moved her
limbs......the bones were deteriorating in DEATH. :Thud: :Thud:


NO ONE should have to endure what this TEXAS hospital put her and her family thru.....THE
OATH was NOT upheld, THE OATH was in fact IGNORED by this hospitals arbitrary decision.(using
the law as an excuse for an UNETHICAL decision is NOT an excuse, it was a travesty.JMO

No one?

Doctors keep brain-dead pregnant woman on life support until baby's birth
http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/04/world/ame ... ead-woman/

So is the oath being followed or violated in this instance home? Inquiring minds want to know.

PS.....THAT story is a HUGE contrast, the fetus is VIABLE and the family was in agreement that
the mother of this child WOULD HAVE WANTED to delivery a healthy baby.....despite what you
believe personally...the TEXAS case was unethical in it's initial decision....AND the presiding
judge ADMONISHED the hospital for it's stance..... IT WAS A MEDICAL TRAVESTY
and the family should have NEVER been put into that position....(I understand the hospital
BILLED THE FAMILY FOR THE TWO MONTHS OF MEDICAL CARE..... The judge
stated he ASSUMED that medical bill would be absorbed by the hospital....YA THINK?????)

And the hospital all along contended that they were doing what Texas law required of them, right? They said it was not their place to decide what the law meant, only to follow it to the best of their ability, right? They said that if they were told that the law allowed them to pull the plug they would but they wouldn't do that unless and until they were told, by those whose job it actually is to interpret the law, they would not be violating the law with those actions, correct? So let's at least try to be intellectually honest about why the hospital acted as it did, OK?

To the TOP of the page.....

Without addressing a single salient point raised by others. Why is that home? Could it be because you have no reasoned response to those points?

And you also have yet to answer the direct query as to whether or not the Canada case is a violation of the oath in your opinion. Why is that?

homeagain wrote: To the TOP of the page.....

And ignored from now on.