Get Published | Subscribe | About | Write for Our Blog    

Posted on March 11, 2017 at 5:00 AM

Three years ago, the Texas courts rejected a claim that the Texas Advance Directives Act required continued “life-sustaining treatment” for brain dead pregnant patient, Marlise Munoz.  After all, if the woman is dead, the treatment cannot be “life sustaining.”


But a bill introduced yesterday would change the TADA.  Texas H.B. 3542 would require:


“A person may not withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment under this subchapter from a pregnant patient. This section applies:
(1) regardless of whether there is irreversible
cessation of all spontaneous brain function of the pregnant patient; and
(2) if the life-sustaining treatment is enabling the unborn child to mature.”


Posted on

Three years ago, the Texas courts rejected a claim that the Texas Advance Directives Act required continued “life-sustaining treatment” for brain dead pregnant patient, Marlise Munoz.  After all, if the woman is dead, the treatment cannot be “life sustaining.”


But a bill introduced yesterday would change the TADA.  Texas H.B. 3542 would require:


“A person may not withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment under this subchapter from a pregnant patient. This section applies:
(1) regardless of whether there is irreversible
cessation of all spontaneous brain function of the pregnant patient; and
(2) if the life-sustaining treatment is enabling the unborn child to mature.”

Comments are closed.