There are moments in life when we are each called upon to make choices that directly and significantly impact not only ourselves, but which drastically alter the path of others. These decisions can often be the most difficult ones we find ourselves placed in front of. What makes this process even more challenging and painful for many people is when their personal heartfelt choices are met with resistance and opposition by the cold, hard reality of the law.<\/p>\n
Such is the case with Erick and Marlise Mu\u00f1oz, a young couple residing in Crowley, Texas, with their first-born 15-month-old son.\u00a0 Erick Mu\u00f1oz found his wife, Marlise, collapsed in their home in November due to what doctors now believe to have been a blood clot in her lung.\u00a0 She has had no brain function since that time and\u00a0has been declared dead based on neurological criteria, meaning her brain can no longer keep her body alive and functioning, and has been physically sustained by life-support machines since November 26, 2013.<\/p>\n
And while Marlise did not place her desires in writing, she made her wishes clearly known to her entire family that she did not want to be kept alive by artificial means should unfortunate circumstances arise.\u00a0 But her family\u2019s requests to honor her end-of-life desires and remove her from artificial life support have been denied by John Peter Smith Hospital in Fort Worth, Texas, because of the fact that Marlise Mu\u00f1oz is 14 weeks\u2019 pregnant.<\/p>\n
At issue is a 1989 Texas law that blocks doctors from denying \u201clife-sustaining treatment\u201d to pregnant, terminally ill patients.\u00a0 And as a result of this law, even though the physical condition of the in utero baby is undetermined at this time, Marlise Mu\u00f1oz\u2019s body is being artificially sustained in order to harvest the body of her unborn child. \u00a0Doctors are not able to ascertain at this early stage if or how long the baby was without oxygen or whether the\u00a0automated external defibrillator device and heavy drugs used on the mother in an attempt to revive her have had an adverse effect on Baby\u00a0Mu\u00f1oz.<\/p>\n
Erick Mu\u00f1oz and her parents are petitioning the court to disconnect and discontinue all support systems, as they adamantly assert this was and is Marlise\u2019s desire.\u00a0 “It’s not a matter of pro-choice and pro-life,” her mother told The<\/i>\u00a0New York <\/i>Times<\/i>. “It’s about a matter of our daughter’s wishes not being honored by the state of Texas.”<\/p>\n
The hospital\u2019s medical staff continue to implement and maintain life-preserving measures to Marlise Mu\u00f1oz, as it is the law they must follow. \u00a0And the life of the now 20-week-old baby nestled in the womb of Mrs. Mu\u00f1oz hinges upon the choices placed before everyone involved.<\/p>\n
Now that the decision has been placed in the hands of the legal system, what will happen?\u00a0 What should<\/em> happen?\u00a0 Is this, contrary to what Marlise Mu\u00f1oz\u2019s mother said, simply a matter of pro-choice or pro-life?\u00a0 Whose choice is it?\u00a0 Whose life is this about?\u00a0 Does this choice belong in the court system?\u00a0 Does this choice belong to Marlise Mu\u00f1oz?\u00a0 Does this choice belong to her family?\u00a0 Does her 20-week-old baby have a choice?<\/p>\n As in every occurrence, every happening, and every event that takes place in our world, I am wondering if there is a spiritual perspective that someone could offer which might provide us a deeper understanding or which could give us some wisdom or insight as we try to make sense of this complicated and heartbreaking situation.<\/p>\n Your thoughts?<\/p>\n