Ethics Paper

Justin Cutler

When it comes to doing these ethics journals, I have truly

enjoyed learning about all the different ethics cases and view points.
Before I took this class I never knew there was so much intricacy that
went along with so much in the medical field. Its been a pleasure to
participate in.
The case ive chosen to write about is the Marlize Munoz Case.
The title for this case used by the New York Times was Pregnant, and
forced to stay on life support. This case drew much national attention,
plenty of articles in national news media, and heated oppinions from
several sides. Eventually, the families wishes to have Marlize taken off
of life support, even though she was pregnant, was granted.
The whole situation began in late 2013, when Erick Munoz, the
husband of Marlize, found her unconscious on the kitchen floor. It
appeared that she had a brain aneurism and the lack of oxygen to the
brain. Soon after, Marlize was pronounced brain dead and the family
prepared to say their goodbyes. Then the hospital stepped in and
denied this request, because Munoz was 14 weeks pregnant. In texas,
as in many other states, it is illegal to deny life supporting treatment to
victims who are pregnant, in an effort to save the baby. This went
againt Marlizes verbal wishes to not be kept alive if she was in an un
saveable position. Both Marlize and husband Erick were EMTs and had
expressed for those wishes if ever put in the situations. It took four

months, and caused much stir, but eventually it was proven that
Marlize was absolutely braindead, and the fetus unviable, so the courts
ruled in favor of the families wished. The family expressed great
gratitude to God for helping this decision come to pass.
The obvious ethical principles in light here are that of
Autonomy, and that of beneficence. Autonomy, in medicine, can be
defined as the ability of a person to make his or her own decisions. It is
almost synomous with agency, something we use quite often in the
gospel. Basically it means that the decisions and right to decide of the
patient should be respected and granted. Beneficence can be defined
as action done for the benefit of others. If there is a possible way to
benefit someone, and this action is taken, this is known as
beneficence. The struggle in the case of Marlize Munoz is that Marlize
had firmly said she did not want to be kept on life support in a case
such as this. And her family strongly supported that decision. However,
the hospital denied her request, essentially denying her autonomy,
because Marlize was pregnant. They did this because of the law, ruling
for beneficence of the unborn baby, and the rights to it as a human.
This is a highly debated ethical issue and is closely related to the
ethical problem of abortion. Whos rights should be respected, the
autonomy of a mother to choose, or the rights of an unborn child to
have a chance to live?

In the point of view of the Munoz family, the hospital was

misinterpreting the law, saying that the law was meant for mothers in
a vegetative state, not braindead as was Marlize. This view did reflect
the actual wording of the law, and They strongly felt that their right to
decide, aka autonomy, was being violated greatly, and that the
hospital was Using her as a political catalyst to push forward a
political agenda. In a very emotional interview with CNN it was clear
that they strongly felt the hospital wasnt just trying to follow the law,
but push an agenda, which in my opinion is certainly not right or
ethical. The munoz family eventually even had a law purposed called
Marlizes Law which would grant women autonomy in situations
dealing with end of life care.
In the view point of the hospital, they were just trying to
follow the laws of the land, as any competent and respectable
institution would. They also originally felt that it was not conclusive
whether or not Marlize was completely braindead, and therefore there
was a chance of not just saving her baby, but her as well. So, in
essence they were acting under beneficence of both Marlize and her
baby. The viewpoints of this law and the hospital reflect those of
people and laws against abortion. Although the situation is certainly
different (theres a difference between a mother having irresponsible
sex and then wanting to terminate pregnancy because the babys
unwanted, and a mother whos permantly brain dead and pregnant),

the fact of the matter remains that there is a little person growing
inside the mother. So, should they have beneficent rights to life, when
decsions can obviously not be made by them? In the mind of the law
makers of texas and this hospital, yes, whether or not the mother was
brain dead or just irresponsible. A texas lawmaker proposed a law
around the same time as Marlizes Law which would make it illegal to
stop life sustaining treatments, even if there is irreversible cessation
of brain function.
Solutions for this dilemma are not overly obvious or simple. I feel
one solution would be for the law to explore all possible outcomes and
arguments before it is passed. Much of the families dissention was
caused by feeling the law was being misinterpreted. The courts also
could have quickly turned to the verbal wishes of the mother, and used
this to make a decision quickly and decidedly, rather than draw it out
and cause much heat and contention on both sides.
In my opinion, the autonomy of Marlize should definitely have
precedence over the beneficence of the infant, in this case. One of our
greatest gifts on this earth is agency, and when one acts morally and
soundly, and then a situation like this arises, I believe their wishes
should be granted. When I read through the words of the family, along
with the words of the hospital and lawmaker, it does appear that the
side of beneficence is working more toward a political agenda. This
isnt surprising consdidering the debate swirling around abortion, but in

my opinion cases like this and abortion should be considered separate.

Unless there is absolute certainty that a mother can be saved, and in
doing so a baby can be saved, the decision of the victim and family
should always be granted. The chances and difficulty felt by family
caused by keeping a mother alive is very great. From my research ive
also seen that the chances of the babys survival are very slim.
Therefore, in the case of Marlize Munoz, I believe autonomy should
have been granted.