Testing

Michigan Lawsuit Challenges Restrictions on End-of-Life Decisions for Pregnant ​Women

A new lawsuit filed in Michigan argues that the state’s current ‍law‌ regarding advance directives infringes upon the reproductive freedoms recently enshrined in the state constitution. The suit centers ⁢on⁤ a decades-old statute ​that prevents a pregnant person’s designated healthcare advocate from withdrawing⁢ life-sustaining treatment, even if it⁢ would result in the patient’s death.

Plaintiffs in the ⁣case, including several michigan physicians, contend the law creates a ⁢unique adn discriminatory ⁢barrier for pregnant women, denying⁣ them the same end-of-life autonomy afforded to other adults in the‌ state. ⁢The‌ law effectively overrides a patient’s wishes, possibly forcing continued life support against their expressed desires.

“It takes away ‌an ⁣vital right from ⁣women of reproductive age that other‌ adults with capacity in the state of Michigan have,” explained Kayte Spector-Bagdady, a​ health law professor at the University of Michigan Medical School.

The‌ lawsuit builds upon ​a ‌accomplished challenge earlier this year where Michigan’s reproductive ‌freedom amendment was used to overturn existing abortion‌ restrictions, including a​ mandatory 24-hour waiting period.

Michigan lawmakers ⁢are already considering amending the ⁢advance directive law. The state Senate​ passed‍ a bill in April that would allow patient advocates to ​make decisions regarding life support for pregnant individuals. The Republican-controlled House ⁢is currently reviewing the legislation. Washington state recently passed a similar bill ⁢removing a pregnancy exclusion from its advance directive law.

While instances requiring such difficult decisions are rare, and many ⁣women of childbearing age may not even be aware⁤ of⁢ the restrictions or have‍ a formal advance directive in place ​- a 2019 study found most states ‍with these⁣ limitations do not ‍clearly ​disclose them – several high-profile cases have brought ⁤the⁤ issue to light.

The case of Marlise Muñoz in​ Texas, who was kept on life support despite being brain-dead and against ‍her stated ‌wishes due to a similar law, garnered national⁤ attention over a decade ago. Her husband ultimately had to sue to have life ‍support removed following a judge’s order after two months.More⁤ recently, the ‌case of Adriana Smith in Georgia, where her family faced similar challenges‌ in‌ determining her end-of-life care while she was pregnant, further spurred discussion within the medical community.

Dr. Koskenoja, one of the plaintiffs and a physician who treats pregnant ‍women facing life-threatening conditions,⁢ stated that Smith’s case prompted her to create her own advance directive in ⁣September, specifically addressing her wishes should she become pregnant – recognizing, however, that such instructions ⁣are currently not legally binding in Michigan. she emphasized the ⁢feeling of losing control over one’s own healthcare decisions under‌ the current law, stating, “that is all taken out of⁤ your hands.”