Woman kept alive in hopes of saving baby
 

This was forwarded to me by a friend who knows this couple. I agree with the husband's decision to keep Susan alive in hopes of delivering their baby.

[First paragraph:]

"ARLINGTON, Va. — A 26-year-old pregnant woman with cancer whose brain function ceased last month is being kept alive with a respirator in hopes she can have a very premature baby who has a chance to survive."

Full USA Today article here

If interested in helping this family, please send contributions to:

Susan M. Torres Fund
P.O. Box 34105
Washington, D.C. 20043-0105

Donations are tax deductible. The fund is being administered by Faith and Action, a not-for-profit organization. For more information about the fund call Dan Purtill at (703) 641-8948.

who is footing the bill for this? If its the Husband then more power to him.

Yes, it is the husband. He quit his job to spend time with his wife. They do have insurance, but it doesn't completely cover the approx. $7500 a day in costs for her hospital care.

One reason why I included information if anyone wants to help out financially. :)

When I made out my will and related paperwork, it was specified that if a viable child is involved (inwombed?), a motherw ill be kept alive regardless of her wishes about whether she should be kept alive under other circumstances. I think it's a fairly standard caveat put into wills, although the circumstance is of course far from standard. How difficult for the surviving family.

Even if it was taxpayer funded why would you care? Is keeping a woman alive 30 days @ taxpayer expense to save a baby a bad thing?