I need an explanation for this Sociology question to help me study.
250 words min.
Texas has a law that prohibits the removal of mechanical life-support such as a ventilator from a pregnant patient.
In November 2013, when Marlise Munoz was 14 weeks pregnant she was found unconscious in her Texas home. With her husband and family in deep distress, they rushed her to a hospital where she was placed on a machine to keep her alive. Soon thereafter, doctors at the hospital pronounced her brain dead. Her husband and family eventually asked that she be removed from life support but Texas law prohibits removing a pregnant woman from life support if it threatens the life of the fetus. A Texas Judge has now ordered that the 22 week pregnant woman removed from life support, as requested by the family. For background, click here: https://www.cnn.com/2014/01/24/health/pregnant-brain-dead-woman-texas/
For our week 4 discussion, answer the two following questions:
 From a utilitarian moral perspective of the greatest good of the greatest number and also the utilitarian evaluative criteria of happiness versus suffering, explain the rightness or wrongness of a law that prohibits the removal of a pregnant woman from life support. Also discuss the sad case of Marlise Munoz with someone else for how that person feels about it and what moral concerns s/he has about this particular case. Do you think that the husband of Marlise Munoz should only be granted his request to remove his wife because he has concerns about indications of severe abnormalities in the developing fetus but not if the fetus were perfectly normal? Explain.
 In terms utilitarian ethics, discuss the moral issues at stake in the famous so-called Trolley Problem as related in the eText and also Michael Sandel’s Harvard lecture (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBdfcR-8hEY where “you are beside a train track with a train headed down the track. However, on the track ahead are five people who will all be killed if the train continues. But you also have access to a switch, and if you pull it the train will be diverted onto another track where there is only one person” (eText p.36). Do you think that this type of moral choice between the lesser of evils as in this Trolley Problem is realistic to what we might face in our everyday lives or places of employment? Do you think there is such a thing as a moral duty to choose between the lesser of evils? Why or why not? Can you give an example to support your point?