Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Clinicaly dead pregnant woman on life support

Options
1…78101213…44

Comments

  • Options
    #272
    Bongalongherb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,766 ✭✭✭Bongalongherb


    Bruthal wrote: »
    Maybe they should be able to.

    But should they simply switch off a life support machine because a family member says so, without checking the legal consequences first?

    Is the legal position so simple, that anyone should know their position in it?

    The family members would have been fully advised on what problems would occur if this continues, so it is not like the family members are just making a blunt decision.


  • Options
    #273
    RDM_83 again
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,116 ✭✭✭RDM_83 again


    Does anybody else think that maybe this thread shouldn't be open? Its horrible situation thats morally complex and I know AH isn't going to change anything or solve an ethical problem such as this.
    This isn't an after the fact discussion of what happened or why/should it have happened its about an ongoing situation involving a young woman that will be have been close to a lot of people here in Ireland.


  • Options
    #274
    Dontfadeaway
    Registered Users Posts: 849 ✭✭✭Dontfadeaway


    Whoever would be looking after the child should be the one to decide. If that is the father, then why should he not get a say.


  • Options
    #275
    ardle1
    Registered Users Posts: 1,521 ✭✭✭ardle1


    Ah shir it's grand...
    The judge adjourned the next hearing untill the 23rd, ffs.
    Judges are really starting to annoy me!


  • Options
    #276
    Icepick
    Registered Users Posts: 2,456 ✭✭✭Icepick


    Does the anti-choice side actually believe that the foetus will be born as a healthy baby if the life support isn't turned off? ...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #277
    Larry Wildman
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,460 ✭✭✭Larry Wildman


    Shrap wrote: »
    I can't believe you said that. What a disgusting thing to say about a family in such grief. And why shouldn't they want this sick experiment on their dead daughter to end (sick, because at this early stage in a pregnancy, they're looking at very slim odds on a healthy outcome, and sick because it's against their wishes).

    So you think it's reasonable that when told that their daughter is dead but that there's a chance that she could give birth to a healthy grandchild/brother sister for the existing child, their reaction is "pull the plug"?

    It's disgraceful.


  • Options
    #278
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    Bongalongherb wrote: »
    The family members would have been fully advised on what problems would occur if this continues, so it is not like the family members are just making a blunt decision.

    Great, but the doctors could be contravening a right to life of the unborn law, or believe they possibly could be.

    Asking for clarification doesnt seem out of order.

    I dont think it was about the family making a hasty decision.


  • Options
    #279
    wendell borton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,336 ✭✭✭wendell borton


    SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »
    the "sick experiment" is trying to keep their grandchild alive

    More than likely its for fear of litigation on the hospital part, as its a legal quagmire thanks to meddling with the constitution.


  • Options
    #280
    Larry Wildman
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,460 ✭✭✭Larry Wildman


    This is madness. Abortion related arguments are normally around the mother's life vs the child's life.

    This woman is "dead". It's callous to say, but she is now irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.


  • Options
    #281
    Shrap
    Registered Users Posts: 3,163 ✭✭✭Shrap


    Bruthal wrote: »
    Maybe they should be able to.

    But should they simply switch off a life support machine because a family member says so, without checking the legal consequences first?

    Is the legal position so simple, that anyone should know their position in it?

    Totally agree with you here though. No, the legal position is so complex that it lets a woman die rather than make sure she's safe at the expense of an unsentient human life, it denies treatment to people who can't leave the country and requires them to be force fed, and it confuses ethics to the extent that doctors don't know what to do in a situation where a woman who has died of natural causes has to be kept alive to gruesomely become "just a vessel".

    That's what is also so despicable about what is happening.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #282
    hotmail.com
    Registered Users Posts: 13,317 ✭✭✭✭hotmail.com


    Larry Wildman wrote: »
    This is madness. Abortion related arguments are normally around the mother's life vs the child's life.

    This woman is "dead". It's callous to say, but she is now irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

    Appalling attitude towards women.


  • Options
    #283
    Gael23
    Registered Users Posts: 12,110 ✭✭✭✭Gael23


    The right thing to do is let them both die with dignity. I think its wrong that a dying womans life is prolonged for such a reason


  • Options
    #284
    Bongalongherb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,766 ✭✭✭Bongalongherb


    Larry Wildman wrote: »
    This is madness. Abortion related arguments are normally around the mother's life vs the child's life.

    This woman is "dead". It's callous to say, but she is now irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

    Her family members are not irrelevant though. This is what you are missing.


  • Options
    #285
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    Icepick wrote: »
    Does the anti-choice side actually believe that the foetus will be borne as a healthy baby if the life support isn't turned off? ...

    Anti choice?

    Whats the other side, Anti life?


  • Options
    #286
    IrishSkyBoxer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 269 ✭✭IrishSkyBoxer


    seamus wrote: »
    And after listening to all of the options and information you will likely come to the stark realisation that moving heaven and earth is beyond your capabilities.

    The foetus is 17 weeks. It's well before viability. So there is no way to know whether keeping her on life support while the foetus grows will result in a viable foetus.
    Keeping her on life support as a human incubator would be an experiment. Quite literally, "Let's give this a go and see what happens". Ethically, that's way over the line, you're basically experimenting on corpses and foetuses at the same time, without anyone's permission.

    To say you'd want to "save" your grandchild is admirable, but are you willing to gamble for the slim (let's face it, completely unpredictable) chance that it's a healthy child? As a parent is that what you'd want your parents to do?

    The chances of this turning into a healthy, viable child, are tiny. The chances of this resulting in a miscarriage are high, and even if it does go to a viable term, the chances of the end result being severely disabled or completely cabbaged, are also high.

    You're a parent, what would you want - for your corpse to "give birth" to a child with a high probability of a pathetic existence, or for you both to receive the dignity of being allowed to die?


    you post as if you are a medical professional with knowledge of same but it's quite clear you aren't and are talking absolute bollox.


  • Options
    #287
    ProfessorPlum
    Registered Users Posts: 1,806 ✭✭✭ProfessorPlum


    Larry Wildman wrote: »
    Under no circumstances should the pregnancy be aborted.

    Everyone's sole focus should be the foetus. If it could be brought to term and delivered successfully that would be a truly wonderful thing.

    The family's behaviour is despicable in this case although perhaps they're not thinking straight. Hence the State MUST intervene and stand up for the foetus' right to life.

    This is a "no brainer" - The foetus must be given a chance.
    Quazzie wrote: »
    They are killing their Grandchild and they should be ashamed of themselves.
    omerin wrote: »
    This is the thing, why do they wish to lose their grandchild as well? Please can you provide a logical explanation?
    Quazzie wrote: »
    Yes it's unfortunate that someone wants to attack it, but that is indeed the case so it is the state's prerogative to protect it.
    SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »
    better a low chance than no chance
    Quazzie wrote: »
    I would want the people that love me, to give my child every chance of survival no matter how small. It's as simple as that.


    Some of the comments on this thread really just serve to illustrate the limits of understanding that some posters have around this very complicated issue.

    It's not as simple as choosing between a healthy live born child and 'killing' the foetus. There's so much more to it than that.

    I can totally understand why a next of kin would choose to either keep full life support or favour withdrawing it in a given set of circumstances.
    The issue in this case is that the next of kin, in consultation with the doctors favour withdrawing life support, but there is a question of the legality of complying with that wish. These are not issues that we should be writing law about. These are medical decisions that are far too nuanced to be writing into law.


  • Options
    #288
    wendell borton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,336 ✭✭✭wendell borton


    The pro life seem to forget that babies are born helpless and need about 18 years or more of care and support to develop to fully independent people.


  • Options
    #289
    Larry Wildman
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,460 ✭✭✭Larry Wildman


    hotmail.com wrote: »
    Appalling attitude towards women.

    You're missing the point - This is a corpse rather than a person we're talking about.

    Killing someone and eating them to survive is deplorable. Eating the meat off a corpse to survive is perfectly acceptable.

    It's terrible what has happened to her but her problems are over. It's all about saving the foetus.


  • Options
    #290
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    wendell borton wrote: »
    The pro life seem to forget that babies are born helpless and need about 18 years or more of care and support to develop to fully independent people.

    So, once a mother dies, so must any of her children from 0 to 18 years....


  • Options
    #291
    Quazzie
    Registered Users Posts: 28,933 ✭✭✭✭Quazzie


    ProfessorPlum wrote: »
    Some of the comments on this thread really just serve to illustrate the limits of understanding that some posters have around this very complicated issue.

    .

    Please keep you condescending tone to yourself please.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #292
    hotmail.com
    Registered Users Posts: 13,317 ✭✭✭✭hotmail.com


    Larry Wildman wrote: »
    You're missing the point - This is a corpse rather than a person we're talking about.

    Killing someone and eating them to survive is deplorable. Eating the meat off a corpse to survive is perfectly acceptable.

    It's terrible what has happened to her but her problems are over. It's all about saving the foetus.

    The mother is now irrelevant is what you said and you've restated that. Appalling attitude to women.

    You are seemingly unaware of your own attitude to women. Appalling. The whole post is disgusting.

    A corpse? It's just appalling.


  • Options
    #293
    ProfessorPlum
    Registered Users Posts: 1,806 ✭✭✭ProfessorPlum


    Quazzie wrote: »
    Please keep you condescending tone to yourself please.

    I'm sorry if you find the tone condescending, but very few people could understand all the nuances of this case, and I include myself there. Some of the comments which are clearly ridiculous just serve to illustrate that fact.


  • Options
    #294
    AlanS181824
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,575 ✭✭✭AlanS181824


    This is absolutely awful, thoughts are with the poor girls family.


  • Options
    #295
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    hotmail.com wrote: »
    The mother is now irrelevant is what you said and you've restated that. Appalling attitude to women.

    I dont think it is anything towards women. Its a poster stating a person is dead, in their own way of saying it. The person who died happens to be a woman.

    The whole thing is certainly a tragic event.


  • Options
    #296
    Larry Wildman
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,460 ✭✭✭Larry Wildman


    hotmail.com wrote: »
    The mother is now irrelevant is what you said and you've restated that. Appalling attitude to women.

    You are seemingly unaware of your own attitude to women. Appalling. The whole post is disgusting.

    A corpse? It's just appalling.

    You come across the following scene:

    - A car crash where the car is balanced on the edge of a cliff.

    - In it are a mother and a child.

    - The mother is dead.

    - The child you deduce has only a 5% chance of survival.

    - However, in order to have a chance to save the child you'd have to push the mother out of the car and over the cliff to restore its equilibrium.

    - The grandparents arrive at the scene and tell you that it's their wish for you to just push the car over the cliff.

    What would you do?


  • Options
    #297
    mrsbyrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,228 ✭✭✭mrsbyrne


    Bruthal wrote: »
    Should parents wishes always be paramount in medical situations?

    The wishes/feelings of the next of kin in any medical emergency are noted but not pparamount. Thank God. That would be utter lunacy.


  • Options
    #298
    Planemo
    Registered Users Posts: 587 ✭✭✭Planemo


    "At 24 weeks the fetus has a 20-30% chance of survival and a 40% chance of a severe handicap"
    If the fetus was 17 weeks at time of maternal brain death, the odds of a good outcome are probably significantly lower than that. Keeping the life support on just seems like a bad idea to me.


  • Options
    #299
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    Looking at it now, I agree with a poster who said the thread is a bit much at this stage.


  • Options
    #300
    hotmail.com
    Registered Users Posts: 13,317 ✭✭✭✭hotmail.com


    Bruthal wrote: »
    I dont think it is anything towards women. Its a poster stating a person is dead, in their own way of saying it. The person who died happens to be a woman.

    The whole thing is certainly a tragic event.

    It has everything to do with women because only women can get pregnant and be in this situation. The language of the poster in reference to the poor woman was disgusting.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #301
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    mrsbyrne wrote: »
    The wishes/feelings of the next of kin in any medical emergency are noted but not pparamount. Thank God. That would be utter lunacy.

    Yes, id agree there. Thats what I was getting at myself.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement