Clinicaly dead pregnant woman on life support

hotmail.com

Larry Wildman wrote: »

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?

Stop digging man.

Casualcontrol1

We can all talk about what we would do and what should happen chances of survival etc but what I think we should do it pray for the family and be thankful we don't have to deal with a situation like it

Bruthal

hotmail.com wrote: »

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.

Yea but his point was that the person was dead. Not the nicest way of saying it, for sure.

But im sure he would have said the same about a man had it been a man who died, in some other scenario.

Gael23

Also who's going to raise the baby when its born?

PopePalpatine

Shrap wrote: »

Don't be daft. Not everyone can afford that, or is even allowed out of the country. It's a shameful hypocrisy to say "they can go to the UK".

*cough* Ms. Y *cough*

hotmail.com

Bruthal wrote: »

Yea but his point was that the person was dead. Not the nicest way of saying it, for sure.

But im sure he would have said the same about a man had it been a man who died, in some other scenario.

But this is the point, only women can get pregnant, so this fundamentally an issue about women. And the fact that it is an issue that only affects women is what informs/effects people's opinion on abortion etc.

Some people are sexist towards women and therefore only see women as vessels and to hell with their rights because they are only women.

gctest50

Casualcontrol1 wrote: »

We can all talk about what we would do and what should happen chances of survival etc but what I think we should do it pray ......

yip that'll sort it - always works

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nC_abUffrcE

seamus

IrishSkyBoxer wrote: »

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.

Enlighten us then with your extensive medical knowledge.

miss_shadow

I was told in a lecture a short while ago that actually family have no say whatsoever in turning the life support off and it's upto medical team.

Kiwi in IE

I really think Ireland needs to replace birth certificates with 'conception' certificates and start paying the child allowance from the first day of a missed period.

bjork

Here are two similar cases with different outcomes, one in canada and one in Texas

In Canada, Robyn Benson was kept on life support for more than a month to save her unborn baby.
More than 3,000 miles away, in Texas, Marlise Munoz’s husband fought to take her off life support .
But how similar – and how different – were they really?

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2014/02/12/brain-dead-and-pregnant-why-one-baby-was-born-and-one-wasnt/

tritium

hotmail.com wrote: »

But this is the point, only women can get pregnant, so this fundamentally an issue about women. And the fact that it is an issue that only affects women is what informs/effects people's opinion on abortion etc.

Some people are sexist towards women and therefore only see women as vessels and to hell with their rights because they are only women.

That appears to be very much your point rather than the other posters.

Pointing out that someone who is dead is actually, you know, dead isn't an example of sexism, misogyny, racism, or any other ism, its just a statement of fact

Drdoc

IrishSkyBoxer wrote: »

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.

Well I am a medical professional with knowledge of same and what seamus says is quite correct.
The chances of a successful outcome are negligible in this case. It is very likely that the foetus has already suffered an anoxic brain injury at the time of cardiac arrest of the mother. Also don't for a second believe that artificial life support is in anyway the same as being alive from a physiological point of view. Medicine is advanced but not that advanced.
Let's also not forget that this poor woman is entitled to dignity in death, as we all should be.

Kiwi in IE

tritium wrote: »

That appears to be very much your point rather than the other posters.

Pointing out that someone who is dead is actually, you know, dead isn't an example of sexism, misogyny, racism, or any other ism, its just a statement of fact

Yes but she not dead is she? Not technically. She is not allowed to be because the state says she must be an incubator. Whether or not she would have consented to that and whether or not her NOK consent.

AudreyHepburn

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Yes but she not dead is she? Not technically. She is not allowed to be because the state says she must be an incubator. Whether or not she would have consented to that and whether or not her NOK consent.

She is brain dead.....to all intents and purposes she is gone. No-one is forcing her to live and suffer, she's already dead. It's her baby they keeping alive now.

Riskymove

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

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.

I agree

Unfortunately the legal question here seems to be if turning off life support in a case like this would be seen as a termination under the law and if so is it an illegal act?.

The mother is dead so the issue of a termination to save the mother doesn't arise

Doctors won't want to break the law



as long as we have the matters in the constitution that we currently have, we will continue to see this cases arise.

veryangryman

@Mods

This case has been given a media ban - would it make sense to lock this thread until such time as the ban is lifted.

As someone who knows friends of the people involved, it is very upsetting to them to see this being all over the media.

seamus

Riskymove wrote: »

I agree

Unfortunately the legal question here seems to be if turning off life support in a case like this would be seen as a termination under the law and if so is it an illegal act?.

Even that's a side issue really when it comes down to the constitutional matter. You could philosophise for days about whether turning off life support could be called a termination; can a dead person actually be pregnant, and so on and so forth.

But the constitution doesn't mention the word abortion.

The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.

So from a constitutional point of view, there is actually some clarity here; this pregnancy qualifies as "unborn", and therefore the acknowledges that it has a right to life and is required "by its laws to defend and vindicate that right."

The state and the doctors get caught between a rock and a hard place on this. Everyone knows the only rational course of action here is to turn off the machines. But the state cannot ignore the constitution just because everyone "knows" what the right thing to do is. It is bound to uphold the constitution, regardless of the moral or ethical incorrectness of doing so. This is one reason why the 8th amendment is such a complete ****-up and why you don't put things like, "the state will not sell irish water" into the constitution.

The key word in the above section is "practicable", and this is what the court will have to rule on. That is, whether it is "practicable" to keep this foetus alive by keeping the woman's body on life support for the next four months.

This is why we need the 8th amendment repealed. It was pointed by numerous legal people before that referendum, that the 8th amendment wouldn't protect any unborn babies, all it would do is create complicated legal situations without any clear answer.

Like this one.

Grayson

Bongalongherb wrote: »

What the hell is wrong with you ? Where did I say the parents were delusional ? where ?. It's you that is delusional. Don't be saying things that I never said.

sorry. That was actually referring to others. I'd started writing that post earlier and finished it in a rush before I left. People have said that they feel the parents are making the wrong decision because of grief. It's implying that obviously the woman would have wanted to carry the pregnancy to term and her parents would know this if they weren't so distraught.

The only people likely to know would be the womans parents and I'm pretty certain they wouldn't be doing this if they believed for one instant that their daughter would want something else.

Neyite

Planemo wrote: »

"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.

The maternal brain death occurred several weeks ago according to news reports so just shy of the first trimester, if that. So even worse odds again.

Marlise Munoz was 14 weeks when she became brain dead. She was sustained on life support but several weeks on, the foetus developed very severe anomalies and Mr. Munoz fought to let them go with dignity.

Robyn Benson was 22 weeks when it happened to her. As her baby was at the point of viability (I think 21 weeks is the earliest in medical history for a successful delivery outcome) they sustained her on life support for a few weeks and successfully delivered.

News reports say that there is a very slim chance here of a successful outcome for the pregnancy. I think the Munoz case demonstrates that as its very similar to this woman.

I've struggled and continue to struggle to get pregnant. I would want my partner and my next of kin to give my child every fighting chance. But I would understand if they made the decision the family here are making if my family made it for me. I've lost 3 babies, desperately wanted ones. But embryonic abnormalities are what they are, and natures way of taking care of things. Here you have a mum who is dead, and a baby highly unlikely to survive. The most humane thing to do is to withdraw treatment and let them go in peace.

I see that this tragedy is down to the fact that the family have likely been told that the prognosis is extremely poor for the child, and little chance of survival, based on the Munoz case, and want to let their grieving process for their daughter and grandchild begin by letting them go with dignity, but they cant because the state wont let that happen.

Its interesting that the HSE are not bringing this case to the high court to continue treatment, but the family suing the state. To me that shows that even the HSE know that the situation is probably futile but are bound by legislation.

seamus

Neyite wrote: »

I see that this tragedy is down to the fact that the family have likely been told that the prognosis is extremely poor for the child, and little chance of survival, based on the Munoz case, and want to let their grieving process for their daughter and grandchild begin by letting them go with dignity, but they cant because the state wont let that happen.

The state can't let that happen, I think the distinction is important.

In effect, we the people, by virtue of the 8th amendment have decided that the correct thing in this circumstance is to keep the woman on life support to attempt to save a very early stages foetus.

You know what the most frightening thing is in this case? If the court rules that she must be kept alive, then the actual prognosis for the foetus is irrelevant. So long as that foetus has a pulse, the mother will be maintained on life support.
We could do scan after scan, we could find that the child has anacephaly, no functioning lungs, any of a plethora of fatal foetal abnormalities, but the grandparents will be required to stand by and watch their daughter's body be used as an incubator for a child who is going to die anyway. I cannot imagine anything more horrific.

If this happens, the shame lies on our heads as well as the government's - we originally said that this is what we want to happen.

I hope for their sake that the foetus dies in utero, soon, and their nightmare can end.

IrishSkyBoxer

Drdoc wrote: »

Well I am a medical professional with knowledge of same and what seamus says is quite correct.
The chances of a successful outcome are negligible in this case. It is very likely that the foetus has already suffered an anoxic brain injury at the time of cardiac arrest of the mother. Also don't for a second believe that artificial life support is in anyway the same as being alive from a physiological point of view. Medicine is advanced but not that advanced.
Let's also not forget that this poor woman is entitled to dignity in death, as we all should be.

This sort of case has happened a multiple of times over across Europe and in the Netherlands and these countries have no issues with keeping the mother alive , in spite of their lax abortion laws. In fact this isn't even an issue about abortion, nowhere on the spectrum does choice come in to this matter as none of us know what the mother's intentions were. Who cares what her brother thinks? It's upsetting but that's life. Arguably her most important next of kin is the one in her uterus.

The reality is this will go to court and court will rule there is nothing they can do as this does not involve abortion legislation. What further harm can come to the mother's life?

The technicalities of keeping the baby alive are not that difficult tbh so talks of 'experiment' are nonsense.

mikom

seamus wrote: »

You know what the most frightening thing is in this case? If the court rules that she must be kept alive, then the actual prognosis for the foetus is irrelevant. So long as that foetus has a pulse, the mother will be maintained on life support.
We could do scan after scan, we could find that the child has anacephaly, no functioning lungs, any of a plethora of fatal foetal abnormalities, but the grandparents will be required to stand by and watch their daughter's body be used as an incubator for a child who is going to die anyway. I cannot imagine anything more horrific.

Then as the child develops inside its mother it will start to feel pain.

seamus

Swinglong wrote: »

Why would you hope the foetus dies? It deserves the right to live as much as anyone else.

I didn't comment on the foetus's right to live.

Simply that the foetus living has miniscule odds of resulting in a good thing and so for the sake of everyone, including the foetus, the most preferable thing would be a natural end to this pregnancy before the foetus arrives anywhere near viability.

Grayson

IrishSkyBoxer wrote: »

This sort of case has happened a multiple of times over across Europe and in the Netherlands and these countries have no issues with keeping the mother alive , in spite of their lax abortion laws. In fact this isn't even an issue about abortion, nowhere on the spectrum does choice come in to this matter as none of us know what the mother's intentions were. Who cares what her brother thinks? It's upsetting but that's life. Arguably her most important next of kin is the one in her uterus.

The reality is this will go to court and court will rule there is nothing they can do as this does not involve abortion legislation.

Provide examples. Seriously. You're actually telling a doctor he doesn't know medicine so really, you should probably back it up.

Someone did post an article from ABC news which showed two examples. One was at 20 something weeks and one was closer to this. The one at 20 weeks was kept alive and a baby was born. The one that was earlier was allowed to die.

The fact is that an embryo/foetus at that stage of development is not a baby. it's not a human being. The only place it is considered a human being is in the Irish constitution. And that's because it was placed there by the same people who criminalised homosexuality, banned divorce, hate gay marriage and would lock up pregnant women in laundries.

It's hard to have a rational conversation with people who are not open to facts and actively deny medical opinion.

So tell you what, I'll actually read any articles you post here to back them up. I'm assuming that if they keep a pregnancy going at 12 weeks they have their reasons and I'm willing to see what they are. I'm not generally a fan of an argumentum ad populum but they can have merits. In this case if the majority of European doctors favour this, I'm willing to see why. I find it hard to believe that doctors would believe that it's the right decision to grow a baby that will probably die and if it survives will probably be horrifically malformed but I'm willing to read their reasons with an open mind.

If you can actually provide the articles that is.

AudreyHepburn

seamus wrote: »

I didn't comment on the foetus's right to live.

Simply that the foetus living has miniscule odds of resulting in a good thing and so for the sake of everyone, including the foetus, the most preferable thing would be a natural end to this pregnancy before the foetus arrives anywhere near viability.

But surely doctors wouldn't be keeping the baby alive if they didn't think it had a good chance of surviving and being healthy?

I'm sorry but I refuse to believe they are doing this lightly.

Grayson

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

But surely doctors wouldn't be keeping the baby alive if they didn't think it had a good chance of surviving and being healthy?

I'm sorry but I refuse to believe they are doing this lightly.

they have to legally. The law states that from the moment of conception the doctors would have to do it.

mikom

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

But surely doctors wouldn't be keeping the baby alive if they didn't think it had a good chance of surviving and being healthy?

I'm sorry but I refuse to believe they are doing this lightly.

They are hamstrung and in fear of the legal repercussions.
Shite laws mean we think less about caring for each other and more about staying within the law.
Some folks believe if you legislate for everything and insure against everything that everything is alright and you don't need to think or feel.
A load of bollox the whole lot of it.

Riskymove

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

But surely doctors wouldn't be keeping the baby alive if they didn't think it had a good chance of surviving and being healthy?

I'm sorry but I refuse to believe they are doing this lightly.

as others say above this is the point we have been making

the doctors need legal direction on whether they can turn off the machines under the current constitution

it is not that they don't want to

seamus

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

But surely doctors wouldn't be keeping the baby alive if they didn't think it had a good chance of surviving and being healthy?

I'm sorry but I refuse to believe they are doing this lightly.

The law requires them to protect the child's "right to life". The quality of that life is not relevant.