Clinicaly dead pregnant woman on life support

Neyite

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.

By law they have to, even if the odds are bad. You see the HSE take families /people to court on behalf of a minor when they feel there is a medical necessity - such as giving a JW child a blood transfusion, or to the other extreme, applying to withdraw treatment in defiance of parental wishes. Or to force feed a patient. They are not shy in going to court when they feel its medically right to do so.

This case feels different and I do think its to do with the legal grey area surrounding the 8th Amendment - its worded so that treatment cannot be withdrawn from a foetus, even one with inevitable fatality, as in the cases of anacephaly. This only applies in utero. Post birth, doctors can and do decide to withdraw life extending treatment and to let (inevitable) death happen in a peaceful and dignified manner, providing palliative care and support.

It seems that the HSE have their hands tied here and perhaps have told the family that this court case is the only option.

Grayson

mikom wrote: »

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.

Kurt Godel used the example of law to illustrate the difference between intuitive and formal logic and explain his incompleteness theorem. He stated that you could try and legislate for every single possible situation but you would end up with laws that were contradictory. He stated that it was better to outline laws in formal terms (that's the formal logic bit) but also have a judge who could interpret these laws so that they make sense (Intuitive bit)

The best example of that is sentencing laws. You could have a law that states theft is wrong and punishable by 5 years in prison. However you then get a woman stealing food to feed her children. The idea is that the judge can interpret the law according to the individual situation.

We can try and start legislating for individual cases and say that a woman raped should be allowed to have an abortion but what if a woman becomes pregnant against her will through some other means?

smash

seamus wrote: »

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 can't say that now. That was added in the early 80's. It was a very different time. There's a few generations since that amendment who have a completely different view, and it is NOT on their heads.

seamus

smash wrote: »

You can't say that now. That was added in the early 80's. It was a very different time. There's a few generations since that amendment who have a completely different view, and it is NOT on their heads.

I'm totally aware of that, but how many governments have come and gone since? How many have been allowed to get away with ignoring the issue? I, like you, inherited this problem, but we've been content to leave it there and not push our politicians to fix it, because it's not as important as other problems.

smash

seamus wrote: »

I'm totally aware of that, but how many governments have come and gone since? How many have been allowed to get away with ignoring the issue? I, like you, inherited this problem, but we've been content to leave it there and not push our politicians to fix it, because it's not as important as other problems.

I'd disagree. We've inherited this issue along with other such as divorce laws, father's rights, gay rights and more. The problem isn't that people don't want change, the problem is that those who are in power are still of the generation who enforced these laws in the first place and they don't want them changed.

lazygal

smash wrote: »

I'd disagree. We've inherited this issue along with other such as divorce laws, father's rights, gay rights and more. The problem isn't that people don't want change, the problem is that those who are in power are still of the generation who enforced these laws in the first place and they don't want them changed.

I contacted all my TDs when the protection of life during pregnancy bill was being debated. The youngest of them was the only one who opposed it and left FG to vote against it. There are some very conservative younger politicians out there, along with old fogies who opposed the eighth amendment back in 1983.

Grayson

lazygal wrote: »

I contacted all my TDs when the protection of life during pregnancy bill was being debated. The youngest of them was the only one who opposed it and left FG to vote against it. There are some very conservative younger politicians out there, along with old fogies who opposed the eighth amendment back in 1983.

This fecker
http://www.ronanmullen.ie/

lazygal

Grayson wrote: »

This fecker
http://www.ronanmullen.ie/

Nope. He's an independent senator, not an FG TD.

AudreyHepburn

Riskymove wrote: »

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

Ok I understand now.

I got the impression from other posters that the doctors were refusing to abide by the next of kin's wishes for no reason or that they just didn't care about them or the mother.

StormWarrior

Maybe everybody should make a living will, stating exactly what they want to happen to them in a situation like this and every other possible scenario they can think of. Although in Ireland who knows if the wishes of the deceased would be respected anyway.

lazygal

StormWarrior wrote: »

Maybe everybody should make a living will, stating exactly what they want to happen to them in a situation like this and every other possible scenario they can think of. Although in Ireland who knows if the wishes of the deceased would be respected anyway.

Living wills are not legally recognized in Ireland.

Curly Judge

Riskymove wrote: »

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

Why would d the doctors want to turn off the machines when the baby is (potentially) viable and the mother isn't suffering?
Why?

conorhal

Grayson wrote: »

Kurt Godel used the example of law to illustrate the difference between intuitive and formal logic and explain his incompleteness theorem. He stated that you could try and legislate for every single possible situation but you would end up with laws that were contradictory. He stated that it was better to outline laws in formal terms (that's the formal logic bit) but also have a judge who could interpret these laws so that they make sense (Intuitive bit)

The best example of that is sentencing laws. You could have a law that states theft is wrong and punishable by 5 years in prison. However you then get a woman stealing food to feed her children. The idea is that the judge can interpret the law according to the individual situation.

We can try and start legislating for individual cases and say that a woman raped should be allowed to have an abortion but what if a woman becomes pregnant against her will through some other means?

Or in simpler terms, hard cases make bad law.

Riskymove

Curly Judge wrote: »

Why would d the doctors want to turn off the machines when the baby is (potentially) viable and the mother isn't suffering?
Why?

if they don't actually believe the baby is viable

IrishSkyBoxer

Grayson wrote: »

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.

Lol. Go to uptodate.com. use the search function. Too busy in work to link articles or case reports. This isn't an experiment and it has occurred more than twice.

ProfessorPlum

IrishSkyBoxer wrote: »

Lol. Go to uptodate.com. use the search function. Too busy in work to link articles or case reports. This isn't an experiment and it has occurred more than twice.

Lol. Occurred more than twice.

Smidge

I don't usually bother posting on this type of thread as it always ends up as pro life V pro choice and the point gets lost.

But I heard this story and it stuck with me and quite frankly some of the posts on here are bordering on the grotesque.
Have the pro life side actually REALLY thought about this case or are they soooo damn staunch in their viewpoint that they have lost their humanity???

A family have lost a daughter at a young age.
She already had a child which they are now caring for.
We know NOTHING about the grandparents life/status here but we do know their wishes and having lost their daughter they wish to have her life support turned off. And this could not have been an easy call for them.

They may not be able to physically or financially able to look after 2 young children and thats IF the foetus survives.
And what if it is severely disabled if it reaches full term??
Are they expected to bear that burden?

So I hear you say......give it up for adoption??
Ah to be sure, the queue is around the corner for severely disabled babies.
No?
Well then, put it in care. In Mayo. Or Roscommon. You get the point.

The foetus is 17 gestation in a woman who is dead.
Will she nurture it and talk to it and feel its movements and form the bond between them in vitro?
Absolutely gruesome for the family to have their daughter kept "alive" and to visit her and watch this situation. What right minded person could see this as a "good" thing??????????

If this had of been a scenario where the woman was 30 weeks pregnant and all was well with the pregnancy and the grandparents could cope, it may have been a different story.
I can admit that much as a pro choice person.

But the pro lifers really need to check themselves on this one.

Imagine you are the child in this situation, for a start, there's no guarantee that you will actually be born, if you are born, you may have terrible disabilities.
So, yea, you were born.
5 months after your mother died.
We kept you alive, inside a CORPSE, until we could cut you out!

It's like some kind of Frankenstein movie

jank

volchitsa wrote: »

She doesn't have a child, she is in her second trimester of pregnancy. There couldn't even be a legal declaration of a death for it if the life support machine were turned off. In that way it's closer to a woman deciding to have a child knowing she will die in a few months. You can't assume she would have done that. Many women wouldn't.

Well, you cannot assume the opposite either. Regards legality, we will see what the high court will say on Tuesday. It is sad though to see this being used both both idiots sides of the usual abortion debate.

Sunny Dayz

I feel sorry for this lady's family. She has tragically passed away and their grief is further prolonged by being unable to bury her.

Grayson

IrishSkyBoxer wrote: »

Lol. Go to uptodate.com. use the search function. Too busy in work to link articles or case reports. This isn't an experiment and it has occurred more than twice.

I did a two minute search and found nothing. If you can't be bothered to provide any facts to back up your case, I'm not going to.

lazygal wrote: »

Living wills are not legally recognized in Ireland.

But you can delegate authority in case you become incapacitated. If you don't nominate someone it's supposed to be your next of kin.

drkpower

lazygal wrote: »

Living wills are not legally recognized in Ireland..

Fyi, there is no statute law on living wills in Ireland but they are almost certainly legally recognised in ireland.

Grayson wrote: »

But you can delegate authority in case you become incapacitated. If you don't nominate someone it's supposed to be your next of kin..

Fyi you cannot delegate authority for medical decisions in that way in Ireland. And the next of kin have no authority whatsoever to make medical decisions on behalf of an incapacitated adult minor.

In any case, these issues are irrelevant in this case. Even if the woman's views were known, or even if she theoretically could express them right now, the same issue re article 8 and the potential rights of the unborn would still arise, and would still potentially trump her own views and rights.

AndonHandon

drkpower wrote: »

Fyi, there is no statute law on living wills in Ireland but they are almost certainly legally recognised in ireland.




Fyi you cannot delegate authority for medical decisions in that way in Ireland. And the next of kin have no authority whatsoever to make medical decisions on behalf of an incapacitated adult minor.

In any case, these issues are irrelevant in this case. Even if the woman's views were known, or even if she theoretically could express them right now, the same issue re article 8 and the potential rights of the unborn would still arise, and would still potentially trump her own views and rights.

The mother of the unborn in this case can be appropriately described as the undead.

cloudatlas

I've heard people saying this is against the mothers wishes. Surely she had every intention of having the child and would want it to be born. Do all pro choicers have to be stiff as rods or are their exceptions. I know that her family are distressed and understandably so their grief is compounded but surely the intent was for the baby to be born.

There was a case in Canada earlier this year where the mother had a brain hemorrhage and her husband supported the decision as the life was viable and he thought it was what his wife would want. Context is everything.

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/02/11/health/canada-brain-dead-pregnant-woman/

Grayson

cloudatlas wrote: »

I've heard people saying this is against the mothers wishes. Surely she had every intention of having the child and would want it to be born. Do all pro choicers have to be stiff as rods or are their exceptions. I know that her family are distressed and understandably so their grief is compounded but surely the intent was for the baby to be born.

There was a case in Canada earlier this year where the mother had a brain hemorrhage and her husband supported the decision as the life was viable and he thought it was what his wife would want. Context is everything.

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/02/11/health/canada-brain-dead-pregnant-woman/

Where did people say this was against the mothers wishes? I've said that I believe her parents would be the ones most likely to know what she would want. They'd be far more likely to know than some random pro life person on the internet.

If you want stiff, find me a prolifer in this thread who thinks that the mother would have wanted life support switched off.

AndonHandon

cloudatlas wrote: »

I've heard people saying this is against the mothers wishes. Surely she had every intention of having the child and would want it to be born. Do all pro choicers have to be stiff as rods or are their exceptions. I know that her family are distressed and understandably so their grief is compounded but surely the intent was for the baby to be born.

There was a case in Canada earlier this year where the mother had a brain hemorrhage and her husband supported the decision as the life was viable and he thought it was what his wife would want. Context is everything.

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/02/11/health/canada-brain-dead-pregnant-woman/

Don't pretend you aren't spouting from your little soapbox by creating an imaginary point to which you are responding. Bringing pro-whatever into it is unnecessary but it is safe to say that everyone is pro-life.

professore

emo72 wrote: »

Who will raise this kid? We don't know that anyone wants to. We know that the relatives have asked for life support to be switched off. That would hint that there is no one to raise this child. Horrible situation.

People here going to the ends of the earth and spending fortunes to adopt children. No issue there.

professore

To me, if this is a viable human that can be saved, then it should be. All these Frankenstein comments don't make sense.

We need to draw a line where life begins and stick to it. For me it would be very early - as soon as it has a discernable shape and not a clump of cells it is alive in my eyes.

I would make exception in the case where the baby is not viable outside the womb.

Babies are inconvenient - that's a fact.

And I'm not religious.

Grayson

professore wrote: »

To me, if this is a viable human that can be saved, then it should be. All these Frankenstein comments don't make sense.

We need to draw a line where life begins and stick to it. For me it would be very early - as soon as it has a discernable shape and not a clump of cells it is alive in my eyes.

I would make exception in the case where the baby is not viable outside the womb.

Babies are inconvenient - that's a fact.

And I'm not religious.

I go for when there's brain activity. Brains are what make us human. It's where personality and intellect develop and form.
Viability isn't as important.

cloudatlas

Grayson wrote: »

Where did people say this was against the mothers wishes? I've said that I believe her parents would be the ones most likely to know what she would want. They'd be far more likely to know than some random pro life person on the internet.

If you want stiff, find me a prolifer in this thread who thinks that the mother would have wanted life support switched off.

I didn't quote anyone in my post, I didn't attack anyone particularly. I'm trying to look at this case from as many stand points as possible as it is quite unusual. The two stand points are very distinct. Being pregnant with full intention to have a child and also holding a wish to have your life support shut off in the event of a catastrophe we can presume that these two thoughts were not confluent in the mother's mind. We are all surmising here.