Clinicaly dead pregnant woman on life support

MrPudding

professore wrote: »

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

Really? So I guess, then, that there is a shortage of children for people to adopt? I guess that if I did a few seconds of research I would not find that there are thousands of children in Ireland in foster care, many of whom will be there because they have not been adopted...?

Also, do you have figures for the number of these people 'going to the ends of the earth and spending fortunes to adopt children' are looking for profoundly disabled children? I ask this because when you take a foetus late in the first trimester and gestate it in a artificially, minimally reanimated corpse, a profoundly disable baby is, after a miscarriage, the most likely result.

Added to this you have a mental torture this poor girls parents are going through. Their daughter is dead. They want to grieve for her, bury her and, in whatever way possible, try to move on with their lives. They are being prevented from doing this because there poor daughter happened to be pregnant when she died.

How much torture, both mental and physical must this 'not if there is a foetal heartbeat' cause before people realise that woman, and in this case there next of kin, should be able to decide what happens to their own bodies.

MrP

drkpower

It is understandable that people speculate as to whether the mother had ever expressed her views as to whether she would want to be kept on a life support machine for 10-20 weeks in these circumstances. But it is really a side issue for a number of reasons:

1. A patient's advance wishes can only be really taken into account where they actually envisaged the circumstances that later arise. Perhaps, before this tragedy, she did actively consider what she would want to happen if these circumstances arose, and expressed these views clearly (and ideally in writing) but it is pretty unlikely.

2. Even if she did (and expressed the view that she would want to be kept on life support until term) the doctors are not bound to act upon those wishes. There are other competing issues they have to consider such as the eventual well being of the foetus (who is probably odds on to be born in a very compromised state) as well as resourcing issues (how many critical health saving procedures could be performed using the resources that would be invested in providing 24 hour ICU care to this mother for up to 24 more weeks?)

3. Even if she did ( and expressed the view that she would want the life support machine to be switched off), the doctors still would have to consider the 'Article 40.3.3 issue', and consider whether the rights of the foetus outweighs the mother's rights.

So yes, it is interesting to consider what the mother would have wanted (if a little intrusive), but it is actually not the central issue.

bogwalrus

All I know is if I was pregnant and found myself to be in this situation I would want my baby to still live. I feel most mothers would say this so maybe this can be assumed and the child left to survive?

drkpower

bogwalrus wrote: »

All I know is if I was pregnant and found myself to be in this situation I would want my baby to still live. I feel most mothers would say this so maybe this can be assumed and the child left to survive?

I know many mothers who would say the opposite. Can we assume the opposite on that basis?

I assume you can see the problem with making assumptions like that..... And as I mentioned above, even if you did assume the mother' swishes one way or the other, that does not answer the problem here.

seamus

bogwalrus wrote: »

I feel most mothers would say this so maybe this can be assumed and the child left to survive?

This can't be assumed. Even if you surveyed every mother in the country and found that they agreed, you cannot assume that this woman would also agree.

ebbsy

Let the woman rest in peace.

bogwalrus

seamus wrote: »

This can't be assumed. Even if you surveyed every mother in the country and found that they agreed, you cannot assume that this woman would also agree.

So if she agreed that the child should die instead is that not murder. Like if there was a document women signed before surgery that said if anything happens would you like to be kept on lid support in order to save your infant and she says no is that not choosing to kill your child?

Lingua Franca

bogwalrus wrote: »

All I know is if I was pregnant and found myself to be in this situation I would want my baby to still live. I feel most mothers would say this so maybe this can be assumed and the child left to survive?

I'm a mother. I'm also a daughter who had to watch her father on life support and said support being switched off. I would absolutely not want this. Luckily I'm in a country where I can make a living will and have plans to do so in the new year.

bodice ripper

bogwalrus wrote: »

So if she agreed that the child should die instead is that not murder. Like if there was a document women signed before surgery that said if anything happens would you like to be kept on lid support in order to save your infant and she says no is that not choosing to kill your child?

I don't know how this could have escaped you, but some of us don't think a fetus constitutes a child....

Grayson

cloudatlas wrote: »

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.

when it comes to determining what she would have wanted there's a few points to consider.

A lot of people here are saying that
1) if they were in that position they'd want it (For them it's true)
2) The mother hadn't terminated the pregnancy so she obviously wanted the pregnancy (Almost certainly true)
3) The parents don't know what their child wants (Probably not true)

the first point is invalid. It's a personal opinion so it's very subjective. What you or I would do, although

The second point doesn't include all the information. Firstly the woman was probably going to have a healthy baby at full term. It's an assumption but I think we can assume she believed it anyway. We can't assume she would have wanted to go to term if she knew the odds of the baby having horrific abnormalities. That's a whole different ballgame. the fact that she originally wanted a full term healthy baby doesn't infer that she would go ahead in the current situation.

The third point is what I mentioned earlier. Her parents knew her better than any of us. they are the most informed people in this matter. Their opinions do carry a lot of weight.


We can't KNOW for certain what the woman would want in this situation. Saying we would about her, or even most people who we are friends with, would be hard to do. It's a very weird obscure situation and I bet up to this point no-one contemplated it.

However i do believe we can say she would probably want life support turned off. This is simply because her parents opinion is the only deciding factor here. They would be distraught but their daughter is the person on their mind.

What i wish could have happened is that she survived and became a happy mother with a healthy happy baby. If that wasn't the case I'd wish it had happened later term in the pregnancy so the baby could have survived. However my wishes aren't going to change the situation that is occurring.

bogwalrus

bodice ripper wrote: »

I don't know how this could have escaped you, but some of us don't think a fetus constitutes a child....

That's fine. I suppose it is really impossible to know what the mother would have wanted. In saying that, if this particular woman was able to communicate her wishes what would her reasons be behind pulling the plug and killing the child? Would it be that she just does not want her child to grow up without her. That would be kind of selfish. Is it that she think the child would be a burden on the parents? That too is not fair. She is already technically dead so the baby is not risking her own life as it is inevitable the plug will be pulled.

I don't really want to take sides here I just want to discuss so I can understand the point of views.

bodice ripper

bogwalrus wrote: »

That's fine. I suppose it is really impossible to know what the mother would have wanted. In saying that, if this particular woman was able to communicate her wishes what would her reasons be behind pulling the plug and killing the child? Would it be that she just does not want her child to grow up without her. That would be kind of selfish. Is it that she think the child would be a burden on the parents? That too is not fair. She is already technically dead so the baby is not risking her own life as it is inevitable the plug will be pulled.

I don't really want to take sides here I just want to discuss so I can understand the point of views.

we clearly have our sides.

bogwalrus

bodice ripper wrote: »

we clearly have our sides.

I think discussing the reasons why a mother would choose to turn off life support under these circumstances will shed some light on what is the more right outcome.

bodice ripper

You cramming "child" and "mother" into reams of speculation doesn't lend itself to elucidating ****.

Plenty of people have given reasons on thread for why they think they would want to turn the equipment off.

the response is generally "but the BABY...".

bogwalrus

bodice ripper wrote: »

You cramming "child" and "mother" into reams of speculation doesn't lend itself to elucidating ****.

Plenty of people have given reasons on thread for why they think they would want to turn the equipment off.

the response is generally "but the BABY...".

I don't mean here parents. I mean if the woman on life support had reasons to terminate her own child even though she is technically dead what would they be.

bodice ripper

bogwalrus wrote: »

I don't mean here parents. I mean if the woman on life support had reasons to terminate her own child even though she is technically dead what would they be.

?

A number of posters have already said why they would want to have the machines turned off is it was them. feel free to have a read.

bogwalrus

So the main points people are giving as to why a pregnant mother would put in her will to pull the plug if braindead are:

1. She does not want the child to be born without her mother
2. She does not want to burden her parents with raising her child
3. She believes if she is braindead the child will be born with a disability
4. It goes against her religion
5. She does not want the father to raise the child (abusive etc)

These are the main ones I found. None of them are good reasons to terminate imo but others will of course disagree.

I currently believe the only reasons you should terminate a pregnancy after a certain length of time has passed is if the mothers life is at risk or due to rape.

JONJO THE MISER

Baby at 17 weeks in the womb.
http://www.babycenter.com/fetal-development-images-17-weeks

Can hear and move all its joints.

bodice ripper

bogwalrus wrote: »

So the main points people are giving as to why a pregnant mother would put in her will to pull the plug if braindead are:

1. She does not want the child to be born without her mother
2. She does not want to burden her parents with raising her child
3. She believes if she is braindead the child will be born with a disability
4. It goes against her religion
5. She does not want the father to raise the child (abusive etc)

These are the main ones I found. None of them are good reasons to terminate imo but others will of course disagree.

I currently believe the only reasons you should terminate a pregnancy after a certain length of time has passed is if the mothers life is at risk or due to rape.

You forgot the high chance of foetal abnormalities and suffering.

bodice ripper

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

Baby at 17 weeks in the womb.
http://www.babycenter.com/fetal-development-images-17-weeks

Can hear and move all its joints.

So can a chicken...

Quazzie

bodice ripper wrote: »

So can a chicken...

Well done. Easily the stupidest statement on this whole thread, and there is some serious competition.

bodice ripper

Quazzie wrote: »

Well done. Easily the stupidest statement on this whole thread, and there is some serious competition.

you have been putting in work in this thread alright.

bogwalrus

bodice ripper wrote: »

You forgot the high chance of foetal abnormalities and suffering.

that's covered in point number 3.

And if that is a point it would be up to a trained medical expert to decide whether the foetus will survive and develop in a healthy way or not taking the decision away from mother and family.

bodice ripper

bogwalrus wrote: »

that's covered in point number 3.

And if that is a point it would be up to a trained medical expert to decide whether the foetus will survive and develop in a healthy way or not taking the decision away from mother and family.

you mean, like they are doing?

bogwalrus

bodice ripper wrote: »

you mean, like they are doing?

it appears so and because of the current law.

Here are a few points I dug out of the thread on why the parents would want to pull the plug:

1. They cant bear to see their daughter on life support for that length of time
2. They do not want to prolong the inevitable
3. Religious reasons (child out of wedlock)
4. They cant support a child be it financially or physically capable to.
5. They fear the child will die anyway or be disabled when born

In relation to whether the child will have abnormalities this is really a medical experts decision. If they say the child will survive and be healthy then there does not appear to be any justification for termination.

It will be painful for the parents but knowing it is so her child can be born should be good enough to keep her body alive.

ceadaoin.

It's hardly a termination, it's allowing nature to take it's course. The mother is dead, the baby should have died too. I find the idea of using a dead woman as an incubator a bit grotesque tbh.

bodice ripper

bogwalrus wrote: »

it appears so and because of the current law.

Here are a few points I dug out of the thread on why the parents would want to pull the plug:

1. They cant bear to see their daughter on life support for that length of time
2. They do not want to prolong the inevitable
3. Religious reasons (child out of wedlock)
4. They cant support a child be it financially or physically capable to.
5. They fear the child will die anyway or be disabled when born

In relation to whether the child will have abnormalities this is really a medical experts decision. If they say the child will survive and be healthy then there does not appear to be any justification for termination.

It will be painful for the parents but knowing it is so hero child can be born should be good enough to keep her body alive.

Have they said that?

bogwalrus

bodice ripper wrote: »

Have they said that?

I don't know. But if that is the case then there is no justification. Of course if the foetus is unable to survive then the machine should be switched off as the parents have requested.

bodice ripper

bogwalrus wrote: »

I don't know. But if that is the case then there is no justification. Of course if the foetus is unable to survive then the machine should be switched off as the parents have requested.

Sure there is. It's only if you believe the foetus is a person/has a soul that somehow destined to be that your list of justifications are relevant.

We don't all believe it, but if you have any concrete proof I am listening.

bogwalrus

ceadaoin. wrote: »

It's hardly a termination, it's allowing nature to take it's course. The mother is dead, the baby should have died too. I find the idea of using a dead woman as an incubator a bit grotesque tbh.

Nature has also allowed humans to develop the technology to keep fetuses alive.