Clinicaly dead pregnant woman on life support

Sala

lazygal wrote: »

Unfortunately what should be a private matter between a woman or next of kin and her doctors will continue to be public matters as long as the eighth amendment is in place, and embryos have equal status to dead women.

Yes it was not a case of making something public on purpose. They (family and medical professionals) felt they had to go to court- that's a matter for the public. In fact there were reporting restrictions imposed on this case which wouldn't be usual. The problem is the law. If there was clarity in what could be done there would have been no need for it to go this far. Hopefully after this case, if a similar tragedy occurs, there will be more clarity and no need for this debate

amdublin

Her poor children at Christmas. Their mammy dead and not with them, yet being kept alive in a hospital.

Aineoil

lazygal wrote: »

Unfortunately what should be a private matter between a woman or next of kin and her doctors will continue to be public matters as long as the eighth amendment is in place, and embryos have equal status to dead women.

Lazygal, I agree with you.

There's no dignity for the poor lady that suffered a brain trauma.

It's impossible to legislate in this case.

lazygal

Aineoil wrote: »

Lazygal, I agree with you.

There's no dignity for the poor lady that suffered a brain trauma.

It's impossible to legislate in this case.

There should be no need to legislate at all. This should be a purely medical matter. But because of a so called pro-life amendment doctors feel obliged to keep rotting women alive because of the equal protection afforded to foeti.

lazygal

lazygal wrote: »

There should be no need to legislate at all. This should be a purely medical matter. But because of a so called pro-life amendment doctors feel obliged to keep rotting women alive because of the equal protection afforded to foeti.

I genuinely hope that no one facing the decision to turn of a loved one's life support reads that, least of all the relatives of the woman in question.

The lady is dead, but she is not 'rotting' while on life support.

lazygal

Candie wrote: »

I genuinely hope that no one facing the decision to turn of a loved one's life support reads that, least of all the relatives of the woman in question.

The lady is dead, but she is not 'rotting' while on life support.

Yes she is. A doctor described her as just that in the high court today.

DuchessduJour

Candie wrote: »

I genuinely hope that no one facing the decision to turn of a loved one's life support reads that, least of all the relatives of the woman in question.

The lady is dead, but she is not 'rotting' while on life support.

It was a term used in court, by a doctor giving expert evidence, in order to describe the woman's condition.

Have a read of this article: http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/life-support-for-brain-dead-mother-going-from-the-extreme-to-the-grotesque-court-told-30859431.html

amdublin

Candie wrote: »

The lady is dead, but she is not 'rotting' while on life support.

It is beyond sad. Apparently she is actually.

Well I wish he/she hadn't. At the very least her family could be spared that.

sink

Candie wrote: »

I genuinely hope that no one facing the decision to turn of a loved one's life support reads that, least of all the relatives of the woman in question.

The lady is dead, but she is not 'rotting' while on life support.

According to sworn testimony from a treating medical doctor she has an open wound on her head from which you can see into her brain where there appears to be fungus growing, in his own words "rotting".

Her brain has no received blood flow for 3 weeks and all the cells are dead.

Shrap

Sala wrote: »

The problem is the law. If there was clarity in what could be done there would have been no need for it to go this far. Hopefully after this case, if a similar tragedy occurs, there will be more clarity and no need for this debate

D'you know what? We don't need any more flipping "clarity" about "oh, how well the 8th amendment would work for everyone if only the doctors know how to apply it to real life crisis situations". We need to repeal the 8th.

As it stands, we often have women having to live here as walking coffins, if they can't afford to go to abroad because they have to wait for the "right" time to get a D&C to deliver their dead foetuses , and we now have dead women being desecrated for the sake of a foetus's life that might not be worth keeping alive. Good one Ireland.

lazygal

Candie wrote: »

Well I wish he/she hadn't. At the very least her family could be spared that.

If we didn't equate the right to life of a foetus to that of a dead woman there would be no need for a court case. We can thank William Binchy el al for this grotesque distortion of the rights of the unborn.

Sala

Candie wrote: »

I genuinely hope that no one facing the decision to turn of a loved one's life support reads that, least of all the relatives of the woman in question.

The lady is dead, but she is not 'rotting' while on life support.

They don't need to read it, it's not scaremongering, that is exactly what the family is being faced with. The doctor told the court her brain is rotting and fungus is growing on it. You might not like to hear that but the family have no doubt been told that, they can see what is happening

Shrap

lazygal wrote: »

If we didn't equate the right to life of a foetus to that of a dead woman there would be no need for a court case. We can thank William Binchy el al for this grotesque distortion of the rights of the unborn.

Don't forget Prof Patricia Casey. And they wheel out these 8th Amendment instigators and apologists every time there's a new public outrage, whereupon they do a bit of hand-wringing and tell us it's not about the 8th at all.

Sala

Shrap wrote: »

D'you know what? We don't need any more flipping "clarity" about "oh, how well the 8th amendment would work for everyone if only the doctors know how to apply it to real life crisis situations". We need to repeal the 8th.

As it stands, we often have women having to live here as walking coffins, if they can't afford to go to abroad because they have to wait for the "right" time to get a D&C to deliver their dead foetuses , and we now have dead women being desecrated for the sake of a foetus's life that might not be worth keeping alive. Good one Ireland.

I agree, but I strongly suspect put to a vote, it would not be repealed. We need legislation therefore. Not horrendous case law after case law, but legislation that hands real power to the medical professionals and next of kin.

lazygal

Shrap wrote: »

Don't forget Prof Patricia Casey. And they wheel out these 8th Amendment instigators and apologists every time there's a new public outrage, whereupon they do a bit of hand-wringing and tell us it's not about the 8th at all.

And we have the new crop like Cora Sherlock with her grimace about how sad this is while pretending that the eighth amendment has been a resounding success for women in Ireland.

lazygal

Sala wrote: »

I agree, but I strongly suspect put to a vote, it would not be repealed. We need legislation therefore. Not horrendous case law after case law, but legislation that hands real power to the medical professionals and next of kin.

Irish constitutional law protects the unborn and nothing can change that as long as the eighth is in place. Of course if you can take the unborn elsewhere to kill it that's fine. Just don't expect to be able to do it here.

pmasterson95

She is dead and due to the sever nature of her injuries decomposition (I feel its a somewhat more sensitive term than the "r" word) has started....the body cannot be embalmed to try and prevent decomposition or preseve her body. It is horifically barbaric to force this to continue as it will naturally just worsen while big wigs push agendas and dilly dally. The solution is simple and can give the whole family peace and allow the woman rest in peace. How this is being debated and held in red tape is ridiculous.

Shrap

Sala wrote: »

I agree, but I strongly suspect put to a vote, it would not be repealed. We need legislation therefore. Not horrendous case law after case law, but legislation that hands real power to the medical professionals and next of kin.

I strongly suspect you're right. It has to do with each and every person who has commented on this thread thinking that the life of a foetus should be protected at all cost. What cost were ye all thinking of exactly, eh? (not directed at you Sala)

It has to do with people who feel able to judge the parents of a dead woman for wanting to turn off the machines and let the foetus die (because they are there looking at her and we are not), and these people have the audacity to be imagining the cute little baby in this sick situation.

It has to do with people who don't use their imaginations to think exactly how bad a pregnancy might be for somebody's life, but are well able to imagine the cute little baby that is in reality only a potential baby and a tiny life.

To my mind, only one thing will work and it's definitely not more legislation. It's every single political party saying repeal the 8th because it's the right thing to do.

Sala

lazygal wrote: »

Irish constitutional law protects the unborn and nothing can change that as long as the eighth is in place. Of course if you can take the unborn elsewhere to kill it that's fine. Just don't expect to be able to do it here.

Again I agree, I would support repealing it but, while in place, we need to legislate for these cases. The HSE have put forward the argument it is not practicable to vindicate the life of the unborn in this case. I think doctors, not lawyers or courts, are best placed to Judge this.

I can only imagine the battle and scaremongering if there was a referendum to revoke the amendment and while I would vote, I wouldn't be at all confident it would pass. If we are stuck with it, we need legislation

pmasterson95

Shrap wrote: »

I strongly suspect you're right. It has to do with each and every person who has commented on this thread thinking that the life of a foetus should be protected at all cost. What cost were ye all thinking of exactly, eh? (not directed at you Sala)

It has to do with people who feel able to judge the parents of a dead woman for wanting to turn off the machines and let the foetus die (because they are there looking at her and we are not), and these people have the audacity to be imagining the cute little baby in this sick situation.

It has to do with people who don't use their imaginations to think exactly how bad a pregnancy might be for somebody's life, but are well able to imagine the cute little baby that is in reality only a potential baby and a tiny life.

To my mind, only one thing will work and it's definitely not more legislation. It's every single political party saying repeal the 8th because it's the right thing to do.

Strange how all that save the foetus people have dissapeared now reality has been made public by doctors.

Sala

Shrap wrote: »

I strongly suspect you're right. It has to do with each and every person who has commented on this thread thinking that the life of a foetus should be protected at all cost. What cost were ye all thinking of exactly, eh? (not directed at you Sala)

It has to do with people who feel able to judge the parents of a dead woman for wanting to turn off the machines and let the foetus die (because they are there looking at her and we are not), and these people have the audacity to be imagining the cute little baby in this sick situation.

It has to do with people who don't use their imaginations to think exactly how bad a pregnancy might be for somebody's life, but are well able to imagine the cute little baby that is in reality only a potential baby and a tiny life.

To my mind, only one thing will work and it's definitely not more legislation. It's every single political party saying repeal the 8th because it's the right thing to do.

If it's put to a referendum and it is upheld, then what? I am not arguing it's not a bad clause (I think case law, in particular this case, has show how dangerous it is). We can certainly legislate to hand more power to doctors - in advance of trying to repeal it. Practically speaking though, imagine the the dialogue, the posters, the debates trying to appeal it.. it will be very emotive and I would not be confident it would pass

Sala

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Strange how all that save the foetus people have dissapeared now reality has been made public by doctors.

To be fair, some of them have changed their mind (rare in such a debate imo) and have been honest enough to say it and say why

Stheno

Sala wrote: »

I agree, but I strongly suspect put to a vote, it would not be repealed. We need legislation therefore. Not horrendous case law after case law, but legislation that hands real power to the medical professionals and next of kin.

I too do not believe it will be repealed in a public vote, but considering the Savita case, the Ms. Y case, and now this horror, it might possibly scrape through as did our divorce legislation

pmasterson95 wrote: »

She is dead and due to the sever nature of her injuries decomposition (I feel its a somewhat more sensitive term than the "r" word) has started....the body cannot be embalmed to try and prevent decomposition or preseve her body. It is horifically barbaric to force this to continue as it will naturally just worsen while big wigs push agendas and dilly dally. The solution is simple and can give the whole family peace and allow the woman rest in peace. How this is being debated and held in red tape is ridiculous.

Of all that has happened with this case, I must say that I admire those judges on the High Court panel who have set their holidays aside to hear this case promptly and deliver judgement in what has to be an unprecedentedly quick time, coming in on Stephens Day to deliver their verdict.

I just hope it does not end up in the Supreme Court, some of the testimony today from doctors indicated that the foetus is not currently at harm, but may be in future, and is not viable long term which may influence a judgement.

lazygal

Sala wrote: »

If it's put to a referendum and it is upheld, then what? I am not arguing it's not a bad clause (I think case law, in particular this case, has show how dangerous it is). We can certainly legislate to hand more power to doctors - in advance of trying to repeal it. Practically speaking though, imagine the the dialogue, the posters, the debates trying to appeal it.. it will be very emotive and I would not be confident it would pass

We will have more women dying and one day a woman will win a case on the right to terminate a pregnancy here, probably because of a fatal abnormality case, and Irish voters will have to decide if the eighth amendment serves their women well.
This case has made me and other women of childbearing age strongly reconsider having more children in Ireland. I would be hesitant to support my daughter's childbearing here if this is what's ahead of her if and when she's pregnant.

Shrap

Sala wrote: »

Again I agree, I would support repealing it but, while in place, we need to legislate for these cases. The HSE have put forward the argument it is not practicable to vindicate the life of the unborn in this case. I think doctors, not lawyers or courts, are best placed to Judge this.

I can only imagine the battle and scaremongering if there was a referendum to revoke the amendment and while I would vote, I wouldn't be at all confident it would pass. If we are stuck with it, we need legislation

Realistically, I think you're right. And it's spoken like a true Irish woman who knows exactly what we're up against here. I've had to tell my (hopeful for change) English friends and boyfriend today that I live in hope to see it repealed before I'm 80. If I live that long. I told them the same thing after Savita, and Ms.Y, but I don't think it's sunk in with them yet.

There's a kind of fatalism bred into us at this stage which I think comes from knowing that your nation and it's people see a potential baby as being as important as your own life, with all it's dreams/hopes/fears and challenges. The foetus has none of these sensitivities in reality, and yet to so many people it's potential is more important than our own.

Shrap

Sala wrote: »

If it's put to a referendum and it is upheld, then what? I am not arguing it's not a bad clause (I think case law, in particular this case, has show how dangerous it is). We can certainly legislate to hand more power to doctors - in advance of trying to repeal it. Practically speaking though, imagine the the dialogue, the posters, the debates trying to appeal it.. it will be very emotive and I would not be confident it would pass

That's a million dollar question Sala. With this country, I have absolutely no idea. But I'm sure the legislation would involve at least 8 medical professionals to say that yes, the foetus has a fatal abnormality or yes, the woman was raped, or no, she's not just upset she won't fit into her holiday clothes, she's actually suicidal at the prospect of remaining pregnant.

Can't say I like the idea of that either, but legislation to determine my bodily autonomy for me is never going to sit well in my heart. I'd take that kind of concession though, just to repeal the 8th in my lifetime and hope my niece or perhaps my son's kids have a better class of respect given to their choices.

ProfessorPlum

Shrap wrote: »

I strongly suspect you're right. It has to do with each and every person who has commented on this thread thinking that the life of a foetus should be protected at all cost. What cost were ye all thinking of exactly, eh? (not directed at you Sala)

It has to do with people who feel able to judge the parents of a dead woman for wanting to turn off the machines and let the foetus die (because they are there looking at her and we are not), and these people have the audacity to be imagining the cute little baby in this sick situation.

It has to do with people who don't use their imaginations to think exactly how bad a pregnancy might be for somebody's life, but are well able to imagine the cute little baby that is in reality only a potential baby and a tiny life.

To my mind, only one thing will work and it's definitely not more legislation. It's every single political party saying repeal the 8th because it's the right thing to do.

Whole heartedly agree with you. In general, people don't understand the realities of how complex medical situations can be in many cases. They think they can read one or two medical journal articles and be experts. They think that decisions are black and white. They think that doctors should be able to interpret the constitution when infact constitutional lawyers can have heated arguments about the same issues. When situations like this arise, they blame someone, anyone, rather than the crux of the issue which is that in some cases doctors are prevented from actioning their preferred decisions and what is 'best practice' due to questions of legality. On several occasions in this thread posters have asked why haven't doctors just done their job and made the decision to switch off the machines. Savita's consultant in Galway has been squarely burdened with the blame for her death (despite the fact that the fitness to practice hearing is still outstanding and that the hospital made no sanction). I am confident that were it not for the 8th amendment, the right decision would have been made much earlier in that case.
No doubt in the coming days and weeks, the hardliners will be out with their reasons why 'it should never have come to this' and why we need the 8th amendment to protect our unborn babies. Our unborn babies were protected long before the 8th amendment came into being, and will be when it is repealed.

lazygal

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Whole heartedly agree with you. In general, people don't understand the realities of how complex medical situations can be in many cases. They think they can read one or two medical journal articles and be experts. They think that decisions are black and white. They think that doctors should be able to interpret the constitution when infact constitutional lawyers can have heated arguments about the same issues. When situations like this arise, they blame someone, anyone, rather than the crux of the issue which is that in some cases doctors are prevented from actioning their preferred decisions and what is 'best practice' due to questions of legality. On several occasions in this thread posters have asked why haven't doctors just done their job and made the decision to switch off the machines. Savita's consultant in Galway has been squarely burdened with the blame for her death (despite the fact that the fitness to practice hearing is still outstanding and that the hospital made no sanction). I am confident that were it not for the 8th amendment, the right decision would have been made much earlier in that case.
No doubt in the coming days and weeks, the hardliners will be out with their reasons why 'it should never have come to this' and why we need the 8th amendment to protect our unborn babies. Our unborn babies were protected long before the 8th amendment came into being, and will be when it is repealed.

Not to mention that protection for the unborn ceases when and if you have the means and ability to take the unborn elsewhere. Where you can kill it and return to Ireland no.questions asked. Just don't do that here, because we protect the unborn here. Not like those countries where abortion is a medical issue between a woman and her doctor rather than the legal system.

oceanclub

Does anyone know is this the first ever case of a pregnant woman dying on life support? If not, then why is this the first case in which the woman was kept on life support to bring the foetus to term?

P.