Clinicaly dead pregnant woman on life support

pmasterson95

RobertKK wrote: »

Looking at the HSE arguing the machines should be turned off, I would question why some employee of the HSE thought this had anything to with the unborn and the 8th amendment.

The 8th amendment doesn't require doctors to keep a dead person alive.

I expect this to be the result on Friday.

But since that dead person is pregnant actual dead person is merely an incubator for a foetus.....8th says fetus must stay alive therefore a decomposing body is being used as an incubator to keep a fetus alive

pmasterson95

No. 1 One Direction Fan wrote: »

If you have a problem with a post, report it

Completely off topic but a moderator who is one directions no. 1 fan......thats not something I ever expected to see

Foxhound38

Stark wrote: »

I think even the rosary bead brigade have been taken aback by this incident. It was somewhat heartening to listen to my normally conservative mass going parents/grandparents over the holidays talking in terms of "We made a mistake voting for that clause in the constitution" and "I really hope the pro-life crowd stay out of things this time".

There might be some hope so

RobertKK

pmasterson95 wrote: »

But since that dead person is pregnant actual dead person is merely an incubator for a foetus.....8th says fetus must stay alive therefore a decomposing body is being used as an incubator to keep a fetus alive

It mentions both mother and unborn.
The mother is dead, nowhere in the constitution does it say a dead person should be kept on machines for the sake of the unborn.

hotmail.com

RobertKK wrote: »

Looking at the HSE arguing the machines should be turned off, I would question why some employee of the HSE thought this had anything to with the unborn and the 8th amendment.

The 8th amendment doesn't require doctors to keep a dead person alive.

I expect this to be the result on Friday.

The judge said today that the 8th amendment is a factor in this case.

RobertKK

hotmail.com wrote: »

The judge said today that the 8th amendment is a factor in this case.

Only due to the HSE making it a factor. The real story is the right to a natural death.

hotmail.com

RobertKK wrote: »

Only due to the HSE making it a factor. The real story is the right to a natural death.

No, the judge said it.

Face the facts.

mrbike

drkpower wrote: »

Not semantics; Irish text is favoured over English where they mean different things. Could be very relevant here.

You need to read the last two paragraphs on page 3 of the article. The supreme court have already ruled on this issue.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/unborn-right-to-life-surpasses-mother-s-right-to-dignified-death-court-told-1.2048425?page=3

For anyone thinking this case has nothing to do with the eighth amendment - The case hinges on the exact meaning of the word 'practicable' in the constitution.

pmasterson95

RobertKK wrote: »

Only due to the HSE making it a factor. The real story is the right to a natural death.

So you are more qualified than the judge to decide what is relevant factors?


Okey dokey. I log off return when things get saner

RobertKK

hotmail.com wrote: »

No, the judge said it.

Face the facts.

Yes but it was the HSE who denied the woman the right to a natural death, by their actions when there was no need to invoke the 8th amendment.
The woman was dead.

pmasterson95

And I dont care if the constitution was wrote in Cantonese at the end of the day a poor womans decaying corpse should never be just pumped full of drugs to try and keep a fetus alive as the body continues to worsen by the day. Its not a very hard concept.

RobertKK

pmasterson95 wrote: »

So you are more qualified than the judge to decide what is relevant factors?


Okey dokey. I log off return when things get saner

I think my posts are too much for you to comprehend, as I did not say that.

hotmail.com

mrbike wrote: »

You need to read the last two paragraphs on page 3 of the article. The supreme court have already ruled on this issue.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/unborn-right-to-life-surpasses-mother-s-right-to-dignified-death-court-told-1.2048425?page=3

For anyone thinking this case has nothing to do with the eighth amendment - The case hinges on the exact meaning of the word 'practicable' in the constitution.

The complications over the wording of the amendment was highlighted in 1983 by Mary Robinson and denied by William Binchy.

Binchy continues to see nothing wrong with the amendment despite multiple cases showing it's disfunctionality.

volchitsa

RobertKK wrote: »

It mentions both mother and unborn.
The mother is dead, nowhere in the constitution does it say a dead person should be kept on machines for the sake of the unborn.

It doesn't actually mention abortion either you know. What does that prove?

hotmail.com

RobertKK wrote: »

Yes but it was the HSE who denied the woman the right to a natural death, by their actions when there was no need to invoke the 8th amendment.
The woman was dead.

The judge said the 8th amendment is a factor in this case. I've said it three times and you're not getting it.

You're a lost cause.

RobertKK

volchitsa wrote: »

It doesn't actually mention abortion either you know. What does that prove?

It talks about right to life.
The mother is dead.

I have work to do so I will just say, let's wait for the judgement.
I think the machines will be switched off.

marienbad

RobertKK wrote: »

Yes but it was the HSE who denied the woman the right to a natural death, by their actions when there was no need to invoke the 8th amendment.
The woman was dead.

If the 8th amendment wasn't in the constitution this case would never have arisen , do you agree with that ? The machines would just have been turned off.

But now that it is in the constitution it means that the medical profession are paralysed with doubt, as the doctors in this case said they were.

So long as there is a foetal heartbeat no one can risk a decision without recourse to the courts .

And to deny this is just dodging your responsibility for your part in the monster that has been created.

RobertKK

hotmail.com wrote: »

The judge said the 8th amendment is a factor in this case. I've said it three times and you're not getting it.

You're a lost cause.

Speak for yourself if you want to call someone a lost cause.

I have said the HSE made it a factor in the case. But the real story is about the right to a natural death.

So look at yourself if you want to talk about not getting it.
That said I wish you a happy Christmas.

Shrap

RobertKK wrote: »

It talks about right to life.
The mother is dead.

I have work to do so I will just say, let's wait for the judgement.
I think the machines will be switched off.

The foetus is not dead. The 8th amendment protects the life of the unborn to the extent that the doctors cannot let the unborn die while it can be kept alive. That is the issue. Please keep up.

The machines will not be switched off unless the Judges overrule the 8th.

ProfessorPlum

RobertKK wrote: »

Looking at the HSE arguing the machines should be turned off, I would question why some employee of the HSE thought this had anything to with the unborn and the 8th amendment.

The 8th amendment doesn't require doctors to keep a dead person alive.

I expect this to be the result on Friday.

Regardless of what you might think, those who have to make the decision feel constrained by the constitutional amendment. Lawyers are in one of the highest courts in iur land thrashing it out. But yet you see no issue and feel the doctors should know what to do?

You are blind to this situation.

conorh91

hotmail.com wrote: »

The judge said the 8th amendment is a factor in this case. I've said it three times and you're not getting it.

The 8th amendment is of relevance, but it is of limited relevance.

The major controversy with the 8th amendment is not that it gives the unborn any right to life, since that right likely pre-existed the 1983 amendment in an implicit form.

The major controversy with the 8th amendment is that it gives the unborn a right to life which is EQUAL to the right to life of her mother.

That major controversy is irrelevant here, since the mother has died. Common sense and legal history would seem to indicate that when she died, her personal right to life also vanished. In fact, in law, all of her personal rights vanished.

So yes, the 8th amendment is relevant. But it's not a classic 8th amendment controversy, and the relevance is limited.

volchitsa

RobertKK wrote: »

It talks about right to life.
The mother is dead.

I have work to do so I will just say, let's wait for the judgement.
I think the machines will be switched off.

They probably will. Now that she is visibly decaying. But the trauma is done to her children.

But they should have been three weeks ago.

Do you think it should be necessary to wait until a corpse is visibly decaying before being allowed to switch them off?

If not, what criterion should be used? And is it legal in Ireland?

RobertKK

marienbad wrote: »

If the 8th amendment wasn't in the constitution this case would never have arisen , do you agree with that ? The machines would just have been turned off.

But now that it is in the constitution it means that the medical profession are paralysed with doubt, as the doctors in this case said they were.

So long as there is a foetal heartbeat no one can risk a decision without recourse to the courts .

And to deny this is just dodging your responsibility for your part in the monster that has been created.

Yes, but the HSE didn't need to make the 8th amendment an issue as she was dead.
I await to see if the court sees it this way.

volchitsa

conorh91 wrote: »

So yes, the 8th amendment is relevant. But it's not a classic 8th amendment controversy, and the relevance is limited.

It's completely relevant, in fact it is the cause of the problem.

But it's not a classic problem, I grant you that, in fact it's an unintended consequence of the 8th amendment, because this was always a poorly drafted section and needs to be removed.

RobertKK

volchitsa wrote: »

They probably will. Now that she is visibly decaying. But the trauma is done to her children.

But they should have been three weeks ago.

Do you think it should be necessary to wait until a corpse is visibly decaying before being allowed to switch them off?

If not, what criterion should be used? And is it legal in Ireland?

I believe in the right to a natural death. We all have to face death sooner or later and a natural death should be something that the state should have no involvement in. No one should be kept alive on machines against the will of the person if they made that choice when healthy or if the family decides for their family member.

hotmail.com

conorh91 wrote: »

The 8th amendment is of relevance, but it is of limited relevance.

The major controversy with the 8th amendment is not that it gives the unborn a right to any right to life, since that right likely pre-existed the 1983 amendment in an implicit form.

The major controversy with the 8th amendment is that it gives the unborn a right to life which is EQUAL to the right to life of her mother.

That major controversy is irrelevant here, since the mother has died. 300 years of legal jurisprudence would seem to indicate that when she died, her personal also vanished.

So yes, the 8th amendment is relevant. But it's not a classic 8th amendment controversy, and the relevance is limited.

Firstly, some are saying the 8th amendment has no relevance in this case whatsoever - they are wrong.

Limitied relevance - I disagree - otherwise why is there a court case? The doctors don't want to break the law and are unsure as to what to do. They have had to go to the courts for legal clearance.

The 8th amendment, as with Savita, as with A,B,C and Y does at the very least, complicate matters.

RobertKK

Shrap wrote: »

The foetus is not dead. The 8th amendment protects the life of the unborn to the extent that the doctors cannot let the unborn die while it can be kept alive. That is the issue. Please keep up.

The machines will not be switched off unless the Judges overrule the 8th.

They will interpret just like they did with the x case, which went against the 8th amendment.

hotmail.com

RobertKK wrote: »

They will interpret just like they did with the x case, which went against the 8th amendment.

And people like you disagreed with the X case judgement!

ProfessorPlum

conorh91 wrote: »

The 8th amendment is of relevance, but it is of limited relevance.

The major controversy with the 8th amendment is not that it gives the unborn any right to life, since that right likely pre-existed the 1983 amendment in an implicit form.

The major controversy with the 8th amendment is that it gives the unborn a right to life which is EQUAL to the right to life of her mother.

That major controversy is irrelevant here, since the mother has died. Common sense and legal history would seem to indicate that when she died, her personal right to life also vanished. In fact, in law, all of her personal rights vanished.

So yes, the 8th amendment is relevant. But it's not a classic 8th amendment controversy, and the relevance is limited.

Legally speaking, you could argue that the 8th has limited relevance, and that is part if the discussions that were had in court. However, in the Richmond ICU in Beaumont hospital, the 8th amendment was most certainly relevant, and if it were not for it's existence a family would have buried their daughter, mother, partner, weeks ago instead of having to live through this nightmare.

MrPudding

conorh91 wrote: »

The 8th amendment is of relevance, but it is of limited relevance.

The major controversy with the 8th amendment is not that it gives the unborn any right to life, since that right likely pre-existed the 1983 amendment in an implicit form.

The major controversy with the 8th amendment is that it gives the unborn a right to life which is EQUAL to the right to life of her mother.

That major controversy is irrelevant here, since the mother has died. Common sense and legal history would seem to indicate that when she died, her personal right to life also vanished. In fact, in law, all of her personal rights vanished.

So yes, the 8th amendment is relevant. But it's not a classic 8th amendment controversy, and the relevance is limited.

It is conceivable that the right to life, of the mother, could be construed as giving a kind of opposite right, a right to die with dignity. In this case it would be a conflict of the mother's right to die with dignity and the foetus's right to life, such as it is.

Even if they is not the case, to say the 8th is of no relevance is clearly idiotic.

MrP