Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Clinicaly dead pregnant woman on life support

Options
1…2930323435…44

Comments

  • Options
    #932
    Shrap
    Registered Users Posts: 3,163 ✭✭✭Shrap


    RobertKK wrote: »
    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.

    Are you deliberately missing the point that it's the foetus they have a problem with letting die? All the doctors, right from the point of brain death agreed that the machines should be turned off, but the right to life of the foetus is what has stopped them.
    RobertKK wrote: »
    They will interpret just like they did with the x case, which went against the 8th amendment.

    So it's ok with you that the 8th causes this kind of trauma, because when they interpret it differently and we wait approx 20 years for it to be written into legislation for their ruling, no other problems with the 8th will arise, amirite? The 8th needs to go. There is no alternative.


  • Options
    #933
    ProfessorPlum
    Registered Users Posts: 1,806 ✭✭✭ProfessorPlum


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

    How many barristers, solicitors, judges and expert witnesses will have been involved in deciding the outcome? Yet you think that her doctors should be able to make this call, and now can convienieny blame them and the HSE.

    You Sir, are a disgrace. At these have the courage of your convictions.


  • Options
    #934
    pmasterson95
    Registered Users Posts: 3,074 ✭✭✭pmasterson95


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

    ?


  • Options
    #935
    conorh91
    Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    hotmail.com wrote: »
    Limitied relevance - I disagree - otherwise why is there a court case?
    There is a court case because the unborn has a right to life, and there would likely be a court case along the very same lines if the 8th amendment had never been inserted. My point is to stop getting so hung up on the 8th amendment.

    There are other jurisdictions where the unborn is presumed to have a basic right to life, but where that right may be overturned by a mother's right to her health and wellbeing. Even the European Court of Human Rights has tended to follow this approach.

    Many liberal Irish people would be happy with that approach, since it would allow for terminations even in cases where the mother is distressed. The threshold for abortion is very low.

    However, even that liberal approach would not have prevented this case. Under that liberal approach, the unborn's right to life, however minimal, would still seem to trump the non-existent rights of a corpse.

    Do you understand what I'm getting at here?

    The 8th amendment is not very relevant. This is a freak case that could easily have occured in other countries with more liberal regimes. It's probably a fluke that it hasn't... if it hasn;t.


  • Options
    #936
    mrbike
    Registered Users Posts: 110 ✭✭mrbike


    RobertKK wrote: »
    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.

    Wait no more:

    The first consideration is the right to life of the mother.It was clear the mother’s life has passed and there are two views about the legal consequences of that.

    The mother’s right to life was no longer a consideration in deciding what happened to this unborn, he said. That was a difficult concept for human beings as empathetic beings to process but it must follow from Article 40.3.3 there could not be equal rights between the mother and unborn once the mother’s life has passed.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #937
    RobertKK
    Registered Users Posts: 33,748 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    hotmail.com wrote: »
    And people like you disagreed with the X case judgement!

    Yes, the thing is the people who want the 8th amendment removed would need the judges to say the machines stay so they can use this poor woman.

    The 8th amendment didn't stop the x case and I await to see if the 8th amendment applies in this case. I would put my money on it not applying.
    Therefore the 8th amendment was not an issue that should have been used.
    Will just have to wait and see.


  • Options
    #938
    hotmail.com
    Registered Users Posts: 13,317 ✭✭✭✭hotmail.com


    conorh91 wrote: »
    There is a court case because the unborn has a right to life, and there would likely be a court case along the very same lines if the 8th amendment had never been inserted. My point is to stop getting so hung up on the 8th amendment.

    There are other jurisdictions where the unborn is presumed to have a basic right to life, but where that right may be overturned by a mother's right to her health and wellbeing. Even the European Court of Human Rights has tended to follow this approach.

    Many liberal Irish people would be happy with that approach, since it would allow for terminations even in cases where the mother is distressed. The threshold for abortion is very low.

    However, even that liberal approach would not have prevented this case. Under that liberal approach, the unborn's right to life, however minimal, would still seem to trump the non-existent rights of a corpse.

    Do you understand what I'm getting at here?

    The 8th amendment is not very relevant. This is a freak case that could easily have occured in other countries with more liberal regimes. It's probably a fluke that it hasn't... if it hasn;t.

    It seems that the doctors wished to have the machine turned off with the support of her parents. The 8th amendment stood in the way.


  • Options
    #939
    conorh91
    Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    MrPudding wrote: »
    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.
    She is already dead.

    The living have a right to die with dignity, and that right has been recognized by the Supreme Court in a fairly similar case in the past.

    However, in that case, the dying ward of court was still living. You cannot die twice. It would be a remarkable shift in the jurisprudence of the English-speaking world if the High Court were to rule that the dead enjoy personal rights.
    hotmail.com wrote: »
    It seems that the doctors wished to have the machine turned off with the support of her parents. The 8th amendment stood in the way.
    Yes, but if the 8th amendnment hadn't been there, there would probably still have been litigation on the exact same lines.

    I'm just repeating myself here, and so are you.


  • Options
    #940
    RobertKK
    Registered Users Posts: 33,748 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    ProfessorPlum wrote: »
    How many barristers, solicitors, judges and expert witnesses will have been involved in deciding the outcome? Yet you think that her doctors should be able to make this call, and now can convienieny blame them and the HSE.

    You Sir, are a disgrace. At these have the courage of your convictions.

    It went to the high court, of course there would be lots of people involved at this level, yet all have argued for the woman to be allowed to die apart from the lawyers tasked by law who had to argue for the unborn child.


  • Options
    #941
    Shrap
    Registered Users Posts: 3,163 ✭✭✭Shrap


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Therefore the 8th amendment was not an issue that should have been used.
    Will just have to wait and see.

    Should have/would have/could have - why are you not getting that the doctors can't make that call, because of the legalities that nobody but the court can determine? FFS, they were even going into the more specific meaning of the amendment in it's Irish language form in court yesterday, because that it is what it takes to interpret it. Or should doctors have law degrees as well as medical ones?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #942
    ProfessorPlum
    Registered Users Posts: 1,806 ✭✭✭ProfessorPlum


    conorh91 wrote: »
    There is a court case because the unborn has a right to life, and there would likely be a court case along the very same lines if the 8th amendment had never been inserted. My point is to stop getting so hung up on the 8th amendment.

    There are other jurisdictions where the unborn is presumed to have a basic right to life, but where that right may be overturned by a mother's right to her health and wellbeing. Even the European Court of Human Rights has tended to follow this approach.

    Many liberal Irish people would be happy with that approach, since it would allow for terminations even in cases where the mother is distressed. The threshold for abortion is very low.

    However, even that liberal approach would not have prevented this case. Under that liberal approach, the unborn's right to life, however minimal, would still seem to trump the non-existent rights of a corpse.

    Do you understand what I'm getting at here?

    The 8th amendment is not very relevant. This is a freak case that could easily have occured in other countries with more liberal regimes. It's probably a fluke that it hasn't... if it hasn;t.

    So you don't believe the doctors when they say it is a problem for them? Ok. Got ya.

    How cosy for you to have the comfort of your leather chair to mull over these issues at your leisure. I suggest you take a trip to the cutting edge to see what all the fuss is about. The 8th amendment is very relevant. Be the mother dead or alive, it challenges doctors to vindicate the foetal life as far as is practicable. That has not been defined, so they find themselves in a rather gray area. Do you not understand the difference between the semantics of it and the very real practical issues. This case would not have arisen but for the 8th amendment.


  • Options
    #943
    pmasterson95
    Registered Users Posts: 3,074 ✭✭✭pmasterson95


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Yes, the thing is the people who want the 8th amendment removed would need the judges to say the machines stay so they can use this poor woman.

    The 8th amendment didn't stop the x case and I await to see if the 8th amendment applies in this case. I would put my money on it not applying.
    Therefore the 8th amendment was not an issue that should have been used.
    Will just have to wait and see.

    Whaaaa? The poor woman has been used as a ****ing incubator and is in a medical professionals opinion rotting inside...the atrocity has already been committed by leaving machines on to try and keep the corpse sustaining the fetus.....she died 3 weeks ago and has been kept in a horific limbo decaying all that time....the horro has been done what exactly are you waiting to see???


  • Options
    #944
    hotmail.com
    Registered Users Posts: 13,317 ✭✭✭✭hotmail.com


    conorh91 wrote: »
    She is already dead.

    The living have a right to die with dignity, and that right has been recognized by the Supreme Court in a fairly similar case in the past.

    However, in that case, the dying ward of court was still living. You cannot die twice. It would be a remarkable shift in the jurisprudence of the English-speaking world if the High Court were to rule that the dead enjoy personal rights.


    Yes, but if the 8th amendnment hadn't been there, there would probably still have been litigation on the exact same lines.

    I'm just repeating myself here, and so are you.


    Who would be the litigants? The doctors wished to have the machine turned off as did the next of kin, supported by the father of the foetus.

    Hence, no courts needed if there was no 8th amendment.


  • Options
    #945
    conorh91
    Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    ProfessorPlum wrote: »
    This case would not have arisen but for the 8th amendment.
    So when Irish Supreme Court judges would recognize the right to life of the unborn in different cases in the 1970s... you're saying they were wrong?

    The 1983 amendment appears to have codified and updated and enhanced a pre-existing right to life of the unborn.

    Of course doctors are going to refer to that updated law. But even the pre-1983 constitutional position would have meant that the unborn had a right to life, and the dead do not.

    That is why I say the 8th amendment is not the big deal people think it is.
    hotmail.com wrote: »
    Who would be the litigants?
    The unborn and/ or the Attorney General as against the HSE and the others,

    No idea why you think the 8th amendment would make a different to that.


  • Options
    #946
    pmasterson95
    Registered Users Posts: 3,074 ✭✭✭pmasterson95


    conorh91 wrote: »
    She is already dead.

    The living have a right to die with dignity, and that right has been recognized by the Supreme Court in a fairly similar case in the past.

    However, in that case, the dying ward of court was still living. You cannot die twice. It would be a remarkable shift in the jurisprudence of the English-speaking world if the High Court were to rule that the dead enjoy personal rights.


    Yes, but if the 8th amendnment hadn't been there, there would probably still have been litigation on the exact same lines.

    I'm just repeating myself here, and so are you.
    I cant see the same issues if they were allowed turn off a corpses life support.....


  • Options
    #947
    RobertKK
    Registered Users Posts: 33,748 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    pmasterson95 wrote: »
    Whaaaa? The poor woman has been used as a ****ing incubator and is in a medical professionals opinion rotting inside...the atrocity has already been committed by leaving machines on to try and keep the corpse sustaining the fetus.....she died 3 weeks ago and has been kept in a horific limbo decaying all that time....the horro has been done what exactly are you waiting to see???

    The ruling of the judges.


  • Options
    #948
    hotmail.com
    Registered Users Posts: 13,317 ✭✭✭✭hotmail.com


    conorh91 wrote: »
    So when Irish Supreme Court judges would recognize the right to life of the unborn in different cases in the 1970s... you're saying they were wrong?

    The 1983 amendment appears to have codified and updated and enhanced a pre-existing right to life of the unborn.

    Of course doctors are going to refer to that updated law. But even the pre-1983 constitutional position would have meant that the unborn had a right to life, and the dead do not.

    That is why I say the 8th amendment is not the big deal people think it is.


    The unborn and/ or the Attorney General as against the HSE and the others,

    No idea why you think the 8th amendment would make a different to that.

    So you believe that even without the 8th amendment, the doctors would have sent this case to court?


  • Options
    #949
    pmasterson95
    Registered Users Posts: 3,074 ✭✭✭pmasterson95


    RobertKK wrote: »
    The ruling of the judges.

    Aaaaand you totally miss the point as you have for the last 3ish pages.....wow


  • Options
    #950
    ProfessorPlum
    Registered Users Posts: 1,806 ✭✭✭ProfessorPlum


    RobertKK wrote: »
    It went to the high court, of course there would be lots of people involved at this level, yet all have argued for the woman to be allowed to die apart from the lawyers tasked by law who had to argue for the unborn child.

    You are clearly not interested in listening.

    conorh91 wrote: »
    So when Irish Supreme Court judges would recognize the right to life of the unborn in different cases in the 1970s... you're saying they were wrong?

    The 1983 amendment appears to have codified and updated and enhanced a pre-existing right to life of the unborn.

    Of course doctors are going to refer to that updated law. But even the pre-1983 constitutional position would have meant that the unborn had a right to life, and the dead do not.

    That is why I say the 8th amendment is not the big deal people think it is.


    The unborn and/ or the Attorney General as against the HSE and the others,

    No idea why you think the 8th amendment would make a different to that.

    No idea why you refuse to believe why doctors have a problem with it. Prior to 1983 the unborn had a right to life, but doctors were not challenged to preserve that life in the way they are now. So there would have been no issue in allowing a non viable foetus die inside it's dying mother.


  • Options
    #951
    Cantremember
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,305 ✭✭✭Cantremember


    conorh91 wrote: »
    So when Irish Supreme Court judges would recognize the right to life of the unborn in different cases in the 1970s... you're saying they were wrong?

    The 1983 amendment appears to have codified and updated and enhanced a pre-existing right to life of the unborn.

    Of course doctors are going to refer to that updated law. But even the pre-1983 constitutional position would have meant that the unborn had a right to life, and the dead do not.

    That is why I say the 8th amendment is not the big deal people think it is.


    The unborn and/ or the Attorney General as against the HSE and the others,

    No idea why you think the 8th amendment would make a different to that.

    Utter nonsense. When the medical people have said the 8th was the reason for their doubts. Your purpose is of course to protect the 8th from the well earned derision heaped on it. Says it all.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #952
    Cantremember
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,305 ✭✭✭Cantremember


    RobertKK wrote: »
    The ruling of the judges.

    Hoping that the grounds of the ruling leave the 8th having some credibility. At least be upfront about it.


  • Options
    #953
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    RobertKK wrote: »
    The ruling of the judges.

    That says it all really. Its a medical issue affecting a private family and yet they and the doctors have no say in what happens and have to go through the farce of getting a bunch of lawyers to argue their case. In the end it will be a judge, not a medical expert, not a family member, who will decide when these people can bury their loved one. And you think the 8th has nothing to do with it....open your eyes.


  • Options
    #954
    RobertKK
    Registered Users Posts: 33,748 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    pmasterson95 wrote: »
    Aaaaand you totally miss the point as you have for the last 3ish pages.....wow

    Please stop with this nonsense and read my posts in a calm manner.
    You didn't even comprehend it was the court ruling I was talking about when it came to waiting.
    I couldn't make them give their ruling any faster.


  • Options
    #955
    conorh91
    Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    hotmail.com wrote: »
    So you believe that even without the 8th amendment, the doctors would have sent this case to court?
    Absolutely.

    I'd go further. I think the AG would have had a constitutional obligation to oppose the withdrawl of life support in the absence of evidence indicating foetal distress. And that's if the 8th amendment had never existed.

    The reason why the 8th amendment is agreed to be stupid is because it gave mothers and the unborn equal rights. But that imposed equality is irrelevant here.
    ProfessorPlum wrote: »
    Prior to 1983 the unborn had a right to life, but doctors were not challenged to preserve that life in the way they are now.
    There is no recorded case like this prior to 1983 in Ireland!

    If the unborn had a pre-1983 constitutional right to life, as you appear to concede, then there is every reason to believe the hospital would have been acting unlawfully if they withdrew support from a healthy foetus in the uterus of an artificially-maintained mother.

    This is one of the reasons why the 8th amendment loses relevance here.
    Cantremember wrote: »
    Your purpose is of course to protect the 8th from the well earned derision heaped on it
    I'm pro-choice and opposed to the 1983 amendment, Sherlock.


  • Options
    #956
    gctest50
    Registered Users Posts: 9,605 ✭✭✭gctest50


    pmasterson95 wrote: »
    Aaaaand you totally miss the point as you have for the last 3ish pages.....wow


    thats the new thing with them - just drag any discussion out of shape


  • Options
    #957
    pmasterson95
    Registered Users Posts: 3,074 ✭✭✭pmasterson95


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Please stop with this nonsense and read my posts in a calm manner.
    You didn't even comprehend it was the court ruling I was talking about when it came to waiting.
    I couldn't make them give their ruling any faster.
    I am calm am I using words that are too big?
    Why do you think the doctors didn't turn off the life support? Do you think its "for the craic" or do you acknowledge its to keep a foetus alive?


  • Options
    #958
    RobertKK
    Registered Users Posts: 33,748 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    Cantremember wrote: »
    Hoping that the grounds of the ruling leave the 8th having some credibility. At least be upfront about it.

    My opinion as does the opinion of others doesn't matter in what way they rule.


  • Options
    #959
    RobertKK
    Registered Users Posts: 33,748 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    pmasterson95 wrote: »
    I am calm am I using words that are too big?
    Why do you think the doctors didn't turn off the life support? Do you think its "for the craic" or do you acknowledge its to keep a foetus alive?

    Yes to keep the unborn alive, but I question the reason why they did this.
    That is why I await to see how the high court rules on this case when it comes to either keeping or turning the machines off.

    The 8th amendment into the future will be a non issue if the machines are turned off, it will be an issue if kept on.


  • Options
    #960
    pmasterson95
    Registered Users Posts: 3,074 ✭✭✭pmasterson95


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Yes to keep the unborn alive, but I question the reason why they did this.
    That is why I await to see how the high court rules on this case when it comes to either keeping or turning the machines off.

    The 8th amendment into the future will be a non issue if the machines are turned off, it will be an issue if kept on.

    So finally you acknowledge that the 8th amendment is the reason that this farce has arose?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #961
    MrPudding
    Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    conorh91 wrote: »
    She is already dead.

    The living have a right to die with dignity, and that right has been recognized by the Supreme Court in a fairly similar case in the past.

    However, in that case, the dying ward of court was still living. You cannot die twice. It would be a remarkable shift in the jurisprudence of the English-speaking world if the High Court were to rule that the dead enjoy personal rights.


    Yes, but if the 8th amendnment hadn't been there, there would probably still have been litigation on the exact same lines.

    I'm just repeating myself here, and so are you.
    She has not been allowed to die with dignity. Her brain is dead, but her body is being kept going artificially. If you look at the submissions given to the court they asking for her to be allowed to die with dignity.

    This is not about giving personal rights to the dead, it is about giving effect to the living woman's rights, effect that has been suspended.

    MrP


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement