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…3031333536…44

Comments

  • Options
    #962
    blacklilly
    Registered Users Posts: 2,687 ✭✭✭blacklilly


    Grayson wrote: »
    Pro lifers see this as switching off the life support on two people. .


    I think you'll find many many pro-life people are not comfortable with this situation. I for one am not and I do not believe that this womans corpse should be kept on "life" support.

    Anyway, as I mentioned earlier, I am not here to be drawn into a pro life/pro choice discussion, it's not always possible to label a situation.


  • Options
    #963
    Cantremember
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,305 ✭✭✭Cantremember


    conorh91 wrote: »
    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.

    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.

    I'm pro-choice and opposed to the 1983 amendment, Sherlock.

    If you say so Robin.


  • Options
    #964
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    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.

    Talk about splitting hairs- if it is of limited relevance in it relevant.


  • Options
    #965
    RobertKK
    Registered Users Posts: 33,748 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    pmasterson95 wrote: »
    So finally you acknowledge that the 8th amendment is the reason that this farce has arose?

    If the machines are kept on after the Friday ruling I will say it is.
    If not, it means it should never have been used as a reason to keep the machines going.


  • Options
    #966
    pmasterson95
    Registered Users Posts: 3,074 ✭✭✭pmasterson95


    RobertKK wrote: »
    If the machines are kept on after the Friday ruling I will say it is.
    If not, it means it should never have been used as a reason to keep the machines going.

    ? Ok I went to complicated to fast.


    Up until now ie. the last 3 weeks what in your legal medical professional opinion has led to them leaving a corpse on life support? The craic or the 8th....what has stopped them making their decision....


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #967
    um7y1h83ge06nx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,029 ✭✭✭um7y1h83ge06nx


    It's very harsh to blame the doctors here. If they went ahead and switched off the machines and someone challenged it they could be in serious professional, and perhaps criminal, trouble. They would be accused by some of "murdering" a person aka the foetus.

    On the 26th the woman's family will hopefully get their wish granted.


  • Options
    #968
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    RobertKK wrote: »
    If the machines are kept on after the Friday ruling I will say it is.
    If not, it means it should never have been used as a reason to keep the machines going.

    What other choice did the doctors have? If they had let her and the baby go then they might have been facing serious consequences. They have to cover their own backs too. Another reason the 8th is not fit for purpose.


  • Options
    #969
    RobertKK
    Registered Users Posts: 33,748 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    pmasterson95 wrote: »
    ? Ok I went to complicated to fast.


    Up until now ie. the last 3 weeks what in your legal medical professional opinion has led to them leaving a corpse on life support? The craic or the 8th....what has stopped them making their decision....

    Bad judgement by doctors if they are turned off.
    Correct judgement by doctors if kept on.


  • Options
    #970
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    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.

    This is reaching the Alice in Wonderland proportions at this stage .

    Because the 8th amendment exists ( and by its very existence alone) it makes any judgement call now a legal one and not a medical one.

    The pro amendment people have shown they are more than willing to use the law so do you want to be the one making the call that such and such does not apply and finding yourself the centre of a court action thereafter .

    Your opinion or my opinion is meaningless and the medical profession have re-iterated this in case after case that the amendment alone is what counts .


  • Options
    #971
    mikom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,391 ✭✭✭✭mikom


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Bad judgement by doctors if they are turned off.
    Correct judgement by doctors if kept on.

    More like hamstrung and scared of their shite of being sued judgement (rightly so).


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #972
    conorh91
    Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    MrPudding wrote: »
    If you look at the submissions given to the court they asking for her to be allowed to die with dignity.

    And if you look at the argument made by counsel for the unborn, such rights (if a dead person can even be said to possess rights) rank lower to the right to life.
    marienbad wrote: »
    Talk about splitting hairs- if it is of limited relevance in it relevant.
    Well since you and others appear to argue that the 8th amendment is the source of all this trouble, I think it is relevant to point out the evidence which suggests we would have had the same legal obstacles if the amendment was never inserted.


  • Options
    #973
    BarneyThomas
    Registered Users Posts: 68 ✭✭BarneyThomas


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Bad judgement by doctors if they are turned off.
    Correct judgement by doctors if kept on.

    To be fair the Doctors on the scene and the experts that they have asked to help them are best suited to making any decision.
    It cant be argued that they are in a better position than anyone else to make the decision one way or the other.
    I doubt there is anybody on the internet whose experience of this situation or other similar situations can trump their expertise
    Nobody on the internet is qualified to second guess these people.


  • Options
    #974
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,371 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    RobertKK wrote: »
    If the machines are kept on after the Friday ruling I will say it is.
    If not, it means it should never have been used as a reason to keep the machines going.

    This assumes that a court is never actually needed to make a decision, only to confirm what should already be evident if people were doing their jobs correctly. That makes no sense. Doctors are doctors, not lawyers, of course they will have to refer questions beyond their legal competence for the court to decide.

    Otherwise they'd be lawyers, not doctors.


  • Options
    #975
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    conorh91 wrote: »
    And if you look at the argument made by counsel for the unborn, such rights (if a dead person can even be said to possess rights) rank lower to the right to life.

    Well since you and others appear to argue that the 8th amendment is the source of all this trouble, I think it is relevant to point out the evidence which suggests we would have had the same legal obstacles if the amendment was never inserted.

    How do you know that ? If it wasn't for the amendment we wouldn't even know about these cases . How do you think we managed for 40 years ?

    Medical decision were made locally by the doctors and family, that's how and no one any the wiser.


  • Options
    #976
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,371 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    BarneyThomas wrote: »
    To be fair the Doctors on the scene and the experts that they have asked to help them are best suited to making any decision.
    It cant be argued that they are in a better position than anyone else to make the decision one way or the other.
    I doubt there is anybody on the internet whose experience of this situation or other similar situations can trump their expertise
    Nobody on the internet is qualified to second guess these people.

    Oh you're back! I asked you some days ago, since you claim to be a doctor, what your opinion was about the likelihood that the young woman was refused a CAT scan which may have allowed earlier diagnosis of the brain cyst that killed her. Apparently this was because she was pregnant.
    Any chance then, as a doctor, of your views about the allegation here that this young woman was initially refused a CAT scan because these are not recommended for pregnant women? Possible? Likely? Utterly unimaginable that a pregnant woman would be refused possibly life-saving procedures because her fetus' wellbeing was given priority over her own health?

    (front page of the ST) http://cf.broadsheet.ie/wp-content/u...t-13.32.29.png

    Any chance of an answer this time?


  • Options
    #977
    conorh91
    Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    marienbad wrote: »
    How do you know that ?
    Because of two Supreme Court cases in the 1970s.
    If it wasn't for the amendment we wouldn't even know about these cases
    How do you know that?


  • Options
    #978
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    conorh91 wrote: »
    Because of two Supreme Court cases in the 1970s.

    How do you know that?

    Do really think that in the first 50 years of the state there were no difficult cases and we never even heard about them ?

    What 1970's cases are those ? The ones brought by Binchy et al ?


  • Options
    #979
    Annabella1
    Registered Users Posts: 640 ✭✭✭Annabella1


    Irish Times summed it up perfectly.
    We are ventilating a corpse because we have failed to deal with issues
    Day 21 on a ventilator
    awful


  • Options
    #980
    conorh91
    Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    marienbad wrote: »
    Do really think that in the first 50 years of the state there were no difficult case
    There were plenty of difficult cases in the first 50 years of the State, I assume.

    I don't believe there was a case of a brain-stem dead woman being maintained on life support while pregnant in the first 50 years of the State, however.

    If you think that a country that saw no place in the Christian constitution for homosexual sex, was willing to find liberal abortion rights in the constitution, then you're not only ignoring the dicta of the Supreme Court in 1974 and 1980, you're also avoiding common sense.


  • Options
    #981
    Strazdas
    Registered Users Posts: 18,536 ✭✭✭✭Strazdas


    Annabella1 wrote: »
    Irish Times summed it up perfectly.
    We are ventilating a corpse because we have failed to deal with issues
    Day 21 on a ventilator
    awful

    "Failed to deal with" would be the understatement of the century. They've had over 30 years to sort out this almighty mess and have failed to do so quite spectacularly : it seems everyone is still afraid of the religious fanatics.

    Meanwhile every other country in Europe seems to have come up with sensible and practical legislation but we're still pandering to the nutjobs.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #982
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    conorh91 wrote: »
    There were plenty of difficult cases in the first 50 years of the State, I assume.

    I don't believe there was a case of a brain-stem dead woman being maintained on life support while pregnant in the first 50 years of the State, however.

    If you think that a country that saw no place in the Christian constitution for homosexual sex, was willing to find liberal abortion rights in the constitution, then you're not only ignoring the dicta of the Supreme Court in 1974 and 1980, you're also avoiding common sense.

    And you are deliberately missing my point and not answering my question.

    Who said anything about liberal abortion rights ? None of these cases , not this one , the Savita case , none of them would have arisen if that amendment had never been put in the constitution.


  • Options
    #983
    ProfessorPlum
    Registered Users Posts: 1,806 ✭✭✭ProfessorPlum


    conorh91 wrote: »
    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.

    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.

    I'm pro-choice and opposed to the 1983 amendment, Sherlock.

    The AG would never have heard of any such case. The case would have been delt with on it's medical merits.
    I have never heard any doctor who practiced prior to 1983 mention any such dilemma.
    I think you don't really understand what doctors believe they are tasked in doing.
    Maintaining a corpse on life support when there is little to no hope of a successful outcome for the foetus is not something the vast majority, if not all, feel is right.


  • Options
    #984
    conorh91
    Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    marienbad wrote: »
    none of them would have arisen if that amendment had never been put in the constitution.
    You're so wrong, and it has been pointed out so many times at this stage, that any reply would be a cut-and-paste job.

    This case could have arisen in any jurisdiction that grants even the most minimal of rights to the unborn. It may well have done so.

    Most people are completely misinterpreting this situation, buit if this thread has taught me anything, it's to never try change anyone's mind in the middle of a sh1tstorm. People will set their face against pretty obvious facts every time.

    And with that, Happy Christmas.


  • Options
    #985
    ProfessorPlum
    Registered Users Posts: 1,806 ✭✭✭ProfessorPlum


    conorh91 wrote: »
    You're so wrong, and it has been pointed out so many times at this stage, that any reply would be a cut-and-paste job.

    This case could have arisen in any jurisdiction that grants even the most minimal of rights to the unborn. It may well have done so.

    Most people are completely misinterpreting this situation, buit if this thread has taught me anything, it's to never try change anyone's mind in the middle of a sh1tstorm. People will set their face against pretty obvious facts every time.

    And with that, Happy Christmas.

    Conor, ask the doctors who have to deal with it. Some of them were practicing before 1983. Ask them what they think. Then come back and tell us all.


  • Options
    #986
    BarneyThomas
    Registered Users Posts: 68 ✭✭BarneyThomas


    volchitsa wrote: »
    Oh you're back! I asked you some days ago, since you claim to be a doctor, what your opinion was about the likelihood that the young woman was refused a CAT scan which may have allowed earlier diagnosis of the brain cyst that killed her. Apparently this was because she was pregnant.



    Any chance of an answer this time?

    Yes, ive been away and im in the airport waiting for my flight home.
    I dont spend a lot of time on the web unless im in an airport lounge or similar tbh. So no. Im not always reading everything on the web. So sorry if you feel im not giving you the attention you want.

    Your link doesnt work.

    Im not familiar with the actual reason this woman was refused a CAT scan. It would be up to the Doctors. Also at the point of getting the scan the Operator may advise against it and it wont get done.

    With hindsight, often it becomes obvious that a certain test or procedure could have helped someone had it been done at an earlier time. But at the time the decision was made it would have been ruled out for perfectly valid logical reasons.

    Pregnant women have had cat scans that i know of, but it would be extraordinary circumstances. Like a head injury, stroke, medical history etc.
    I dont know how this woman presented.

    Only the Doctors who were treating this woman at the time can tell you whether they saw a need for a cat scan. Maybe they had other priorities in treating her at the time. Im not qualified to second guess them as i have not seen the patient or the records.


  • Options
    #987
    pmasterson95
    Registered Users Posts: 3,074 ✭✭✭pmasterson95


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Bad judgement by doctors if they are turned off.
    Correct judgement by doctors if kept on.

    I give up logic has no place talking with you


  • Options
    #988
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    conorh91 wrote: »
    You're so wrong, and it has been pointed out so many times at this stage, that any reply would be a cut-and-paste job.

    This case could have arisen in any jurisdiction that grants even the most minimal of rights to the unborn. It may well have done so.

    Most people are completely misinterpreting this situation, buit if this thread has taught me anything, it's to never try change anyone's mind in the middle of a sh1tstorm. People will set their face against pretty obvious facts every time.

    And with that, Happy Christmas.

    Yeah, cut and run . How is it we never had any of these cases in the first 50 years of the state ?

    How is it that these cases never arise in any other comparable jurisdiction so ? just more and more of them in this jurisdiction and each one more extreme than the last and every single horror story that we were assured would not arise has done so .

    You are the one setting your face against obvious facts , but then again there are none so blind as those that will not see.

    I just hope I get to live long enough to vote repealing this ****e and give people back their privacy in the most intimate moments of their lives.


  • Options
    #989
    pmasterson95
    Registered Users Posts: 3,074 ✭✭✭pmasterson95


    conorh91 wrote: »
    You're so wrong, and it has been pointed out so many times at this stage, that any reply would be a cut-and-paste job.

    This case could have arisen in any jurisdiction that grants even the most minimal of rights to the unborn. It may well have done so.

    Most people are completely misinterpreting this situation, buit if this thread has taught me anything, it's to never try change anyone's mind in the middle of a sh1tstorm. People will set their face against pretty obvious facts every time.

    And with that, Happy Christmas.
    And even more times YOU have been shown facts that the amendment is quite obviously to blame through simple logic. Just because you dont understand common sense doesnt mean you are right


  • Options
    #990
    pmasterson95
    Registered Users Posts: 3,074 ✭✭✭pmasterson95


    marienbad wrote: »
    Yeah, cut and run . How is it we never had any of these cases in the first 50 years of the state ?

    How is it that these cases never arise in any other comparable jurisdiction so ? just more and more of them in this jurisdiction and each one more extreme than the last and every single horror story that we were assured would not arise has done so .

    You are the one setting your face against obvious facts , but then again there are none so blind as those that will not see.

    I just hope I get to live long enough to vote repealing this ****e and give people back their privacy in the most intimate moments of their lives.

    Wait for conor to say there is complete privacy.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #991
    BarneyThomas
    Registered Users Posts: 68 ✭✭BarneyThomas


    marienbad wrote: »
    Yeah, cut and run . How is it we never had any of these cases in the first 50 years of the state ?

    How is it that these cases never arise in any other comparable jurisdiction so ? just more and more of them in this jurisdiction and each one more extreme than the last and every single horror story that we were assured would not arise has done so .

    You are the one setting your face against obvious facts , but then again there are none so blind as those that will not see.

    I just hope I get to live long enough to vote repealing this ****e and give people back their privacy in the most intimate moments of their lives.

    How long do you think we have had the ability to support a brain dead patient in Ireland? :)
    Just kidding.

    But seriously though.
    With the caveat that the doctors involved are really the only ones qualified to advise on any future course of action, what would your reaction be if a reasonably healthy baby was born in 3 months or so?

    Would you then change your opinion that these machines should have been switched off?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement