Clinicaly dead pregnant woman on life support

Strazdas

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.

The simple answer is that every other country in Europe has legislated sensibly and practically in regards to the issue of the unborn, particularly with reference to the rights of the pregnant mother. For some bizarre reason, we in Ireland have been taking our cue for decades from the right wing religious zealots and their absolute obsession with the "rights" of the unborn.

ebbsy

Let the woman rest in peace, we all owe her that.

pmasterson95

Strazdas wrote: »

The simple answer is that every other country in Europe has legislated sensibly and practically in regards to the issue of the unborn, particularly with reference to the rights of the pregnant mother. For some bizarre reason, we in Ireland have been taking our cue for decades from the right wing religious zealots and their absolute obsession with the "rights" of the unborn.

And the idea that a lump of cells that is not even human yet takes precedence and deserves more respect than the incubator containing them.

marienbad

BarneyThomas wrote: »

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?

Not avoiding your question but there is no point in positing these hypothetical questions.

Why not just do what best practice dictates , and in every other comparable country the machine would have been turned off on day I and only the doctors and the family would have an input into that decision.

BarneyThomas

marienbad wrote: »

Not avoiding your question but there is no point in positing these hypothetical questions.

Why not just do what best practice dictates , and in every other comparable country the machine would have been turned off on day I and only the doctors and the family would have an input into that decision.

Thats the answer I expected.
Hard question isnt it. And its an answer that a lot of people would find difficult if asked in a few months time if a baby were born.

Strazdas

pmasterson95 wrote: »

And the idea that a lump of cells that is not even human yet takes precedence and deserves more respect than the incubator containing them.

I'm sure every country in Europe has a strong pro-life movement which is absolutely fine, and that were would be extreme religious elements at the fringes of such movements. But in every other country, such people would simply be ignored because their solutions were too extreme and unworkable . Bizarrely in Ireland, we have been taking our cue from the religious fanatics for decades and have been terrified of enacting proper legislation for fear of offending them.

Stheno

Strazdas wrote: »

The simple answer is that every other country in Europe has legislated sensibly and practically in regards to the issue of the unborn, particularly with reference to the rights of the pregnant mother. For some bizarre reason, we in Ireland have been taking our cue for decades from the right wing religious zealots and their absolute obsession with the "rights" of the unborn.

Not quite Malta outlaws any abortion without exception and appear to consider that life begins at conception

Sh1tbag OToole

I really hope this clinicaly dead person makes a miraculous recovery for Christmas day and lives to see all the palavour that was had about her and gets all the legal professionals who are making a fortune off this case to f*ck off home.

How often do these type of people come back to life? Surely the odd one does.

Shrap

BarneyThomas wrote: »

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?

No. Of course not. The foetus should be dead already, and I have less sympathy for a non-sentient undeveloped human than I have for an adult human's dignity in death.....as it turns out. Who knew we'd be having to ask ourselves that eh?

Interesting though, that the myriad abuses of living women's bodies by virtue of the 8th amendment have not been enough to stir people into examining what it means to them. We had to wait for the desecration of a corpse before people are sufficiently shocked at what it means to hold a foetus in such regard.

volchitsa

BarneyThomas wrote: »

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.

There's nothing particular in the link, it was a scan of the front page where the allegation as made.

So you are saying that it isn't true that she was refused a CAT scan because of the risk to her baby? Or that if she was refused for that reason, then that would appear to be malpractice?

marienbad

BarneyThomas wrote: »

Thats the answer I expected.
Hard question isnt it. And its an answer that a lot of people would find difficult if asked in a few months time if a baby were born.

No I don't find it a hard question at all, just irrelevant . Those sort of conundrums are meaningless in the real world. Much like the torture question.

In the medical world we should treat the case in front of and not some future possibility.

Shrap

Sh1tbag OToole wrote: »

I really hope this clinicaly dead person makes a miraculous recovery for Christmas day and lives to see all the palavour that was had about her and gets all the legal professionals who are making a fortune off this case to f*ck off home.

How often do these type of people come back to life? Surely the odd one does.

Listen mate, giving you the benefit of not actually living up to your name, have you even read the details of this poor dead woman's bodily changes since death? It wouldn't be too much of a stretch for you to do that and then come back with some respect for the dreadfully serious situation at hand.

BarneyThomas

marienbad wrote: »

No I don't find it a hard question at all, just irrelevant . Those sort of conundrums are meaningless in the real world. Much like the torture question.

In the medical world we should treat the case in front of and not some future possibility.

If thats the way you want to play it then so be it. But if there is a child born here that will be the killer blow to any referenda for a long long time.

volchitsa

BarneyThomas wrote: »

Thats the answer I expected.
Hard question isnt it. And its an answer that a lot of people would find difficult if asked in a few months time if a baby were born.

I so hope you aren't really a doctor! There isn't going to be a healthy baby in this case, and the outcome for any fetus in a brain dead woman for any length of time is dismal.

OTOH, it could well be the Opus Dei chapter of the Beaumont medical fraternity that went running to the lawyers to prevent the considered medical advice of the neurologist from being carried out, so it's always possible, unfortunately.

What is really worrying is that you think the wishes of the family are unlikely to have been in the best interests of their family members, including their unborn child/grandchild. Such arrogance.

Shrap

volchitsa wrote: »

I so hope you aren't really a doctor! There isn't going to be a healthy baby in this case, and the outcome for any fetus in a brain dead woman for any length of time is dismal.

He can't be a doctor. If there's one thing a doctor is careful not to do, it's get whimsical about hypothetical outcomes. I think most of them learn that in doctor school. Also, the lack of comprehension about the actual prognosis for the foetus is a bit of a give-away.

BarneyThomas

volchitsa wrote: »

I so hope you aren't really a doctor! There isn't going to be a healthy baby in this case, and the outcome for any fetus in a brain dead woman for any length of time is dismal.

OTOH, it could well be the Opus Dei chapter of the Beaumont medical fraternity that went running to the lawyers to prevent the considered medical advice of the neurologist from being carried out, so it's always possible, unfortunately.

What is really worrying is that you think the wishes of the family are unlikely to have been in the best interests of their family members, including their unborn child/grandchild. Such arrogance.

There may not be a healthy baby.
I dont know the actual situation, so Im not qualified to give any opinion on the possible outcome. Are you?

And I dont know how disabled a baby would be if it was born. "Healthy" is relative term too.

eviltwin

BarneyThomas wrote: »

If thats the way you want to play it then so be it. But if there is a child born here that will be the killer blow to any referenda for a long long time.

How likely do you think that is to happen given the continuing deterioration of the mother? Even if the child is born what kind of issues will he or she have? Life at all costs is not the only concern, quality of life is also relevant or should be.

volchitsa

Shrap wrote: »

He can't be a doctor. If there's one thing a doctor is careful not to do, it's get whimsical about hypothetical outcomes. I think most of them learn that in doctor school. Also, the lack of comprehension about the actual prognosis for the foetus is a bit of a give-away.

Yeah, it's been absolutely obvious pretty much from the start that he's a complete spoofer. He wouldn't be speculating about there being a possibly healthy baby in a few months, for one thing, when we know that has been excluded by the medical team who know the details.

UrbanFret

It should never have been allowed to go this far. Am I right in thinking this poor woman is decomposing or at the very least morphing into something totally unhuman because of the process she is being forced through.

volchitsa

BarneyThomas wrote: »

There may not be a healthy baby.
I dont know the actual situation, so Im not qualified to give any opinion on the possible outcome.

No, so why do you feel qualified to contradict the medical advice given the family by the doctors who looked after her?

Stheno

UrbanFret wrote: »

It should never have been allowed to go this far. Am I right in thinking this poor woman is decomposing or at the very least morphing into something totally unhuman because of the process she is being forced through.

Yes

ShadyLane

BarneyThomas wrote: »

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.

It doesn't necessarily require an extraordinary circumstance for a pregnant woman to have a CT scan (what doctor calls it a "cat scan"?) It would be fairly routine for women presenting with signs/symptoms of a pulmonary embolus to have a CT pulmonary angiography (CT of lungs/thorax) to exclude a clot. This happens daily in major maternity hospitals - women would be sent to general hospitals to undergo CT. Clinical evidence of significant brain pathology would certainly meet the criteria for obtaining CT while pregnant.

I'm surprised that it took the length of time it did for the woman to undergo any brain imaging, if that's how it actually happened. An MRI Brain would have been a safe alternative, though perhaps it wasn't available in the hospital that she initially presented to. It's hard to judge her management when none of us were there.

Terribly sad case, and hopefully will spur some change in this country. Thoughts with her family and friends.

ProfessorPlum

BarneyThomas wrote: »

If thats the way you want to play it then so be it. But if there is a child born here that will be the killer blow to any referenda for a long long time.

This from the same poster who stated that the prognosis for the baby was the same as for a premature birth, and it was just a matter of keeping the mother on life support until viability was reached? Who has absolutely no comprehension of what it means to support a brain dead patient and the added complexity that is involved? And who can't even read an article in a medical journal and make a reasonable deduction?

Yeah, I hope to God he's a spoofer. He's not exactly done his noble profession proud if he's for real.

BarneyThomas

Shrap wrote: »

He can't be a doctor. If there's one thing a doctor is careful not to do, it's get whimsical about hypothetical outcomes. I think most of them learn that in doctor school. Also, the lack of comprehension about the actual prognosis for the foetus is a bit of a give-away.

Would it matter whether I was a Doctor or not?
I dont have any inside info on the case, so what difference.
Im quite happy for you to assume im not. I only mentioned it before in reference to one of saying they had more info on this case, saying im a doc but i cant seem to get more info on it.

I have given you my opinion and asked questions of you that you all refuse to answer because you know exactly what you would have to answer.
Those question have obviously touched some sore points, as they were meant to do, and cut through the false compassion that some are spouting.

Read the venom from yourselves. Accusing me of this and that and then ganging up like children and backing each other up with more venom.
Its disgusting. But your showing you're true colours now.

Strazdas

UrbanFret wrote: »

It should never have been allowed to go this far. Am I right in thinking this poor woman is decomposing or at the very least morphing into something totally unhuman because of the process she is being forced through.

Apparently it is unheard of in any country to keep a person alive for weeks like this and against the wishes of her family. This poor woman and her family are the victims of "Irish law".....it's really an obscenity.

ProfessorPlum

BarneyThomas wrote: »

Would it matter whether I was a Doctor or not?
I dont have any inside info on the case, so what difference.
Im quite happy for you to assume im not. I only mentioned it before in reference to one of saying they had more info on this case, saying im a doc but i cant seem to get more info on it.

I have given you my opinion and asked questions of you that you all refuse to answer because you know exactly what you would have to answer.
Those question have obviously touched some sore points, as they were meant to do, and cut through the false compassion that some are spouting.

Read the venom from yourselves. Accusing me of this and that and then ganging up like children and backing each other up with more venom.
Its disgusting. But your showing your true colours now.

What questions? I tried to point of the error of your reasoning the other night but you decided that i had been 'utterly discredited' and should be 'left to my own musings'. You seem to be unable to see the gaps in your own knowledge in the area, yet are happy to pontificate to others.

The answer to your difficult question is easy. Decisions in each case should be left up the doctors and the family involved. They are the ones who know the exact circumstance and who likely know the best course of action.

BarneyThomas

ShadyLane wrote: »

It doesn't necessarily require an extraordinary circumstance for a pregnant woman to have a CT scan (what doctor calls it a "cat scan"?) It would be fairly routine for women presenting with signs/symptoms of a pulmonary embolus to have a CT pulmonary angiography (CT of lungs/thorax) to exclude a clot. This happens daily in major maternity hospitals - women would be sent to general hospitals to undergo CT. Clinical evidence of significant brain pathology would certainly meet the criteria for obtaining CT while pregnant.

I'm surprised that it took the length of time it did for the woman to undergo any brain imaging, if that's how it actually happened. An MRI Brain would have been a safe alternative, though perhaps it wasn't available in the hospital that she initially presented to. It's hard to judge her management when none of us were there.

Terribly sad case, and hopefully will spur some change in this country. Thoughts with her family and friends.

You can call it whatever you want. I usually just say "scan". I said "CAT" scan because the poster referred to it as such.

So. tell me. How did the woman present? You dont know do you? So how could you possibly say why or why not she would be sent for it. Only the Doctors who saw her can tell you whats behind their decision.

To look up the internet and then pretend you know what you are talking about is highly disrespectful to those Doctors who treated her dont you think.
Or have you already hung, drawn and quartered them based on your limited knowledge gleaned from the newspapers and the internet about the case?

marienbad

BarneyThomas wrote: »

If thats the way you want to play it then so be it. But if there is a child born here that will be the killer blow to any referenda for a long long time.

I don't understand ? What do you mean ''If that is how you want to play it '' ?

You might think these hypotheticals are difficult and interesting ,I don't , they are just a variation on the 'if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle'' joke .

You might as well ask - what if we hadn't bailed out the banks or elected Bertie that final time or if Mick McCartney realized Spain were down to 10 men .

BarneyThomas

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

What questions? I tried to point of the error of your reasoning the other night but you decided that i had been 'utterly discredited' and should be 'left to my own musings'. You seem to be unable to see the gaps in your own knowledge in the area, yet are happy to pontificate to others.

The answer to your difficult question is easy. Decisions in each case should be left up the doctors and the family involved. They are the ones who know the exact circumstance and who likely know the best course of action.

First you say what questions, then you say "to anaswer your question"
Make up your mind.

you knew nothing of the case the other night. How on earth could you point out anything? You were just bull****ting as usual.

And then you quote me exactly (in bold) as if you are refuting me.
I find you amusing tbh.

ProfessorPlum

BarneyThomas wrote: »

You can call it whatever you want. I usually just say "scan". I said "CAT" scan because the poster referred to it as such.

So. tell me. How did the woman present? You dont know do you? So how could you possibly say why or why not she would be sent for it. Only the Doctors who saw her can tell you whats behind their decision.

To look up the internet and then pretend you know what you are talking about is highly disrespectful to those Doctors who treated her dont you think.
Or have you already hung, drawn and quartered them based on your limited knowledge gleaned from the newspapers and the internet about the case?

That's quite funny on all sorts of levels! Firstly, you maintain that you know what you are talking about and yet have proved yourself to be so spectacularly wrong.

Secondly, I think ShadyLane might have a little more medical qualification than you think.