Clinicaly dead pregnant woman on life support

WomanSkirtFan8

Augmerson wrote: »

Dunno what to say to that. Jesus christ, just awful. My thoughts are with her family.

Same goes for me. That's an absolutely awful situation for them to be in. my heart goes out to her family and relatives.

BarneyThomas

This thread is turning into a personal attack on me isnt it.
What can i say.
You point out to people that they are making comments based on knowledge that only the doctors treating the patient have at the moment and they get all personal.

I think its time to take a break and enjoy Christmas. you've really shown your true colours on this one.

ProfessorPlum

BarneyThomas wrote: »

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.

You're great entertainment tonight. Really.

What did I say that was wrong? Did the medical experts in court not agree with what I had said about these cases in general?
Thought so.

Cantremember

marienbad wrote: »

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

Of course he is. He thinks this is about pseudo legal posturing on boards and putting theoretical constructs forward. Classic nonsense and wonderful evidence that lawyers should be kept out of practically everything.

Shrap

BarneyThomas wrote: »

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.

I have already answered your question "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?", here:

Shrap wrote: »

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, so do most of the country. 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.

ShadyLane

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?

You're contradicting yourself a bit there, or at the least misinterpreting what I wrote. Notice I said that we can't judge her management when none of us where there. I would never attempt to question the judgment any reasonable doctor (which the vast majority are), especially if I had such limited information on the case.

I feel terribly for anyone involved in this lady's case, but not as badly as I feel for her family. I think nitpicking over details of her initial management is inappropriate at this place in time. There will undoubtably be a large retrospective case review at hospital and national levels, and I'll happily leave it in the hands of the experts involved.

shruikan2553

What I found strange about the thread was how people were able to accept the doctors opinions on the woman but not on the fetus. (Before they commented on the extent of the damage done)

Drdoc

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.

Don't worry, it was very obvious many many pages back that he wasn't a doctor when he appeared to have absolutely no idea of what's involved in life support and no comprehension of the effects that all this would have on the foetus.

Aineoil

ShadyLane wrote: »

Y
I feel terribly for anyone involved in this lady's case, but not as badly as I feel for her family. I think nitpicking over details of her initial management is inappropriate at this place in time. There will undoubtably be a large retrospective case review at hospital and national levels, and I'll happily leave it in the hands of the experts involved.

I feel horrible for the family as well.

I'd love an expert to come on boards and explain the many outcomes whatever may happen.

The poor young woman died in early December and yet there will be no decision until St Stephen's Day.

Again I wonder why this has been made public - desperate Christmas for her family.

bodice ripper

bogwalrus wrote: »

Stop trolling please.

You are the one who jumped up and down about justifications. You changed your tune when the article came out, because you got your justification. If find your opinions monstrous. Stop accusing me of trolling, just because I don't see things the way you do, or because the revelations were a chastening experience after your earlier posts. You dug your own hole there.

Holsten

Typical Irish response to this, messed up by all counts.

Absolutely mental, let the women go.

Shrap

Aineoil wrote: »

I feel horrible for the family as well.

I'd love an expert to come on boards and explain the many outcomes whatever may happen.

The poor young woman died in early December and yet there will be no decision until St Stephen's Day.

Again I wonder why this has been made public - desperate Christmas for her family.

I'm no expert, but Shady lane seems to be about as expert as you're going to get in this thread IMO. To my knowledge, no doctor can explain the many outcomes of whatever may happen, as they're in uncharted territory by keeping a dead woman from decaying to the extent that would be natural for this long, in order to keep a foetus alive. Use your imagination, but try not to imagine a good outcome is my advice.

What makes you wonder why this has become public? There was no other way for it to go when the health care decisions that would normally be taken when a person is brain dead could not be taken because of the living foetus inside her. This means it automatically becomes a matter for the courts to decide and not the doctors, as our crappy constitutional 8th amendment says that a foetus has the right to life that must be upheld as far as practicable. Hence the machines are still going.

drkpower

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

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.

While Conor has ran off, he does actually raise an arguable point (that the unborn, even pre1983 , had a right to life and that that right to life trumps those of a dead person). That is an argument that I have no doubt the unborn's lawyer raised today, so Conor isn't totally hopeless in his arguments.

However, to suggest that that argument is a slam dunk, and to suggest that the 8th amendment is not directly relevant to this case is an utter nonsense for a number of reasons:

1. First, while Conor may have an argument, that is all it is, a legal argument. While there is an argument that the constitution gave an implicit right to life to the unborn (at least one of any real teeth) pre - 1983, it is a weak one. After all, the very reason for the 8th amendment was the concern that a future Supreme Court would find that the family right to privacy outweighed any unborn right to life that may exist. To suggest that the court, in this case, will certainly favour Conor's analysis is fanciful.

2. The suggestion that the doctors treating this lady would have brought this to the lawyers in the absence of the 8th amendment is an utter nonsense. The suggestion that they would have even known of Conor's argument is ludicrous. Simply put, the only reason they paused before ending life support was because of the 8th amendment. If it makes any difference, I say this as a former practising doctor.

3. The 8th amendment is a real life issue in this case, being argued by the various parties. At least some of the many lawyers before the court don't seem to share Conor's misplaced certainty.

4. Conor's argument relies on the rights of the mother being nil because she has died. Mr Pudding has already raised the very reasonable argument that the corollary of the right to life is the right to die with dignity (a right already recognised by the courts). To suggest that the right to die with dignity ceases the second you are declared dead is patently nonsense', for reasons too obvious to elaborate upon.

So while Conor has an argument in there somewhere, the majority in the thread were right to pillory him. And he was probably right to run!

pmasterson95

drkpower wrote: »

While Conor has ran off, he does actually raise an arguable point (that the unborn, even pre1983 , had a right to life and that that right to life trumps those of a dead person). That is an argument that I have no doubt the unborn's lawyer raised today, so Conor isn't totally hopeless in his arguments.

However, to suggest that the 8th amendment is not directly relevant to this case is an utter nonsense for a number of reasons:

1. First, while Conor may have an argument, that is all it is, a legal argument. While there is an argument that the constitution gave an implicit right to life to the unborn pre - 1983, it is a weak one. After all, the very reason for the 8th amendment was the concern that a future Supreme Court would find that the family right to privacy outweighed any unborn right to life that may exist. To suggest that the court, in this case, will certainly favour Conor's analysis is fanciful.

2. The suggestion that the doctors treating this lady would have brought this to the lawyers in the absence of the 8th amendment is an utter nonsense. The suggestion that they would have even known of Conor's argument is ludicrous. Simply put, the only reason they paused before ending life support was because of the 8th amendment. If it makes any difference, I say this as a former practising doctor.

3. The 8th amendment is a real life issue in this case, being argued by the various parties. At least some of the many lawyers before the court don't seem to share Conor's misplaced certainty.

4. Conor's argument relies on the rights of the mother being nil because she has died. Mr Pudding has already raised the very reasonable argument that the corollary of the right to life is the right to die with dignity (a right already recognised by the courts). To suggest that the right to die with dignity ceases the second you are declared dead is patently nonsense', for reasons too obvious to elaborate upon.

So while Conor has an argument in there somewhere, the majority in the thread were right to pillory him. And he was probably right to run!

He'll crawl back and reclimb his soapbox when he thinks the smart people have gone.

Flem31

I don't understand why the court announcement of the decision has been set for midday St Stephen's Day.
If the three judges have made up their mind already or do so before the appointed day, I would think the decent thing would be to let the family know immediately regardless of the decision.
Seems to me, an added layer of cruelty could be avoided

Stheno

Flem31 wrote: »

I don't understand why the court announcement of the decision has been set for midday St Stephen's Day.
If the three judges have made up their mind already or do so before the appointed day, I would think the decent thing would be to let the family know immediately regardless of the decision.
Seems to me, an added layer of cruelty could be avoided

They have to be given time to consider the range of arguments made in front of them.

I'd not want to be a judge in this case, especially at this time of year.

Flem31

Stheno wrote: »

They have to be given time to consider the range of arguments made in front of them.

I'd not want to be a judge in this case, especially at this time of year.

Oh I agree that they should be given time they need...........but if they come to a decision before Friday, then inform the family, rather than holding onto the legal niceties of delaying until the set preordained time of midday Friday.

I wouldn't like to be judging it either

Stheno

Flem31 wrote: »

Oh I agree that they should be given time they need...........but if they come to a decision before Friday, then inform the family, rather than holding onto the legal niceties of delaying until the set preordained time of midday Friday.

I wouldn't like to be judging it either

This is probably an awful thing to say, but having only one day to distill the very different arguments offered by all sides is very little time.

Annasopra

Flem31 wrote: »

Oh I agree that they should be given time they need...........but if they come to a decision before Friday, then inform the family, rather than holding onto the legal niceties of delaying until the set preordained time of midday Friday.

I wouldn't like to be judging it either

Its complex. The court sat on 23rd and 24th December with lawyers representing 5 different parties. I think they need a full day on the 25th to go through all of the case.

Sala

Out of curiosity, what would have happened if the doctors didn't pay heed to the 8th amendment or interpreted it differently? The family want the life support switched off, the doctors want it switched off... How would anyone have known and was there a risk of prosecution, or what exactly is the worry

Strazdas

Sala wrote: »

Out of curiosity, what would have happened if the doctors didn't pay heed to the 8th amendment or interpreted it differently? The family want the life support switched off, the doctors want it switched off... How would anyone have known and was there a risk of prosecution, or what exactly is the worry

That would exactly be the problem. If the doctor's turned off the life support, it would be in defiance of the laws of the State and they could even find themselves up on a murder or manslaughter charge.

Everyone is fully aware that Ireland's laws on the rights of the unborn are totally effed up and an utter nonsense, but the law is still in place.

Sala

Strazdas wrote: »

That would exactly be the problem. If the doctor's turned off the life support, it would be in defiance of the laws of the State and they could even find themselves up on a murder or manslaughter charge.

Everyone is fully aware that Ireland's laws on the rights of the unborn are totally effed up and an utter nonsense, but the law is still in place.

But who would know? I doubt the garda routinely examine files in hospitals? they'd have to be some way tipped off, think it warranted investigation, the DPP would have to assess if prosecution was worthwhile...

Lingua Franca

A leading neurologist, who cannot be named as he works at a hospital which cannot be identified under the terms of a court order, said he and colleagues had sought legal advice from authorities two days before the woman was declared dead on December 3, but none was forthcoming.

"We are not lawyers. We will, like all clinicians, err on the side of caution," said the consultant.

"We were three clinicians trying to figure out the eighth amendment."

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/pregnant-womans-life-support-should-be-turned-off-court-told-30860620.html

um7y1h83ge06nx

Sala wrote: »

But who would know? I doubt the garda routinely examine files in hospitals? they'd have to be some way tipped off, think it warranted investigation, the DPP would have to assess if prosecution was worthwhile...

Given that there are many hardcore pro life people in this country, it would be very risky, a colleague or someone working in the unit could dip a doctor in.

amdublin

I will be thinking of the woman's family, partner, friends and children and the poor lady herself today.

#notavessel

volchitsa

Sala wrote: »

But who would know? I doubt the garda routinely examine files in hospitals? they'd have to be some way tipped off, think it warranted investigation, the DPP would have to assess if prosecution was worthwhile...

For all we know, it may already have happened. You are right that by definition, we wouldn't know.

Wasn't there a case a decade or so ago where the life support was turned off without all that much ado? Maybe the details were different, I don't know, but it's interesting that the law may possibly have been ignored.

Still, it really wouldn't be fair to expect doctors to ignore the law as part of their job. There is the risk, every single time, of some extremist finding out and taking them to court.

And anyway, there's an important principle at stake : if the law is wrong, it needs to be changed, not broken.

Dubl07

Mina Defeated Mango wrote: »

Given that there are many hardcore pro life people in this country, it would be very risky, a colleague or someone working in the unit could dip a doctor in.

Nurse, doctor, orderly, disgruntled elf. Any one with a bee in their bonnet could destroy the career of the doctors doing the right thing.

Strazdas

Strazdas wrote: »

Everyone is fully aware that Ireland's laws on the rights of the unborn are totally effed up and an utter nonsense, but the law is still in place.

Totally. But all we'll get is another referendum with even more convoluted wording and we'll be back in the same position in no time at all.

The thing to do is take all references to abortion, rights to life etc out of the constitution and deal with things as ordinary laws, as our spineless politicians should have been doing through the past 50 years.

volchitsa

volchitsa wrote: »

Wasn't there a case a decade or so ago where the life support was turned off without all that much ado?.

Of course it must have happened before. Consider the numbers of women of child bearing age who die following thromboses, haemorrhages, car accidents etc. and its clear that the situation must have happened, perhaps many times.

I understand in this case the neurologists were about to switch off the life support as a medical decison when somebody else at the hospital brought in management who brought in lawyers, and here we are...

amdublin

Ruling is in.
machines can be turned off.