Clinicaly dead pregnant woman on life support

amdublin

Aongus Von Bismarck wrote: »

Why are you using hashtags on boards?

Because it emphasises a statement and gives people an example of a tag they can use on other social media.

Mint Sauce

So glad common sence has preveiled. Whilst would believe in the rights of the unborn, but with a prochoice slant, this would have created a major precident if had gone the other way, where who knows couod have ended if similar cases arose in the future.

Gael23

Sense has shone through and they can now rest in peace.
One must really feel for the family having endured this over the last 3 weeks and now today they have gotten their wish, but going forward Christmas time will come with sadness when it should be a happy and joyful time of year.

eviltwin

The right decision was made. Now the family can start to do what they should have been allowed to do weeks ago and bury their daughter and mourn their loss. The world will move on and we'll put this to the back of our minds but for this family the weeks of legal wrangling have probably caused long term emotional damage. I just hope that they are given every possible support now that they might need especially those children. I really hope as well that the usual talking heads from the forced birth groups have the cop on to keep their mouths shut about this. The family have suffered enough.

estudent

shamrock55 wrote: »

If the baby is still able to grow naturally inside her while she is on life support i think they should give the baby every chance to reach full term or as near as

I agree.

Only if there is someone that will give this child a good home.

If we are expecting the state to take responsibility, I feel sorry for this child.

The state has shown itself to be incompetent and abusive for many years and I can easily imagine this child being abandoned by the state just to satisfy some idiots with ignorant beliefs.

MrPudding

Annabella1 wrote: »

Thank god
Just hope that some Pro Life Organisation don't appeal it to the Supreme Court

Bad Laws make difficult cases
#repealthe8th

I doubt very much any pro-life group could appeal to the SC. In legal terms, they would have no standing or locus standi, in layman terms, it is none of their fcuking business.

MrP

MrPudding

RobertKK wrote: »

I was right, it had nothing to do with the 8th amendment so pro-choice can't use this terrible case for their own aims. It was about dignity in death.



btw the church's stance was she should have been allowed a dignified death.

The people who brought the 8th amendment into this from the HSE were wrong as I had suspected given the woman was dead.
Happy that her family got justice in this but it should have never been an issue in the first place, everyone is entitled to a natural dignified death.

You have a very strange view of things... Just because the court found that it was ok to turn the machine off does not in any way mean the 8th Amendment had nothing to do with this case. As as been pointed out to you, by posters in this very thread, and indeed by the expert witnesses in the case and by the judges hearing the case, the 8th had a lot to do with this case.

What is unfortunate is that this woman's parents and the doctors had to go to court to seek legal confirmation as to whether it not the 8th prevented the machines from being turned off. We're the 8th not in place it is extreme,y unlikely this case would even have arose. It is just unfortunate that they hadn't simply had a chat with you on December 3rd when you could have told them the 8th had nothing to do with it, rather than pitting the family through this torture and taking up three days of the courts times.. Might I suggest that perhaps you make yourself known to the hospitals so such inconveniences might be avoided in the future.

MrP

MrPudding

RobertKK wrote: »

Well it was daft of people who believed the 8th amendment was a reason to keep the machines going.

The 8th amendment didn't apply to a dead woman. It was about dignity in death, which is what I said it was about all along.

So while you might want the people who were right to stay quiet, you might look back and criticise those who were wrong, rather than those who were right.

But dignity in death, as mentioned before, is likely to be a negative right that flows from the positive right to life. One has a right to life, and it is generally considered, in some circumstances, that this extends to a right to a dignified death. Whist the mother wasp indeed dead, her right to a dignified death was being denied. This is not about giving right to a dead person, but allowing the right of the living person to be given force. By artificially keeping this woman 'alive' her right to a dignified death was being denied.

MrP

blacklilly

spurious wrote: »

The 8th amendment gives a tiny clump of cells the same right to life as me an adult woman. That is obscene. It was a ridiculous amendment in the first place and still is now. It needs to go (and quickly).

Have you read the reports from the court? It was clearly stated that this situation was not one about the 8th amendment.

While I understand many wish for the 8th amendment to be removed, this case did not involve this amendment.

It would be advisable to not use this case to further a political movement.

I'd like to also add that the vitriol being spouted on this thread towards people who are considered pro life is truly disgusting and resorting to the common insults used does nothing to further any discussion and in fact just stunts discussion/debate on this matter. (Spurious I'm not directing this comment towards you).

There are fundamentalists on both sides of the fence but most people don't fit into the fundamentalists category, it's be nice to see a common line of respect shown.

I'm very happy that this decision has been made by the high court and my thoughts are and will remain with this family

The Bould Rabbit

Good to see Irish judges making a sensible decision. Doesn't happen very often.

MrPudding

blacklilly wrote: »

Have you read the reports from the court? It was clearly stated that this situation was not one about the 8th amendment.

While I understand many wish for the 8th amendment to be removed, this case did not involve this amendment.

It would be advisable to not use this case to further a political movement.

Really? "However, doctors refused to turn off the life support over concerns about the constitutional rights of her unborn child." This is from this article, but this has repeatedly been mentioned in many articles and by the witnesses in the high court. Where do you think the constitutional rights of the foetus that the medical team were worried about come from?

MrP

blacklilly

MrPudding wrote: »

Really? "However, doctors refused to turn off the life support over concerns about the constitutional rights of her unborn child." This is from this article, but this has repeatedly been mentioned in many articles and by the witnesses in the high court. Where do you think the constitutional rights of the foetus that the medical team were worried about come from?

MrP

I should have rephrased my post, the court confirmed that this this case was not one concerning the 8th amendment.

It is common for doctors to require legal clarification on various matters.

I'm not interested into getting into an arduous discussion on this matter as I respect that others have differing opinions to mine.

Teyla Emmagan

Common sense and compassion prevail. I am delighted for this poor woman's family, now this nightmare they have been living will end. There is hope for the country yet.

WomanSkirtFan8

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

Community sense and compassion prevail. I am delighted for this poor woman's family, now this nightmare they have been living will end. There is hope for the country yet.

agreed. As heartbreaking and awful as this situation is, it is the right decision in this case. Good to see that there is still some humanity and compassion around.

MrPudding

blacklilly wrote: »

Have you read the reports from the court? It was clearly stated that this situation was not one about the 8th amendment.

While I understand many wish for the 8th amendment to be removed, this case did not involve this amendment.

It would be advisable to not use this case to further a political movement.

You might want to read the actual judgement, it was almost entirely about the 8th.

MrP

SpaceTime

The Bould Rabbit wrote: »

Good to see Irish judges making a sensible decision. Doesn't happen very often.

Happens fairly regularly although not always. The problem is not with the courts, it's with the law.
*We* (or at least the people who proposed and voted in favour of the various constitutional amendments) tie the courts in knots around issues of to do with rights of the unborn etc etc.

Quite a chunk of our basic human rights law comes from progressive judgements that interpreted things into the constitution.

For example,in 1973 was ultimately a Supreme Court, not the Fianna Fail led Catholic Church puppet Government that managed to make contraception available by interpreting that a constitutional right to privacy within the marriage existed. That made condoms available, albeit with serious restrictions, in Ireland for the first time since 1935!

There are plenty of other examples of pretty progressive judgements by the courts, however there's nothing the court can do about the legislature and the citizenry deciding to pass laws based on religious dogma, laws they didn't think through the consequences of or constitutional amendments passed on waves of hysterical over-reaction.

If the law's an ass, there's very little the courts can do about it other than work within the "asinine framework" the state's given them.

There's no point in blaming judges for the errors of politicians and ultra-right wing voters in the 1970s and 80s.

The reality of it is that the Irish people voted for this stuff in a previous generation. If we want to change it, we can. The constitution can easily be amended, the Government just needs to be made aware of the fact that there's a demand that will result in them losing seats if they don't do it.

Matta Harri

I was actually on for keeping the woman on life support at the beginning of this. That was until I realised how far along she was in the pregnancy and what little chance the baby would have of surviving.

Glad it's over now for all involved. May she rest in peace.

volchitsa

Matta Harri wrote: »

I was actually on for keeping the woman on life support at the beginning of this. That was until I realised how far along she was in the pregnancy and what little chance the baby would have of surviving.

How about next time (because unfortunately there almost certainly will be a next time, with this disastrous law) you just assume that the family probably have more interest in the woman's welfare, and that of her unborn child, and you no longer feel entitled to go against their considered opinion?

Matta Harri wrote: »

Glad it's over now for all involved. May she rest in peace.

Agreed. RIP

RobertKK

MrPudding wrote: »

You have a very strange view of things... Just because the court found that it was ok to turn the machine off does not in any way mean the 8th Amendment had nothing to do with this case. As as been pointed out to you, by posters in this very thread, and indeed by the expert witnesses in the case and by the judges hearing the case, the 8th had a lot to do with this case.

What is unfortunate is that this woman's parents and the doctors had to go to court to seek legal confirmation as to whether it not the 8th prevented the machines from being turned off. We're the 8th not in place it is extreme,y unlikely this case would even have arose. It is just unfortunate that they hadn't simply had a chat with you on December 3rd when you could have told them the 8th had nothing to do with it, rather than pitting the family through this torture and taking up three days of the courts times.. Might I suggest that perhaps you make yourself known to the hospitals so such inconveniences might be avoided in the future.

MrP

I apologise my opinion on this being a dignity in death situation being correct.

"To maintain and continue the present somatic support for the mother would deprive her of dignity in death and subject her father, her partner and her young children to unimaginable distress in a futile exercise which commenced only because of fears held by treating medical specialists of potential consequences".

And it is that which came first as the mother was dead and the fears of the medical specialists was misplaced.
Today the ruling showed the 8th amendment didn't apply so I hope pro-choice people don't use her case for their appeal the 8th and give this family the privacy they deserve.

My opinion was correct and some just can't handle that, and that is all it was, my opinion was the 8th amendment was not an issue in turning the machines off, the courts agreed, so the problem was not the 8th amendment, the problem was the denial of a dignified death.

volchitsa

RobertKK wrote: »

I apologise my opinion on this being a dignity in death situation being correct.


And it is that which came first as the mother was dead and the fears of the medical specialists was misplaced.
Today the ruling showed the 8th amendment didn't apply so I hope pro-choice people don't use her case for their appeal the 8th and give this family the privacy they deserve.

My opinion was correct and some just can't handle that, and that is all it was, my opinion was the 8th amendment was not an issue in turning the machines off, the courts agreed, so the problem was not the 8th amendment, the problem was the denial of a dignified death.

So at what point, in your opinion, would the hospital have been justified in turning the life support off then?
Dec 3rd?
Or later?

What about the links telling us that babies had indeed survived in their brain dead mothers' wombs? Were they all wrong? How do you know they didn't apply here?

gctest50

RobertKK wrote: »

...........

My opinion was correct and some just can't handle that, and that is all it was, my opinion was the 8th amendment was not an issue in turning the machines off, the courts agreed, so the problem was not the 8th amendment, the problem was the denial of a dignified death.

and my opinion (and that of many more ) is a better one :

kick that 8th

legalise abortion - leaving decisions to those involved/the medical professionals - not to disturbed extremists

.

marienbad

RobertKK wrote: »

I apologise my opinion on this being a dignity in death situation being correct.


And it is that which came first as the mother was dead and the fears of the medical specialists was misplaced.
Today the ruling showed the 8th amendment didn't apply so I hope pro-choice people don't use her case for their appeal the 8th and give this family the privacy they deserve.

My opinion was correct and some just can't handle that, and that is all it was, my opinion was the 8th amendment was not an issue in turning the machines off, the courts agreed, so the problem was not the 8th amendment, the problem was the denial of a dignified death.

This is reaching ridiculous proportions at this stage - the only reason you can say in your opinion it was not the 8th amendment is a result of a court hearing . is that correct ?

Therefore if a court hearing was necessary to reach that conclusion then the 8th amendment was an issue . How can you deny that ?

This issue would not have arisen is the 8th amendment was not in the constitution - that is the question you need to focus on .

RobertKK

marienbad wrote: »

This is reaching ridiculous proportions at this stage - the only reason you can say in your opinion it was not the 8th amendment is a result of a court hearing . is that correct ?

Therefore if a court hearing was necessary to reach that conclusion then the 8th amendment was an issue . How can you deny that ?

This issue would not have arisen is the 8th amendment was not in the constitution - that is the question you need to focus on .

But the reality is it was not an issue, otherwise the machines would still be operating in this case.

The court hearing was from bad judgement as they applied a law to a dead person where it didn't apply when it came to her right to a dignified death.

marienbad

RobertKK wrote: »

But the reality is it was not an issue, otherwise the machines would still be operating in this case.

The court hearing was from bad judgement as they applied a law to a dead person where it didn't apply when it came to her right to a dignified death.

I cannot believe someone is being this obtuse - the very presence of the amendment makes these court cases inevitable.

RobertKK

volchitsa wrote: »

So at what point, in your opinion, would the hospital have been justified in turning the life support off then?
Dec 3rd?
Or later?

What about the links telling us that babies had indeed survived in their brain dead mothers' wombs? Were they all wrong? How do you know they didn't apply here?

When she was declared brain dead.

We know at what stages the unborn can survive outside the womb and we know people are entitled to a dignified death.
In this case the unborn couldn't survive and the woman was denied a dignified death.

RobertKK

marienbad wrote: »

I cannot believe someone is being this obtuse - the very presence of the amendment makes these court cases inevitable.

It was wrong of anyone to apply law to a dead person. There was no equal right to life when the mother was already dead. It would be like putting a miscarried baby on life support when the poor child is dead using the 8th amendment to say both have the right to life and just using machines to enact a law.
This is the situation in reverse, it was no surprise the 8th amendment didn't apply and was not the real issue in all of this, it was the right to a dignified death.

JupiterKid

The right decision was made. Now the poor woman can rest in peace. There was really no chance the foetus could have survived. The 1983 Amendment was voted in a very different, less progressive Ireland and should be overturned.

marienbad

RobertKK wrote: »

It was wrong of anyone to apply law to a dead person. There was no equal right to life when the mother was already dead. It would be like putting a miscarried baby on life support when the poor child is dead using the 8th amendment to say both have the right to life and just using machines to enact a law.
This is the situation in reverse, it was no surprise the 8th amendment didn't apply and was not the real issue in all of this, it was the right to a dignified death.

Keep plugging that line then, maybe in time even you will believe it .

RobertKK

marienbad wrote: »

Keep plugging that line then, maybe in time even you will believe it .

If the 8th amendment did apply, what would have been the result?

Magenta

RobertKK wrote: »

If the 8th amendment did apply, what would have been the result?

Have you ever actually read the 8th Amendment? You seem to know very little about it and now expect others to explain it to you. Have a read of it yourself.