Clinicaly dead pregnant woman on life support

airuser

Strazdas wrote: »

Indeed but the case was shaped by the 'right to life of the unborn' which is reflected in Ireland's draconian anti-abortion laws. Ireland is the only country in Europe (or probably the whole of the developed world) where the case of this poor unfortunate woman could have happened, thanks to the nonsensical and impractical laws covering the whole matter.

I agree with you.

volchitsa

Matta Harri wrote: »

Hold on there now before you start pontificating to me. You've leapt on every poster that has expressed any opinion that was not identical to yours.

I said I was in agreement with her being kept on ventilator until I realised how far along the pregnancy was.

It was a difficult situation for all involved. Thr turning off of a life support machine is the most horrific thing I've ever witnessed.

Not sure why you think you have made a point there. One thing we all knew at the start was that the family had gone to court to ask for the life support to be turned off. The HSE weren't contesting their request.

My point is that those who presumed they had a better view of what was the right thing to do than the family did were horribly arrogant and should, think a little longer next time something like this comes up.

Nothing you've posted since then has added anything new at all there.

amdublin

Scary to think what the decision was based upon. if the baby's life was viable the poor woman would not be resting with dignity in peace now.

DM addict

I'm glad that this has been resolved and that the family are going to have a chance to grieve in peace.

I think it's been a very illuminating for those who were unaware of just how grotesque and unreasonable the 8th amendment can be. It's been said in the judgement that "the protection must be not futile, impractical or ineffective" - and in the past, it has been.

Refusing a termination to a woman who's miscarrying is a futile protection of foetus.
Refusing a termination to a woman whose foetus has a fatal abnormality is ineffective.
Sustaining life support for a corpse is an ineffective protection of the foetus.

Hopefully this case will allow terminations to proceed where there is no practical likelihood of the foetus surviving the womb.

Saying that, I'm all in favour of just repealing the 8th. But I'm a realist too - I don't think that's likely to happen soon.

lazygal

amdublin wrote: »

Scary to think what the decision was based upon. if the baby's life was viable the poor woman would not be resting with dignity in peace now.

If she was 20 weeks pregnant it could have been argued that further gestation was necessary for a few weeks.

Cantremember

A horror show from start to finish and this thread illustrates how backward this country still is and how deeply entrenched and aggressive the sectors holding this country back are. The thread should be locked now: there's been enough pontificating over another woman's broken life.

pmasterson95

humanji wrote: »

pmasterson95 and cantremember, if you just want to badger other users or be patronising to them them find a different forum. If you can be civil, feel free to continue here.

I'll leave the thread then. Civility wasnt exactly working. Have fun. Gluck.

amdublin

lazygal wrote: »

If she was 20 weeks pregnant it could have been argued that further gestation was necessary for a few weeks.

Exactly.

Horrendous.

Strazdas

amdublin wrote: »

Scary to think what the decision was based upon. if the baby's life was viable the poor woman would not be resting with dignity in peace now.

They are going to have to face down this issue once and for all and concede the life of the unborn baby or foetus is *not* as important as that of the mother. It's grotesque that a woman could be kept alive like this against the wishes of medical professionals and her own family who love her.

Matta Harri

volchitsa wrote: »

Not sure why you think you have made a point there. One thing we all knew at the start was that the family had gone to court to ask for the life support to be turned off. The HSE weren't contesting their request.

My point is that those who presumed they had a better view of what was the right thing to do than the family did were horribly arrogant and should, think a little longer next time something like this comes up.

Nothing you've posted since then has added anything new at all there.

Those that had a different opinion to the family at the beginning were most likely ill informed or uninformed enough to make a full and honest opinion. Ignorant not arrogant.

You'll always have the few pro lifers that will ride the next bad news story to further their views. 99% of people, when given the full facts agree that turning if the life support was best for all involved and thanked God they weren't in the family's position.

conorh91

RobertKK wrote: »

It was wrong of anyone to apply law to a dead person.

I have to say I was surprised at some of the reported words in the High Court judgment.

The court also stressed it was not impressed by arguments the woman has no right to dignity arising from her having been declared brain dead.

What does that even mean? Does it mean that the court is departing from the scientific definition of death, to a situation where a corpse can be dug up, hooked to a machine, and allowed to claim personal rights?? I find the judgment of the court puzzling, in parts.

Nevertheless, I think you're overstating the situation. The above statement is merely an aside. It was clearly a low-relevance statement.

The vital reason for the Court's judgment is that the unborn is not viable in these particular circumstances, due to the infection the mother's body is experiencing.

So I welcome the judgment, but am a little wary of the lawyers' decision not to appeal. An appeal could be heard very quickly, and would introduce better certainty into the 8th amendment jurisprudence.

Having said that, the humane stance was obviously not to appeal, but a lawyer's primary duty is to his client, and not his client's family, nor to public opinion...

RobertKK

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Hes a determined little sod. Cant admit defeat. Very unique debating style.

It is not about victory or defeat in debate, it is about expressing opinion on the subject in question. Then people can take or leave it, my opinion is worth no more or less than someone else's opinion.
I also believe no one should have to change their opinion just to fit in with the consensus.

I expressed my opinion and people whether they agree or not know what it is and I have nothing new to add. I am happy for the family and with the case closed and the machines being turned off, I think it is fitting that I cease posting in this topic.
I am sure they would wish we weren't here discussing something that is personal to them.

blacklilly

Matta Harri wrote: »

Those that had a different opinion to the family at the beginning were most likely ill informed or uninformed enough to make a full and honest opinion. Ignorant not arrogant.

You'll always have the few pro lifers that will ride the next bad news story to further their views. 99% of people, when given the full facts agree that turning if the life support was best for all involved and thanked God they weren't in the family's position.

Can someone point to a a poster who they consider pro life that wasn't in favour of the life support being turned off? Granted I haven't read the thread in it's entirety but I haven't seen any such posts......an would be surprised in their anything other than in the extreme minority

Matta Harri

blacklilly wrote: »

Can someone point to a a poster who they consider pro life that wasn't in favour of the life support being turned off? Granted I haven't read the thread in it's entirety but I haven't seen any such posts......an would be surprised in their anything other than in the extreme minority

Sorry I can't, I meant people I know in person. I work in a Catholic hospital with some very vocal pro lifers. As in 'Every life is sacred' car stickers and going to every pro life rally.

RobertKK

RobertKK wrote: »

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.

I agree with your sentiments but this isn't what the court said.

"The High Court has ruled that doctors may cease life support treatments for body of a pregnant woman who has been clinically dead for weeks as there is no reasonable prospect her child will survive. "

It is clear that if somebody wants to argue the point in a similar case or if medics are afraid to take their medical responsibility, we can get other cases where the Courts will be asked to decide what is 'a reasonable prospect' of survival.

These crazy referenda were all about point scoring and one upmanship and nothing about making good sensible laws.

Call me Al

blacklilly wrote: »

Can someone point to a a poster who they consider pro life that wasn't in favour of the life support being turned off? Granted I haven't read the thread in it's entirety but I haven't seen any such posts......an would be surprised in their anything other than in the extreme minority

Well you could take a look at page 6 for a start, one poster there who has a few agreeing with him/her.
I'm pretty speechless when I read some of those posts.

lazygal

blacklilly wrote: »

Can someone point to a a poster who they consider pro life that wasn't in favour of the life support being turned off? Granted I haven't read the thread in it's entirety but I haven't seen any such posts......an would be surprised in their anything other than in the extreme minority

Before I heard the medical evidence I was on the fence about whether life support should have been withdrawn. I was naive and thought the woman was like sleeping beauty, simply in suspended animation while.the foetus could continue to gestate. I had no idea of the medical and chemical support required. I had no idea the woman was essentially decomposing while the foetus was subjected to incredible levels of drug intervention.
I'm pro-choice and I have children and I have agreed with my husband that I want every possible chance to be given to the survival of any pregnancy. But until I read about this woman's rotting brain I honestly didn't know enough and my judgment was wrong originally. I'm sure some of those who oppose abortion feel the same.

MrPudding

conorh91 wrote: »

I have to say I was surprised at some of the reported words in the High Court judgment.

The court also stressed it was not impressed by arguments the woman has no right to dignity arising from her having been declared brain dead.

What does that even mean? Does it mean that the court is departing from the scientific definition of death, to a situation where a corpse can be dug up, hooked to a machine, and allowed to claim personal rights?? I find the judgment of the court puzzling, in parts.

I think that what they were trying to say is that she has a right to dignity in death, and that by keeping her on the machine this right was being interfered with. This is not giving personal rights to a corpse, it is about giving effect to the rights that the woman had when she was alive, right that were being suspended due to legal uncertainty as a result of the 8th amendment. It has nothing to do with changing the definition of death, nor does it mean we need to dig up corpses, it is simply the court saying what most people on this thread, with the apparent exception of you and robertkk, realised right from the beginning, a woman should not have to suffer the indignity of somatic support when her body is trying to die and decompose.

This is pretty much one of the points that both drkpower and myself have made several times.

What other parts of the judgement do you find puzzling? I actually thought it was a pretty judgement. Granted, part of that will be due to the fact that it gave the result I wanted, but a big part of it is, with the quick skim I gave it, it seems like a fair and logical judgement. So please, tell me what you found confusing and we can work through it together.

MrP

blacklilly

Call me Al wrote: »

Well you could take a look at page 6 for a start, one poster there who has a few agreeing with him/her.
I'm pretty speechless when I read some of those posts.

Just read the posts you are referring to, obviously I cannot speak for anyone else but as I've said before fundamentalists on either side are not the majority (thankfully).
I would also like to say that others who I could consider pro life have expressed their opinions in a respectful manner throughout the thread, which is the only manner which is conducive to discussion/debate.

I hope the family at the centre of this case can come to terms with this horrific tragedy and can now grieve in private.

Its Only Ray Parlour

RobertKK wrote: »

It is not about victory or defeat in debate

Yes, it is. Defeating an argument in a debate is how you reach conclusion. The pro-life brigade fúcked off or started back-peddling as soon as doctor described the brain as "liquifying" and the foetus would not stand a chance.

Then people can take or leave it, my opinion is worth no more or less than someone else's opinion.

Yes, it is. It's worth less if it's the wrong opinion.

I also believe no one should have to change their opinion just to fit in with the consensus.

What if their views are racist or if a mother believes she should disown her son because he gay?

I expressed my opinion and people whether they agree or not know what it is and I have nothing new to add. I am happy for the family and with the case closed and the machines being turned off, I think it is fitting that I cease posting in this topic.

Until the next because of this bad law we have in our constitution. This law killed Savita Halappanavar and it will continue to kill in the future if it's not repealed.

I am sure they would wish we weren't here discussing something that is personal to them.

That's the fault of the pro-life brigade, not us.

blacklilly

lazygal wrote: »

Before I heard the medical evidence I was on the fence about whether life support should have been withdrawn. I was naive and thought the woman was like sleeping beauty, simply in suspended animation while.the foetus could continue to gestate. I had no idea of the medical and chemical support required. I had no idea the woman was essentially decomposing while the foetus was subjected to incredible levels of drug intervention.
I'm pro-choice and I have children and I have agreed with my husband that I want every possible chance to be given to the survival of any pregnancy. But until I read about this woman's rotting brain I honestly didn't know enough and my judgment was wrong originally. I'm sure some of those who oppose abortion feel the same.

I'd say quite a lot of people were of the same view initially and many were shocked when they began to understand what exactly stomatic support involves. I would actually think that this case would have seen a unity in terms of what should be done from both (pro choice/life) sides.

volchitsa

Matta Harri wrote: »

Those that had a different opinion to the family at the beginning were most likely ill informed or uninformed enough to make a full and honest opinion. Ignorant not arrogant.

You'll always have the few pro lifers that will ride the next bad news story to further their views. 99% of people, when given the full facts agree that turning if the life support was best for all involved and thanked God they weren't in the family's position.

Ok actually you're right, I may have been a little harsh, sorry about that. But this whole thing makes me so angry, and I think that the ignorance you mention is because many people continue to take the catholic church's stance on this as having at least some validity, as though the church were a neutral moral arbiter.

A lot of people don't seem to think this sort of thing through for themselves until they find themselves directly involved, or until the sort of awful medical detail that we saw here ends up in the public domain.

It's led to several tragedies already, and I cant see this being the last, until enough people stop assuming that it's their role to have an opinion on other people's private lives. Still less to have that opinion listened to in preference to that of the family involved.

volchitsa

blacklilly wrote: »

I'd say quite a lot of people were of the same view initially and many were shocked when they began to understand what exactly stomatic support involves. I would actually think that this case would have seen a unity in terms of what should be done from both (pro choice/life) sides.

If you mean that you now agree that the 8th amendment needs to be removed, then yes, maybe there will be unity about it.

The problem is that I see people on here still pretending to believe it had nothing to do with the 8th.

lazygal

volchitsa wrote: »

If you mean that you now agree that the 8th amendment needs to be removed, then yes, maybe there will be unity about it.

The problem is that I see people on here still pretending to believe it has nothing to do with the 8th.

William Binchy, it's architect, said this case had nothing to do with abortion and the "as far as practicable" element took care of the difficult cases. He is the reason this family have been put through this hell and there is no reason to think he and his Iona cronies like Patricia Casey will ever concede abortion is a necessary part of pregnancy.

conorh91

MrPudding wrote: »

I think that what they were trying to say is that she has a right to dignity in death, and that by keeping her on the machine this right was being interfered with. This is not giving personal rights to a corpse

How, on the one hand, can you be saying that she has a right to dignity in death, whilst simultaneously claiming that corpses have no rights?

Are you claiming that the woman is alive?

it is simply the court saying what most people on this thread, with the apparent exception of you and robertkk, realised right from the beginning, a woman should not have to suffer the indignity of somatic support when her body is trying to die and decompose.

The woman does not come into it since, tragically, she died early this month.

The relevant personalities are the family of the dead woman, and the unborn.

What other parts of the judgement do you find puzzling?

I found it strange that the Court dwelled in a number of places on the medical doctors' beliefs about what is ethical and what is not; that was for the Court alone to decide.

Call me Al

blacklilly wrote: »

Just read the posts you are referring to, obviously I cannot speak for anyone else but as I've said before fundamentalists on either side are not the majority (thankfully).
I would also like to say that others who I could consider pro life have expressed their opinions in a respectful manner throughout the thread, which is the only manner which is conducive to discussion/debate.

I hope the family at the centre of this case can come to terms with this horrific tragedy and can now grieve in private.

Well maybe have a look at pages 8,9 and 10. And I've only got as far as page 10, so you might like to take it from there.

Theyre not quite as extreme as our page 6 poster but very entrenched nonetheless. So while these fundamentalists may be the in the minority they are an extremely vocal minority and aren't as small in number so you might think.

And I believe they have a disproportionate influence on the status quo as it stands.

blacklilly

volchitsa wrote: »

If you mean that you now agree that the 8th amendment needs to be removed, then yes, maybe there will be unity about it.

The problem is that I see people on here still pretending to believe it had nothing to do with the 8th.

I believe the medical profession involved in this case required legal clarification on this matter and that was perhaps due to part to the 8th amendment. Legal clarification is required by the medical profession on many many medical situations and that is because it is impossible for our constitution or legislation to cover every possible medical situation.

I'm genuinely not here to argue with any poster on this matter. I respect that you are entitled to your opinion in respect of this issue but I would ask that you also respect the fact that others will have differing opinions to you.

Strazdas

lazygal wrote: »

William Binchy, it's architect, said this case had nothing to do with abortion and the "as far as practicable" element took care of the difficult cases. He is the reason this family have been put through this hell and there is no reason to think he and his Iona cronies like Patricia Casey will ever concede abortion is a necessary part of pregnancy.

The legislators should not be taking their cue from right wing religious fanatics. In every other country in Europe, conservative extremist cranks would simply be (and have been) completely ignored.

Stheno

conorh91 wrote: »

How, on the one hand, can you be saying that she has a right to dignity in death, whilst simultaneously claiming that corpses have no rights?

Are you claiming that the woman is alive?
.

She is on life support, she may be brain dead but is still alive through artificial means

lazygal

blacklilly wrote: »

I believe the medical profession involved in this case required legal clarification on this matter and that was perhaps due to part to the 8th amendment. Legal clarification is required by the medical profession on many many medical situations and that is because it is impossible for our constitution or legislation to cover every possible medical situation.

I'm genuinely not here to argue with any poster on this matter. I respect that you are entitled to your opinion in respect of this issue but I would ask that you also respect the fact that others will have differing opinions to you.

Doctors don't face a 14 year sentence in most clinical cases and several obstetricians have said the law has an effect on what in other countries is normal clinical practice. When I'm pregnant I don't want doctors consulting the constitution, I want them to treat me in a manner that means I have the best possible outcome.