Clinicaly dead pregnant woman on life support

Quazzie

lazygal wrote: »

If I miscarried at 17 weeks, the state would not recognise that as a child dying. I would not be entitled to maternity leave and no death cert would be issued and no child benefit paid. The state has decided that only foetuses delivered after 24 weeks gestation are 'children'. Before then, its a foetus.

So if you miscarried after 17 weeks would it feel like any more or less of a loss?

Its Only Ray Parlour

Bruthal wrote: »

What about the idea of a pregnant woman who tragically dies, still being able to allow the survival of her unborn child.

Unless she mentioned that she would want her child to survive if she died, then we don't know this, so the decision is ultimately down to the parents and the family of the woman.

Bruthal

Mr.S wrote: »

You'd have to ask them.

:rolleyes:

Those rolleyes are most used by the most deserving

lazygal

Quazzie wrote: »

So if you miscarried after 17 weeks would it feel like any more or less of a loss?

Having had two children, I know a miscarriage would affect me far less at 17 weeks than it would at a later stage. And a miscarriage would affect me significantly less than the death of my born children.
Why does the state not recognise a miscarried foetus as a child before 24 weeks, do you think? Might the state not think all of the 'unborn children' are really the same?

Bruthal

Its Only Ray Parlour wrote: »

Unless she mentioned that she would want her child to survive if she died, then we don't know this, so the decision is ultimately down to the parents and the family of the woman.

Well i dont believe most women would want their child, or petential child, to die with them, in the event that such a thing happens. Imo at least.

lazygal

Bruthal wrote: »

Well i dont believe most women would want their child, or petential child, to die with them, in the event that such a thing happens. Imo at least.

And if the woman expressed the wish that she didn't want to be kept alive artificially even if she was pregnant, what happens then?

PopePalpatine

I don't think one of us here knows what the mother's wishes were in the event she became a vegetable while pregnant - perhaps that scenario never crossed her mind until it was too late.

Bruthal

lazygal wrote: »

If I miscarried at 17 weeks, the state would not recognise that as a child dying. I would not be entitled to maternity leave and no death cert would be issued and no child benefit paid. The state has decided that only foetuses delivered after 24 weeks gestation are 'children'. Before then, its a foetus.

Yes the state decided. In their infallibility, no doubt.

Its Only Ray Parlour

Quazzie wrote: »

The decision to turn off her machine is murder of the unborn child.

Murder is killing someone against their will. A foetus doesn't have a will because its brain hasn't developed yet, you need a conscience to have a will to live. "Abortion is murder" is just sensationalist drivel, the foetus won't even feel any pain.

Since the child doesn't have a will to live, the child's will to live belongs to the parents, but since the mother is clinically dead, the family should decided want happens next.

lazygal

Bruthal wrote: »

Yes the state decided. In their infallibility, no doubt.

Would the decision of the state have anything to do with the abortion laws in the country closest to us, where abortions can be carried out up to 24 weeks, do you think? Or is it a coincidence?
If the 'unborn' has a terms and conditions apply proviso depending on gestation, does that mean the eighth amendment is being breached, do you think?

Bruthal

Its Only Ray Parlour wrote: »

Murder is killing someone against their will. A foetus doesn't have a will because its brain hasn't developed yet, you need a conscience to have a will to live. "Abortion is murder" is just sensationalist drivel, the foetus won't even feel any pain.

Neither would a person strapped to a large bomb.

So its ok to kill once there is no pain.....

lazygal

Bruthal wrote: »

Neither would a person strapped to a large bomb.

Why is there a different charge for foeticide than murder? If I killed a foetus, I wouldn't be charged and convicted of murder, it would be a completely different offence.

Quazzie

Its Only Ray Parlour wrote: »

Murder is killing someone against their will. A foetus doesn't have a will because its brain hasn't developed yet, you need a conscience to have a will to live. "Abortion is murder" is just sensationalist drivel, the foetus won't even feel any pain.

Since the child doesn't have a will to live, the child's will to live belongs to the parents, but since the mother is clinically dead, the family should decided want happens next.

So if I arrange to kill someone that is about to kill suicide is that ok? Using your logic it is. Or is it ok to kill people with severe mental retardation who cannot make such a decision for themselves.

They are killing their Grandchild and they should be ashamed of themselves.

lazygal

Quazzie wrote: »

So if I arrange to kill someone that is about to kill suicide is that ok? Using your logic it is. Or is it ok to kill people with severe mental retardation who cannot make such a decision for themselves.

They are killing their Grandchild and they should be ashamed of themselves.[/QUOTE]

That is a vile thing to say to people who have lost their daughter already and now have to take on the state in court.

Quazzie

lazygal wrote: »

That is a vile thing to say to people who have lost their daughter already and now have to take on the state in court.

I believe it to be the truth. Their own opinions give them no right to demand the death of their Grandchild.

lazygal

Quazzie wrote: »

I believe it to be the truth. Their own opinions give them no right to demand the death of their Grandchild.

They are not demanding the death of anyone.
They want to stop their daughter being kept alive artificially. It is a vile thing to accuse them of 'demanding the death' of a 17 week old foetus that doesn't have the ability to survive.

SEPT 23 1989

Where there is life there is hope

lazygal

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Where there is life there is hope

There is no life. The woman is dead.

Quazzie

lazygal wrote: »

There is no life. The woman is dead.

Her child isn't. If it is, why does it still continue to grow?

Things that are dead don't grow.

omerin

lazygal wrote: »

Quazzie wrote: »

So if I arrange to kill someone that is about to kill suicide is that ok? Using your logic it is. Or is it ok to kill people with severe mental retardation who cannot make such a decision for themselves.

They are killing their Grandchild and they should be ashamed of themselves.[/QUOTE]

That is a vile thing to say to people who have lost their daughter already and now have to take on the state in court.

This is the thing, why do they wish to lose their grandchild as well? Please can you provide a logical explanation?

Bruthal

lazygal wrote: »

Would the decision of the state have anything to do with the abortion laws in the country closest to us, where abortions can be carried out up to 24 weeks, do you think? Or is it a coincidence?

My point is, a 1 day old fetus has the potential to become a child. It is alive. A states legal position of recognition for practical reasons, is separate.

As in, a state doesnt issue birth certs for fetus below a certain term. But that means to some, that its ok to not give a live fetus at that stage any recognition as being a life, since the state doesnt issue birth certs at that stage.

lazygal

Quazzie wrote: »

Her child isn't. If it is, why does it still continue to grow?

Things that are dead don't grow.

It is not a child. It is a foetus. Your nails keep growing after you're dead, that doesn't mean you're alive.

RentDayBlues

Quazzie wrote: »

They are killing their Grandchild and they should be ashamed of themselves.

You should be ashamed of yourself for saying this. They have lost their daughter and rather than being allowed to grief for the loss of their child they were faced with a horrendous decision: to allow her to pass on with dignity or to allow her dead body to be artificially maintained in the hope it allows their unborn grandchild to come to term.

The chances of the second choice having a successful outcome is so slim. It prolongs the suffering of the deceased's family. If the baby was to be further developed then I'm sure the grandparents would have been very supportive of the hospital's stance but as it is that baby would not survive outside the womb.

It's a very sad scenario for all involved, claiming they are murdering a baby is adding to that pain, shame on you

Quazzie

lazygal wrote: »

It is not a child. It is a foetus. Your nails keep growing after you're dead, that doesn't mean you're alive.

So you are equating an unborn child to fingernails.

lazygal

Bruthal wrote: »

My point is, a 1 day old fetus has the potential to become a child. It is alive. A states legal position of recognition for practical reasons, is separate.

As in, a state doesnt issue birth certs for fetus below a certain term. But that means to some, that its ok to not give a live fetus at that stage any recognition as being a life, since the state doesnt issue birth certs at that stage.

In Ireland, we protect the unborn, and the constitution makes no reference to pre or post 24 weeks gestation, but the state has decided to. Do you think child benefit should be paid from conception? With modern scanning its easy to figure out gestation very accurately. My last period had the potential to be a child, why doesn't the state recognise that? What about all the frozen embryos from IVF, should the state recognise them and vindicate their right to life?

Bruthal

lazygal wrote: »

They are not demanding the death of anyone.
They want to stop their daughter being kept alive artificially. It is a vile thing to accuse them of 'demanding the death' of a 17 week old foetus that doesn't have the ability to survive.

If the fetus would or could survive, do you think they should try?

Or should just let die, because the state says its not a child?

What if it was at 30 weeks or similar?

lazygal

Quazzie wrote: »

So you are equating an unborn child to fingernails.

No, I'm saying that just because something is growing doesn't mean its alive. When you reach your maximum height as an adult and stop growing, it doesn't mean you're dead.

Quazzie

RentDayBlues wrote: »

You should be ashamed of yourself for saying this. They have lost their daughter and rather than being allowed to grief for the loss of their child they were faced with a horrendous decision: to allow her to pass on with dignity or to allow her dead body to be artificially maintained in the hope it allows their unborn grandchild to come to term.

The chances of the second choice having a successful outcome is so slim. It prolongs the suffering of the deceased's family. If the baby was to be further developed then I'm sure the grandparents would have been very supportive of the hospital's stance but as it is that baby would not survive outside the womb.

It's a very sad scenario for all involved, claiming they are murdering a baby is adding to that pain, shame on you

If i lost my daughter, but had a chance to save my Grandshild I would move heaven and earth to make it happen. Instead the parents are bringing up a case to make the opposite happen. It's unfathomable and disgusting.

lazygal

Bruthal wrote: »

If the fetus would or could survive, do you think they should try?

Or should just let die, because the state says its not a child?

What if it was at 30 weeks or similar?

30 weeks is an entirely different kettle of fish. Is it ok to keep a dead woman alive for months to gestate a foetus? Suppose she was a week pregnant, how long should she be artificially sustained for the sole purposes of gestation?

Quazzie

lazygal wrote: »

30 weeks is an entirely different kettle of fish. Is it ok to keep a dead woman alive for months to gestate a foetus? Suppose she was a week pregnant, how long should she be artificially sustained for the sole purposes of gestation?

She should be kept alive as long as their is hope of the child surviving. To do otherwise denting the child a chance to life and is murder.

Shrap

lazygal wrote: »

No, I'm saying that just because something is growing doesn't mean its alive.

Quazzie wrote: »

It's unfathomable and disgusting.

Not everybody by any means sees a foetus as deserving of full human rights, and I am neither disgusted nor do I find their decision unfathomable. That said, I disagree with lazygal in that I know the foetus is most definitely alive. Whether that life is so important it deserves more consideration than the dignity that should be given to a woman carrying it who has died already, is a decision only for her next of kin and the next of kin of the foetus (if they differ dramatically).

Bruthal

lazygal wrote: »

Do you think child benefit should be paid from conception?

Absolutely irrelevant, again. That has absolutely nothing to do with what a life consists of.

My last period had the potential to be a child

So it was developing and growing was it?

why doesn't the state recognise that?

Again, what life consists of, which no one on earth fully understands, is not decided by any state. All they decide is, whats practical to recognise. Just because they dont issue birth certs to 1 day old fetus`s, doesnt mean they are not alive.

What about all the frozen embryos from IVF, should the state recognise them and vindicate their right to life?

I dont think we are actually discussing what the state should or should not recognise.

lazygal

Bruthal wrote: »

Absolutely irrelevant, again. That has absolutely nothing to do with what a life consists of.


So it was developing and growing was it?


Again, try to see that what life consists of, which no one on earth fully understands, is not decided by any state. All they decide is, whats practical to recognise. Just because they dont issue birth certs to 1 day old fetus`s, doesnt mean they are not alive.


I dont think we are actually discussing what the state should or should not recognise.

Yes we are. The state gives equal status to the woman as to a one day old foetus. If it didn't, doctors would make decisions based on clinical judgment and not supreme court rulings.

DM addict

Shrap wrote: »

Whether that life is so important it deserves more consideration than the dignity that should be given to a woman carrying it who has died already, is a decision only for her next of kin and the next of kin of the foetus (if they differ dramatically).

This. Despite our numerous and passionate opinions, this isn't or decision. Nor is it the State's decision. It should be up to the family.

The issue is that they have expressed their wishes and are being ignored.

Bruthal

lazygal wrote: »

No, I'm saying that just because something is growing doesn't mean its alive.

Well, you give us an example of any fetus that was dead, that became a healthy child.

When you reach your maximum height as an adult and stop growing, it doesn't mean you're dead.

Utter crap nonsense.

Shrap

Bruthal wrote: »

I dont think we are actually discussing what the state should or should not recognise.

Oh, I think we actually are. Or are there not posts here discussing whether the wishes of the next of kin should be paramount to the life of a 16 week old foetus? Perhaps I am mistook and read them wrong.....

Ihatecuddles

lazygal wrote: »

It is not a child. It is a foetus. Your nails keep growing after you're dead, that doesn't mean you're alive.

No they don't.

Shrap

Ihatecuddles wrote: »

No they don't.

Yes, yes they do. I know that's a bit "ew", but they do, and so does hair. It's to do with the stored energy in the body.

Kermit.de.frog

I guess this means on Tuesday the state has to give free legal aid and legal representation for the woman's fetus.

Quazzie

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I guess this means on Tuesday the state has to give free legal aid and legal representation for the woman's fetus.

Yes it's unfortunate that someone wants to attack it, but that is indeed the case so it is the state's prerogative to protect it.

Bruthal

DM addict wrote: »

The issue is that they have expressed their wishes and are being ignored.

I dont think they are being ignored.

Its likely that doctors want to ensure they are not going outside the legal position if they turn off the machine, with regard to protection of life of the unborn. And so are seeking advice on it.

Ihatecuddles

Shrap wrote: »

Yes, yes they do. I know that's a bit "ew", but they do, and so does hair. It's to do with the stored energy in the body.

Is it not your scalp/skin drying out and 'shrinking'?

Sorry for going OT!

lazygal

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I guess this means on Tuesday the state has to give free legal aid and legal representation for the woman's fetus.

It would be interesting to see whether a foetus can be made a ward of court. If that is possible, it could theoretically lead to situations where, for example, a woman who wants to travel abroad for a termination could be stopped from doing so if the foetus is a ward of court. Of course, that would never happen. Its not like the State took an injunction to stop a 14 year old rape victim from having a termination in the UK or anything.

Larry Wildman

Is the foetus viable?

i.e. If the woman is kept on life support, in all probability will a child be born?

seamus

Quazzie wrote: »

If i lost my daughter, but had a chance to save my Grandshild I would move heaven and earth to make it happen.

And after listening to all of the options and information you will likely come to the stark realisation that moving heaven and earth is beyond your capabilities.

The foetus is 17 weeks. It's well before viability. So there is no way to know whether keeping her on life support while the foetus grows will result in a viable foetus.
Keeping her on life support as a human incubator would be an experiment. Quite literally, "Let's give this a go and see what happens". Ethically, that's way over the line, you're basically experimenting on corpses and foetuses at the same time, without anyone's permission.

To say you'd want to "save" your grandchild is admirable, but are you willing to gamble for the slim (let's face it, completely unpredictable) chance that it's a healthy child? As a parent is that what you'd want your parents to do?

The chances of this turning into a healthy, viable child, are tiny. The chances of this resulting in a miscarriage are high, and even if it does go to a viable term, the chances of the end result being severely disabled or completely cabbaged, are also high.

You're a parent, what would you want - for your corpse to "give birth" to a child with a high probability of a pathetic existence, or for you both to receive the dignity of being allowed to die?

lazygal

Larry Wildman wrote: »

Is the foetus viable?

i.e. If the woman is kept on life support, in all probability will a child be born?

The success rates of gestating a foetus like this are mixed.

omerin

Can someone help me here, I'm struggling?

A fetus inside the womb of a human turns into -

A. Frog
B. Kitten
C. Child

DM addict

Larry Wildman wrote: »

Is the foetus viable?

i.e. If the woman is kept on life support, in all probability will a child be born?

Very difficult to say. Someone posted a link earlier to a medical journal which indicated a low chance, and many of these were for later term pregnancies.

SEPT 23 1989

DM addict wrote: »

Very difficult to say. Someone posted a link earlier to a medical journal which indicated a low chance, and many of these were for later term pregnancies.

better a low chance than no chance

Quazzie

seamus wrote: »

And after listening to all of the options and information you will likely come to the stark realisation that moving heaven and earth is beyond your capabilities.

The foetus is 17 weeks. It's well before viability. So there is no way to know whether keeping her on life support while the foetus grows will result in a viable foetus.
Keeping her on life support as a human incubator would be an experiment. Quite literally, "Let's give this a go and see what happens". Ethically, that's way over the line, you're basically experimenting on corpses and foetuses at the same time, without anyone's permission.

To say you'd want to "save" your grandchild is admirable, but are you willing to gamble for the slim (let's face it, completely unpredictable) chance that it's a healthy child? As a parent is that what you'd want your parents to do?

The chances of this turning into a healthy, viable child, are tiny. The chances of this resulting in a miscarriage are high, and even if it does go to a viable term, the chances of the end result being severely disabled or completely cabbaged, are also high.

You're a parent, what would you want - for your corpse to "give birth" to a child with a high probability of a pathetic existence, or for you both to receive the dignity of being allowed to die?

I would want the people that love me, to give my child every chance of survival no matter how small. It's as simple as that.