Clinicaly dead pregnant woman on life support

seamus

dark crystal wrote: »

I understand your point, but what about the wishes of the mother and father to have this child? I still haven't heard anything about the father, only the grandparents.

As someone else mentioned, it's possible that the mother would have wanted life support to be turned off. Plenty of women, my wife included, would want the child to survive at all costs, but you can't assume that's true as a rule. Especially as the woman has other children, it may be that she wouldn't want a grieving single father to be lumbered with the task of raising a newborn.

Anyway, trying to second guess what the woman would or wouldn't want is folly. Yes, I can see how the father has some input here, but in the truest sense of things, there is no child to speak of, yet. It may still die in utero or during birth. So there's not really any logical reason to give the father overriding control in this situation, even if seems like the right thing to do.

dark crystal

seamus wrote: »

As someone else mentioned, it's possible that the mother would have wanted life support to be turned off. Plenty of women, my wife included, would want the child to survive at all costs, but you can't assume that's true as a rule. Especially as the woman has other children, it may be that she wouldn't want a grieving single father to be lumbered with the task of raising a newborn.

Oh, if it were me, I'd want the baby to survive too, no doubt about it. The father may be grieving, but many fathers are more than capable of raising a child alone as well as any mother.

Anyway, trying to second guess what the woman would or wouldn't want is folly. Yes, I can see how the father has some input here, but in the truest sense of things, there is no child to speak of, yet. It may still die in utero or during birth. So there's not really any logical reason to give the father overriding control in this situation, even if seems like the right thing to do.

IMO, he should have more of an overriding say than the woman's parents. But as you say, it's a legal question now, not a moral one.

Such an awful situation to be in for everybody.

seamus

dark crystal wrote: »

IMO, he should have more of an overriding say than the woman's parents. But as you say, it's a legal question now, not a moral one.

I suppose the only way to look at it is to remove the dead the from the equation.
For the sake of example, imagine the woman was alive and communicative but only being kept alive by the machines. As soon as the machines are off, she's dead, no chance of survival. Ignoring the plot holes here, who do you think should have the final say in when the machines are switched off - the woman, or the foetus's father?

That is basically the scenario here, but with her parents acting in her place.

dark crystal

seamus wrote: »

I suppose the only way to look at it is to remove the dead the from the equation.
For the sake of example, imagine the woman was alive and communicative but only being kept alive by the machines. As soon as the machines are off, she's dead, no chance of survival. Ignoring the plot holes here, who do you think should have the final say in when the machines are switched off - the woman, or the foetus's father?

That is basically the scenario here, but with her parents acting in her place.

The woman - but if she was communicative, it would be a moot point, as her wishes would have been explicit.

I'm probably unable to see this as objectively as some, I guess. I know my own parents would know what I would have chosen and would not turn off the machine knowing my child would die in the process. I honestly have no idea if this poor woman's wishes are being honoured or not by her family, as I'm guessing it's just not something they ever discussed.

ProfessorPlum

irishfeen wrote: »

I actually think we should be damn proud as a country if this child is born healthy - I would be ashamed of this country if they let that child die when we have the medical expertise to give it a chance in life. The child never did anything to anyone and from what I gather the mother had every intention of giving birth. This is not part of the abortion debate at all IMO.

Really?

IF it is the right clinical decision, and has the support of the next of kin, you might have a point.

If, on the other hand, the likelihood is that the baby's health has already been compromised, and the outcome is unlikely to be good, I can't agree with you.

A recent paper from July 2013:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3883204/#ref1

"According to the reported cases in the medical literature,[1] this is the second reported case where prolonged somatic support led to the delivery of a viable child in which the fetus was about 16 weeks of gestation"

"There are 30 cases reported in the literature between 1982 and 2010 on brain-dead pregnant women whose somatic non-neurological functions were maintained successfully to facilitate fetal maturation in the uterus. However, of the cases reported, 12 viable infants were born and survived the neonatal period."

So without knowing anything of the fact of this particular case, I'd hazard that on the basis of probability and previous experience, the chances for a good outcome are somewhere between slim and none.
That is why the decisions to be made here should be on an individual basis, and not dictated by a sweeping clause in the constitution, that knows less about the facts of this case that we do.

And how about the children who will die in the interim because they can't get their cardiac surgery due to budget constraints? We can not live in a vacuum. Every decision has a consequence. Money spend on the critical care of this foetus, which is unviable at present, may well be better spent saving actual live children and adults.

whatdoicare

Is it for certain that there is a father on the scene?
I mean, there are plenty of women who have children by many partners and maybe this is the case?
Maybe the father wants nothing to do with the decision making. Maybe she didn't know who he was, or only just started going out with him or he doesn't know hes a father to be? These are fairly common scenarios.

I'm sure if he was in a commited relationship with her and this is their second planned child that hed have had more input into the decision as ultimately hed be the one left with a new born and a child.

It could be a case where the grandfolks will be the ones trying to cope with a newborn, another grandchild and the death of their daughter.

Its an awful, awful situation. I'm a mom and my husband and I discussed this situation last night and we couldn't come up with a solid yes or no if it happened to me. I know hed fall apart initially and need a hell of a lot of support from my folks but if my folks fall apart aswell then I know that no one would be able to cope and they still have my small child with no mammy to help. I think myself id rather the child died with me, it feels like the right decision for my family but who knows what my family would decide in the moment. Id honor their wishes rather than my own.

Hannibal Smith

What a horrible situation.

I don't know what I'd want if I was that woman. Would I want my parents to be burdened with raising my child? If the child does survive will they be physically and mentally ok? I think I'd be ok with the baby dying with me.

What about the father? Is he still around? If so, whatever about abortion laws and women's rights, fathers rights whether married or not, need to be dealt with urgently in this country.

nullzero

This may well have been already covered but I haven't read the whole thread; is the child's father in any way involved in this whole situation and has he made his feelings known on what's happening?

bjork

nullzero wrote: »

This may well have been already covered but I haven't read the whole thread; is the child's father in any way involved in this whole situation and has he made his feelings known on what's happening?

I haven't seen that information, All that is known is allegedly her parents are her next of kin

Kermit.de.frog

Changed my view a bit on this. I actually now do see a very valid reason to keep her alive so as to save the baby. The baby is alive so it makes sense.

nullzero

bjork wrote: »

I haven't seen that information, All that is known is allegedly her parents are her next of kin

It's a horrible situation. Not knowing if the father is involved makes it a grey area. However you'd wonder if he is involved is his input (whatever it may be) taken into consideration. This country tend to see father's as sperm donors and little else, although it may or may not be relevant here.

RobertKK

https://twitter.com/DavQuinn/status/545531841802170368

PopePalpatine

conorhal wrote: »

....And the proborts champing at the bit for a state exectioner to be appointed for unborn children.

I was wondering when that tired insult would come up. The last post that I read which used that was posted by someone who wanted to chain women to hospital beds to prevent abortions.

mrolaf

So difficult ethically. I wouldn't want to be the one switching off the machine. But if it was down to nature the baby would be dead. Such a difficult decision but obviously one the family can live with

lazygal

bjork wrote: »

I haven't seen that information, All that is known is allegedly her parents are her next of kin

If she is not married, there is no allegedly about it - they are her next of kin even if she has a partner.

Corvo

What a terrible situation. Has there been a past case like this?

lazygal

Corvo wrote: »

What a terrible situation. Has there been a past case like this?

There have been cases where women have been kept alive to gestate a foetus. I think the issue in this case is that the woman's next of kin want to turn off the life support machine but the hospital aren't legally clear on whether it can be done. I know if this was me, I would want to be kept alive so my baby could be born if at all possible, but this it seems is not the case here.

ted1

volchitsa wrote: »

Jesus. Another shame for us to bear. So now Irish medical services use a woman's body as an incubator against her next of kin's wishes. Probably cheaper than incubators, mind. And self reproducing of course, if the baby is a girl.

The possibilities are endless. :mad:

I wouldn't call it a shame, I think it's a great thing and I'm sure that the mother would too

bjork

lazygal wrote: »

If she is not married, there is no allegedly about it - they are her next of kin even if she has a partner.

If
It is not known if she is or isn't married, hence the allegedly

kylith

nullzero wrote: »

It's a horrible situation. Not knowing if the father is involved makes it a grey area. However you'd wonder if he is involved is his input (whatever it may be) taken into consideration. This country tend to see father's as sperm donors and little else, although it may or may not be relevant here.

Unfortunately even if he wants the pregnancy brought to term and is willing to look after the baby even if it is handicapped he can't because as he's not married to the mother he has no rights to the child at all.

such is life 2

how is this issue here or similar issues like this dealt with in different jurisdictions?

dellas1979

The parents (I assume they are next of kin to their daughter) are suffering/traumatised/shock from their daughter's prognosis. I believe then that they are not in the right frame of mind or able to make decisions for such an experience. Who is next of kin to the unborn child in this situation?

eviltwin

dellas1979 wrote: »

The parents (I assume they are next of kin to their daughter) are suffering/traumatised/shock from their daughter's prognosis. I believe then that they are not in the right frame of mind or able to make decisions for such an experience. Who is next of kin to the unborn child in this situation?

Sounds like the parents are next of kin. No mention of a husband and an unmarried father has no rights.

lazygal

dellas1979 wrote: »

The parents (I assume they are next of kin to their daughter) are suffering/traumatised/shock from their daughter's prognosis. I believe then that they are not in the right frame of mind or able to make decisions for such an experience. Who is next of kin to the unborn child in this situation?

Unless the foetus is made a ward of court (not sure if it can be) the woman's parents are also its next of kin.

smash

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

Her body should not be used as an incubator.

volchitsa

My name is URL wrote: »

Why on Earth was that post red carded? =/

At a guess, for personal abuse of other posters. I didn't see it, so it wasn't me who reported it. But I note that this sort of abuse doesn't bother you.

Oh and for the record, I don't post on journal.ie, so if people "like me" are "all over" that forum, it must be because a lot of other people reacted to this story in the same way as I did, with horror at the fact of a dead woman being used as an incubator against the wishes of her next of kin.

volchitsa

lazygal wrote: »

There have been cases where women have been kept alive to gestate a foetus. I think the issue in this case is that the woman's next of kin want to turn off the life support machine but the hospital aren't legally clear on whether it can be done. I know if this was me, I would want to be kept alive so my baby could be born if at all possible, but this it seems is not the case here.

Doesn't that depend greatly on the situation the child would be being born into, and the probable state the child will be in if/when it arrives?
The fact that the parents want the life support turned off indicates to me that there is some pressing reason why they do not this situation to continue.

Personally I wonder if it is not already greatly harmed by whatever happened to the mother, and if this is not the explanation.

volchitsa

conorhal wrote: »

That's just a twisted comment. How do you know the wishes of the woman in question, perhaps she desperately wanted this child?

I don't, but I do think her parents might.

Since when did the pregnant woman's wishes count for anything in Irish law anyway?
And if mothers are suddenly the ones whose wishes must be followed concerning the fate of their offspring (especially dead mothers who can't contradict you!) why does the mother of the pregnant woman not count?

Not only is she a mother who should decide what happens her child and motherless grandchild, she is probably the person who would be doing the actual mothering of this baby if it is born.

Oh no, I forgot, she's alive so you can't put your own beliefs into her mouth.

Grayson

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I was wondering when that tired insult would come up. The last post that I read which used that was posted by someone who wanted to chain women to hospital beds to prevent abortions.

It appears on the youth defence and precious life pages. And others like them. It shows a difference. Pro choice people refer to pro life people as pro lifers. It's occasionally but rarely anti choice.

And pro abort isn't even accurate. No-one is pro abortion. It's like being pro endoscopy.

volchitsa

conorhal wrote: »

Suffocation is death due to oxygen deprivation.

So someone who dies of a heart attack in reality suffocates? What about if you bleed to death - suffocation? Or a brain tumour - epileptic fit, you stop breathing - suffocation?

One wonders why anyone bothers with autopises at all, since you can tell the doctors that most of them died of oxygen deprivation in some form or other. :rolleyes: