Clinicaly dead pregnant woman on life support

Viper_JB

Based on previous cases like this the baby doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of being born without any severe health issues if it makes it that long....it's sick to make a family go through this especially after they just lost their daughter. Very sad situation for everyone involved, only made worse by draconian legislation.

GottaGetGatt

So what are they going to do, keep the woman alive until the baby is born?

Riskymove

GottaGetGatt wrote: »

So what are they going to do, keep the woman alive until the baby is born?

yes, or until it dies naturally if that is the case.

The basic issue here is that our laws currently mean the unborn has a right to life. The mother is already dead but there is an onus on the medics to keep the unborn alive...even...and this is the sad bit.....even if it is unviable and would die shortly after birth.

This may not be the case here and I can see a lot of people assuming a perfectly healthy child is a possibility but others think that is unlikely

It is possible that these people will have to face the child being born and dying soon after and then having to turn off the life support of the mother.

DM addict

Thing is, this is a tough decision. I totally respect that some posters have said "were I that brain-dead woman, keep me alive until you can deliver the foetus". It's not a decision I would personally make, but I can see that it's a decision that family/partner/etc should be enabled to make, where possible.

What does not make sense is that the family are asking for life support to be turned off, and the constitution is being dragged into this. It should not be possible for a corpse to be sustained without the agreement of her next of kin. The fact that this may be possible because of the constitution suggests to me that we need to change the damn constitution.

If the foetus was viable, it would have been delivered already. But I see in the news today that this situation has been going on for "a number of weeks". So she was possibly brain-dead while in her first trimester. This shouldn't be a debate. It shouldn't be news. The family have made their agonising decision - it should be respected.


I get the discussion about father/family as next of kin, but without more facts then we can't really speak as to who should be making the decisions.

Grayson

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.

Now admittedly I'm a man but my decision would be based on how far along the pregnancy had gone. At 22 weeks I'd want to be around for a few more weeks to give a fighting chance. At 8 weeks I'd say no. Any baby that resulted from the pregnancy would be probably have huge difficulties. That's if it survived long enough.

This is still pretty early, the risks are high and the foetus is very far from developed. people are saying 22 weeks it can be born but the chances of survival are very, very slim. realistically it's a balancing game. the longer the foetus is in there the higher the risk of a foetal abnormality. However the sooner it's taken out the higher the risk of getting damage from being born prematurely.

Plus the fact that it's so early in the pregnancy means that I wouldn't view it as a child. At 8 months it's a baby but at this stage. The definition of foetus vs embryo is that at this stage it's recognisable as a being a human foetus. just a week or so ago it would have been impossible to identify it's species.

Grayson

Riskymove wrote: »

yes, or until it dies naturally if that is the case.

The basic issue here is that our laws currently mean the unborn has a right to life. The mother is already dead but there is an onus on the medics to keep the unborn alive...even...and this is the sad bit.....even if it is unviable and would die shortly after birth.

This may not be the case here and I can see a lot of people assuming a perfectly healthy child is a possibility but others think that is unlikely

It is possible that these people will have to face the child being born and dying soon after and then having to turn off the life support of the mother.

Realistically it's unknown how healthy the baby would be. Someone posted up a link that says there's a high chance it wouldn't reach maturity and a higher chance it would have deformities if it did. It is however possible that it would eventually mature into a fully healthy baby. The odds are slim, but they exist.

And the law is ridiculous. If a woman is 3-4 weeks pregnant it makes no difference. She would still be kept on an incubator.

Drakares

dubscottie wrote: »

This makes me sick.. The mother is dead so the unborn dies. Its is nature.

If nature was allowed to run it's course half of us would already be dead. There's a reason for advanced medicine.

Bongalongherb

Grayson wrote: »

I'd imagine the parents would have known what the woman's wished would be in this situation.

It's mad however how people here are missing one important fact. If it wasn't for the foetus we'd all be in favour of switching off life support. the reason is because the woman is dead. What makes her human, that's her brain, is no longer working. She's now just a collection of human tissue being kept alive by machines.

The foetus is little better. It's not capable of thought. It is at a stage where it's organs are barely formed. It wouldn't pass any of the tests we'd use to consider it human. That foetus might be composed of human tissue but it's not a human being.

What's worse is that at this point of development the environment for a foetus is very important. There's a very large chance that any baby that may result from this pregnancy may have sever brain abnormalities.

So there are people here who think that a baby should be grown inside the body of a woman who's wishes we don't know, who's next of kin don't want it to proceed and all to potentially grow a baby that as a good chance of being fcuked.

Never let it be said that facts or rationality ever creeps into these arguments.



To preserve human life, not human tissue. That's not a baby in there, it's a foetus. And to say that the parents are delusional is just sickening. Are you actually saying that the only reason they disagree is because they are distraught? You're actually using their grief to justify why they disagree with you. That's messed up dude.

What the hell is wrong with you ? Where did I say the parents were delusional ? where ?. It's you that is delusional. Don't be saying things that I never said.

Morag

such is life 2 wrote: »

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

http://hollywoodlife.com/2014/01/27/marlise-munoz-life-support-unhooked-brain-dead-pregnant-texas/

the_syco

Should keeping her alive to bring the baby to term comes to pass, I think a group of scientists should study the growth of the baby to see how much of it's growth comes from the mother, and how much from it's own DNA.

volchitsa

the_syco wrote: »

Should keeping her alive to bring the baby to term comes to pass, I think a group of scientists should study the growth of the baby to see how much of it's growth comes from the mother, and how much from it's own DNA.

Experiment on it? Yeah, that's a great idea. :mad:

Bruthal

dubscottie wrote: »

This makes me sick.. The mother is dead so the unborn dies. Its is nature.

Would you have surgery for a serious injury, or have a broken leg surgically repaired etc, or just let nature take its course?

Bruthal

DM addict wrote: »

If the pregnancy is at 16 weeks, the foetus is not viable. If she's clinically dead, then IMO she should be taken off life support. Especially if that's what her family are asking for - which would happen pretty much anywhere else.

The idea of using a corpse as an incubator turns my stomach, to be honest.

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

That also turns your stomach?

The girl's dead, let her go.

She is gone.

Quazzie

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

I can't comprehend how the parents are actively trying to kill their grandchild.

It's a sick world when a father gets no say whether his child lives or dies.

omerin

smash wrote: »

Her body should not be used as an incubator.

Why?

This is the 21st century, modern medicine can keep the child alive. I presume the mother did not die at her own hand, so she wanted to keep the child alive. Really does not make sense that the grandparents would not want to keep the child and why they are fighting it. Imo its bordering on barbaric. There is obviously more to this then meets the eye.

Quazzie

Mr.S wrote: »

Because its not a child yet.

It is alive. It is a child.

PopePalpatine

Quazzie wrote: »

It is alive. It is a child.

The woman is 17 weeks pregnant. The foetus doesn't have a functioning brain yet.

Bruthal

Mr.S wrote: »

Because its not a child yet.

Right, so the potential grandparents are basing this on that view, that its not a child yet?

somuj

Its a part of the woman's body which is being artificially kepyt alive.

lazygal

Quazzie wrote: »

It is alive. It is a child.

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.

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?