Clinicaly dead pregnant woman on life support

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.

seamus

Larry Wildman wrote: »

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

This is basically a complete unknown.
The most recent similar case was "Marlise Munoz" in Texas who died at 14 weeks. The state forced life support to be kept active for 8 weeks, at which point they detected severe abnormalities in the foetus and switched off the machines.

That's pretty horrific for all involved.

lazygal

Quazzie wrote: »

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.

Would you be in favour of compelling someone else to donate body parts to ensure your child survives after birth?

Bruthal

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 a feotus is not alive then?

Quazzie

lazygal wrote: »

Would you be in favour of compelling someone else to donate body parts to ensure your child survives after birth?

If it was my child/grandchild I would be first in the queue.

Larry Wildman

lazygal wrote: »

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

Under no circumstances should the pregnancy be aborted.

This is incredible stuff - The mother is to all intents and purposes dead so she doesn't matter one iota.

Everyone's sole focus should be the foetus. If it could be brought to term and delivered successfully that would be a truly wonderful thing.

The family's behaviour is despicable in this case although perhaps they're not thinking straight. Hence the State MUST intervene and stand up for the foetus' right to life.

This is a "no brainer" - The foetus must be given a chance.

lazygal

Quazzie wrote: »

If it was my child/grandchild I would be first in the queue.

And suppose, for example, your bone marrow wasn't a match. Would you like a law to be introduced forcing someone else to donate theirs to keep him or her alive?

Quazzie

lazygal wrote: »

And suppose, for example, your bone marrow wasn't a match. Would you like a law to be introduced forcing someone else to donate theirs to keep him or her alive?

Of course not. No one should be forced to do anything. What a bizarre situation you are creating there.

If/When the child is born they should be afforded the same rights as anyone else.

lazygal

Quazzie wrote: »

Of course not. No one should be forced to do anything. What a bizarre situation you are creating there.

If/When the child is born they should be afforded the same rights as anyone else.

But women are forced to remain pregnant in Ireland, regardless of their wishes.

Shrap

Ihatecuddles wrote: »

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

Sorry for going OT!

Yeah, you're right! Sorry, and for going OT too...

DM addict

Bruthal wrote: »

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.

My point is that this shouldn't be a legal issue. The doctors should be able to respect the family's wishes without consulting a lawyer.

Quazzie

lazygal wrote: »

But women are forced to remain pregnant in Ireland, regardless of their wishes.

No they're not. They can travel to the UK and get an abortion like many thousand have been doing for decades.

Bruthal

lazygal wrote: »

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.

A states recognition of life at a certain point, does not mean that is in fact when life begins. They draw a line for practical purposes.

Clearly you agree with them so unconditionally, that you believe a feotus is not alive until the day the state says so.

wendell borton

Its just a grotesque situation, there is jut something really creepy and unnatural about keeping a dead women on life support to incubate a foetus.

Shrap

Larry Wildman wrote: »

The family's behaviour is despicable in this case although perhaps they're not thinking straight.

I can't believe you said that. What a disgusting thing to say about a family in such grief. And why shouldn't they want this sick experiment on their dead daughter to end (sick, because at this early stage in a pregnancy, they're looking at very slim odds on a healthy outcome, and sick because it's against their wishes).

Bruthal

DM addict wrote: »

My point is that this shouldn't be a legal issue. The doctors should be able to respect the family's wishes without consulting a lawyer.

Maybe they should be able to.

But should they simply switch off a life support machine because a family member says so, without checking the legal consequences first?

Is the legal position so simple, that anyone should know their position in it?

Bruthal

Shrap wrote: »

I can't believe you said that. What a disgusting thing to say about a family in such grief. And why shouldn't they want this sick experiment on their dead daughter to end (sick, because at this early stage in a pregnancy, they're looking at very slim odds on a healthy outcome, and sick because it's against their wishes).

Should parents wishes always be paramount in medical situations?

Shrap

Quazzie wrote: »

No they're not. They can travel to the UK and get an abortion like many thousand have been doing for decades.

Don't be daft. Not everyone can afford that, or is even allowed out of the country. It's a shameful hypocrisy to say "they can go to the UK".

Shrap

Bruthal wrote: »

Should parents wishes always be paramount in medical situations?

The next of kin's wishes should be paramount when someone has died, yes - if the person hasn't been able to specify for themselves. In medical situations where consent can be given by the person receiving the medical care, no.

Obviously.

Bruthal

lazygal wrote: »

And suppose, for example, your bone marrow wasn't a match. Would you like a law to be introduced forcing someone else to donate theirs to keep him or her alive?

Where do you get these comparisons:pac:

SEPT 23 1989

Shrap wrote: »

I can't believe you said that. What a disgusting thing to say about a family in such grief. And why shouldn't they want this sick experiment on their dead daughter to end (sick, because at this early stage in a pregnancy, they're looking at very slim odds on a healthy outcome, and sick because it's against their wishes).

the "sick experiment" is trying to keep their grandchild alive