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.
Why do you keep referring to a 17 week foetus as "a child"? It isn't a child & won't be a child until it's born, if it survives. You're talking about something roughly 11cm long, which doesn't even have a proper skeleton yet.
Why do you keep referring to a 17 week foetus as "a child"? It isn't a child & won't be a child until it's born, if it survives.
It is to me, I would be deeply ashamed of this country if the doctors had the right to act God .. The child/foetus has under the Irish constitution equal rights to that of a toddler running around.
This is not an abortion debate - the mother wanted to give birth as far as we know.
I really do struggle to understand why any person would find this anything other than utterly horrible.
Explain why? If I wanted this child born and doctors aborted it because that's what my mum and dad wanted id be turning in my grave. They may not even have been close to the parents the doctors responsibility is to their patient and that now includes the child.
Why do you keep referring to a 17 week foetus as "a child"? It isn't a child & won't be a child until it's born, if it survives. You're talking about something roughly 11cm long, which doesn't even have a proper skeleton yet.
This is a medical ethics issue not abortion debate so no need to start calling it a parasite
Explain why? If I wanted this child born and doctors aborted it because that's what my mum and dad wanted id be turning in my grave. They may not even have been close to the parents the doctors responsibility is to their patient and that now includes the child.
There's no need to abort. If they just stop maintaining the mother's corpse (which is what they're doing), she will cease to function. All of her (including the foetus).
Imo, it would be a different matter if the pregnancy was in the third trimester.
Explain why? If I wanted this child born and doctors aborted it because that's what my mum and dad wanted id be turning in my grave. They may not even have been close to the parents the doctors responsibility is to their patient and that now includes the child.
Because it's another case of the state and people who don't actually have to live with the situation thinking their opinion is more important than those who do have to deal with it all. It's very easy to say that the parent's wishes don't matter and that they should be put through what, another 20 weeks of grief on the chance - not a certainty - that the foetus would survive, it's rather more difficult to actually live through it.
Why do you keep referring to a 17 week foetus as "a child"? It isn't a child & won't be a child until it's born, if it survives. You're talking about something roughly 11cm long, which doesn't even have a proper skeleton yet.
Because many people regard the foetus as a child from the minute they know they are expecting or the minute they hear a friend or family member is pregnant. You don't say to someone who has a miscarriage "Sorry you lost your foetus".
Why do you keep referring to a 17 week foetus as "a child"? It isn't a child & won't be a child until it's born, if it survives. You're talking about something roughly 11cm long, which doesn't even have a proper skeleton yet.
but yet if someone murders a pregnant mother they get sent down for double homocide
Explain why? If I wanted this child born and doctors aborted it because that's what my mum and dad wanted id be turning in my grave. They may not even have been close to the parents the doctors responsibility is to their patient and that now includes the child.
Well I would want their opinions taken into consideration as I would expect they are raising her other two children and will be raising this one, how old are they? Are they going to be able to cope with three children? Are they in good health? etc ... It's easy to say get this one adopted out but I cant see the grandparents splitting siblings up, I am sure they have thought it through more than once.
This is completely unnatural - I find it horrific. The foetus is not viable - we have no idea what potential consequences this will have on the foetal development and if a child is successfully produced how its development has been harmed by not have a mother with an active brain.
My partner is currently pregnant and in the same circumstances I would go to court to try and get this unnatural act stopped.
It is to me, I would be deeply ashamed of this country if the doctors had the right to act God .. The child/foetus has under the Irish constitution equal rights to that of a toddler running around.
This is not an abortion debate - the mother wanted to give birth as far as we know.
Keeping her alive is playing God and torturing her family.
Who the hell do they think they are. Where will this end. Anyone pregnant and dead will be kept on life support? It's religion based insanity and cruelty.
I don't understand why this is an abortion debate either. She is dead, the families wishes come before anyone else's.
The foetus has no viable life outside of the womb.
Because it's another case of the state and people who don't actually have to live with the situation thinking their opinion is more important than those who do have to deal with it all. It's very easy to say that the parent's wishes don't matter and that they should be put through what, another 20 weeks of grief on the chance - not a certainty - that the foetus would survive, it's rather more difficult to actually live through it.
I would say it is very likely the child will survive there is no reason why not and the doctors have taken an oath. Unfortunately this is going to cause hurt and trauma for the parents which is something the medical staff will take in to account when they made their decison but one thing it is not is horrible. This will not be an entirely uncommon situation and I doubt without presidence there will be many who would think that your stance is the horrible one in particular the mother who may have been fully in favour of saving the child's life however the truth is that the case is entirely debatable but I would ha e thought the doctors would make their decision in favour of their oath the mothers decision being abscent
Well I would want their opinions taken into consideration as I would expect they are raising her other two children and will be raising this one, how old are they? Are they going to be able to cope with three children? Are they in good health? etc ... It's easy to say get this one adopted out but I cant see the grandparents splitting siblings up, I am sure they have thought it through more than once.
Taken in to account yes they will act on the best interests of their patients
I would say it is very likely the child will survive there is no reason why not and the doctors have taken an oath. Unfortunately this is going to cause hurt and trauma for the parents which is something the medical staff will take in to account when they made their decison but one thing it is not is horrible. This will not be an entirely uncommon situation and I doubt without presidence there will be many who would think that your stance is the horrible one in particular the mother who may have been fully in favour of saving the child's life however the truth is that the case is entirely debatable but I would ha e thought the doctors would make their decision in favour of their oath the mothers decision being abscent
There are many reasons why a 17 week old foetus would not survive, even if the mother is in full health. In this case it's being kept alive solely because of unwanted medical intervention. It would not otherwise be viable.
It should be the decision of the people who are in the best position to judge and who's lives will be affected by it. No-one else.
If it were the wish of the mother, or immediate family then I agree with it, but it should be the families decision, not the hospitals.
The thing is we have heard nothing to suggest that the mother did not want to see her baby born - IMO I agree that the doctors in line with the constitution have an obligation to step in and protect the life of the child.
Keeping her alive is playing God and torturing her family.
Who the hell do they think they are. Where will this end. Anyone pregnant and dead will be kept on life support? It's religion based insanity and cruelty.
I don't understand why this is an abortion debate either. She is dead, the families wishes come before anyone else's.
The foetus has no viable life outside of the womb and it isn't a baby.
Keeping people alive is what critical care units do routinely otherwise we would still have high mortality rates. They put you to sleep and take over your bodies normal functions to allow you to recover she will have been kept alive for some time before this it isn't playing god
Keeping her alive is playing God and torturing her family.
Who the hell do they think they are. Where will this end. Anyone pregnant and dead will be kept on life support? It's religion based insanity and cruelty.
I don't understand why this is an abortion debate either. She is dead, the families wishes come before anyone else's.
The foetus has no viable life outside of the womb.
No I'd take the child's welfare above the girls family - if this child can be born healthy then IMO the state has a responsibility both morally and legally to do everything to make it happen.
Keeping people alive is what critical care units do routinely otherwise we would still have high mortality rates. They put you to sleep and take over your bodies normal functions to allow you to recover she will have been kept alive for some time before this it isn't playing god
They don't "keep" people alive. They are helping people stay alive. This woman is dead. She happened to be in hospital when she died. So they are using her as a host for something that might not even be viable.
If she had died out of the hospital, then all the better for everyone.
This is a living, moving little person with a beating heart, so has rights too. Maybe the poor mother would want her baby saved. I feel for the grandparents, but if this little one lives they will love it.
Comments
Why do you keep referring to a 17 week foetus as "a child"? It isn't a child & won't be a child until it's born, if it survives. You're talking about something roughly 11cm long, which doesn't even have a proper skeleton yet.
This is not an abortion debate - the mother wanted to give birth as far as we know.
Explain why? If I wanted this child born and doctors aborted it because that's what my mum and dad wanted id be turning in my grave. They may not even have been close to the parents the doctors responsibility is to their patient and that now includes the child.
This is a medical ethics issue not abortion debate so no need to start calling it a parasite
There's no need to abort. If they just stop maintaining the mother's corpse (which is what they're doing), she will cease to function. All of her (including the foetus).
Imo, it would be a different matter if the pregnancy was in the third trimester.
Because it's another case of the state and people who don't actually have to live with the situation thinking their opinion is more important than those who do have to deal with it all. It's very easy to say that the parent's wishes don't matter and that they should be put through what, another 20 weeks of grief on the chance - not a certainty - that the foetus would survive, it's rather more difficult to actually live through it.
I didn't
Because many people regard the foetus as a child from the minute they know they are expecting or the minute they hear a friend or family member is pregnant. You don't say to someone who has a miscarriage "Sorry you lost your foetus".
It's the correct balance of nutrients to maintain any patients life whilst on life support, so a foetus will be properly nourished too.
but yet if someone murders a pregnant mother they get sent down for double homocide
Well I would want their opinions taken into consideration as I would expect they are raising her other two children and will be raising this one, how old are they? Are they going to be able to cope with three children? Are they in good health? etc ... It's easy to say get this one adopted out but I cant see the grandparents splitting siblings up, I am sure they have thought it through more than once.
This is completely unnatural - I find it horrific. The foetus is not viable - we have no idea what potential consequences this will have on the foetal development and if a child is successfully produced how its development has been harmed by not have a mother with an active brain.
My partner is currently pregnant and in the same circumstances I would go to court to try and get this unnatural act stopped.
Keeping her alive is playing God and torturing her family.
Who the hell do they think they are. Where will this end. Anyone pregnant and dead will be kept on life support? It's religion based insanity and cruelty.
I don't understand why this is an abortion debate either. She is dead, the families wishes come before anyone else's.
The foetus has no viable life outside of the womb.
I would say it is very likely the child will survive there is no reason why not and the doctors have taken an oath. Unfortunately this is going to cause hurt and trauma for the parents which is something the medical staff will take in to account when they made their decison but one thing it is not is horrible. This will not be an entirely uncommon situation and I doubt without presidence there will be many who would think that your stance is the horrible one in particular the mother who may have been fully in favour of saving the child's life however the truth is that the case is entirely debatable but I would ha e thought the doctors would make their decision in favour of their oath the mothers decision being abscent
Taken in to account yes they will act on the best interests of their patients
There are many reasons why a 17 week old foetus would not survive, even if the mother is in full health. In this case it's being kept alive solely because of unwanted medical intervention. It would not otherwise be viable.
It should be the decision of the people who are in the best position to judge and who's lives will be affected by it. No-one else.
Keeping people alive is what critical care units do routinely otherwise we would still have high mortality rates. They put you to sleep and take over your bodies normal functions to allow you to recover she will have been kept alive for some time before this it isn't playing god
They don't "keep" people alive. They are helping people stay alive. This woman is dead. She happened to be in hospital when she died. So they are using her as a host for something that might not even be viable.
If she had died out of the hospital, then all the better for everyone.
I didn't realise the law in Ireland was so different. How bizarre.
If the murderer didn't know about the foetus is it manslaughter?