From my POV, (in theory) if that were my wife I would be happy for this to happen and have my son/daughter born, it would be incredibly difficult, but the end result would be worth it.
From my POV, (in theory) if that were my wife I would be happy for this to happen and have my son/daughter born, it would be incredibly difficult, but the end result would be worth it.
Does that include the premature delivery of a baby which carries the risk of coming out of this situation perhaps sick or disabled? At the time the mother collapsed, what damage was done to this baby?
Not a criticism, a genuine question.
Does that include the premature delivery of a baby which carries the risk of coming out of this situation perhaps sick or disabled? At the time the mother collapsed, what damage was done to this baby?
Not a criticism, a genuine question.
There are quite a number of cases where healthy babies have been delivered under such sad circumstances.
You see the state affords the child the exact same rights as me of a toddler walking around - for doctors to decide themselves whether a baby lives or dies is absolutely unacceptable IMO .. They have no right to decide something like that. Their job is to use medical advances to protect life whether that is a man woman or unborn child.
The supreme court will ultimately decide how our constitution should be interpreted - the will of the people of the Irish state.
I'm not talking about it from a legal point of view - i'm talking about it from your view that the doctors turning off her life support is them somehow "playing God", yet the fact that she is on life support in the first place to keep her alive isn't "playing God".
I can't imagine for a minute that the mother wouldn't want her child to survive, so why should the family's wishes supersede that? If the mother were conscious it would be a case of "her body, her choice" but as soon as she's on life support we can do what we like?
Does that include the premature delivery of a baby which carries the risk of coming out of this situation perhaps sick or disabled? At the time the mother collapsed, what damage was done to this baby?
Not a criticism, a genuine question.
In theory I would be happy to take that risk yes. If the drs were to tell me that the baby would be severely brain damaged, then I would wish to terminate.
Basically I would go on the advice of the doctors.
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.
I am pro choice, but I can't understand why everyone is so surprised at people calling it a baby.
When have you ever, even once, heard a parent say they have lost a feotus, even at 17 weeks? They dont. They say they have lost a baby, every time.
I guess in the eyes of those talking it is a foetus if you don't want it and a baby if you do.
I'm not talking about it from a legal point of view - i'm talking about it from your view that the doctors turning off her life support is them somehow "playing God", yet the fact that she is on life support in the first place to keep her alive isn't "playing God".
It is complete double standards.
Is giving somebody CPR to save their life "playing God"? How about a life saving operation? How about pushing a child out of the path of an oncoming car? Seems ridiculous to equate life support with ending a life.
Is giving somebody CPR to save their life "playing God"? How about a life saving operation? How about pushing a child out of the path of an oncoming car? Seems ridiculous to equate saving a life with taking a life.
Yes, sure it is. It just depends on whether you see "playing God" as a bad thing or not. Most of us don't.
In this case I would say to turn off the life support. It's against the wishes of her next of kin (to keep her "alive"), and in fairness they should be the ones making the decision in cases like this, not the state and the stupid amendment that gives equal rights to a pregnant woman and the unborn.
I would have no problems with the idea of "playing god" if that is what the woman or now her family on her behalf wanted. It's the idea that this woman is in some limbo because of politics that makes me angry. >:(
That's what I said, but I didn't get a response. How is keeping someone alive artificially NOT "playing God"?
It depends on which religious agenda is applicable.. It's playing god as much as abortion is. Hypocritical thinking and actions are the norm. Her poor family are being put through torture. They ARE alive and trying to cope with a bloody tragedy.
It depends on which religious agenda is applicable.. It's playing god as much as abortion is. Hypocritical thinking and actions are the norm. Her poor family are being put through torture. They ARE alive and trying to cope with a bloody tragedy.
How is their tragedy lessened by turning off life support?
And is a NOK main responsibility to themselves or to the person they are speaking for?
I'm just not getting the argument that this is anything to do with abortion laws, anything to do with what happens next, who will be responsible for the baby ect.
Medical science has evolved to the point where a person brain dead can be kept "alive" with the body functioning. The body at this moment in time is providing the environment for the baby to survive.
Next week, next month that may not be the case.
People are kept "alive" in this way to facilitate organ donations, why is this considered so different?
The length of time?
How is their tragedy lessened by turning off life support?
And is a NOK main responsibility to themselves or to the person they are speaking for?
I'm just not getting the argument that this is anything to do with abortion laws, anything to do with what happens next, who will be responsible for the baby ect.
Medical science has evolved to the point where a person brain dead can be kept "alive" with the body functioning. The body at this moment in time is providing the environment for the baby to survive.
Next week, next month that may not be the case.
People are kept "alive" in this way to facilitate organ donations, why is this considered so different?
The length of time?
Have you ever lost a child or even anyone close to you? The overwhelming need is to lay that person to rest and say goodbye for most people, which is clearly what this family want. Not have their daughters corpse plugged into the mains against their wishes, to incubate a baby they can't cope with. It's obscene and cruel to do that to any family who haven't chosen it. No-one is kept alive to facilitate organ donation unless they have given consent.
But, it's ok to take a human life if it was conceived through rape, as long as a majority of Irish people say it's ok?
We've had this debate before.
It depends on whether continuing with the pregnancy would have long term ill health effects on the mother - including her psychiatric health. If the mother wishes to have a child that was conceived through rape that is up to her. If she feels it would affect her in a horribly way mentally to continue with the pregnancy then she should have the right to terminate the pregnancy. I believe this is what the majority of Irish people (including practising Catholics) would vote for - that abortion/termination should be allowed if the health of the mother is going to be badly affected by her continuing with the pregnancy.
I can't speak for all Irish people, of course, but that's the general consensus among most of my family/friends of all ages including practising and non-practising Catholics and those of other faiths here in the Republic.
Of course, what a lot of practising Catholics (and others) are worried about is that a psychiatric 'excuse' would be used to let abortion into the Republic. Others worry that the psychiatric reviews would take too long and the time limit for abortions (if allowed in Ireland) would be passed and the mother would have to continue with the pregnancy anyway. It's a difficult issue here.
Have you ever lost a child or even anyone close to you? The overwhelming need is to lay that person to rest and say goodbye for most people, which is clearly what this family want. Not have their daughters corpse plugged into the mains against their wishes. It's obscene and cruel to do that to any family who haven't chosen it.
Some of her family members want her to remain on life support. Others do not. If you let it up to the family, who decides? Supposing the mother and father have different views? I would say it would depend on who she has named as her next of kin. But it certainly isn't as simple as saying that it should be what the family want when they want different outcomes.
Plus, as already stated, here in Ireland the unborn have rights so the doctors have to abide by the state's rulings which is what they are looking into at the moment.
Have you ever lost a child or even anyone close to you? The overwhelming need is to lay that person to rest and say goodbye for most people, which is clearly what this family want. Not have their daughters corpse plugged into the mains against their wishes, to incubate a baby they can't cope with. It's obscene and cruel to do that to any family who haven't chosen it.
Why are you making this personal?
And why such emotive language?
And why have you decided without any question that this is why the family want the LF switched off?
We don't know the why and it may turn out that the why is not reasonable at all.
Nobody chooses this position to be in, does that make it unreasonable to discuss the position?
Have you ever lost a child or even anyone close to you? The overwhelming need is to lay that person to rest and say goodbye for most people, which is clearly what this family want. Not have their daughters corpse plugged into the mains against their wishes, to incubate a baby they can't cope with. It's obscene and cruel to do that to any family who haven't chosen it. No-one is kept alive to facilitate organ donation unless they have given consent.
By and large that would be true but doesn't apply in this case for obvious reasons so not sure why you're applying rules for a different situation.
There's nothing obscene or cruel about it. It's not being done for pleasure but out of necessity whilst the fate of the foetus/baby/child is determined.
The woman herself is as dead as she's ever going to get, the family are in pretty much the same position as one waiting for the coroner to release a body after investigations have been completed. The only point being whether you consider the breathing body to still be the woman herself or not any longer. I don't think it is really.
Comments
It appears some people just really enjoy debating abortion and will take any opportunity to do so whether relevant or not
There's no such thing as 'fate', it's just some stuff that happened.
Does that include the premature delivery of a baby which carries the risk of coming out of this situation perhaps sick or disabled? At the time the mother collapsed, what damage was done to this baby?
Not a criticism, a genuine question.
There are quite a number of cases where healthy babies have been delivered under such sad circumstances.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/four-cases-involving-babies-born-to-their-brain-dead-mums-303359.html
I'm not talking about it from a legal point of view - i'm talking about it from your view that the doctors turning off her life support is them somehow "playing God", yet the fact that she is on life support in the first place to keep her alive isn't "playing God".
It is complete double standards.
In theory I would be happy to take that risk yes. If the drs were to tell me that the baby would be severely brain damaged, then I would wish to terminate.
Basically I would go on the advice of the doctors.
I am pro choice, but I can't understand why everyone is so surprised at people calling it a baby.
When have you ever, even once, heard a parent say they have lost a feotus, even at 17 weeks? They dont. They say they have lost a baby, every time.
I guess in the eyes of those talking it is a foetus if you don't want it and a baby if you do.
Is giving somebody CPR to save their life "playing God"? How about a life saving operation? How about pushing a child out of the path of an oncoming car? Seems ridiculous to equate life support with ending a life.
Yes, sure it is. It just depends on whether you see "playing God" as a bad thing or not. Most of us don't.
Yes, but then I'm not the one with a problem with doctors 'playing God', if that's what it's going to be referred to as.
Claiming that switching off life support is 'playing God', whilst using it in the first place is not, is a complete logical nonsense.
I would have no problems with the idea of "playing god" if that is what the woman or now her family on her behalf wanted. It's the idea that this woman is in some limbo because of politics that makes me angry. >:(
It depends on which religious agenda is applicable.. It's playing god as much as abortion is. Hypocritical thinking and actions are the norm. Her poor family are being put through torture. They ARE alive and trying to cope with a bloody tragedy.
How is their tragedy lessened by turning off life support?
And is a NOK main responsibility to themselves or to the person they are speaking for?
I'm just not getting the argument that this is anything to do with abortion laws, anything to do with what happens next, who will be responsible for the baby ect.
Medical science has evolved to the point where a person brain dead can be kept "alive" with the body functioning. The body at this moment in time is providing the environment for the baby to survive.
Next week, next month that may not be the case.
People are kept "alive" in this way to facilitate organ donations, why is this considered so different?
The length of time?
How would you feel about people that didn't want to donate, being kept *alive* and having their organs donated?
Seems to me that every medical intervention could be seen as "playing God".
It's simply a pointless phrase, frequently trotted out to bolster a weak argument.
I agree it's pointless. I don't believe in God anyway and all medicine is pretty much going against nature.
Exactly my point.
Have you ever lost a child or even anyone close to you? The overwhelming need is to lay that person to rest and say goodbye for most people, which is clearly what this family want. Not have their daughters corpse plugged into the mains against their wishes, to incubate a baby they can't cope with. It's obscene and cruel to do that to any family who haven't chosen it. No-one is kept alive to facilitate organ donation unless they have given consent.
It depends on whether continuing with the pregnancy would have long term ill health effects on the mother - including her psychiatric health. If the mother wishes to have a child that was conceived through rape that is up to her. If she feels it would affect her in a horribly way mentally to continue with the pregnancy then she should have the right to terminate the pregnancy. I believe this is what the majority of Irish people (including practising Catholics) would vote for - that abortion/termination should be allowed if the health of the mother is going to be badly affected by her continuing with the pregnancy.
I can't speak for all Irish people, of course, but that's the general consensus among most of my family/friends of all ages including practising and non-practising Catholics and those of other faiths here in the Republic.
Of course, what a lot of practising Catholics (and others) are worried about is that a psychiatric 'excuse' would be used to let abortion into the Republic. Others worry that the psychiatric reviews would take too long and the time limit for abortions (if allowed in Ireland) would be passed and the mother would have to continue with the pregnancy anyway. It's a difficult issue here.
Some of her family members want her to remain on life support. Others do not. If you let it up to the family, who decides? Supposing the mother and father have different views? I would say it would depend on who she has named as her next of kin. But it certainly isn't as simple as saying that it should be what the family want when they want different outcomes.
Plus, as already stated, here in Ireland the unborn have rights so the doctors have to abide by the state's rulings which is what they are looking into at the moment.
Why are you making this personal?
And why such emotive language?
And why have you decided without any question that this is why the family want the LF switched off?
We don't know the why and it may turn out that the why is not reasonable at all.
Nobody chooses this position to be in, does that make it unreasonable to discuss the position?
By and large that would be true but doesn't apply in this case for obvious reasons so not sure why you're applying rules for a different situation.
There's nothing obscene or cruel about it. It's not being done for pleasure but out of necessity whilst the fate of the foetus/baby/child is determined.
The woman herself is as dead as she's ever going to get, the family are in pretty much the same position as one waiting for the coroner to release a body after investigations have been completed. The only point being whether you consider the breathing body to still be the woman herself or not any longer. I don't think it is really.