Clinically dead pregnant woman being kept alive on life support

1246728

Comments

  • .Lauren..Lauren. Posts: 7,864
    Forum Member
    I have no idea what to say about this. Shocking, I know.
  • SaturnVSaturnV Posts: 11,519
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Strange situation, I would be happy at the chance to save the baby if it was my daughter.
  • StressMonkeyStressMonkey Posts: 13,347
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    How are you so sure it isn't "bronze age religious insanity" that has prompted the family to want the life support switched off?

    What if the family was supportive of her staying on life support?
    Would you be arguing that the doctors must switch off life support?

    The law is over riding the families wishes which is the heart of the debate.

    If the family wanted their daughter's corpse kept alive to try to facilitate a live delivery then there would be no debate. Should a law, based on a misogynistic religion, be able to over-ride family and medical professionals?
  • anne_666anne_666 Posts: 72,891
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    reglip wrote: »
    You can repeat and repeat that you believe it is a religious issue but i can assure you that doctors tend to view preserving life pretty highly as well no matter what country

    It's a legal issue. Brought about by Catholicism.
  • reglipreglip Posts: 5,268
    Forum Member
    Electra wrote: »
    They're not keeping her alive though. She's dead. They're just keeping her corpse functioning.

    She is brain stem dead as in the area in her brain that controls her breathing is now not able to do that. Her body is fine but she is unable to breath for herself and the hospital can keep her breathing. Her organs and her body will continue to live but for that to happen the hospital need to take over her breathing
  • irishfeenirishfeen Posts: 10,025
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Red John wrote: »
    Isn't that what they're doing by keeping her alive?
    Well they are using medical advancements to protect the life of the baby - choosing to kill the child when there is options available would be to me unforgivable.
  • reglipreglip Posts: 5,268
    Forum Member
    anne_666 wrote: »
    It's a legal issue. Brought about by Catholicism.

    But as I have explained this is an issue wherever this situation occurs and unlike you seem to be insinuating take religion out of the equation and this is still not cut and dry as you would like to portray
  • irishfeenirishfeen Posts: 10,025
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    SaturnV wrote: »
    Strange situation, I would be happy at the chance to save the baby if it was my daughter.
    The thing is the mother could have had the exact same opinion and could very well agree with the decision if she was alive and well.
  • Stormwave UKStormwave UK Posts: 5,088
    Forum Member
    irishfeen wrote: »
    The thing is the mother could have had the exact same opinion and could very well agree with the decision if she was alive and well.

    Agreed. If the baby is healthy, I see no reason to let it die, and I've no doubt the mother would agree if she could.

    The family can mourn her parting as it is now. She's already gone. What would actually killing her physical body change?
  • MonsterMunch99MonsterMunch99 Posts: 2,475
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    irishfeen wrote: »
    The thing is the mother could have had the exact same opinion and could very well agree with the decision if she was alive and well.

    She's not though, so that's completely irrelevant.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,249
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    irishfeen wrote: »
    Well they are using medical advancements to protect the life of the baby - choosing to kill the child when there is options available would be to me unforgivable.

    Anything we do to either save life or facilitate death could be described as playing god. The phrase only ever seems to be used in relation to the latter though, and when it comes to saving life any reservations about playing god seem to disappear ;-)
  • StressMonkeyStressMonkey Posts: 13,347
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    irishfeen wrote: »
    The thing is the mother could have had the exact same opinion and could very well agree with the decision if she was alive and well.

    But she's dead. So it is up to her parents.

    It's them being denied the comfort of being able to say goodbye in a controlled manner and being able to grieve and heal.

    Instead they will have to spend the next few weeks or months waiting for an infection to kill her, or her kidneys to shut down or for her to go into cardiac arrest. All high risks of her condition. Or until a baby is delivered then, serving no further use, her corpse will be left alone and the family free to grieve - with a new born they may or may not have the resources (physically, financially, emotionally) to care for and constantly remind them of the manner of her death.

    Versus letting go of something that isn't even aware, doesn't yet feel pain. Won't know a thing.

    I know which I think is the kinder option all round.
  • justatechjustatech Posts: 976
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Electra wrote: »
    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.

    It is a child and I bet the mother thought of it as a child and would be bereft if it was illed just because she isn't fully alive. The baby only needs around six to eight weeks before it could be delivered so nowhere near twenty weeks.

    The grandparents are probably scared that they will be left to take care of it but I think there would be thousands who would willingly take that burden from them.
  • irishfeenirishfeen Posts: 10,025
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    She's not though, so that's completely irrelevant.
    Of course it's relevant, she was going to carry this baby as normal as far as we are aware to birth so she obvious wanted something to do with the baby.

    The state steps in (and rightly so IMO) to protect the child from harm.
  • ElectraElectra Posts: 55,660
    Forum Member
    reglip wrote: »
    She is brain stem dead as in the area in her brain that controls her breathing is now not able to do that. Her body is fine but she is unable to breath for herself and the hospital can keep her breathing. Her organs and her body will continue to live but for that to happen the hospital need to take over her breathing

    In other words, she's dead.
  • SaturnVSaturnV Posts: 11,519
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    She's not though, so that's completely irrelevant.

    It's reasonable to infer her likely wishes given that she was happily carrying the baby so it's as relevant as any other factor.
  • justatechjustatech Posts: 976
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    anne_666 wrote: »
    It's a legal issue. Brought about by Catholicism.

    It has nothing to do with Catholicism. There have been several cases where a similar situation has occurred and none of them involved Catholicism. this is just another reason for the religious bashers to come out of the woodwork and bitch. There would be arguing just as hard if the Church said kill the mother, the baby doesn't matter.
  • StressMonkeyStressMonkey Posts: 13,347
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    justatech wrote: »
    It is a child and I bet the mother thought of it as a child and would be bereft if it was illed just because she isn't fully alive. The baby only needs around six to eight weeks before it could be delivered so nowhere near twenty weeks.

    The grandparents are probably scared that they will be left to take care of it but I think there would be thousands who would willingly take that burden from them.

    You surely aren't advocating delivering at 24/5 weeks? Now that would be evil:(>:(
  • .Lauren..Lauren. Posts: 7,864
    Forum Member
    So, out of interest, how would people feel about this if say, for example, she had clearly expressed when she was a alive, that should anything happen to her, she would want her baby to be given every chance of survival?
  • Speak-SoftlySpeak-Softly Posts: 24,737
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    She's not though, so that's completely irrelevant.

    Then why ask the family their wishes?
    By doing that you accept the principle that a person's former existence has some relevance.
    Otherwise you could just as well ask strangers on the street.
  • irishfeenirishfeen Posts: 10,025
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    But she's dead. So it is up to her parents.

    It's them being denied the comfort of being able to say goodbye in a controlled manner and being able to grieve and heal.

    Instead they will have to spend the next few weeks or months waiting for an infection to kill her, or her kidneys to shut down or for her to go into cardiac arrest. All high risks of her condition. Or until a baby is delivered then, serving no further use, her corpse will be left alone and the family free to grieve - with a new born they may or may not have the resources (physically, financially, emotionally) to care for and constantly remind them of the manner of her death.

    Versus letting go of something that isn't even aware, doesn't yet feel pain. Won't know a thing.

    I know which I think is the kinder option all round.
    The state can and will look after this child of the grandparents can't/won't .. I don't see why the grandparents should have any say in the matter really... I feel terribly sorry for them but the child should and will come first morally and legally.
  • StressMonkeyStressMonkey Posts: 13,347
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    irishfeen wrote: »
    The state can and will look after this child of the grandparents can't/won't .. I don't see why the grandparents should have any say in the matter really... I feel terribly sorry for them but the child should and will come first morally and legally.

    They're her next of kin presumably.

    Do NOK not have any status in Ireland?
  • Stormwave UKStormwave UK Posts: 5,088
    Forum Member
    .Lauren. wrote: »
    So, out of interest, how would people feel about this if say, for example, she had clearly expressed when she was a alive, that should anything happen to her, she would want her baby to be given every chance of survival?

    I can imagine differently. But having known many pregnant women who have chosen not to have abortions, most of them would give anything to keep their baby alive. So I'd say it's safe to presume she would want it alive.

    I seriously doubt the mother would state that if she were brain dead but the body could successfully give birth, she would rather her baby die as well.
  • reglipreglip Posts: 5,268
    Forum Member
    Electra wrote: »
    In other words, she's dead.

    Yes. I was just clarifying for people what the situation was as you were attempting to use language to dehumanise her calling her a corpse which while technically accurate (although entirely debateable: what is alive?) is a little like your insistence that people use the word fetus instead of child. It is an effective technique but a little callous if you ask me
  • reglipreglip Posts: 5,268
    Forum Member
    They're her next of kin presumably.

    Do NOK not have any status in Ireland?

    NOK dont have the final say in england either not as far as i know anyway. For example if the family dont want to withdraw treatment but the doctors think that there is nothing more they can do and it will do more harm for the patient to carry on keeping them alive they will carry on and try to persuade the family but only to a point and then they will withdraw despite the NOK wishes
Sign In or Register to comment.