Clinicaly dead pregnant woman on life support

volchitsa · 18-12-2014 1:56am

My name is URL wrote: »

At what point would the above argument become redundant in your opinion, if it would at all?

What about a woman involved in an accident or suffering a fatal clot at 32 weeks? Should no attempt be made to save the unborn child unless the mother can also be saved?

If the baby is viable, I don't think there's any question, any more than one would kill a child because its mother had died. If it's close to viability, I would tend to think it should if at all possible be saved. But this is early 2nd trimester, and the family don't want this to happen. I think that is important to remember, we don't know what is going on, and normally the family would be the ones to decide because they know and care for her. So going against their wishes to use their daughter's body as an incubator really seems sick to me.

Look at it from the other end of the time scale : if she were three weeks pregnant, would you really say she must be kept in that state for 8 months for this pregnancy to come to term? What about a week? Why not implant a fertilised egg into her? Where does the right to use someone's dead body without their next of kin's consent end?

volchitsa · 18-12-2014 1:58am

mike_ie wrote: »

She wanted to be not braindead too, presumably, but that didn't come to pass. Seeing that her intent was to bring another child into this world, as second choices go, having her child raised by somebody else would likely beat having that child die with her, no?

That is your view, you're assuming it's also hers but I don't know why.
I wouldn't have a child knowing I was going to die in a couple of months. Some people do though. I think it's completely irresponsible, but one can't ascribe one's own views to everyone else.

banquo · 18-12-2014 2:02am

I remember wondering this aloud before, and someone told me that the basic definition of foetus / baby is from the point it could theoretically survive outside the womb, after however average weeks that is.

Once it falls into that category, there's little medical difference between a baby that's a week away from being born, and one that's still in the second trimester such as this. In both cases, there'd be considered to have been two lives at risk.

But complex situations like this could be argued fairly by two sides.

Edit: Just read it was 16 weeks. Too short a time.

My name is URL · 18-12-2014 2:13am

volchitsa wrote: »

If the baby is viable, I don't think there's any question, any more than one would kill a child because its mother had died. If it's close to viability, I would tend to think it should if at all possible be saved. But this is early 2nd trimester, and the family don't want this to happen. I think that is important to remember, we don't know what is going on, and normally the family would be the ones to decide because they know and care for her. So going against their wishes to use their daughter's body as an incubator really seems sick to me.

Look at it from the other end of the time scale : if she were three weeks pregnant, would you really say she must be kept in that state for 8 months for this pregnancy to come to term? What about a week? Why not implant a fertilised egg into her? Where does the right to use someone's dead body without their next of kin's consent end?

It's basically a case of who's rights are more important... the unborn or the undead

It's fcuked up by any standard but that's the price we pay for massive advances in medicine.

The thing is that nobody has ever been kept mechanically alive for 8 months in order to 'give birth'. They have however been kept alive for over 3 months in order to do so.

There's precedent, and there's evidence to show that the chance of survival in such cases can be quite high when the correct interventions are applied. The baby may not be viable right now, but in a few months it would be. People are regularly kept 'alive' for longer than that.. for whatever reason, be it for organ procurement or the wishes of families.

DM addict · 18-12-2014 2:15am

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. The girl's dead, let her go.

joeperry · 18-12-2014 2:17am

She is blocking the bed for someone else.

hotmail.com · 18-12-2014 2:20am

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. The girl's dead, let her go.

A lot of people seemingly don't see it like this which amazes me.

volchitsa · 18-12-2014 2:38am

My name is URL wrote: »

It's basically a case of who's rights are more important... the unborn or the undead

It's fcuked up by any standard but that's the price we pay for massive advances in medicine.

The thing is that nobody has ever been kept mechanically alive for 8 months in order to 'give birth'. They have however been kept alive for over 3 months in order to do so.

There's precedent, and there's evidence to show that the chance of survival in such cases can be quite high when the correct interventions are applied. The baby may not be viable right now, but in a few months it would be. People are regularly kept 'alive' for longer than that.. for whatever reason, be it for organ procurement or the wishes of families.

I'm fairly sure you are wrong, clinically dead people are not kept alive for months, even at the request of the family, still less against their wishes. More usually the machine is turned off against the family's wishes than the contrary. Probably to save money.

Here, we have a woman being used as a life support machine, against her family's wishes. I find that shocking.

jank · 18-12-2014 2:53am

volchitsa wrote: »

But she wanted to become a mother, presumably. Not create a child to give to someone else.

I honestly doubt that her thought process was, "if I can't be a mother, than my child should die"...this amusing that she wanted to be pregnant in the first place.

My name is URL · 18-12-2014 3:02am

volchitsa wrote: »

I'm fairly sure you are wrong, clinically dead people are not kept alive for months

Under 'Maternal and obstetric outcome' -

The mean duration of maternal support was 38.3 days (range, 2-107 days). In two cases, children were delivered on the second day after BD was diagnosed. Conversely, in two reports, mothers were supported for more than 100 days before delivery

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3002294/

Bongalongherb · 18-12-2014 3:17am

Stark wrote: »

It's bogus. We give people a choice about whether or not to have organs harvested after they die but we don't give people the choice about whether their bodies can be used as incubators or not.

Organs have for many years been taken without consent from the dead, (i.e family members)so I don't concur with the comment.

This situation regarding the mother is one hell of a tough one to deal with. I don't have an answer for it, it's too delicate.

An Claidheamh · 18-12-2014 3:20am

My name is URL wrote: »

You bear it if you want, but this is something that happens all over the world and the same or similar medico-legal and ethical considerations are taken into account.

Here here.

Can`t stand people like volchitsa and they`re all over thejournal.ie.

No perspective.

AndonHandon · 18-12-2014 3:24am

mike_ie wrote: »

She wanted to be not braindead too, presumably, but that didn't come to pass. Seeing that her intent was to bring another child into this world, as second choices go, having her child raised by somebody else would likely beat having that child die with her, no?

Her intent was based on the expectation that she would be alive to raise it. You are dehumanising the mother in a way which is scary, all for the sake of a foetus. You do not really care about the mother's wishes.

Anyway, if the family wish to turn off the life support machine they will be allowed to do this. The reasoning follows simple logic; but for the switching off of the machine would the mother have died? But for the death of the mother would the foetus have survived?

An Claidheamh · 18-12-2014 3:24am

volchitsa wrote: »

But she wanted to become a mother, presumably. Not create a child to give to someone else.

Do you seriously believe that that would be the reason to turn off life support? (And there are several arguments).
In case another person (like the father for instance) raises the child?

Unbelievable.

18-12-2014 3:28am

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. The girl's dead, let her go.

I agree, 100%, let the family decide if they want to turn off the woman's life support.
For a start, the mother may not have known she was pregnant, her family may not have known, the father may not have known.
The foetus is not viable.

Let the girl die.

dubscottie · 18-12-2014 3:28am

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

AndonHandon · 18-12-2014 3:28am

An Claidheamh wrote: »

Do you seriously believe that that would be the reason to turn off life support? (And there are several arguments).
In case another person (like the father for instance) raises the child?

Unbelievable.

As a matter of interest, are you in favour of raising a foetus in a laboratory environment?

An Claidheamh · 18-12-2014 3:36am

AndonHandon wrote: »

As a matter of interest, are you in favour of raising a foetus in a laboratory environment?

Sure.

Bongalongherb · 18-12-2014 3:37am

They are not thinking of keeping this woman on a life-support machine for the next five months or less with forced liquids until they can do a caesarian are they ?.

My name is URL · 18-12-2014 3:38am

dubscottie wrote: »

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

It's nature if you're a fcuking deer hit by a car.. feel free to go skipping among traffic if you think there's no point in preserving the potential of life.

The unborn isn't dead in this case.. if it was the issue wouldn't exist.

Bongalongherb · 18-12-2014 3:42am

Well doctors have the technology to preserve life, and also an oath to uphold it. I would have thought her family or the father would allow this, but they obviously should take more time to think of it.

braddun · 18-12-2014 3:44am

the baby will not survive ,only 4 months old

Bongalongherb · 18-12-2014 3:46am

braddun wrote: »

the baby will not survive ,only 4 months old

But is that a fact ?

eeeee · 18-12-2014 4:01am

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. The girl's dead, let her go.

Here here.

What I see happening is this strung out in the courts in limbo until the foetus can be delivered. Shocking IMO.

1% of foetuses survive being born at 23 weeks with the overwhelming majority suffering disability (it's 90 something % I think), for posters wondering about how old the foetus has to be to survive outside the womb.

In short I think this is so wrong. Her pregnancy does not change who she is. If she wasn't pregnant she would be allowed to die.

My name is URL · 18-12-2014 4:04am

gadetra wrote: »

In short I think this is so wrong. Her pregnancy does not change who she is. If she wasn't pregnant she would be allowed to die.

It's such an outrage. If she didn't have a massive brain hemorrhage there'd be no need to treat her at all :mad:

My name is URL · 18-12-2014 4:51am

An Claidheamh wrote: »

Here here.

Can`t stand people like volchitsa and they`re all over thejournal.ie.

No perspective.

Why on Earth was that post red carded? =/

18-12-2014 5:26am

braddun wrote: »

the baby will not survive ,only 4 months old

The 'baby' is NOT 4 months old.
The foetus is 4 months old.
That's a huge difference.

SuperS54 · 18-12-2014 6:20am

bubblypop wrote: »

The 'baby' is NOT 4 months old.
The foetus is 4 months old.
That's a huge difference.

http://www.baby2see.com/development/week16.html

http://www.bounty.com/pregnancy-and-birth/pregnancy/pregnancy-week-by-week/16-weeks-pregnant

This is somewhat off topic however, my son is just gone 4 months old, above links show typical development at week sixteen of a pregnancy. Having seen and heard my son on ultrasound when my wife was 16 weeks pregnant I can certainly say for me the difference is not so huge, at 16 weeks there's certainly a baby in there and not some anonymous fetus "thing".

Kermit.de.frog · 18-12-2014 6:33am

How can she deliver the baby!?

suicide_circus · 18-12-2014 6:40am

dubscottie wrote: »

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

Ah yes, nature. That's your yard stick is it? opposed to all forms of medicine I presume?

Clinicaly dead pregnant woman on life support

Comments