Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Clinically dead pregnant woman being kept alive

Options
  • 17-12-2014 11:14pm
    #1
    Supercell
    Registered Users Posts: 15,322 ✭✭✭✭


    I read this story on the indo - http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/clinically-dead-pregnant-woman-being-kept-alive-by-hospital-30845660.html , with mixed feelings.
    A PREGNANT woman who is clinically brain dead is being kept on a life support machine against the wishes of her parents.

    The woman is early in the second trimester of pregnancy and the baby is still alive.

    According to sources with knowledge of the case, her parents have expressed their wish that the life support machine be switched off.

    However, doctors have been unwilling to do this due to the constitutional amendment which gives the rights of mothers and the unborn equal status.

    Rather than have this descend into AH silliness for a serious topic, I hope its OK to post here.

    As a father of two I'm quite stuck by the story and am quite curious to hear what others have to say.

    On one hand as a father I know that had something happened to my wife she would definitely want her child to have a chance of life, absolutely no question about it. I remember talking to her about the tragic story of Gigi Lee ( mother of Van Morrison child) and she was adamant she would have done the same as she did for her child.

    On the other hand, not knowing what the mothers wishes would have been, do we say that the wishes of the the mothers parents outweigh the right to life of an unborn child?

    For me, I believe that if the mother was healthy and wanted to abort the child at this stage, would it be permitted in countries where abortions are allowed (like the UK for example) or is it too far gone? If the answer is no then the baby should be given a chance, otherwise the parents wishes should be respected.
    https://www.loughlinstown.ie

    Have a weather station?, why not join the Ireland Weather Network - http://irelandweather.eu/



«1345

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    jacksie66
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,988 ✭✭✭jacksie66


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #3
    Baggy Trousers
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,816 ✭✭✭Baggy Trousers


    Wow, that's a tough one.

    Where is the father in this instance? I think if I was her parent and the father agreed, I would expect the doctors to respect our wishes whatever we decided.


  • Options
    #4
    Manach
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,669 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


    Given the constitution gives a balance between the life of the mother and unborn. As tragically the former is in such a medical state (as per OP's article), then the chance of life for the unborn should be upheld.


  • Options
    #5
    Rips
    Registered Users Posts: 416 ✭✭Rips


    jacksie66 wrote: »
    Any normal, sane mother would want their child to live, even if it means their own life..

    Maybe she didn't want to be a mother? How disrespectful to call her sanity into question. The foetus may have been deprived of oxygen as she was or go on to suffer the effects of trying to maintain this poor woman as an incubator. It will inevitably be delivered preterm and probably suffer as a result. Who will raise it?

    Hard to lose a daughter, harder still to be left raising her potentially severely disabled child, or have to leave it to the state while unaware of her actual wishes.

    What do the parents tell their grandchild while their daughter is being used an incubator?

    Her wishes if known, should be respected, and if not, then the next of kin.


  • Options
    #6
    Supercell
    Registered Users Posts: 15,322 ✭✭✭✭Supercell


    That's something I hadn't considered Rips. I suppose if the child was going end up severely disabled as a result, that would probably sway me to termination too. Its an absolutely horrible situation for all concerned.
    https://www.loughlinstown.ie

    Have a weather station?, why not join the Ireland Weather Network - http://irelandweather.eu/



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    This is a pretty complex dilemma, and the article is pretty limited on details. We don't know what the situation with the father is; is he in the picture? What are his wishes? What were the mother's wishes prior to her death? Was she in the process of getting an abortion or was she looking to go to term?

    To begin with we're already in the second trimester, so even if abortion were legal, it would probably have a 12 week cut-off point, which is the most common limit in Europe - the UK is actually the European exception with it's fairly liberal limit. So it's too late now anyway.

    The second question - assuming the wishes of neither parent are known - is whether the wishes of a deceased person, exercised by their next of kin should supersede the right to life of a person. And I say person here, because in most jurisdictions it is a person after the first trimester.

    It comes down to whether it is a person or not and whether the wishes and rights of others supersede it's rights as a person. And if so, in what order - it would be pretty obscene if the wishes of the father could be superseded by the maternal grandparents.

    Given this, the whole debate on abortion doesn't make sense anyway. On one side you have the pro-choice side that creates convoluted criteria for what is a person and what is not. On the other side the pro-life side that gives an absolute and draconian right to life from conception, that does not exist even for adults. Neither really makes much sense when examined as both are designed to sway people through emotion and not reason.

    My own view is that the moment the egg splits it's a person on the basis that it is a Homo Sapien organism that will develop into an adult, and reproduce itself, given the correct environment. Given this, just because it may be a person, does not mean it has an absolute right to life - no one actually has an absolute right to life in reality. If they did, we could force people to donate organs to save the lives of others.


  • Options
    #8
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    jacksie66 wrote: »
    Any normal, sane mother would want their child to live, even if it means their own life..

    Well I must be a terrible mother then. I put my existing children and their need for me to be here, and my own desire to live of course above any unborn child. My living children need me more and mean more and I think most mothers would feel the same.


  • Options
    #9
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Horrible story!
    I can only imagine how the father is dealing with that!
    Any mother would want her baby saved even if told it would kill her!


  • Options
    #10
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    And the inevitable slide into cheap emotion whenever this discussion crops up begins...


  • Options
    #11
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    And the inevitable slide into cheap emotion whenever this discussion crops up begins...

    Have a day off Trigger


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Bam Bam Mickey wrote: »
    Have a day off Trigger
    You're posting to the wrong forum for appeals to emotion. You might be better off taking them elsewhere.


  • Options
    #13
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    You're posting to the wrong forum for appeals to emotion. You might be better off taking them elsewhere.
    It's a humanities thread, have a think about that!
    Thread spoil much Mr Mod?


  • Options
    #14
    pwurple
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,449 ✭✭✭✭pwurple


    What an unusual case. I wonder why the parents want that life support switched off. The article does not say.

    If it were me, I would prefer that my child remain alive after my death. I would have no desire to take him/her with me to the grave.

    I'm struggling to rationalise why the grandparents do not wish their grandchild to be born alive. Disability has been cited above as a reason, but there is no indication that there is a disability in this case. And even if there was, that's a whole other realm of ethics.

    Could it be that they believe the pregnancy killed the woman, and it's some sort of revenge?


  • Options
    #15
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Bam Bam Mickey wrote: »
    It's a humanities thread, have a think about that!
    LOL. You don't actually know what Humanities means.
    pwurple wrote: »
    What an unusual case. I wonder why the parents want that life support switched off. The article does not say.
    There is very little information in the article. However this opens the discussion up to being discussed far more in the abstract, which might not be possible were it restricted by further details.


  • Options
    #16
    schemingbohemia
    Registered Users Posts: 5,606 ✭✭✭schemingbohemia


    Are we now going to have every woman that is taken into A&E unconscious forcibly given a pregnancy test? Because that is the logical conclusion of this.


  • Options
    #17
    pwurple
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,449 ✭✭✭✭pwurple


    eviltwin wrote: »
    Well I must be a terrible mother then. I put my existing children and their need for me to be here, and my own desire to live of course above any unborn child. My living children need me more and mean more and I think most mothers would feel the same.

    But if you were dead already? As in this situation?


  • Options
    #18
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    pwurple wrote: »
    What an unusual case. I wonder why the parents want that life support switched off. The article does not say.

    If it were me, I would prefer that my child remain alive after my death. I would have no desire to take him/her with me to the grave.

    I'm struggling to rationalise why the grandparents do not wish their grandchild to be born alive. Disability has been cited above as a reason, but there is no indication that there is a disability in this case. And even if there was, that's a whole other realm of ethics.

    Could it be that they believe the pregnancy killed the woman, and it's some sort of revenge?

    It must be very hard for the parents, they have lost their daughter and I am wary of anyone judging them on the few facts they have.


  • Options
    #19
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    schemingbohemia wrote: »
    Are we now going to have every woman that is taken into A&E unconscious forcibly given a pregnancy test? Because that is the logical conclusion of this.
    Actually, I think that's already done. It would actually be a bit irresponsible not to check.


  • Options
    #20
    pwurple
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,449 ✭✭✭✭pwurple


    schemingbohemia wrote: »
    Are we now going to have every woman that is taken into A&E unconscious forcibly given a pregnancy test? Because that is the logical conclusion of this.

    I've taken pregnancy tests before xrays... i think it's fairly normal.


  • Options
    #21
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    pwurple wrote: »
    But if you were dead already? As in this situation?

    No I would want to be allowed to die. Its different if it happened at the end of the pregnancy where you are talking a matter of days but months....no, my kids would be my main concern and mentally keeping me alive and prolonging the grieving process wouldn't be good for them I don't think. I would prefer to be let go and die.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    Zamboni
    Registered Users Posts: 4,305 ✭✭✭Zamboni


    There is only one reason I would not pull the plug as per the girls next of kins wishes.
    And that is, if the father of the unborn is actively seeking and able to raise the child.

    And as no details have been released that I am aware of in relation to the father of the unborn that any speculation/judgement is pointless.


  • Options
    #23
    groovyg
    Registered Users Posts: 1,049 ✭✭✭groovyg


    So according to the Sindo she is 17 weeks pregnant, from reading the Irish Times the woman suffered a brain trauma a number of weeks ago and was transferred from Beaumont to a hospital down the country.
    Doctors and health officials are examining the case of a pregnant woman on life support which raises fresh legal issues over the right to life of the unborn.
    The woman, believed to be in her mid to late 20s, suffered a brain trauma a number of weeks ago.
    She was taken to Beaumont Hospital, the national neurosurgical centre. Later, she was transferred to a HSE hospital outside Dublin.

    Surely if she's been brain dead for a few weeks the foeteus has to be affected? Who is going to bring up the child? I think the families wishes should be respected, they've lost a daughter and the foetus should not be seen as a replacement for their loss. What a horrible situation to be in, and very scary for woman that she can be treated like an incubator!

    If this case has been dragging on for a number of weeks, then isn't it very similar to what happened to the young assylum seeker who tried to get a termination. She was passed from official to official until it was too late to have an abortion and as a result the baby was delivered prematurely.


  • Options
    #24
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    groovyg wrote: »
    Surely if she's been brain dead for a few weeks the foeteus has to be affected?
    Apparently not necessarily. Brain dead can mean a vegetative state, meaning that the brains higher functions are essentially gone, but those governed by the medulla oblongata continue to regulate functions such as breathing, the heart and so on.
    Who is going to bring up the child?
    Indeed. We should close down all the orphanages and liquidate the occupants. Weak argument, I'm afraid.
    I think the families wishes should be respected, they've lost a daughter and the foetus should not be seen as a replacement for their loss.
    No one has suggested that it is a replacement for their loss.
    What a horrible situation to be in, and very scary for woman that she can be treated like an incubator!
    It isn't a woman anymore though. It's essentially a corpse. As such it's largely treated the same way as any other corpse - that's why at the center of this are the wishes of the next of kin, just as they would be in any other case involving a deceased person.
    If this case has been dragging on for a number of weeks, then isn't it very similar to what happened to the young assylum seeker who tried to get a termination. She was passed from official to official until it was too late to have an abortion and as a result the baby was delivered prematurely.
    It's already too late. After the first trimester a termination is pretty much illegal throughout the EU, with the exception of the UK.


  • Options
    #25
    Orion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,807 ✭✭✭✭Orion


    If the foetus is not capable of surviving outside the womb then it's not a person. The woman is dead. Keeping her "alive" with machinery just turns her in to an incubator and dehumanises her and the doctors doing it. IMO the machines should be turned off in line with her family's wishes. If it was a case where the foetus was 26 weeks developed then it could be delivered and incubated to term in the hospital - but this it not the case here.


  • Options
    #26
    Orion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,807 ✭✭✭✭Orion


    Also - despite what some prolifers say - this would not be abortion. Abortion only applies to a living woman - not a dead one. Prolifers say that nature should take its course at all times regardless of a threat to the life of the mother or any foetal abnormalities - well nature has dictated that this women is dead so let her die.


  • Options
    #27
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Orion wrote: »
    If the foetus is not capable of surviving outside the womb then it's not a person.
    Are you saying that a premature baby that cannot survive without an incubator is not a person, or that the available technology to keep that baby alive is what defines it as a person?Better still, were we to develop an artificial uterus in the future, it would no longer be possible to terminate a pregnancy as all fetuses would be able to survive outside of the womb?
    Orion wrote: »
    Also - despite what some prolifers say - this would not be abortion.
    No, but most of the philosophical and moral arguments surrounding this case would be common to the abortion debate. The only real difference is that the rights of the woman are no longer relevant as she's dead.
    well nature has dictated that this women is dead so let her die.
    Well we can give up on three thousand years of medicine then.


  • Options
    #28
    pwurple
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,449 ✭✭✭✭pwurple


    I can see where people are coming from, keeping dead people alive artifically for this purpose can certainly be seen as macabre. Being born to a mother who died months previously has some potential for serious cognitive dissonance, but.... there are babies born where the father died months previously, so it's not something that could not be coped with.

    I align this with organ donation. People are kept on life support for organ transplants, this is effectively a donor uterus. Consent is still with the donor or the donor's family though. I am strongly in favour of organ donation, I have a card myself, as does the rest of my family. The lack of consent here is bothering me. If next of kin have specifically NOT consented to this, then the organ is not available.

    I hope the family are receiving some counselling. It must be very difficult to make a clear decision under such stress.


  • Options
    #29
    Rips
    Registered Users Posts: 416 ✭✭Rips


    It is tragic, but it really is a case which highlights the rights of a foetus against the rights of the woman. Abortion aside. Abortion is not in question here, nor is it worth considering whether she wanted to bring this pregnancy to term, or not, she could not have known what was to happen, therefore, no one can say what she would choose.

    In light of current legislation, I know people who have laid out their concerns and express wishes with a solicitor to safeguard against certain situations, ie; that they want their own life to be paramount for the sake of their existing children/partner... this women was unlikely to have got this far, since she was only a few weeks pregnant, she may not have even been aware.

    She should be allowed to die with dignity as her parents wish, be brought home, and her existing children have closure.
    As the foetus IS NOT VIABLE it will 'die' when her life support is switched off.

    I actually applaud her parents, if that is their wish, my parents would probably find great consolation in the chance of a grandchild and would have no qualms about using me as an incubator :rolleyes: I find it abhorrent.

    While no specifics have been mentioned in the media as regards the health of the pregnancy, the statistics are quite high even for pregnancies which are almost at the point of viability, these concerns were raised in the case of the forced caesarean, what chance does a 16 week old foetus have?


    I remember comments flying about on boards before the eight amendment, people discussing women strapped to beds, forced fed, cut open, or used as incubators ... didn't take long, did it?


  • Options
    #30
    pwurple
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,449 ✭✭✭✭pwurple


    Rips wrote: »
    what chance does a 16 week old foetus have?

    It's 17 weeks I think, but the answer here is none. 26 weeks has about an 80% survival rate, but usually with serious complications. 24 weeks has a lower survival rate, and more complications. There have been a handful of babies born at 22 weeks who have survived.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    Orion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,807 ✭✭✭✭Orion


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Are you saying that a premature baby that cannot survive without an incubator is not a person, or that the available technology to keep that baby alive is what defines it as a person?Better still, were we to develop an artificial uterus in the future, it would no longer be possible to terminate a pregnancy as all fetuses would be able to survive outside of the womb?
    No. I'm saying that at 16 weeks even an incubator wouldn't help.
    The Corinthian wrote: »
    No, but most of the philosophical and moral arguments surrounding this case would be common to the abortion debate. The only real difference is that the rights of the woman are no longer relevant as she's dead.
    Yet you have no problem keeping the body "alive" indefinitely? She does still have rights - in this case a right for her body to die.
    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Well we can give up on three thousand years of medicine then.
    That's just facetious. The woman is dead - keeping her hooked up to machines in a facsimile of life is not medicine - it's wrong.


Advertisement