Clinically dead pregnant woman being kept alive

Manach · 28-12-2014 2:28pm

Terrible situation for the family. But I believe the court erred by holding that other indefinable and socially constructed rights, which as legal scholars have pointed out seem to be proliferation without any normative basis, have essentially overriden the right to life of the unborn in this case which has been mentioned in the constitution and consistet with moralists such as Keown.

gozunda · 28-12-2014 8:40pm

Manach wrote: »

Terrible situation for the family. But I believe the court erred by holding that other indefinable and socially constructed rights, which as legal scholars have pointed out seem to be proliferation without any normative basis, have essentially overriden the right to life of the unborn in this case which has been mentioned in the constitution and consistet with moralists such as Keown.

Stan- What do you suggest? Where's the foetus gonna gestate? You gonna keep it in a box :rolleyes:

drkpower · 28-12-2014 9:05pm

Manach wrote: »

Terrible situation for the family. But I believe the court erred by holding that other indefinable and socially constructed rights, which as legal scholars have pointed out seem to be proliferation without any normative basis, have essentially overriden the right to life of the unborn in this case which has been mentioned in the constitution and consistet with moralists such as Keown.

There was no overriding of foetal rights in the judgment.

The court accepted the medical evidence that there was no reasonable prospect of the foetus surviving, and found that it was in the foetus' best interests to be allowed to die.

MrPudding · 29-12-2014 9:19am

The Corinthian wrote: »

Do you really want a private professional body, with no democratic oversight, to decide on these things?

A private professional medical body making decisions on medical issues? Yes.

MrP

The Corinthian · 29-12-2014 9:48am

MrPudding wrote: »

A private professional medical body making decisions on medical issues? Yes.

Et quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

As a case in point, this case involved the removal of the wrong liver from a patent. The Irish Medical Council committee concluded human error on the part of the consultant, but (IFAIK) no action was ever taken against him.

Indeed, one can say this of pretty much all such professional bodies - how many complaints against barristers have ever been successful?

Democracy, as Churchill once said, is the worst system in existence, except for every other system, and this is because it does have a line of accountability, however tenacious, leading back to the citizens. Professional bodies do not; they represent their profession and ultimately the interests of that profession, not society or the people.

That is why I would be very hesitant to leave final say on such matters to any body that lacks any democratic oversight.

MrPudding · 29-12-2014 10:05am

The Corinthian wrote: »

Et quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

The courts.

The Corinthian wrote: »

As a case in point, this case involved the removal of the wrong liver from a patent. The Irish Medical Council committee concluded human error on the part of the consultant, but (IFAIK) no action was ever taken against him.

Indeed, one can say this of pretty much all such professional bodies - how many complaints against barristers have ever been successful?

Democracy, as Churchill once said, is the worst system in existence, except for every other system, and this is because it does have a line of accountability, however tenacious, leading back to the citizens. Professional bodies do not; they represent their profession and ultimately the interests of that profession, not society or the people.

That is why I would be very hesitant to leave final say on such matters to any body that lacks any democratic oversight.

Hey, I never said they were infalible. I am happy to allow medical professionals to make medical decisions, and I do so in the knowledge that they won't always get it right, and that there is recourse to the courts if and when required.

Who do you think should have the final say? The courts? They aren't democratic either. Government? Are they democratic? Look at the conservatives in the uk. Pandering to the religious, even though every poll shows Britain cares less and less about religion. And let's not forget the 8th amendment.

All that said, I do accept your point that there can be an element of 'looking after our own' bit in the absence of a better system, one for example, that does not keep decomposing corpse on life support for weeks and have a family saying all they want for Christmas is their daughter or mother or partner to die with dignity. And yes, I did kind of throw in an appeal to emotion there, but merely to reenforce the point that perhaps the best people to make medical decisions are medical people, most of the time.

MrP

pwurple · 29-12-2014 5:27pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Do you really want a private professional body, with no democratic oversight, to decide on these things?

Hospitals in this country are overseen. Irish medical council, HSE, etc...

And I don't believe private medical affairs require random unqualified people off the street making these sorts of decisions.

What happened here on top of everything else was that the woman was moved out Beaumont hospital (which has an ethics committee) and sent off to a much smaller hospital with two ICU beds and no obstetrics dept. Is it cynical to think that this suited Beaumont quite well?

ProfessorPlum · 29-12-2014 5:34pm

pwurple wrote: »

Hospitals in this country are overseen. Irish medical council, HSE, etc...

And I don't believe private medical affairs require random unqualified people off the street making these sorts of decisions.

What happened here on top of everything else was that the woman was moved out Beaumont hospital (which has an ethics committee) and sent off to a much smaller hospital with two ICU beds and no obstetrics dept. Is it cynical to think that this suited Beaumont quite well?

Yes, I think it is. The fact is that Beaumont is the national centre for neurosurgery, and as such will accept and treat all neurosurgical referrals it deems necessary of specialist treatment. After that treatment is complete it is entirely normal for the patient to be transferred back to the referring hospital. This then allows further space to be made available for other referrals requiring specialist care only available in Beaumont.

pwurple · 29-12-2014 10:22pm

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Yes, I think it is. The fact is that Beaumont is the national centre for neurosurgery, and as such will accept and treat all neurosurgical referrals it deems necessary of specialist treatment. After that treatment is complete it is entirely normal for the patient to be transferred back to the referring hospital. This then allows further space to be made available for other referrals requiring specialist care only available in Beaumont.

My point was that, to me,it looked like the decision had already been mostly made by the hospital internally,and it was now being left to the courts to sort it out afterwards... Effectively getting it out of their way. Removing the woman from obstetric, neurological and icu care weeks before the "decision" had been made by the courts looks like they were well aware of what the outcome was going to be. And well they should, as they were the closest to the case. When they did not have the right to make that call directly, we got use of court time, taxpayer money and a lot of unneccesary suffering for that family.

ProfessorPlum · 29-12-2014 10:57pm

pwurple wrote: »

My point was that, to me,it looked like the decision had already been mostly made by the hospital internally,and it was now being left to the courts to sort it out afterwards... Effectively getting it out of their way. Removing the woman from obstetric, neurological and icu care weeks before the "decision" had been made by the courts looks like they were well aware of what the outcome was going to be. And well they should, as they were the closest to the case. When they did not have the right to make that call directly, we got use of court time, taxpayer money and a lot of unneccesary suffering for that family.

But the hospital didn't make the decision, the courts did! And the hospital she was transferred to did have ICU and obstetric care, neurological care was a non issue as she was already dead. She would have had to have been maintained for a further 7 weeks to even have any chance at all of the foetus surviving, and that 7 weeks could be spend outside of the national referral centre with no adverse implication at all. Infact, if eventually the baby was to be delivered and thought to be viable, she needed to be in a maternity hospital with a NICU. Beaumont doesn't have one, so there little point in delivering her there. There was no reason at all for Beaumont to keep her, and they certainly weren't shirking their responsibilities. How could they possibly have known what the court decision would be? The doctors knew what the medical decision was, but this was a legal question - one that took 17 barristers and solicitors and 3 judges to answer.

pwurple · 30-12-2014 12:08am

We have different information then. I was told no obstetrics and a very basic ICU. Only 2 beds.

MrPudding · 30-12-2014 12:27am

pwurple wrote: »

We have different information then. I was told no obstetrics and a very basic ICU. Only 2 beds.

Why would you keep someone with, effectively, no brain in a specialist brain hospital with limited beds that would be better being available for someone they could actually help?

MrP

OldNotWIse · 30-12-2014 11:15am

Rips wrote: »

I wouldn't be the most sensitive of people, but is anyone else aghast at the reporting here and elsewhere;

I really truly feel for the living breathing family concerned here, it is so upsetting to read in many articles, this foetus being described as a 'baby', without seemingly a thought for the parents and this poor woman who is only a 'brain-dead mother'. What good is the life of a child that would grow up to be treated in this way?

There is more feeling for the judge!!!

I hope the family and all involved get the outcome they want tomorrow.

I thought some of the comments in the AH thread about her taking up a bed space were callous, but when you read this article, it certainly does seems as if the HSE are squandering money here on legal proceedings for an unwanted pregnancy. You would think they had money to waste. The doctors advise it and the family want the machines turned off, but clearly some pro-life fanatic stuck their oar in.

First of all, you are mistaken in describing this as an "unwanted pregnancy". It was very much a wanted pregnancy. The woman had shared scan photos, discussed baby names etc and her family said they had no doubt that had everything gone to plan, she would have wanted to carry the baby to full term. A tragic set of circumstances mean that was not possible but please don't disrespect her or her family by describing this as an unwanted pregnancy.

Second, there was no "pro life fanatic" interfering. There were medical professionals who (rightly and understandably) did not want to leave themselves open to liability if they misinterpreted or did not act in accordance with the legislation in question. Whether you agree with the legislation or not is irrelevant to the fact that the doctors here were uncertain as to the legal repercussions depending on which course of action they took.

I suspect many of you have not bothered to read the court judgment, which is interesting given how much time you have invested in posting on the thread. Judgment is only 26 pages and is vey informative. For example, you will see that the "pro life fanatics" you refer to actually agreed that the cessation of life support was the right thing to do.

I doubt that even the most militant pro-life person would hold out much support for any other decision having read the harrowing judgment.

pwurple · 31-12-2014 1:08am

MrPudding wrote: »

Why would you keep someone with, effectively, no brain in a specialist brain hospital with limited beds that would be better being available for someone they could actually help?

MrP

I would keep a person, where the single purpose of keeping them alive is a pregnancy, in a hospital with an obstetrics department.

ProfessorPlum · 31-12-2014 2:51am

pwurple wrote: »

I would keep a person, where the single purpose of keeping them alive is a pregnancy, in a hospital with an obstetrics department.

So Beaumont is out then.

ProfessorPlum · 31-12-2014 11:03am

OldNotWIse wrote: »

First of all, you are mistaken in describing this as an "unwanted pregnancy". It was very much a wanted pregnancy. The woman had shared scan photos, discussed baby names etc and her family said they had no doubt that had everything gone to plan, she would have wanted to carry the baby to full term. A tragic set of circumstances mean that was not possible but please don't disrespect her or her family by describing this as an unwanted pregnancy.

Second, there was no "pro life fanatic" interfering. There were medical professionals who (rightly and understandably) did not want to leave themselves open to liability if they misinterpreted or did not act in accordance with the legislation in question. Whether you agree with the legislation or not is irrelevant to the fact that the doctors here were uncertain as to the legal repercussions depending on which course of action they took.

I suspect many of you have not bothered to read the court judgment, which is interesting given how much time you have invested in posting on the thread. Judgment is only 26 pages and is vey informative. For example, you will see that the "pro life fanatics" you refer to actually agreed that the cessation of life support was the right thing to do.

I doubt that even the most militant pro-life person would hold out much support for any other decision having read the harrowing judgment.

Well there's the crowd at 'Life News' who published this delightful article for example. Their language would suggest a certain degree of disapproval.

"Court Allows Hospital to Kill Brain-Dead Pregnant Mom’s 18 Week Unborn Baby"

Also I don't recall any pro life fanatics referenced in the judgment - what part exactly are you referring to?

OldNotWIse · 31-12-2014 11:36am

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Well there's the crowd at 'Life News' who published this delightful article for example. Their language would suggest a certain degree of disapproval.

"Court Allows Hospital to Kill Brain-Dead Pregnant Mom’s 18 Week Unborn Baby"

Also I don't recall any pro life fanatics referenced in the judgment - what part exactly are you referring to?

The crowd at Life News are not the doctors in question, are they? I am not sure why you are even referring to them tbh

I never said there were "pro life fanatics" referenced in the judgment - another poster referred to the pro life fanatics who brought this case.

Try to keep up.

Edit: here you go, Rips at post 77

"The doctors advise it and the family want the machines turned off, but clearly some pro-life fanatic stuck their oar in" - that is what I was replying to. There were no "pro life fanatics" sticking their oar in - there were doctors who were unsure of how to interpret the legislation and so went to court for clarification on the matter so they would not leave themselves open to liability.

ProfessorPlum · 31-12-2014 11:43am

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I suspect many of you have not bothered to read the court judgment, which is interesting given how much time you have invested in posting on the thread. Judgment is only 26 pages and is vey informative. For example, you will see that the "pro life fanatics" you refer to actually agreed that the cessation of life support was the right thing to do.

I doubt that even the most militant pro-life person would hold out much support for any other decision having read the harrowing judgment.

OldNotWIse wrote: »

The crowd at Life News are not the doctors in question, are they?

I never said there were "pro life fanatics" referenced in the judgment - another poster referred to the pro life fanatics who brought this case.

Try to keep up.

Dear oh dear.

I'd suggest working on your syntax and general English language skills if you don't want to be misunderstood.

OldNotWIse · 31-12-2014 11:48am

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Dear oh dear.

I'd suggest working on your syntax and general English language skills if you don't want to be misunderstood.

I'd suggest you refrain from irrelevant attacks on other posters writing style because your argument can no longer be substantiated.

ProfessorPlum · 31-12-2014 11:51am

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I'd suggest you refrain from irrelevant attacks on other posters writing style because your argument can no longer be substantiated.

It's not your writing 'style'. Read what you wrote again and you can see how it could be misinterpreted. And that's being generous.

OldNotWIse · 31-12-2014 11:56am

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

It's not your writing 'style'. Read what you wrote again and you can see how it could be misinterpreted. And that's being generous.

Perhaps if you read the post I was initially replying to you wouldn't have misunderstood my post. Or if you prefer, by all means take everything that is said in a discrete vacuum

ProfessorPlum · 31-12-2014 12:14pm

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Perhaps if you read the post I was initially replying to you wouldn't have misunderstood my post. Or if you prefer, by all means take everything that is said in a discrete vacuum

Most writers prefer that their writings make sense on their own merits. It would appear others need to write extensive 'edits' to explain their intended meaning, yet have difficulty understanding how others could possibly have 'misinterpreted' them.

OldNotWIse · 31-12-2014 12:20pm

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Most writers prefer that their writings make sense on their own merits. It would appear others need to write extensive 'edits' to explain their intended meaning, yet have difficulty understanding how others could possibly have 'misinterpreted' them.

Ah look. You misunderstood my post because you didn't read the post I was replying to. It's simple and you don't have to defend your position. It can happen to the best of us. My "extensive edits" are meaningless arguments back and forth with one person who can't seem to let it go. I assume that by "others" you simply mean....you?

I'm not writing a novel, I am partaking in a discussion. This naturally involves replying to other posts and ideas no? Are you here for the Nobel prize in literature? :P

Now, I am tired and I don't want to continue with your mental gymnastics

Black Swan · 01-01-2015 2:32am

MOD FRIENDLY REMINDER: Let's please focus on the thread topic, and not each other. Thanks.

Clinically dead pregnant woman being kept alive

Comments