Clinically dead pregnant woman being kept alive

gozunda · 20-12-2014 9:19am

Macha wrote: »

As an Irish woman, I find this case fascinating and terrifying in equal measure.

Every day, people die because the deceased didn't give consent for their organs to be donated when they were alive. In fact, medical professionals have to have clear evidence of consent to take anything from a dead body for science, let alone saving a life.

Yet this woman is legally obliged to donate her whole body to save a foetus. In other words, pregnant women have less right to bodily integrity than corpses in this country, even when they're clinically dead.

Sadly it all reminds me of the Monthy Python Organ Donation sketch. I won't post it but if you havn't seen it I suggest you check it out ...

The numbers of women that are in effect becoming prisoners of the state due to pregnancy is now truly scary.

Perhaps this should be brought to its logical end and the state should incarcerate / lock up / detain all pregnant women / potentially pregnant women justin case something may happen or they injure themselves etc. Effectively women can be wired up as automoton surrogates to ensure that the ovum / foetus survives above all else and triumphs the mothers right to bodily integrity and self determination ...

It should always be about the quality and not quantity of life. That goes for both the mother and foetus.

Macha · 20-12-2014 9:48am

gozunda wrote: »

Sadly it all reminds me of the Monthy Python Organ Donation sketch. I won't post it but if you havn't seen it I suggest you check it out ...

The numbers of women that are in effect becoming prisoners of the state due to pregnancy is now truly scary.

Perhaps this should be brought to its logical end and the state should incarcerate / lock up / detain all pregnant women / potentially pregnant women justin case something may happen or they injure themselves etc. Effectively women can be wired up as automoton surrogates to ensure that the ovum / foetus survives above all else and triumphs the mothers right to bodily integrity and self determination ...

It should always be about the quality and not quantity of life. That goes for both the mother and foetus.

Well, let's not go overboard -the constitution guarantees a woman's right to travel since 1992 (so for 9 years that right was not explicit). But of course the reality is this option is only available to those who are physically and financially able to travel.

katydid · 20-12-2014 3:42pm

Macha wrote: »

Well, let's not go overboard -the constitution guarantees a woman's right to travel since 1992 (so for 9 years that right was not explicit). But of course the reality is this option is only available to those who are physically and financially able to travel.

Or legally able to; asylum seekers can't travel out of the country.

gozunda · 22-12-2014 5:29am

Macha wrote: »

Well, let's not go overboard -the constitution guarantees a woman's right to travel since 1992 (so for 9 years that right was not explicit). But of course the reality is this option is only available to those who are physically and financially able to travel.

Overboard regarding state control? Seriously?

A recent selection of the 'care and treatment' (sic) of pregnant women in this country ...

Forced C Section ...

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/republic-of-ireland/forced-csection-case-revives-irish-abortion-debate-pregnant-suicidal-woman-was-legally-forced-to-have-a-caesarean-section-30515441.html

Forced birth despite miscarriage

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/pregnant-woman-died-after-hospital-denied-abortion-28901352.html

Lack of post natal care following Caesarean section

http://m.rte.ie/news/2014/0922/645492-inquest/

gozunda · 22-12-2014 5:58am

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?

Well where a 'foetus' cannot survive without artificial intervention then it is apparently not an independent entity and the argument whether it is a 'person' or not boils down to the philosophical - that's a discussion for maybe a whole other raft of threads.
As to the future of medical science akin to Aldous Huxleys 'Brave New World' where 'babies' are decanted from bottles - then I would add that if wishes were fishes, we'd all cast nets in the sea. In essence that argument remains in the realms of science fiction not fact ...

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.

Not so. In the case of a dead person leaving a will relating to their property or the disposal of their remains to medical science then there is a very valid case for a dead persons rights to be treated as very relevant.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Well we can give up on three thousand years of medicine then.

'Medicine' pertains to the treatment of the sick or injured. The patient in this case is primarily the mother who has been acknowledged to be clinically dead and therefore no longer in need of treatment or 'medicine'. An otherwise unviable foetus whose artificial gestation and eventual enforced birth is not 'medicine' per se but rather resulting from a legal status which carries with it significant concerns for the future health and viability of any the foetus which survives to term

The Corinthian · 22-12-2014 9:39am

gozunda wrote: »

Well where a 'foetus' cannot survive without artificial intervention then it is apparently not an independent entity and the argument whether it is a 'person' or not boils down to the philosophical - that's a discussion for maybe a whole other raft of threads.

Well, actually that's the entire point of the Humanities forum - to have precisely those sort of conversations.

As for independent entity, it is. By definition, once a zygote it is an organism. It still requires an environment to survive, but don't we all? The only difference is that environment cannot be artificially replicated as yet.

As to the future of medical science akin to Aldous Huxleys 'Brave New World' where 'babies' are decanted from bottles - then I would add that if wishes were fishes, we'd all cast nets in the sea. In essence that argument remains in the realms of science fiction not fact ...

Not the point. I asked that if the only thing that defines a human is the ability for medical science to keep it alive, then should we not be questioning this definition? After all, it would mean that once we do develop an artificial uterus (which is hardly science fiction, but a likely reality within the next few decades) it would mean that suddenly all fetuses would by that definition be people and no termination could be carried out.

All before we consider that one day someone is considered a ball of cells and the next day a human being, not because they have changed, but because medical science has - which is a bit bizarre, you'd have to admit.

Not so. In the case of a dead person leaving a will relating to their property or the disposal of their remains to medical science then there is a very valid case for a dead persons rights to be treated as very relevant.

Except she did not leave a 'will' that we are aware of, and if (as the State holds) the fetus is a human being, then the rights of a living human being would typically trump the rights of a dead one.

Having said that, without the permission of the deceased, you cannot harvest their organs, even if it were to mean saving the life of another. This would be the principle reason I'd edge towards the side of letting her die in this case as it would be consistent with how we deal with similar cases in organ transplant.

TBH, I find the whole 'it's not a person' approach to the question little more that self deception by those who lack the mental strength to admit it is, but still has no absolute right to life.

'Medicine' pertains to the treatment of the sick or injured. The patient in this case is primarily the mother who has been acknowledged to be clinically dead and therefore no longer in need of treatment or 'medicine'.

I'm afraid that your definition fails given medicine regularly deals with organ transplant from brain dead subjects. Indeed, it's a bit silly to suggest that the knowledge involved in keeping such a body 'alive' is somehow unrelated to medicine.

Peregrinus · 22-12-2014 10:05am

gozunda wrote: »

'Medicine' pertains to the treatment of the sick or injured . . .

If that were true, abortion wouldn't be a medical matter, since pregnancy is neither a sickness nor an injury. And contraception wouldn't be a medical matter either; fertility is not a disease.

Macha · 22-12-2014 10:23am

This is just another constellation of tragic circumstances, which proves once again that we have to repeal the 8th. Putting the value of a fully grown woman on a par with a foetus is disgusting.

I am currently pregnant and thank my lucky stars every day that i will receive my prenatal care in Belgium, not Ireland.

gozunda · 22-12-2014 10:35am

The Corinthian wrote: »

Well, actually that's the entire point of the Humanities forum - to have precisely those sort of conversations.

But not this thread as far as I can see. I was referring to this particular case and as the law currently stands.

The Corinthian wrote: »

As for independent entity, it is. By definition, once a zygote it is an organism. It still requires an environment to survive, but don't we all? The only difference is that environment cannot be artificially replicated as yet.

So yes still in the realms of science fiction in that case

The Corinthian wrote: »

Not the point. I asked that if the only thing that defines a human is the ability for medical science to keep it alive, then should we not be questioning this definition? After all, it would mean that once we do develop an artificial uterus (which is hardly science fiction, but a likely reality within the next few decades) it would mean that suddenly all fetuses would by that definition be people and no termination could be carried out.

Again postulation of some future reality. Let's get there and see if we can decant foetuses.

The Corinthian wrote: »

All before we consider that one day someone is considered a ball of cells and the next day a human being, not because they have changed, but because medical science has - which is a bit bizarre, you'd have to admit.

No I don't believe it is bizarre tbh. Plenty of fertilised ovums ( bunch of cells) get ejected and flushed down the toilet without a women been ever aware of it. Should we then start a emergency response team to rescue all potential ovums from such jeopardy?

The Corinthian wrote: »

Except she did not leave a 'will' that we are aware of, and if (as the State holds) the fetus is a human being, then the rights of a living human being would typically trump the rights of a dead one.

The rights descend to the immediate family and they have made their opinion quite clear. As to the other point then No again because the foetus is not capable of independent survival and to enforce such survival is both questionably moral and carries with serious concerns for the health of any resulting 'baby' post birth. More importantly if as you claim the "rights of a living human being would typically trump the rights of a dead one" then how is it Savita Halappanavar did not meet the criteria for such consideration from the state health services or is it that only foetuses that trump the right of life of the mother?

The Corinthian wrote: »

Having said that, without the permission of the deceased, you cannot harvest their organs, even if it were to mean saving the life of another. This would be the principle reason I'd edge towards the side of letting her die in this case as it would be consistent with how we deal with similar cases in organ transplant.

Then in this we agree

The Corinthian wrote: »

TBH, I find the whole 'it's not a person' approach to the question little more that self deception by those who lack the mental strength to admit it is, but still has no absolute right to life.

Personhood is still a matter for debate. But do clarify what "still has no absolute right to life."

The Corinthian wrote: »

I'm afraid that your definition fails given medicine regularly deals with organ transplant from brain dead subjects. Indeed, it's a bit silly to suggest that the knowledge involved in keeping such a body 'alive' is somehow unrelated to medicine.

But in context with your point it remains it is neither 'medicine' or treatment of the individual concerned.

Glinda · 22-12-2014 10:39am

It's interesting to discuss and mull over what each of us would do ourselves in this awful situation but it seems to me that this is clearly missing the real question.

The actual dilemma here is to identify who, in such an unbelievably tragic and impossible set of circumstances, should get to make the decision? Whose wishes should be paramount?

Is it the mother herself (assuming her wishes are known which they aren't in this case)?

Is it her next of kin, who don't consent to keeping her on life support?

Is it the father of the baby (who I read this morning agrees with the family)

Or does the State step in and take over against the wishes of everyone who knew and loved this lady.

I think the last shred of respect remaining to her is to allow the decision to be made by her next of kin and respect that.

gozunda · 22-12-2014 10:41am

Peregrinus wrote: »

If that were true, abortion wouldn't be a medical matter, since pregnancy is neither a sickness nor an injury. And contraception wouldn't be a medical matter either; fertility is not a disease.

You have taken that out of context from the point that it originally referred to. But to split hairs - pregnancy is neither a sickness or disease as pregnant women are routinely told.

The Corinthian · 22-12-2014 10:42am

Macha wrote: »

Putting the value of a fully grown woman on a par with a foetus is disgusting.

This is not actually the problem. For example, as per my previous post, you might have the same clinically dead woman and a second woman in desperate need for a liver transplant, without which she will die.

Currently both are on a par with each other in terms of rights - indeed the former has fewer. Yet you cannot 'force' a transplant from the former without explicit consent from her (prior to death) or her next of kin - as even when deceased, a person retains post mortum rights to bodily integrity (ironically a throwback of Christianity [1]).

The problem lies with various inconsistencies where it comes to what rights and in what circumstances people have in the instance where a fetus / unborn child is involved.

[1] It was believed that the body would have to remain 'whole' so as to be able to rise on the day of judgment. Hence we tended to bury rather than cremate our dead and those executed of crimes such as treason would have their body parts buried in different parts of the kingdom as the ultimate punishment.

The Corinthian · 22-12-2014 10:46am

Glinda wrote: »

Or does the State step in and take over against the wishes of everyone who knew and loved this lady.

Well, the State does that all the time. If we were to accept that "the wishes of everyone who knew and loved" someone should get final say, every time, then arranged marriages, FGM and euthanasia would also end up being up to them.

gozunda wrote: »

But to split hairs no pregnancy is neither a sickness or disease as pregnant women are routinely told.

To split another hair, you've contradicted yourself with a double negative.

gozunda · 22-12-2014 10:53am

The Corinthian wrote: »

...

To split another hair, you've contradicted yourself with a double negative.

My apologies for a simple typographical error. It has already been fixed. But thanks.

The Corinthian · 22-12-2014 11:08am

gozunda wrote: »

But not this thread as far as I can see. I was referring to this particular case and as the law currently stands.

Then you've selectively read the thread.

So yes still in the realms of science fiction in that case

Why are you actively avoiding what is a blatent ethical inconsistancy? Saying that it is not scientifically available makes no difference to how your position is erroneously defined. Another approach is that the fetus would be viable at 7 months if there's no incubator physically available; you can't accuse that of being science fiction, yet by your definition that 7-month fetus is not a person, not because of anything in itself, but the availability of a medical apparatus. Would you like to address that or avoid it as it would demonstrate how your definition fails to stand up to scrutiny?

No I don't believe it is bizarre tbh. Plenty of fertilised ovums ( bunch of cells) get ejected and flushed down the toilet without a women been ever aware of it. Should we then start a emergency response team to rescue all potential ovums from such jeopardy?

Not necessarily. I've never said that just because we accept a zygote may be a person, it has an absolute right to life. You really have to get out of this black and white thinking.

Personhood is still a matter for debate. But do clarify what "still has no absolute right to life."

I already gave an example of this; you cannot force someone to give up a non-vital organ even if it means that another will die without it. The latter person does not have an absolute right to life in that instance.

Society has lots of exceptions to the rule about people's right to life; war, capital punishment, even in medical ethics allowing someone to die is not only accepted but required in cases of triage.

But in context with your point it remains it is neither 'medicine' or treatment of the individual concerned.

You've certainly not demonstrated that. All you demonstrated is you don't have a valid definition of medicine.

gozunda · 22-12-2014 11:19am

The Corinthian wrote: »

Then you've selectively read the thread.

No quite evidently untrue. The basis of this thread is the OPs post.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Why are you actively avoiding what is a blatent ethical inconsistancy? Saying that it is not scientifically available makes no difference to how your position is erroneously defined.

Reaching into the depths of make believe does not provide any footing for a rational argument imo.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Another approach is that the fetus would be viable at 7 months if there's no incubator physically available; you can't accuse that of being science fiction, yet by your definition that 7-month fetus is not a person, not because of anything in itself, but the availability of a medical apparatus. Would you like to address that or avoid it as it would demonstrate how your definition fails to stand up to scrutiny?

Where is this seven month old foetus sans incubator - is that another case? If so we can debate the merits of the HSE lack of currently available care and facilities. Of note I offered no abstract definition of personhood. I refer only to the specifics of this case. If you wish to wildly extrapolate from that - then of course you are free to do so.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Not necessarily. I've never said that just because we accept a zygote may be a person, it has an absolute right to life. You really have to get out of this black and white thinking.

You said

The Corinthian wrote:

All before we consider that one day someone is considered a ball of cells and the next day a human being, not because they have changed, but because medical science has - which is a bit bizarre, you'd have to admit.

That was in reference to exactly what 'right to life you were referring to btw not monochrome thinking (sic) - do thoughts come in varied hues?

The Corinthian wrote: »

I already gave an example of this; you cannot force someone to give up a non-vital organ even if it means that another will die without it. The latter person does not have an absolute right to life in that instance.

So if the organ concerned here is the body of the deceased - how do we insist that a foetus has a right to that organ or organs and an absolute right to life? The state only recognises an 'equal right to life'. The mother and host is dead. If we stick rigidly to that premise then that equality has been negated by the women's death.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Society has lots of exceptions to the rule about people's right to life; war, capital punishment, even in medical ethics allowing someone to die is not only accepted but required in cases of triage.

Hmmmmm ...

The Corinthian wrote: »

You've certainly not demonstrated that. All you demonstrated is you don't have a valid definition of medicine.

I didn't use the term in reference to the deceased - you did.

OldNotWIse · 22-12-2014 11:22am

If it were me, I would want the child to live. My parents would (I hope!) know this too and respect those wishes. I also expect that they would want the child to survive as it would be all of me that they would have left. As someone who is pro-life, I believe the child should be given the chance to live but it is just that...a belief. It is not one to be imposed on others. We don't know the dynamics or the wishes of any of the parties involved and therefore we cannot sit in judgment of them. There's also the fact that it is very easy to be objective and say what we would do in such a situation but until it happens to us...who knows? Very sad either way

Macha · 22-12-2014 11:31am

The Corinthian wrote: »

This is not actually the problem. For example, as per my previous post, you might have the same clinically dead woman and a second woman in desperate need for a liver transplant, without which she will die.

Currently both are on a par with each other in terms of rights - indeed the former has fewer. Yet you cannot 'force' a transplant from the former without explicit consent from her (prior to death) or her next of kin - as even when deceased, a person retains post mortum rights to bodily integrity (ironically a throwback of Christianity [1]).

The problem lies with various inconsistencies where it comes to what rights and in what circumstances people have in the instance where a fetus / unborn child is involved.

[1] It was believed that the body would have to remain 'whole' so as to be able to rise on the day of judgment. Hence we tended to bury rather than cremate our dead and those executed of crimes such as treason would have their body parts buried in different parts of the kingdom as the ultimate punishment.

Yes I think it is the problem, not just the lack of clarity as to the specific implications. Clarify out all the implications and I still wouldn't find the outcome satisfactory.

The organ transplant comparison only works to a point because a pregnant woman is alive not dead. A better comparison would be obliging everyone to donate one of their spare kidneys seeing as they don't actually need it to stay alive and would therefore save a life.

Irish women are expected to put not only their health but their lives at risk for a foetus, not even yet a person. Imagine the uproar if the state demanded spare kidney donation from unwilling members of the public.

The Corinthian · 22-12-2014 12:17pm

gozunda wrote: »

No quite evidently untrue. The basis of this thread is the OPs post.

I drew from the OP as a basis and certainly have not taken the discussion OT for the Humanities forum. If that is inconvenient for you, that's not my problem.

Reaching into the depths of make believe does not provide any footing for a rational argument imo.

Is abstraction too complex a concept?

Where is this seven month old forus sans incubator - is that another case? If so we can debate the merits of the HSE lack of currently available care and facilities

Plenty of places where the medical care and equipment is lacking. Or does the developing World not count?

That was a query as to exactly what 'right to life you were referring to btw not monochrome thinking (sic) - do thoughts cone in varies hues

And I had already responded.

So if the organ concerned here is the body of the deceased - how do we insist that a foetus has a right to that organ and an absolute right to life. The state only recognises an 'equal right to life'. The mother and host is dead.

Please pay attention.

I have never said that the fetus has an absolute right to life.
I concluded that in this circumstance, unless someone has a counter argument to the one I gave, it does not have any such right.
I have repeatedly argued that the reason for such cases is because society lacks the maturity to discuss it rationally - either we desperately need to define a fetus as not a person, on one side, and ascribe it a ridiculous absolute right to life, on the other.

Hmmmmm ...

Is that the height of your contribution?

I didn't use the term in reference to the deceased - you did.

Please don't try sidestepping.

Macha wrote: »

The organ transplant comparison only works to a point because a pregnant woman is alive not dead. A better comparison would be obliging everyone to donate one of their spare kidneys seeing as they don't actually need it to stay alive and would therefore save a life.

Actually, alive or dead, you still need consent for an organ transplant. Also your example would only work if it was the only way to save another life as I don't think you'll find any example of anyone being in any way sacrificed on the basis of the 'off chance' of it saving another.

Irish women are expected to put not only their health but their lives at risk for a foetus, not even yet a person. Imagine the uproar if the state demanded spare kidney donation from unwilling members of the public.

Well TBH, the whole 'it's not a person' argument just doesn't hold water though. We've already heard one definition of what's a person here, which was easily demolished, and unfortunately I've never heard an argument that is even vaguely convincing.

The reason that the 'it's not a person' is used is because people don't have the stomach to admit it might be, yet coldly, but rationally, decide that even so it doesn't have an automatic right to life. IQ's seem to drop dramatically the moment we view it as a smiling baby.

To me, it's an ethical car crash waiting to happen, because eventually that science fiction scenario of an artificial uterus will become reality and the whole 'viability' rationalization will be out the window. What then? We invent a new reason for saying it's not a person, or follow our principles and 'birth' countless unwanted children because they have become 'viable', thanks to medical science.

Yes, Irish women are sometimes expected to put not only their health but their lives at risk, because they're the ones who get pregnant. But this is the same reason they presently have the right to go off and have an abortion elsewhere, go to term and have it adopted, or keep the child and impose that decision on Irish men. That's life.

Macha · 22-12-2014 1:09pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually, alive or dead, you still need consent for an organ transplant. Also your example would only work if it was the only way to save another life as I don't think you'll find any example of anyone being in any way sacrificed on the basis of the 'off chance' of it saving another.

Organ donations are often the only way to save someone's life. I had a friend who died of cystic fibrosis waiting for a lung. I have a spare one, but no one expected me to donate it.

Well TBH, the whole 'it's not a person' argument just doesn't hold water though. We've already heard one definition of what's a person here, which was easily demolished, and unfortunately I've never heard an argument that is even vaguely convincing.

The reason that the 'it's not a person' is used is because people don't have the stomach to admit it might be, yet coldly, but rationally, decide that even so it doesn't have an automatic right to life. IQ's seem to drop dramatically the moment we view it as a smiling baby.

To me, it's an ethical car crash waiting to happen, because eventually that science fiction scenario of an artificial uterus will become reality and the whole 'viability' rationalization will be out the window. What then? We invent a new reason for saying it's not a person, or follow our principles and 'birth' countless unwanted children because they have become 'viable', thanks to medical science.

Yes, Irish women are sometimes expected to put not only their health but their lives at risk, because they're the ones who get pregnant. But this is the same reason they presently have the right to go off and have an abortion elsewhere, go to term and have it adopted, or keep the child and impose that decision on Irish men. That's life.

What you mean is that it doesn't hold water with you. You've also put forward your ideas on why you think people doesn't believe a foetus is a person but that isn't why I believe it not to be a person. So I stand by my statement that putting a fully grown woman on par with a foetus, which is not a person, is disgusting.

And to be frank I don't care how often or not women are expected to put their health or life at risk, it shouldn't happen at all and it should be entirely her choice. An incredibly dismissive statement to make. And the lack of men's rights somehow makes this all ok? I think I need to go and lie down.

gozunda · 22-12-2014 1:45pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

I drew from the OP as a basis and certainly have not taken the discussion OT for the Humanities forum. If that is inconvenient for you, that's not my problem.Is abstraction too complex a concept?

Wanderings into the realm of science fiction is way ott as far as the current case is concerned imo.

"The wrote:

Plenty of places where the medical care and equipment is lacking. Or does the developing World not count?

We are off to the third world now to find a seven month foetus without an incubator now

seriously???

"The wrote:

And I had already responded.

And your point here was what exactly?

"The wrote:

Please pay attention.
I have never said that the fetus has an absolute right to life.

I concluded that in this circumstance, unless someone has a counter argument to the one I gave, it does not have any such right.

I have repeatedly argued that the reason for such cases is because society lacks the maturity to discuss it rationally - either we desperately need to define a fetus as not a person, on one side, and ascribe it a ridiculous absolute right to life, on the other.

Meh

the first two points appear to negate the third. You stated above that "
'it's not a person' argument just doesn't hold water though". Ergo If it's a person then there would be a corresponding 'right to life'

"The wrote:

Is that the height of your contribution?

Well the answer didn't appear to have any relevance to what I had stated do rather than detail things further I simply
figuratively stoked my chin in confusion

"The wrote:

Please don't try sidestepping.

No sidestepping whatsoever ...

The Corinthian · 22-12-2014 2:32pm

gozunda wrote: »

Wanderings into the realm of science fiction is way ott as far as the current case is concerned imo.

If you can't consider concepts in abstract, then maybe you should debate this elsewhere, where simpler concepts are in use.

We are off to the third world now to find a seven month foetus without an incubator now seriously???

Just following your logic. If you can't follow your own logic, that's hardly my fault.

Fetus is a person only because medical science allows it to be viable.
Medical science is available (for whatever reason) then it is a person.
Medical science is not available (for whatever reason) then it cannot be a person.

Unless you want to amend your first axiom, the the following two will follow. And if you do want to amend it, then I can guarantee we'll be going down a rabbit hole of endless caveats, because of the weakness of the original premise.

the first two points appear to negate the third. You stated above that "
'it's not a person' argument just doesn't hold water though". Ergo If it's a person then there would be a corresponding 'right to life'

I keep on asking you to pay attention - I've also repeatedly pointed out that even is someone is a 'person' that does not grant them an absolute right to life. Is there a reason you're having difficulty grasping this?

Well the answer didn't appear to have any relevance to what I had stated do rather than detail things further I simply
figuratively stoked my chin in confusion

Given the evidence to date, this may be because you're having difficulty comprehending.

Macha wrote: »

Organ donations are often the only way to save someone's life. I had a friend who died of cystic fibrosis waiting for a lung. I have a spare one, but no one expected me to donate it.

I agree and in the case of your friend there was a specific case where an specific person would be saved or would die. The example you gave, unless I misunderstood, would have involved no specific persons of that nature.

What you mean is that it doesn't hold water with you. You've also put forward your ideas on why you think people doesn't believe a foetus is a person but that isn't why I believe it not to be a person. So I stand by my statement that putting a fully grown woman on par with a foetus, which is not a person, is disgusting.

I've given a logical argument; you have (at least in this thread) only given an opinion. You may think that someone disagreeing with your opinion is disgusting, if you please, but you might as well be talking about being disgusted in how others don't believe in the Spaghetti Monster in the Sky, like you then. It doesn't hold water because it can be demonstrated that it does not, whether you like it or not. If you disagree, logically address the points I raised.

And to be frank I don't care how often or not women are expected to put their health or life at risk, it shouldn't happen at all and it should be entirely her choice. An incredibly dismissive statement to make. And the lack of men's rights somehow makes this all ok? I think I need to go and lie down.

Maybe you should lie down, it's not like you've added anything here beyond indignation.

I never said it made anything OK, just that it's life and everyone suffers situations that we wish were different.

Macha · 22-12-2014 3:42pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Maybe you should lie down, it's not like you've added anything here beyond indignation.

I never said it made anything OK, just that it's life and everyone suffers situations that we wish were different.

It's not life, it's the legal situation in this country that forces women to put their lives and health at risk, often against their own wishes. Just because you think men are denied their rights in other regards, doesn't mean it's all comparable and 'just life'. Your comments betray a lack of compassion for the the situations women may find themselves in.

And there no need to be so dismissive about other people's contributions. You've done so regularly throughout this thread. It doesn't make this forum a very welcoming place. No matter, I'm done.

The Corinthian · 22-12-2014 4:13pm

Macha wrote: »

It's not life, it's the legal situation in this country that forces women to put their lives and health at risk, often against their own wishes. Just because you think men are denied their rights in other regards, doesn't mean it's all comparable and 'just life'. Your comments betray a lack of compassion for the the situations women may find themselves in.

And equally your comments betray a lack of compassion, indeed contempt, for men. So really, I don't think there's really much more we can say on this line of discussion as it's a bit rich to expect compassion when you give none.

And there no need to be so dismissive about other people's contributions. You've done so regularly throughout this thread. It doesn't make this forum a very welcoming place. No matter, I'm done.

Any other forum you'd have a point, but the whole point to the Humanities forum has long been somewhere when one can have dispassionate, reasoned debate on topics, not post what are little more than appeals to emotion. All I've done is address what people have written here, nothing more, and I'm a bit taken aback with some of the responses that seem to believe that to even question opinion is somehow offensive or 'unwelcoming'.

Honestly, anything even vaguely connected to abortion is probably impossible to discuss like grown ups in Ireland. It almost always devolves into emotion, opinions and indignation.

gozunda · 22-12-2014 6:26pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

If you can't consider concepts in abstract, then maybe you should debate this elsewhere, where simpler concepts are in use.

Point no 1. You do know that there's no need to resort to the personal. Point no 2. Abstract thinking is fine where it is relevant. Here abstract perambulations into science fiction are about as relevant as snow in a desert.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Just following your logic. If you can't follow your own logic, that's hardly my fault.

I refer you again to point no 1. Btw I refute your take on reality and substitute something that is more realistic imo.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Fetus is a person only because medical science allows it to be viable.

Medical science is available (for whatever reason) then it is a person.

Medical science is not available (for whatever reason) then it cannot be a person.

I do not agree with your flawed logic in relation to personhood. I have already detailed this. But suffice to bring your logic further to that of a person suffering a stroke but without medical science / treatment - that the individual isn't a person? Nice! I believe personhood requires less simple thinking tbh

The Corinthian wrote: »

Unless you want to amend your first axiom, the the following two will follow. And if you do want to amend it, then I can guarantee we'll be going down a rabbit hole of endless caveats, because of the weakness of the original premise.

No there is no such logical progression except in your own mind.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I keep on asking you to pay attention - I've also repeatedly pointed out that even is someone is a 'person' that does not grant them an absolute right to life. Is there a reason you're having difficulty grasping this?

I refer you again to point no 1. There is a very apparent flaw in your logic. I have pointed this out already.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Given the evidence to date, this may be because you're having difficulty comprehending..

Finally I refer you once again to point no 1. I will leave it there. This is going nowhere

Rips · 23-12-2014 12:34am

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

A young Senior Counsel, Conor Dignam, will be given the most important legal assignment of his career - representing the baby whose heart continues to beat in the brain-dead body of its mother in a country hospital.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/fate-of-pregnant-clinically-dead-woman-on-life-machine-to-be-heard-tomorrow-30857040.html

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.

katydid · 23-12-2014 12:41am

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.

If the family would take it out on their own flesh and blood because of the circumstances of its coming into this world, they don't have to keep it. There are plenty couples who would give it the love its own grandparents aren't prepared to give it.

Rips · 23-12-2014 12:54am

So there are plenty of people to 'love' a motherless 'would be' child?

In the complete absence of even a shred of compassion for innocent people alive today? A lack of compassion for the two motherless children left unable to properly grieve??

ProfessorPlum · 23-12-2014 1:43am

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.

I don't think the HSE have any choice here but to put legal representation in place for the various parties. I'm sure they would have been happier all round had the wishes of the doctors and family been complied with, but once the question of the legality of that approach is brought into question, they have no choice but to pursue it.

I hope there will be a sensible conclusion to tomorrow's proceedings.

The Corinthian · 23-12-2014 9:28am

gozunda wrote: »

Point no 1. You do know that there's no need to resort to the personal.

Seriously, what do you expect? You come out with arguments like "ergo If it's a person then there would be a corresponding 'right to life'" despite my having posted multiple times that "even is someone is a 'person' that does not grant them an absolute right to life". So either you're not reading properly or you cannot understand what's written - or is there another interpretation for your repetitive need to ignore this?

Point no 2. Abstract thinking is fine where it is relevant. Here abstract perambulations into science fiction are about as relevant as snow in a desert.

So it's not relevant because you say so? I'm afraid that's self-serving nonsense because you already applied abstract thinking the moment you decided to share your definition of a 'person', so simply dismissing that others may, just because you can call it 'science fiction', is simply insufficient.

It's a sidestep on your part; introduce an abstract definition of a person, then refuse all attempts to question it.

I do not agree with your flawed logic in relation to personhood.

Actually that was your logic:

gozunda wrote: »

Well where a 'foetus' cannot survive without artificial intervention then it is apparently not an independent entity

Backtracking?

This is going nowhere

I agree, but because you are clearly being disingenuous at this stage.

evolving_doors · 23-12-2014 9:46am

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.

Do you know for a fact all the doctors advised for the machine to be turned off?
Do you know for a fact ALL the family want the life supports to be removed?
Regarding your last sentence , isnt it possible for a pro life 'fanatic' to have been a Doctor or Family member.

What did the mother want?
What does the father want?
Are those 2points moot... what does any foetus ever want?

Whats the big deal anyhow, bring the foetus to term (ot as far as possible) and take yer chances, same as any pregnancy. Why the big rush to terminate...

Here's an idea... lets try and do everything medically possible to ensure a good outcome for the foetus!

Aka Ishur · 23-12-2014 11:17am

Armelodie wrote: »

Do you know for a fact all the doctors advised for the machine to be turned off?
Do you know for a fact ALL the family want the life supports to be removed?
Regarding your last sentence , isnt it possible for a pro life 'fanatic' to have been a Doctor or Family member.

What did the mother want?
What does the father want?
Are those 2points moot... what does any foetus ever want?

Whats the big deal anyhow, bring the foetus to term (ot as far as possible) and take yer chances, same as any pregnancy. Why the big rush to terminate...

Here's an idea... lets try and do everything medically possible to ensure a good outcome for the foetus!

Wow you are quick to volunteer someone else's body up for a medical experiment. You do know you are talking about a person who has died right? That's the big deal. She can not say no to this disgraceful treatment.

23-12-2014 11:23am

Viper_JB wrote: »

There's some good reading here about it, child has very low chance of survival, probably less then 10% and a very high chance of a severe health/developmental problems if it does survive, it's sick and will be incredibly painful for everyone involved the longer this drags on, only serves the law....

Just in case anyone missed this post the first time, it's spot on. The timing of the mother's passing makes it extraordinarily unlikely that the fetus will develop normally, let alone survive.

Terribly difficult stuff.

gozunda · 23-12-2014 12:49pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Seriously, what do you expect? You come out with arguments like "ergo If it's a person then there would be a corresponding 'right to life'" despite my having posted multiple times that "even is someone is a 'person' that does not grant them an absolute right to life". So either you're not reading properly or you cannot understand what's written - or is there another interpretation for your repetitive need to ignore this?

So you believe resorting to attacking posters because you have to have a tantrum is acceptable? Nice. You clearly stated two opposing ideas hence my comment. Capice?

"The wrote:

"So it's not relevant because you say so? I'm afraid that's self-serving nonsense because you already applied abstract thinking the moment you decided to share your definition of a 'person', so simply dismissing that others may, just because you can call it 'science fiction', is simply insufficient.

If you post opinion expect to get it challenged. Don't like it? Can't help you with that I'm afraid.

The Corinthian wrote: »

It's a sidestep on your part; introduce an abstract definition of a person, then refuse all attempts to question it.
Actually that was your logic:
Backtracking?I agree, but because you are clearly being disingenuous at this stage.

The above are variously random and disingenuous soundbites that really don't match with was was stated but ya whatever - as I said this is going nowhere. Thanks

evolving_doors · 23-12-2014 1:57pm

Aka Ishur wrote: »

Wow you are quick to volunteer someone else's body up for a medical experiment. You do know you are talking about a person who has died right? That's the big deal. She can not say no to this disgraceful treatment.

well in fairness others are very quick to kill off a foetus.. simply because its chances are slim!
As per usual we only give a damn about the dead in Ireland.

If the woman could donate an organ before death I wonder would others be so quick to rush in and say "oh the chances of it working are slim, she's only being used and denied a decent passing etc."

evolving_doors · 23-12-2014 2:04pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Just in case anyone missed this post the first time, it's spot on. The timing of the mother's passing makes it extraordinarily unlikely that the fetus will develop normally, let alone survive.

Terribly difficult stuff.

Well hey, you could go into the slums of india and give an other foetus the same chances...

so what do we do? Advocate abortion on the grounds of compassion... for who exactly?

If climate change came to a head and the world was close to perishing, would we advocate a mass suicide because the chances were slim?

Where there's life there is hope. In this case there is life , however slim a chance.

Rips · 23-12-2014 6:33pm

Armelodie wrote: »

Do you know for a fact all the doctors advised for the machine to be turned off?
Do you know for a fact ALL the family want the life supports to be removed?
Regarding your last sentence , isnt it possible for a pro life 'fanatic' to have been a Doctor or Family member.

What did the mother want?
What does the father want?
Are those 2points moot... what does any foetus ever want?

Whats the big deal anyhow, bring the foetus to term (ot as far as possible) and take yer chances, same as any pregnancy. Why the big rush to terminate...

Here's an idea... lets try and do everything medically possible to ensure a good outcome for the foetus!

As I have said earlier in this thread, no one can know the mother's wishes in the situation as it stands.

Who is talking about a termination here? Turning off this woman's life support is not a termination of pregnancy, nor is it 'an abortion'.

She may have wished to have this child, and was thankful for it, but we cannot say what she would choose given the circumstances as they are now.

Which is why the decision should be left up to her next of kin, with advice from the medical staff.
Unfortunately in this case, there is a further complication whereby the next of kin, have not received sound medical advice since there are concerns over how the girl was treated before she died.

By rights, they should have been offered counsel by independent consultants, but instead, someone decided, that they do not have authority to make this decision as her next of kin and saw fit to drag them before the courts to fight for the right to let their daughter die with dignity.

I know more facts then have been reported in the media, in as much as you can take a distressed families wishes in such a delicate matter as 'facts'.

But for the sake of what has been reported, and that alone, my opinion stands. I formed my opinion before I was privy to latter details and it has not changed.

Yes, the neurosurgeons responsible for the case, the next of kin family member (the one who matters in this case, the girl's father) and the father of the child have expressed a wish to have the machines turned off.

I would assume, that the rest of the extended family, are supportive of the girl's immediate families, but that much I do not know, nor do I care or consider it relevant.

Rips · 23-12-2014 6:41pm

Here's an idea... lets try and do everything medically possible to ensure a good outcome for the foetus!

Why???

Why is this foetus more important than living people?

Why is it more important than this woman's dignity?

Why is this foetus more important than the women's existing children?
Than their mental health and future health and well being?

Why is the foetus more important than the women's family?
Their health, emotional and physical, their financial standing, their integrity? Their memory of their daughter? Their feelings?

Why is the foetus more important than the father of the child?
His wishes, his involvement or lack thereof, his finances,his future, his reputation, his emotional well being.

Why is the money spent on this case more important than, people with special needs in care homes? (which, I point out, this child, if brought to term, would likely end up in...)

katydid · 23-12-2014 6:52pm

Rips wrote: »

Why???

Why is this foetus more important than living people?

Why is it more important than this woman's dignity?

Why is this foetus more important than the women's existing children?
Than their mental health and future health and well being?

Why is the foetus more important than the women's family?
Their health, emotional and physical, their financial standing, their integrity? Their memory of their daughter? Their feelings?

Why is the foetus more important than the father of the child?
His wishes, his involvement or lack thereof, his finances,his future, his reputation, his emotional well being.

Why is the money spent on this case more important than, people with special needs in care homes? (which, I point out, this child, if brought to term, would likely end up in...)

Why is this foetus less important than its born siblings?

ProfessorPlum · 23-12-2014 6:56pm

Rips wrote: »

By rights, they should have been offered counsel by independent consultants, but instead, someone decided, that they do not have authority to make this decision as her next of kin and saw fit to drag them before the courts to fight for the right to let their daughter die with dignity.

To be fair to her doctors, while it seems they are and were broadly in favour of withdrawing life support, there was a question of the legality of that measure with regard to the constitution, and so they were obliged to seek advice. We can't expect our doctors to practice outside the law, no mater how well intentioned we feel their actions might be.

Rips · 23-12-2014 7:02pm

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

To be fair to her doctors, while it seems they are and were broadly in favour of withdrawing life support, there was a question of the legality of that measure with regard to the constitution, and so they were obliged to seek advice. We can't expect our doctors to practice outside the law, no mater how well intentioned we feel their actions might be.

No, but it begs the questions - is this the first incidence of this? And isit directly as a result of the 8th amendment or merely just the scrutiny of the system? Why was there a legal question? This was cut and shut according to today's reporting....

I don't believe this case is relevant to the 8th amendment.... will we question all medical decisions now, to see if they are relevant against laws with remote parallels?

At this rate, we need to define abortion/ termination and abandon the use of phrasing like ' the right to life'.

No woman in Ireland has a 'right to life' while this continues, at least not a full and decent one if this is allowed to stand.

ProfessorPlum · 23-12-2014 7:13pm

Rips wrote: »

No, but it begs the questions - is this the first incidence of this? And isit directly as a result of the 8th amendment or merely just the scrutiny of the system? Why was there a legal question? This was cut and shut according to today's reporting....

I don't believe this case is relevant to the 8th amendment.... will we question all medical decisions now, to see if they are relevant against laws with remote parallels?

At this rate, we need to define abortion/ termination and abandon the use of phrasing like ' the right to life'.

No woman in Ireland has a 'right to life' while this continues, at least not a full and decent one if this is allowed to stand.

According to the Sunday Times yesterday, there have been two previous cases in Ireland in recent years (since the 1983 amendment I believe), one in Waterford and one in Galway. In both instances life support was continued because of the question of the legality of removing it. The foetus died shortly afterwards in both cases (within weeks). In the Waterford case it was reported that the AG at the time advised that the hospital could make their own decision without recourse to the courts, but what actually happened, I'm not sure (i.e. did the foetus die before a decision either way was actually made). I think until the courts rule that this case is no relevant to the 8th amendment, doctors will have to continue to question the legality of their medical decisions. As Dr Boylan said in court today, repealing the 8th amendment would be useful, and decisions in these kinds of cases could return to being medical ones and not legal ones.

Black Swan · 23-12-2014 7:59pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

If you can't consider concepts in abstract, then maybe you should debate this elsewhere, where simpler concepts are in use.

Is there a reason you're having difficulty grasping this?

Given the evidence to date, this may be because you're having difficulty comprehending.

Maybe you should lie down, it's not like you've added anything here beyond indignation.

MOD WARNING:
Please focus on making meaningful contributions to the thread topic, and avoid making such personal and condescending comments about others.

Macha · 24-12-2014 8:53pm

From the latest media reports, it seems that the woman's family and the father of her children are united in wishing for her life support to be switched off. And the medical experts agree that the foetus had little chance of survival.

I suppose the other barrister is just doing his job but it was hard to read him arguing that the foetus's right to life trumps the woman's right to a dignified death.

The article said that he was representing the rights of the unborn. Does anyone know if this happens in other jurisdictions, ie that a barrister is appointed to carry out that role?

gozunda · 25-12-2014 11:10pm

Macha wrote: »

From the latest media reports, it seems that the woman's family and the father of her children are united in wishing for her life support to be switched off. And the medical experts agree that the foetus had little chance of survival.

I suppose the other barrister is just doing his job but it was hard to read him arguing that the foetus's right to life trumps the woman's right to a dignified death.

The article said that he was representing the rights of the unborn. Does anyone know if this happens in other jurisdictions, ie that a barrister is appointed to carry out that role?

Interesting, I wonder if he was there representing the state or was employed by one of the more extreme right ring anti groups?

PopePalpatine · 26-12-2014 7:24pm

The High Court ruled today that her life support may now be turned off. It's unfortunate that her parents had to wait so long to give her a dignified send-off.

gozunda · 26-12-2014 8:43pm

http://m.rte.ie/news/2014/1226/668994-high-court-to-rule-on-pregnant-woman-case/

The barrister for the unborn child, Conor Dignam, said they were satisfied the courts had considered the right to life of this unborn child in great depth and had considered the issues adequately to protect and vindicate the rights of the unborn in this case.

Of interest - how is the 'unborn' (sic) paying for a barrister? Seriously???

Lawyers for the woman said maintaining a brain dead person on life support for such a long time had been described as grotesque and experimental but said that one man's experiment may be another's pioneering treatment.

And which should be considered enforced incarceration and denial of an individual rights against all reason.

But seriously Wtf? That the fact that this was ever put before the courts for consideration - does the rights of any individual to a dignified death count for nothing in this right wing religious hellhole?

That's it I'm leaving ..

pwurple · 27-12-2014 9:03pm

I don't think anyone, left, right or center, thinks that piece of legislation is fit for purpose.

Too many referenda has made a complete mess of it, and anytjing got to do with reproductive science is now seen as politically untouchable.

The hospital ethics committee should make these decisions. I have seen this case on international newspapers, in horrendously graphic detail. What a living nightmare for that family.

gozunda · 27-12-2014 11:32pm

pwurple wrote: »

I don't think anyone, left, right or center, thinks that piece of legislation is fit for purpose.

Reported from the present case
http://www.thejournal.ie/life-support-clinically-dead-woman-judgement-1852228-Dec2014/

Representatives for the unborn had initially argued against the move, stating that the right to life was greater than the right to dignity in death.

Any argument derived from that legislation and seriously put forward in a case like the current one has to be exposed for what it really is - a travesty of human rights.

pwurple wrote: »

Too many referenda has made a complete mess of it, and anytjing got to do with reproductive science is now seen as politically untouchable.

The hospital ethics committee should make these decisions. I have seen this case on international newspapers, in horrendously graphic detail. What a living nightmare for that family.

It's time to remove that barbaric piece of legislation from the constitution imo.

The Corinthian · 28-12-2014 1:52pm

pwurple wrote: »

The hospital ethics committee should make these decisions.

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

Clinically dead pregnant woman being kept alive

Comments