Clinically dead pregnant woman being kept alive

Supercell · 17-12-2014 11:14pm #1

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.

jacksie66 · 17-12-2014 11:16pm

This post has been deleted.

Baggy Trousers · 18-12-2014 12:45am

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.

Manach · 18-12-2014 1:03am

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.

Rips · 18-12-2014 1:40am

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.

Supercell · 18-12-2014 1:53am

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.

The Corinthian · 18-12-2014 11:35am

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.

eviltwin · 18-12-2014 11:38am

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.

18-12-2014 11:40am

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!

The Corinthian · 18-12-2014 11:48am

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

18-12-2014 11:51am

The Corinthian wrote: »

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

Have a day off Trigger

The Corinthian · 18-12-2014 11:55am

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.

18-12-2014 11:56am

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?

pwurple · 18-12-2014 12:05pm

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?

The Corinthian · 18-12-2014 12:08pm

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.

schemingbohemia · 18-12-2014 12:09pm

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.

pwurple · 18-12-2014 12:10pm

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?

eviltwin · 18-12-2014 12:10pm

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.

The Corinthian · 18-12-2014 12:11pm

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.

pwurple · 18-12-2014 12:12pm

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.

eviltwin · 18-12-2014 12:13pm

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.

Zamboni · 18-12-2014 12:14pm

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.

groovyg · 18-12-2014 12:41pm

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.

The Corinthian · 18-12-2014 1:51pm

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.

Orion · 18-12-2014 2:56pm

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.

Orion · 18-12-2014 2:58pm

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.

The Corinthian · 18-12-2014 3:05pm

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.

pwurple · 18-12-2014 3:15pm

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.

Rips · 18-12-2014 4:24pm

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?

pwurple · 18-12-2014 4:38pm

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.

Orion · 18-12-2014 4:48pm

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.

pwurple · 18-12-2014 4:51pm

Orion wrote: »

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.

Are all organ donations also "wrong" then by that definition though?

Viper_JB · 18-12-2014 5:06pm

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....

pwurple · 18-12-2014 5:23pm

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....

There isn't enough data to draw those conclusions. This kind of event is (thankfully) extremely rare. The couple of cases that were referenced by the wikipedia page are about women who were in accidents, or their heart stopped... so there was oxygen deprivation or other injury to the foetus. That doesn't seem to be the case here. Indeed the quote is

at present, it seems that there is no clear lower limit to the gestational age which would restrict the physician's efforts to support the brain dead mother and her fetus

Viper_JB · 18-12-2014 5:47pm

pwurple wrote: »

There isn't enough data to draw those conclusions. This kind of event is (thankfully) extremely rare. The couple of cases that were referenced by the wikipedia page are about women who were in accidents, or their heart stopped... so there was oxygen deprivation or other injury to the foetus. That doesn't seem to be the case here. Indeed the quote is

Even so, you're talking about leaving a live baby in a brain dead body that won't control hormone levels correctly. The fetus would realistically need to be practically fully developed for this not to have a negative effect on it, there may not be a huge number the draw on but for mothers being put on support at 14-17 weeks, the statistics are very grim, all evidence points towards there being an incredibly high chance of there being complications, I mean the next line after the one you quoted states....
"Indeed, "[a]t 24, 28 and 32 weeks, a fetus has approximately a 20-30%, 80% and 98% likelihood of survival with a 40%, 10% and less than 2% chance of suffering from a severe handicap, respectively."[2][3]"
If the fetus had a high likelyhood of success my view's on this would be very different, but this will be dragging on for months and things don't look good.

So at 24 weeks a 20% chance or survival, so far less then 20% chance.
But even aside from that it seems very wrong to me that the state can do this, take ownership of your dead body against your family (possibly your own wishes) so that no laws might be broken...

mikom · 18-12-2014 5:49pm

I's say the child will be old enough to play for the international soccer team before a decision is made on this.
It's dragging on already, probably in the hope that the unborn gets to 24 weeks and the decision will be already made for everybody.

dahorseboy · 18-12-2014 5:56pm

What I'm wondering is if the child will develop as normal.

Chemical Byrne · 18-12-2014 5:59pm

Although we don't know the detail, but lets assume the baby was known not to have suffered any hypoxia and was expected to be healthy and that hormone levels remained normal.

Then, if I was the father in that case I'd be pretty sure that I'd want her to be kept alive for the sake of the baby. It's bad enough in itself that my partner/wife was effectively dead without having my baby die also when there was a realistic prospect of it being OK.

I dunno, maybe here the father is just a dead-beat and not in the picture and the grandparents are elderly and would not be able to care for a baby.

It's a horrible horrible state of affairs.

I wonder in the case of stroke is it possible that the hormone producing/regulating parts of the brain might remain intact & functional despite a major cerebral infarct of other parts of the brain rendering a person brain dead.

pwurple · 18-12-2014 6:05pm

Viper_JB wrote: »

All evidence points towards there being an incredibly high chance of there being complications

Yes, but the range of complications are vast. I have a godchild who was born at 24 weeks. She has poor eyesight. That is her prematurity complication.

Viper_JB wrote: »

But even aside from that it seems very wrong to me that the state can do this, take ownership of your dead body against your family (possibly your own wishes) so that no laws might be broken...

I agree here, next of kin consent is certainly required here, even by my own notion that this is a donor uterus.

I wonder is this overlapping with an unmarried father situation as well in some way. If the father of the children has a different opinion to the parents, what is the right thing to do? As he is not mentioned, we can only also assume they are not married, and in his unmarried situation he has no legal rights either as next of kin to the woman, or as guardian to any child, all rights revert to her parents.

There's a lot here. There's the ethics surrounding possibly
-Death and life support... When is dead, actually dead?
-The rights of an unborn child
-Consent for medical intervention
-Unmarried fathers rights.

seamus · 18-12-2014 6:06pm

Viper_JB wrote: »

Even so, you're talking about leaving a live baby in a brain dead body that won't control hormone levels correctly.

That's actually a great point that I hadn't really considered.
We can keep someone on life support by artificially causing their blood to circulate and lungs to respire, but the somatic nervous system does more than breathe and pump blood. This woman's endocrine system is not functioning. And hormones are pretty damn crucial during the first two trimesters.

If the pregnancy was 24 or 28 weeks, then keeping her alive to get it over the line seems more reasonable, but at 17 weeks it's complete folly. In the event that a child does grow, I would put very poor odds on a viable child emerging, never mind a healthy one.

At 17 weeks this isn't a medical treatment, it's a medical fncking experiment. There are no guarantees that keeping the body alive will help the child at all. It's literally crossing your fingers and hoping for the best. It's sick, actually.

I do understand though that the doctors aren't doing this because they think it's the right thing to do, they're doing it because they don't know if they have any other legal choice. I'm sure if they had the option, they wouldn't hesitate to go with the NOK's wishes.

mikom · 18-12-2014 6:07pm

pwurple wrote: »

Yes, but the range of complications are vast. I have a godchild who was born at 24 weeks. She has poor eyesight. That is her prematurity complication.

Was her mother dead since 17 weeks?
7 weeks before she was born.

The Corinthian · 18-12-2014 6:16pm

Orion wrote: »

No. I'm saying that at 16 weeks even an incubator wouldn't help.

That's not what I asked. You gave a definition of what makes a 'person' and I pointed out how that definition is, when you look at it, daft.

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.

Where did you get the idea I'd keep the body 'alive' indefinitely?

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.

Not facetious, just responding to what you said.

Chemical Byrne · 18-12-2014 6:24pm

pwurple wrote: »

........we can only also assume they are not married, and in his unmarried situation he has no legal rights either as next of kin to the woman, or as guardian to any child , all rights revert to her parents.

And that there is something about this country that really grinds my gears in a big way. Imagine how it would be to be a father at in this situation with the baby at say 23 weeks and to be powerless and have absolutely no say over whether your child lives.

OT, but in general, the bolded part is warped and backward IMO. But it's not a straightforward thing to change either as granting such rights would be open to abuse by unscrupulous dead beat fathers seeking to use such rights to exact revenge or hardship upon an ex partner. How can the legal system differentiate between a genuine father who wants the best for his child and the preceding unsavoury character? I'd say it'd be next to impossible.

This woman's endocrine system is not functioning. And hormones are pretty damn crucial during the first two trimesters.

Do we know her endo system is not working? Might she have lost all conciousness & sentient function but retained those hormone regulating parts of the brain in a functional state.

If it's the case where there will be a substantial chance of severe disability, the yes, I agree that pulling the plug is probably the "kindest" thing to do. I know this is horrible to say but sometimes when one sees extremely disabled persons with probably little or no consciousness or quality of life I can't help but think that it's a sort of cruelty in a way and it might be kinder to.............

seamus · 18-12-2014 6:34pm

Chemical Byrne wrote: »

Do we know her endo system is not working? Might she have lost all conciousness & sentient function but retained those hormone regulating parts of the brain in a functional state.

Brain death typically means the entire brain is shut down including the autonomic functions (I did erroneously say "somatic" in my last post, which is the exact opposite), hence why life support is required to keep blood flow and breathing going.

But you're right in that it's not guaranteed that these systems in fact have shut down. However ultimately even if they haven't, you're still basically experimenting. You have no idea if they're functioning in the correct way for a pregnancy.

Chemical Byrne · 18-12-2014 6:48pm

Well perhaps we would need to determine whether it's actual brain death or brain stem death. In the latter, consciousness and ability to breathe are lost but the rest of the brain remains intact and functional to a degree.

Rips · 18-12-2014 8:02pm

Similar situation in Texas, the woman was allowed to die after a 2 month court battle:

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/01/26/health/texas-pregnant-brain-dead-woman/
Harrowing testimony from her husband

Foetus was distinctly abnormal
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/01/22/us/pregnant-life-support-texas/index.html

Aka Ishur · 18-12-2014 8:50pm

Doesn't Ireland have rules against desecrating a corpse? The idea that organ donors are kept alive for a few hours at most to harvest organs, in an operation they have specifically consented for, somehow equates with keeping a dead body going for up to 8 weeks, without consent, is horrific. This is nothing short of a medical experiment. Next question is how far along does a woman have to be to warrant this 'treatment'. If a patient is declared brain dead are they going to keep her warm for 3 months? 4? 5? Are we going to need it defined in law? How can you say 1 month is ok, but 3 months is not ok?

Truly disgusted with this poor women's doctors, who, instead of doing what is clearly and naturally right, were either (a) too concerned with covering their own asses, (b) too interested in unethical experimentation, or (c) too ready to put their religion first. I hope to feck it is merely ass covering.

pwurple · 18-12-2014 9:11pm

Chemical Byrne wrote: »

And that there is something about this country that really grinds my gears in a big way. Imagine how it would be to be a father at in this situation with the baby at say 23 weeks and to be powerless and have absolutely no say over whether your child lives.

OT, but in general, the bolded part is warped and backward IMO. But it's not a straightforward thing to change either as granting such rights would be open to abuse by unscrupulous dead beat fathers seeking to use such rights to exact revenge or hardship upon an ex partner. How can the legal system differentiate between a genuine father who wants the best for his child and the preceding unsavoury character? I'd say it'd be next to impossible.

The answer is marriage. As an unmarried father you are completely screwed in this situation with an unborn child. By not marrying the father, the woman has effectively given all guardianship rights to her own parents.

I understood that most (all?) hospitals have an ethics group for cases of this nature. In my opinion, this is where the decision on cases like this should lie, not the court system. These specific cases are far too unusual and nuanced for laws to be made for each and every eventuality. There should be the freedom for an ethics board in a hospital to make decisions. The courts grind along extremely slowly, it's not fit for this kind of thing.

katydid · 20-12-2014 12:29am

Aka Ishur wrote: »

Doesn't Ireland have rules against desecrating a corpse? .

She's not a corpse.

Aka Ishur · 20-12-2014 1:20am

katydid wrote: »

She's not a corpse.

Really? Is she alive? A human being who has been declared dead is a corpse. Its the definition of the word for fecks sake

Macha · 20-12-2014 8:44am

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.

Clinically dead pregnant woman being kept alive

Comments