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

Clinicaly dead pregnant woman on life support

Options
13567…44

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    Kermit.de.frog wrote: »
    How can she deliver the baby!?

    Cesarean


  • Options
    #63
    DM addict
    Registered Users Posts: 567 ✭✭✭DM addict


    Kermit.de.frog wrote: »
    How can she deliver the baby!?
    suicide_circus wrote: »
    Cesarean


    She can't deliver the baby. She's dead.


  • Options
    #64
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,023 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    My name is URL wrote: »
    Under 'Maternal and obstetric outcome' -
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3002294/

    Against the wishes of the next of kin? I think you will find not.

    Also, 100 days means a third trimester fetus. This baby is still a long way from that. And we have no idea what state it will be in, neither now after all the treatment the woman got (I would hope they prioritised saving her life over the we'll being of the fetus, but I have my doubts) but especially after four or five months in a dead woman's womb attached to life support which really can't be the same as being in a living woman.

    The idea is sickening.


  • Options
    #65
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,023 ✭✭✭volchitsa


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

    She doesn't have a child, she is in her second trimester of pregnancy. There couldn't even be a legal declaration of a death for it if the life support machine were turned off. In that way it's closer to a woman deciding to have a child knowing she will die in a few months. You can't assume she would have done that. Many women wouldn't.


  • Options
    #66
    seventeen sheep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 776 ✭✭✭seventeen sheep


    joeperry wrote: »
    She is blocking the bed for someone else.

    Wow. That's a sickening level of heartlessness.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,023 ✭✭✭volchitsa


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

    Unbelievable.

    The family are against that. Do you know anything about their circumstances? I would assume they have their reasons, I don't think it's a decision parents would make lightly. Do you?

    In any case, under other circumstances, the family would have the final say here, as they would in other countries too. It's a misuse of the constitutional amendment on abortion which was not intended to keep dead women for use as incubators.


  • Options
    #68
    seventeen sheep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 776 ✭✭✭seventeen sheep


    I can see this turning into an abortion debate - when is it a foetus and when is it a baby - who has the right to decide?

    For the record, I'm completely pro-choice.

    In this situation, I think it would be completely wrong to turn off the mother's life support. The mother's right to "choice" is no longer in the equation, as sadly she's no longer here.

    So we have option one - turn off the life support. Mother is dead, foetus dies inside her.

    Option two - a healthy baby is born in a few months. If no next of kin want it, it's not a problem - there are SO many brilliant couples wanting to adopt in Ireland, and it's extremely rare that an Irish child is put for adoption. The child would have a good stable environment, hopefully, which is probably what the mother would have wanted.

    If I were to be in the same situation tomorrow, my partner would be in the same predicament. Chances are my parents would turn off the life support to get it over with. He'd have already bonded with the baby, seen it move around on the ultrasound etc - but he'd have no say, and the decision would be made with no input from him. I hope that at least this case opens parents' eyes to how few rights fathers have when the mother isn't around anymore. I would love for my partner to have the same rights and responsibilities as I do when it comes to our child, but he isn't arsed doing the paperwork. This case is a stark warning about leaving it too late - no mention about the father in the article, and why would there be - if they're unmarried and haven't made him legal next-of-kin, he has no say.

    In a case like this, I think it should absolutely be down to the opinion of the medical professionals. And I really hope it ends in the delivery of a healthy baby. The mother won't be any more or less dead, but at least this little one might have a chance at a good life.

    It's a f*cking horrible situation, and I feel for everyone involved.


  • Options
    #69
    AudreyHepburn
    Registered Users Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭AudreyHepburn


    Jesus what a horrible situation for everyone involved.

    I have to ask why it's all been about the Mother's next of kin and what they want though?

    What the father and his next of kin? The mother herself? The baby? Do none of these get a say or a thought in all this?

    Should the doctors and nurses really be forced not to uphold their hippocratic oath to preserve life? I'm sure they didn't take the decision to keep the woman alive lightly nor did they do it out of malice.

    How do we know this isn't want the mother would want?

    I would strongly suggest we drop the moral outrage and blustering and try thinking through the situation logically and from all viewpoints.


  • Options
    #70
    jaykay74
    Registered Users Posts: 6,566 ✭✭✭jaykay74


    seventeen sheep wrote: »
    I can see this turning into an abortion debate - when is it a foetus and when is it a baby - who has the right to decide?

    For the record, I'm completely pro-choice.

    In this situation, I think it would be completely wrong to turn off the mother's life support. The mother's right to "choice" is no longer in the equation, as sadly she's no longer here.

    So we have option one - turn off the life support. Mother is dead, foetus dies inside her.

    Option two - a healthy baby is born in a few months. If no next of kin want it, it's not a problem - there are SO many brilliant couples wanting to adopt in Ireland, and it's extremely rare that an Irish child is put for adoption. The child would have a good stable environment, hopefully, which is probably what the mother would have wanted.

    If I were to be in the same situation tomorrow, my partner would be in the same predicament. Chances are my parents would turn off the life support to get it over with. He'd have already bonded with the baby, seen it move around on the ultrasound etc - but he'd have no say, and the decision would be made with no input from him. I hope that at least this case opens parents' eyes to how few rights fathers have when the mother isn't around anymore. I would love for my partner to have the same rights and responsibilities as I do when it comes to our child, but he isn't arsed doing the paperwork. This case is a stark warning about leaving it too late - no mention about the father in the article, and why would there be - if they're unmarried and haven't made him legal next-of-kin, he has no say.

    In a case like this, I think it should absolutely be down to the opinion of the medical professionals. And I really hope it ends in the delivery of a healthy baby. The mother won't be any more or less dead, but at least this little one might have a chance at a good life.

    It's a f*cking horrible situation, and I feel for everyone involved.



    “The legal advice would be there is one life here and it is the unborn child. Everything practicable has to be done – and that’s both under the constitution and the legislation passed last year. There is also a high possibility the unborn child will not survive,” a senior source said last night.

    You are missing some options there I think.

    Does the right of the unborn child extend to the point where a death on birth is a right that needs to be preserved? i.e. its life between 16 weeks and 40 weeks is worth preserving even if it will die afterwards?


  • Options
    #71
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,133 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    I'd imagine the parents would have known what the woman's wished would be in this situation.

    It's mad however how people here are missing one important fact. If it wasn't for the foetus we'd all be in favour of switching off life support. the reason is because the woman is dead. What makes her human, that's her brain, is no longer working. She's now just a collection of human tissue being kept alive by machines.

    The foetus is little better. It's not capable of thought. It is at a stage where it's organs are barely formed. It wouldn't pass any of the tests we'd use to consider it human. That foetus might be composed of human tissue but it's not a human being.

    What's worse is that at this point of development the environment for a foetus is very important. There's a very large chance that any baby that may result from this pregnancy may have sever brain abnormalities.

    So there are people here who think that a baby should be grown inside the body of a woman who's wishes we don't know, who's next of kin don't want it to proceed and all to potentially grow a baby that as a good chance of being fcuked.

    Never let it be said that facts or rationality ever creeps into these arguments.
    Bongalongherb wrote: »
    Well doctors have the technology to preserve life, and also an oath to uphold it. I would have thought her family or the father would allow this, but they obviously should take more time to think of it.

    To preserve human life, not human tissue. That's not a baby in there, it's a foetus. And to say that the parents are delusional is just sickening. Are you actually saying that the only reason they disagree is because they are distraught? You're actually using their grief to justify why they disagree with you. That's messed up dude.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    AudreyHepburn
    Registered Users Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭AudreyHepburn


    Jesus what a horrible situation for everyone involved.

    I have to ask why it's all been about the Mother's next of kin and what they want though?

    What the father and his next of kin? The mother herself? The baby? Do none of these get a say or a thought in all this?

    Should the doctors and nurses really be forced not to uphold their hippocratic oath to preserve life? I'm sure they didn't take the decision to keep the woman alive lightly nor did they do it out of malice.

    How do we know this isn't want the mother would want?

    I would strongly suggest we drop the moral outrage and blustering and try thinking through the situation logically and from all viewpoints.


  • Options
    #73
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    AudreyHepburn wrote: »
    Jesus what a horrible situation for everyone involved.

    I have to ask why it's all been about the Mother's next of kin and what they want though?

    What the father and his next of kin? The mother herself? The baby? Do none of these get a say or a thought in all this?

    Should the doctors and nurses really be forced not to uphold their hippocratic oath to preserve life? I'm sure they didn't take the decision to keep the woman alive lightly nor did they do it out of malice.

    How do we know this isn't want the mother would want?

    I would strongly suggest we drop the moral outrage and blustering and try thinking through the situation logically and from all viewpoints.
    If you are not married in Ireland the next of kin are your parents regardless of any relationship and her parents would then be next of kin of the baby if it was born.


  • Options
    #74
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,133 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    AudreyHepburn wrote: »
    Jesus what a horrible situation for everyone involved.

    I have to ask why it's all been about the Mother's next of kin and what they want though?

    What the father and his next of kin? The mother herself? The baby? Do none of these get a say or a thought in all this?

    Should the doctors and nurses really be forced not to uphold their hippocratic oath to preserve life? I'm sure they didn't take the decision to keep the woman alive lightly nor did they do it out of malice.

    How do we know this isn't want the mother would want?

    I would strongly suggest we drop the moral outrage and blustering and try thinking through the situation logically and from all viewpoints.

    Doctors don't take a hippocratic oath in Ireland. You've watched too much TV.


  • Options
    #75
    jaykay74
    Registered Users Posts: 6,566 ✭✭✭jaykay74


    AudreyHepburn wrote: »
    I have to ask why it's all been about the Mother's next of kin and what they want though?

    What the father and his next of kin? The mother herself? The baby? Do none of these get a say or a thought in all this?

    Should the doctors and nurses really be forced not to uphold their hippocratic oath to preserve life? I'm sure they didn't take the decision to keep the woman alive lightly nor did they do it out of malice.

    How do we know this isn't want the mother would want?

    I believe in choice but what the mother wants has never been a concern under irish law. Why should it in this case ?


  • Options
    #76
    conorhal
    Registered Users Posts: 6,986 ✭✭✭conorhal


    volchitsa wrote: »
    Jesus. Another shame for us to bear. So now Irish medical services use a woman's body as an incubator against her next of kin's wishes. Probably cheaper than incubators, mind. And self reproducing of course, if the baby is a girl.

    The possibilities are endless. :mad:

    That's just a twisted comment. How do you know the wishes of the woman in question, perhaps she desperately wanted this child?

    This case will really show the proborts for what they are, murderous to meet their agenda.
    This isn't about a woman's rights, she's brain dead. This is all about the proborts looking to kill a healthy baby to establish a principle that killing the unborn is permissable. Hopefully peoples eye's will be opened by such a horrible position and they will think a little more deeply about the 8th ammendment and the protection it offers from such vultures.


  • Options
    #77
    AudreyHepburn
    Registered Users Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭AudreyHepburn


    Grayson wrote: »
    Doctors don't take a hippocratic oath in Ireland. You've watched too much TV.

    I don't, I just made a mistake, sorry.

    I'd assume they do make some kind of pledge to preserve life though so my point stands.


  • Options
    #78
    conorhal
    Registered Users Posts: 6,986 ✭✭✭conorhal


    jaykay74 wrote: »
    I believe in choice but what the mother wants has never been a concern under irish law. Why should it in this case ?

    Dead people have few concerns, what about the life that exists though? What consideration is there for the baby, which as usual there is really no concern for from the usual quaters that just want to murder it to prove a principle.


  • Options
    #79
    AudreyHepburn
    Registered Users Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭AudreyHepburn


    jaykay74 wrote: »
    I believe in choice but what the mother wants has never been a concern under irish law. Why should it in this case ?

    Because it could mean the difference between the child being allowed a chance to live or not.


  • Options
    #80
    conorhal
    Registered Users Posts: 6,986 ✭✭✭conorhal


    volchitsa wrote: »
    Against the wishes of the next of kin? I think you will find not.

    Also, 100 days means a third trimester fetus. This baby is still a long way from that. And we have no idea what state it will be in, neither now after all the treatment the woman got (I would hope they prioritised saving her life over the we'll being of the fetus, but I have my doubts) but especially after four or five months in a dead woman's womb attached to life support which really can't be the same as being in a living woman.

    The idea is sickening.

    But suffocating a baby in the woumb isn't?

    Twisted.


  • Options
    #81
    AudreyHepburn
    Registered Users Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭AudreyHepburn


    lazygal wrote: »
    If you are not married in Ireland the next of kin are your parents regardless of any relationship and her parents would then be next of kin of the baby if it was born.

    I know and it's so wrong.

    The child is the father's as much as the mother's, it's always been beyond me why Fathers are given any rights or say in anything.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    jaykay74
    Registered Users Posts: 6,566 ✭✭✭jaykay74


    AudreyHepburn wrote: »
    Because it could mean the difference between the child being allowed a chance to live or not.

    I mean legally she (the mother) has no choice alive or dead, not morally.


  • Options
    #83
    conorhal
    Registered Users Posts: 6,986 ✭✭✭conorhal


    emo72 wrote: »
    Who will raise this kid? We don't know that anyone wants to. We know that the relatives have asked for life support to be switched off. That would hint that there is no one to raise this child. Horrible situation.


    There is no shortage of prospective adoptive couples in this country that have spent years hoping to adopt. Hopefully the poor woman's family do the decent thing.


  • Options
    #84
    Gongoozler
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,263 ✭✭✭Gongoozler


    conorhal wrote: »
    But suffocating a baby in the woumb isn't?

    Twisted.

    Aaaaaaaaaaand there it is.


  • Options
    #85
    AudreyHepburn
    Registered Users Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭AudreyHepburn


    jaykay74 wrote: »
    I mean legally she (the mother) has no choice alive or dead, not morally.

    Then maybe some of our laws need changing.


  • Options
    #86
    conorhal
    Registered Users Posts: 6,986 ✭✭✭conorhal


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

    Let the girl die.


    She's already dead. What you want is to let the baby suffocate to meet your own agenda. Why not be honest?


  • Options
    #87
    conorhal
    Registered Users Posts: 6,986 ✭✭✭conorhal


    Gongoozler wrote: »
    Aaaaaaaaaaand there it is.


    Aaaaaaand what exactly is inaccurate about what I've said? Is that not exactly what will happen? Does that reality not make you uncomfortable?


  • Options
    #88
    SEPT 23 1989
    Registered Users Posts: 43,025 ✭✭✭✭SEPT 23 1989


    Can the mother's body be fed for the next couple of months?


  • Options
    #89
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,133 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    AudreyHepburn wrote: »
    I don't, I just made a mistake, sorry.

    I'd assume they do make some kind of pledge to preserve life though so my point stands.

    they don't make any pledge. Did you read the article I linked.

    No Hippocratic oath. No pledge. Nothing like that.

    They're doctors, not the justice league.


  • Options
    #90
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,242 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Considering the fact that the woman is dead now, she can no longer be harmed, so I am not opposed to using her body if it can save someone else's life.

    But then, I am also in favour of having organ donation as an 'opt out' rather than an 'opt in'.

    The only harm from continuing with the pregnancy will be to the family of the deceased woman (emotional distress, the consequences of having to raise a child that they didn't want) and possibly to the child his/hersellf (if there are developmental abnormalities due to the circumstances of the pregnancy)

    I don't know what the reasons why the parents are petitioning to have the life support turned off. It seems unusual to be honest. Without knowing all the circumstances it's impossible to know what the right course of action should be.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    conorhal wrote: »
    There is no shortage of prospective adoptive couples in this country that have spent years hoping to adopt. Hopefully the poor woman's family do the decent thing.

    It is not the job of dead women to provide babies for the childless. It is not any woman's obligation to remain pregnant so others can fulfil their desires of parenthood.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement