Clinicaly dead pregnant woman on life support

brevity

http://m.rte.ie/news/2014/1217/667564-womanhospital/

It is understood that some family members have asked for her life support machine to be switched off.

Doctors are seeking legal advice regarding the Constitutional position in relation to the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act.

The woman is around 16 weeks pregnant and has another child.


This is going to run and run IMO.

bodice ripper

Jesus h christ.

Augmerson

Dunno what to say to that. Jesus christ, just awful. My thoughts are with her family.

brevity

Augmerson wrote: »

Dunno what to say to that. Jesus christ, just awful. My thoughts are with her family.

Ya I'm the same.

MagicMarker

Well... that's a noodle scratcher.

greasepalm

terrible news either way,will it be another miracle baby ,funny thing about women as they will give their life to see a new life begin.prayers for all of the family at this time.

cassid

What a horrific situation for a family to be in. There is just no right answer here, either solution is just so sad and tragic.

The girls parents have asked for the life support to be switched off.

I wonder how the father feels ? Do her parents have the final say ?

shamrock55

If the baby is still able to grow naturally inside her while she is on life support i think they should give the baby every chance to reach full term or as near as

IsMiseMyself

If it were me and I was in this situation and presuming I was happy to be pregnant and in a situation where having a child was a goer, I'd like the life support machine to be left on so the baby could live.

There's no right or wrong with this case. The situation is horrendous.

My name is URL

Just goes to show that it's impossible to legislate effectively for such complex things

Stark

It's bogus. We give people a choice about whether or not to have organs harvested after they die but we don't give people the choice about whether their bodies can be used as incubators or not.

lazygal

cassid wrote: »

What a horrific situation for a family to be in. There is just no right answer here, either solution is just so sad and tragic.

The girls parents have asked for the life support to be switched off.

I wonder how the father feels ? Do her parents have the final say ?

If she is not married her parents are her next of kin and make end of life decisions like this, even if she is in a relationship.
This is an awful story, for so many reasons.

lazygal

Stark wrote: »

It's bogus. We give people a choice about whether or not to have organs harvested after they die but we don't give people the choice about whether their bodies can be used as incubators or not.

When I was pregnant I discussed this issue with my husband and we agreed I would like the baby to be born even if I would die as a result. That was my choice and thankfully it was never an issue, but I would hate for him to have to make that decision.

volchitsa

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:

Moonbeam

her poor family.
I wonder what happened to her.
The poor father too,on one hand though maybe it gives them hope.

The Princess Bride

What I don't understand, is how this needs to be on the news at this stage.
Surely the family deserves privacy to deal with this traumatic situation without the media throwing its claws in?
Likewise, can't the doctors seek legal advice quietly & discreetly?

lazygal

The Princess Bride wrote: »

What I don't understand, is how this needs to be on the news at this stage.
Surely the family deserves privacy to deal with this traumatic situation without the media throwing its claws in?
Likewise, can't the doctors seek legal advice quietly & discreetly?

Maybe the family want to highlight their predicament. Like Praveen Halappanavar. Maybe they kept getting fobbed off and went public out of frustration.

jam_mac_jam

Jesus, what an awful decision to make. Her poor family. I don't know if the baby can survive that situation but if it can survive I can see why they would keep her alive.

My name is URL

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:

You bear it if you want, but this is something that happens all over the world and the same or similar medico-legal and ethical considerations are taken into account.

hotmail.com

The Princess Bride wrote: »

What I don't understand, is how this needs to be on the news at this stage.
Surely the family deserves privacy to deal with this traumatic situation without the media throwing its claws in?
Likewise, can't the doctors seek legal advice quietly & discreetly?

I would say it's been leaked by the family themselves to bring attention to the issue.

P_1

Feck awful situation to be in for all concerned. I guess if a healthy baby is the result then it may be for the best but is that possible with the mother clinically dead and the foetus at 16 weeks?

My name is URL

P_1 wrote: »

Feck awful situation to be in for all concerned. I guess if a healthy baby is the result then it may be for the best but is that possible with the mother clinically dead and the foetus at 16 weeks?

Depending on whether or not the foetus is healthy after whatever happened to the mother then the chances of survival increase the longer the mother is kept on life support

As reported by Slattery et al, a fetus born before 24 weeks of gestation has a limited chance of survival. At 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.

http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1741-7015-8-74.pdf

Tokyo

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:

Can't say I agree. At 16 weeks they would be using the mother as a life support system, not an incubator. There's nothing to suggest that the woman had any plans other than to bring the child to term, so yeah, in my opinion, next of kin's wishes should take a back seat until the mothers wishes have been fulfilled.

Use her as a life support system until the child can be c-sectioned safely, then life support can be turned off. The woman isn't going to be any more or less dead, but it's the difference between life and death for the child.

tritium

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:

I don't see any shame here. This isn't about abortion. As others have said this same issue would likely arise in pretty much any jurisdiction the only possible difference being how much weight next if kin might have in any decision, and perhaps who is the appropriate person within her immediate family and relationship circle to decide on the future of the child she's carrying

The last thing that this poor lady and her family should have to endure at this time is being co-opted as some sort of standard bearer for the pro-life or pro-choice camps.

jank

If the mother was aware of her pregnancy and wanted to bring that baby into this world than that what should be respected here. Legal quagmire though.

volchitsa

tritium wrote: »

I don't see any shame here. This isn't about abortion. As others have said this same issue would likely arise in pretty much any jurisdiction the only possible difference being how much weight next if kin might have in any decision, and perhaps who is the appropriate person within her immediate family and relationship circle to decide on the future of the child she's carrying

The last thing that this poor lady and her family should have to endure at this time is being co-opted as some sort of standard bearer for the pro-life or pro-choice camps.

I agree it isn't about abortion, but it is about the constitution being used in a way that it was never intended to. This is crazy, and no, I don't think other countries do face this particular issue : the next of kin want the life support switched off. She's clinically dead, so in other countries that should normally be that.

Instead her body is being used against her family's wishes to bring a child into the world - and you can't presume from the fact that she was pregnant that she would still want to bring a motherless child into the world. She thought she was going to become a parent. That isn't the same thing at all.

So since her family want her life support turned off, why shouldn't their wishes be respected? Do we keep other dead bodies on life support against their families wishes so as to harvest their organs to save lives? No we don't. Why should a pregnant woman be used as though she were a life support machine when there is no reason to think she wanted that, and some reason to think she didn't (since her family don't want it)

Gran Hermano

Could raise the issue why (as her next of kin) her parents would have more say than the father of the unborn.
Terrible for all.

volchitsa

jank wrote: »

If the mother was aware of her pregnancy and wanted to bring that baby into this world than that what should be respected here. Legal quagmire though.

But she wanted to become a mother, presumably. Not create a child to give to someone else.

Tokyo

volchitsa wrote: »

But she wanted to become a mother, presumably. Not create a child to give to someone else.

She wanted to be not braindead too, presumably, but that didn't come to pass. Seeing that her intent was to bring another child into this world, as second choices go, having her child raised by somebody else would likely beat having that child die with her, no?

emo72

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.

My name is URL

volchitsa wrote: »

Instead her body is being used against her family's wishes to bring a child into the world - and you can't presume from the fact that she was pregnant that she would still want to bring a motherless child into the world. She thought she was going to become a parent. That isn't the same thing at all.

At what point would the above argument become redundant in your opinion, if it would at all?

What about a woman involved in an accident or suffering a fatal clot at 32 weeks? Should no attempt be made to save the unborn child unless the mother can also be saved?

volchitsa

My name is URL wrote: »

At what point would the above argument become redundant in your opinion, if it would at all?

What about a woman involved in an accident or suffering a fatal clot at 32 weeks? Should no attempt be made to save the unborn child unless the mother can also be saved?

If the baby is viable, I don't think there's any question, any more than one would kill a child because its mother had died. If it's close to viability, I would tend to think it should if at all possible be saved. But this is early 2nd trimester, and the family don't want this to happen. I think that is important to remember, we don't know what is going on, and normally the family would be the ones to decide because they know and care for her. So going against their wishes to use their daughter's body as an incubator really seems sick to me.

Look at it from the other end of the time scale : if she were three weeks pregnant, would you really say she must be kept in that state for 8 months for this pregnancy to come to term? What about a week? Why not implant a fertilised egg into her? Where does the right to use someone's dead body without their next of kin's consent end?

volchitsa

mike_ie wrote: »

She wanted to be not braindead too, presumably, but that didn't come to pass. Seeing that her intent was to bring another child into this world, as second choices go, having her child raised by somebody else would likely beat having that child die with her, no?

That is your view, you're assuming it's also hers but I don't know why.
I wouldn't have a child knowing I was going to die in a couple of months. Some people do though. I think it's completely irresponsible, but one can't ascribe one's own views to everyone else.

banquo

I remember wondering this aloud before, and someone told me that the basic definition of foetus / baby is from the point it could theoretically survive outside the womb, after however average weeks that is.

Once it falls into that category, there's little medical difference between a baby that's a week away from being born, and one that's still in the second trimester such as this. In both cases, there'd be considered to have been two lives at risk.

But complex situations like this could be argued fairly by two sides.

Edit: Just read it was 16 weeks. Too short a time.

My name is URL

volchitsa wrote: »

If the baby is viable, I don't think there's any question, any more than one would kill a child because its mother had died. If it's close to viability, I would tend to think it should if at all possible be saved. But this is early 2nd trimester, and the family don't want this to happen. I think that is important to remember, we don't know what is going on, and normally the family would be the ones to decide because they know and care for her. So going against their wishes to use their daughter's body as an incubator really seems sick to me.

Look at it from the other end of the time scale : if she were three weeks pregnant, would you really say she must be kept in that state for 8 months for this pregnancy to come to term? What about a week? Why not implant a fertilised egg into her? Where does the right to use someone's dead body without their next of kin's consent end?

It's basically a case of who's rights are more important... the unborn or the undead

It's fcuked up by any standard but that's the price we pay for massive advances in medicine.

The thing is that nobody has ever been kept mechanically alive for 8 months in order to 'give birth'. They have however been kept alive for over 3 months in order to do so.

There's precedent, and there's evidence to show that the chance of survival in such cases can be quite high when the correct interventions are applied. The baby may not be viable right now, but in a few months it would be. People are regularly kept 'alive' for longer than that.. for whatever reason, be it for organ procurement or the wishes of families.

DM addict

If the pregnancy is at 16 weeks, the foetus is not viable. If she's clinically dead, then IMO she should be taken off life support. Especially if that's what her family are asking for - which would happen pretty much anywhere else.

The idea of using a corpse as an incubator turns my stomach, to be honest. The girl's dead, let her go.

joeperry

She is blocking the bed for someone else.

hotmail.com

DM addict wrote: »

If the pregnancy is at 16 weeks, the foetus is not viable. If she's clinically dead, then IMO she should be taken off life support. Especially if that's what her family are asking for - which would happen pretty much anywhere else.

The idea of using a corpse as an incubator turns my stomach, to be honest. The girl's dead, let her go.

A lot of people seemingly don't see it like this which amazes me.

volchitsa

My name is URL wrote: »

It's basically a case of who's rights are more important... the unborn or the undead

It's fcuked up by any standard but that's the price we pay for massive advances in medicine.

The thing is that nobody has ever been kept mechanically alive for 8 months in order to 'give birth'. They have however been kept alive for over 3 months in order to do so.

There's precedent, and there's evidence to show that the chance of survival in such cases can be quite high when the correct interventions are applied. The baby may not be viable right now, but in a few months it would be. People are regularly kept 'alive' for longer than that.. for whatever reason, be it for organ procurement or the wishes of families.

I'm fairly sure you are wrong, clinically dead people are not kept alive for months, even at the request of the family, still less against their wishes. More usually the machine is turned off against the family's wishes than the contrary. Probably to save money.

Here, we have a woman being used as a life support machine, against her family's wishes. I find that shocking.

jank

volchitsa wrote: »

But she wanted to become a mother, presumably. Not create a child to give to someone else.

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.

My name is URL

volchitsa wrote: »

I'm fairly sure you are wrong, clinically dead people are not kept alive for months

Under 'Maternal and obstetric outcome' -

The mean duration of maternal support was 38.3 days (range, 2-107 days). In two cases, children were delivered on the second day after BD was diagnosed. Conversely, in two reports, mothers were supported for more than 100 days before delivery

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3002294/

Bongalongherb

Stark wrote: »

It's bogus. We give people a choice about whether or not to have organs harvested after they die but we don't give people the choice about whether their bodies can be used as incubators or not.

Organs have for many years been taken without consent from the dead, (i.e family members)so I don't concur with the comment.

This situation regarding the mother is one hell of a tough one to deal with. I don't have an answer for it, it's too delicate.

An Claidheamh

My name is URL wrote: »

You bear it if you want, but this is something that happens all over the world and the same or similar medico-legal and ethical considerations are taken into account.

Here here.

Can`t stand people like volchitsa and they`re all over thejournal.ie.

No perspective.

AndonHandon

mike_ie wrote: »

She wanted to be not braindead too, presumably, but that didn't come to pass. Seeing that her intent was to bring another child into this world, as second choices go, having her child raised by somebody else would likely beat having that child die with her, no?

Her intent was based on the expectation that she would be alive to raise it. You are dehumanising the mother in a way which is scary, all for the sake of a foetus. You do not really care about the mother's wishes.

Anyway, if the family wish to turn off the life support machine they will be allowed to do this. The reasoning follows simple logic; but for the switching off of the machine would the mother have died? But for the death of the mother would the foetus have survived?

An Claidheamh

volchitsa wrote: »

But she wanted to become a mother, presumably. Not create a child to give to someone else.

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.

DM addict

DM addict wrote: »

If the pregnancy is at 16 weeks, the foetus is not viable. If she's clinically dead, then IMO she should be taken off life support. Especially if that's what her family are asking for - which would happen pretty much anywhere else.

The idea of using a corpse as an incubator turns my stomach, to be honest. The girl's dead, let her go.

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.

dubscottie

This makes me sick.. The mother is dead so the unborn dies. Its is nature.

AndonHandon

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.

As a matter of interest, are you in favour of raising a foetus in a laboratory environment?

An Claidheamh

AndonHandon wrote: »

As a matter of interest, are you in favour of raising a foetus in a laboratory environment?

Sure.

Bongalongherb

They are not thinking of keeping this woman on a life-support machine for the next five months or less with forced liquids until they can do a caesarian are they ?.

My name is URL

dubscottie wrote: »

This makes me sick.. The mother is dead so the unborn dies. It is nature.

It's nature if you're a fcuking deer hit by a car.. feel free to go skipping among traffic if you think there's no point in preserving the potential of life.

The unborn isn't dead in this case.. if it was the issue wouldn't exist.