Clinicaly dead pregnant woman on life support

conorh91

lazygal wrote: »

Really, doctors take legal advice all the time? Do you have evidence of this?

Seriously? There are about 25 medical negligence cases processed in the High Court every week. That's about 1000 in a year, if you cut out vacation etc. Medical litigation is a huge and thriving field of law. Of course doctors are regularly talking advice.

volchitsa

conorh91 wrote: »

Doctors take legal advice all the time. The HSE's legal bill is extraordinary. Medical law is thriving. It is no bad thing that doctors should show caution in the course of their practice, including seeking legal opinions from time to time. This is in patients' best interests.

I'm not sure where the idea came from that the law should not be a factor in medical practice, but it seems to me like a bizarre statement. Ignoring the law in the past has resulted in issues like symphysiotomy. Am I likening this case to symphysiotomy? Never. But I am simply pointing out that the law often operates to keep doctors in check and vindicate patients' rights.

None have a similar leval of protection as far as I am aware.

But some, such as Greece, offer limited legal protection to the unborn. In cases where the mother is clinically dead as thus has no rights, the threshold for protection would be very low in order for the foetus to be maintained, all else being equal.

According to the Irish Times, Denmark, Spain and Portugal also grant limited legal rights to the unborn. I am not certain of the nature of that protection, but I would reiterate that the threshold would appear to be low, in circumstances where the mother is dead. As we know, some US states are more forthright in their foetal protection.

There is a difference between a ban on abortion and a general legal protection for the unborn. Only Ireland has this in Europe, I'm fairly certain, and only some US Bible Belt states in the northern hemisphere. It's possible that El Salvador and other southern/Central American countries have such laws, due to their religious heritage.

Stheno

lazygal wrote: »

Possibly Malta, which has a similar near total ban on abortion to Ireland. I understand the laws in Poland are also very restrictive.
I wonder what would happen if a woman expressed a wish (especially after this case) that her wish was to remain on life support as long as possible, but her next of kin wanted to do otherwise. Would a living will or otherwise expressed wish be respected by a court? Would it interfere with the right of the foetus in a case like this?
Once again, rather than tidying up the abortion debate forevermore, the eighth amendment raises ever more questions.

ETA: Map below. Ireland stands alongside Malta, but I'm not overly sure of the exact laws in Poland and Spain.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6235557.stm

Malta is actually worse than we are with a complete ban on abortion of any kind.

They also have a very active group called the Malta Unborn Child Movement

http://www.unbornchildmalta.org/mission.php

Poland in recent years tried to introduce a total ban on abortion which failed, and there are now more attempts to do so.

conorh91

volchitsa wrote: »

There is a difference between a ban on abortion and a general legal protection for the unborn. Only Ireland has this in Europe, I'm fairly certain, and only some US Bible Belt states in the northern hemisphere.

Who said anything about 'general legal protection' for the unborn?

Even Ireland doesn't have 'general legal protection' for the unborn. It is qualified. It is qualified in other EU states too.

gctest50

conorh91 wrote: »

Doctors take legal advice all the time. The HSE's legal bill is extraordinary. Medical law is thriving..........

for sure :

2012 - €46.735m
2011 - €35.966m
2010 - €40.599m
2009 - €44.574m
2008 – €36.618m

Stheno

conorh91 wrote: »

Who said anything about 'general legal protection' for the unborn?

Even Ireland doesn't have 'general legal protection' for the unborn. It is qualified. It is qualified in other EU states too.

Have you read the text of the eight amendment in regards to the right to life of the unborn?

3° The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right

How can that not be classed as legal protection for the unborn?

lazygal

conorh91 wrote: »

Seriously? There are about 25 medical negligence cases processed in the High Court every week. That's about 1000 in a year, if you cut out vacation etc. Medical litigation is a huge and thriving field of law. Of course doctors are regularly talking advice.

I'm fully aware of medical negligence cases. Most of the high awards are catastrophic injuries sustained during child birth and the awards are massive because of the injuries and time lines involved. That's why doctors are often quick to intervene in Ireland when a woman or baby is in distress, and perform interventions much earlier. There's a difference between taking advice and training staff in the law, and the fact that consultants in this case felt the need to consult the constitution on what in most other countries would be a clinical and not a legal decision.

Nothing about pregnancy and child birth is certain, and when I'm pregnant I trust that the person I've hired to provide obstetric care, and the other staff, know what they're doing and won't need to grab a copy of the constitution when a problem arises with my pregnancy. I can't imagine being told that until the lawyers give advice, medically I have to wait it out.

conorh91

Stheno wrote: »

Have you read the text of the eight amendment in regards to the right to life of the unborn?



How can that not be classed as legal protection for the unborn?

Have you read my post?

I described it as a qualified legal protection, not general protection. It is qualified insofar as the right to life is balanced against the right to life of the mother, unless she is clinically dead.

Stheno

conorh91 wrote: »

Have you read my post?

I described it as a qualified legal protection, not general protection. It is qualified insofar as the right to life is balanced against the right to life of the mother, unless she is clinically dead.

There is nowhere that says that unless the mother is clinically dead that the right to life is as you've stated. I imagine we'd have seen a different scenario in the courts if the foetus was at 22 weeks gestation in the case we're talking about.

As for Malta, I've done some checking, they don't appear to have anything in their constitution but their laws state

The Head of the Delegation took the floor to clarify Malta’s position on abortion. The Government of Malta respected all of its obligations, including international obligations, he reiterated. In cases where the life of the mother was at risk clinicians worked on a case-by-case basis to try to save the life of both the child and mother. Interventions that may save the mother but could possibly lead to the death of the child could take place but the law forbade any intervention that directly resulted in the death of the child. The right to life was an inherent right of every human being, including the unborn child. Termination of pregnancies at any stage of gestation for whatever reason was an infringement of that right. Malta could not recognize abortion as a legitimate method of family planning, he reiterated. - See more at: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=15167&LangID=E#sthash.h0If4VIc.dpuf

conorh91

Stheno wrote: »

There is nowhere that says that unless the mother is clinically dead that the right to life is as you've stated.

eh yes there is.

PP v HSE, which is the subject of this thread, says exactly that.

Also, I did not mention Malta.

Cantremember

conorh91 wrote: »

Yes, he may have "some idea" about it, just as some amateur boardsie with a library card may have "some idea" of obstetrics.

Even an academic constitutional lawyer is unlikely to be able to make such a statement with certainty as Dr. Boylan made.

In Dr. Boylan's case, he would appear to be incorrect. There is a broad spectrum of rights ascribed to the unborn across the European Union, from almost zero to moderately strong legal protection. Even the European Court of Human Rights is on-the-fence regarding foetal rights. It seems perfectly plausible that such a case could occur internationally, and may have done so for all I know.

All I am saying is that expert witnesses should stick to their realm of practice. I would hope people would see that as a rational expectation.

Do you see your contribution here as that of an expert?

MrPudding

conorh91 wrote: »

You will also find in the judgment references to the woman as having already died.

I am aware that Ireland does not have a legal definition of death, nevertheless I feel that the judgment was unhelpfully ambiguous in this regard. Either the woman is dead or she is not. Either she possesses personal rights, or she does not.

Let's try this again, shall we? The woman was brain dead. The machines were keeping her body alive. The purpose of the case was to get permission to turn the machines off to allow her to die. I am not sure why you are having so much trouble with this really quite simple idea. She was brain dead, but the doctors, through drugs and mechanical aparatus were providing somatic support to keep, or try to keep, the body alive. Several other poster, in addition to me, have explained this to you on a number of occasions. Now, I am a reasonably clever guy, but I don't think this is particularly difficult, woman was brain dead, body being kept 'alive.'

I am not sure it can be explained any simpler, perhaps if you could explain exactly what part of this concept you are having trouble with we might be able to help you.

MrP

conorh91

Cantremember wrote: »

Do you see your contribution here as that of an expert?

If you dispute something I say, you can respond to that specifically.

I'm not here to answer personal questions; I'm merely an interested bystander like most people here.

Cantremember

conorh91 wrote: »

If you dispute something I say, you can respond to that specifically.

I'm not here to answer personal questions; I'm merely an interested bystander like most people here.

Good. An interested bystander. As such isn't it time that everyone let this family have peace.

conorh91

Cantremember wrote: »

Good. An interested bystander. As such isn't it time that everyone let this family have peace.

You know you don't have to read this thread, right? Ask the mods to shut it down, if you want. This has nothing to do with me.

Cantremember

conorh91 wrote: »

You know you don't have to read this thread, right? Ask the mods to shut it down, if you want. This has nothing to do with me.

1. Obviously
2. I did
3. I agree.

If people want to pick over the legal position of the 8th amendment in the light of the judgement there's a legal issues forum. Seems ideal for this sort of discussion.

volchitsa

conorh91 wrote: »

Who said anything about 'general legal protection' for the unborn?

Even Ireland doesn't have 'general legal protection' for the unborn. It is qualified. It is qualified in other EU states too.

You don't seem to understand the word "general". It has nothing to with being qualified or unqualified, that would be "total" or a synonym thereof.

It seems a bit dangerous to pay much attention to any interpretation of a law by someone who has such a poor grasp of the nuances of meanings, so I'll assume you know nothing, and Boylan, while not a legal expert, probably knows more than you.

Annabella1

Right decision crazy that doctors have to go to high court to give correct medical treatment
Law needs to be looked at
Bad law makes difficult cases

conorh91

Cantremember wrote: »

If people want to pick over the legal position of the 8th amendment in the light of the judgement there's a legal issues forum. Seems ideal for this sort of discussion.

I regularly contribute to the legal discussion forum. I would say this.

The legal discussion forum is a place where we debate the law as it stands. In that regard, the judgment in PP v HSE (the subject of this thread) is probably without any major criticism.

But if there is a place where the issue can be better-debated in a forum where anyone can ventilate their views (some more respectfully than others, but that's life), it's AH.

For that reason, I would hope the thread will not be closed. This is an issue of considerable public importance, and should be engaged with fully by people from all walks of society, not just medical doctors or legal professionals. Especially considering how men dominate those disciplines.

bogwalrus

Am I right in saying some people here believe a brain dead woman whose body is artificially being kept alive is a living person with the same rights as any other living person?

volchitsa

bogwalrus wrote: »

Am I right in saying some people here believe a brain dead woman whose body is artificially being kept alive is a living person with the same rights as any other living person?

I'm fairly certain you're wrong. I haven't seen anyone suggest that at all.

Next question.

ShatterProof

bogwalrus wrote: »

Am I right in saying some people here believe a brain dead woman whose body is artificially being kept alive is a living person with the same rights as any other living person?

No

Call me Al

bogwalrus wrote: »

Am I right in saying some people here believe a brain dead woman whose body is artificially being kept alive is a living person with the same rights as any other living person?

I don't think so.
But legally in court the mother was recognized as still living and had legal counsel representatives in court. And she did have a right that was recognised by the judges in their ruling.

If she wasn't still living, albeit artificially, her family wouldn't have had to go to court in the first place. Their legal counsel didn't accept that she was dead.

opiniated

I've been following this thread from the beginning, but due to time constraints, and uncertainty about the details of the case, this is my first post.

Before the details of this case became public, I freely admit that I was very puzzled by the desire of the family to have life support turned off. I kept thinking that if it were me, I'd want to do everything I could for my grandchild, especially when my daughter confirmed that that was what she would have wanted.

It didn't occur to me that there was no hope of the baby being born alive. (yes, I'm pro-life, and I use the term "baby" deliberately.)
Nor was I aware of the dreadful suffering being visited on the family.

As more details became available, I genuinely believed the merciful thing to do was to turn off life support.

However, I find it quite horrifying that some pro-choice posters consider that pro-life supporters are unfeeling, cruel, monsters.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Most pro-life people I know just want to defend those who cannot defend themselves, ie, the unborn.
It's an admirable attribute, imo, and I don't believe all pro-life people deserve the level of vitriol that is sometimes directed at them on boards.

Sincere sympathy to the bereaved family.
I hope they are left alone to grieve in peace, now, and that this case is not used to argue either pro-life, or pro-choice positions any more.

The family have suffered enough. They should be left in peace, now.

Bruthal

MrPudding wrote: »

Let's try this again, shall we? The woman was brain dead. The machines were keeping her body alive. The purpose of the case was to get permission to turn the machines off to allow her to die. I am not sure why you are having so much trouble with this really quite simple idea. She was brain dead, but the doctors, through drugs and mechanical aparatus were providing somatic support to keep, or try to keep, the body alive. Several other poster, in addition to me, have explained this to you on a number of occasions. Now, I am a reasonably clever guy, but I don't think this is particularly difficult, woman was brain dead, body being kept 'alive.'

I am not sure it can be explained any simpler, perhaps if you could explain exactly what part of this concept you are having trouble with we might be able to help you.

MrP

It was not simply a case to get permission to allow the woman to die. She was dead according to the accepted criteria of what dead is.

If it was a non pregnant woman in this case, there would have been no legal case. It was about the legal position of the unborn.

Although the family case was to allow their daughter to have life support discontinued alright.

MrPudding

Bruthal wrote: »

It was not simply a case to get permission to allow the woman to die. She was dead according to the accepted criteria of what dead is.

If it was a non pregnant woman in this case, there would have been no legal case. It was about the legal position of the unborn.

Her father did not bring a case to establish the legal position of the foetus. He brought a case to have the machines turned off so that his daughter could die. That is what the case was about. In order to make the decision the court had to look at the legal position of the foetus.

Look at the bottom of the 2nd page of the judgement, that final paragraph of page 2, which ends on page 3, is the reason the case was brought before the court. There is no mention of the unborn.

It was simply a case to allow the woman to die.

MrP

lazygal

opiniated wrote: »

Nothing could be further from the truth. Most pro-life people I know just want to defend those who cannot defend themselves, ie, the unborn.
It's an admirable attribute, imo, and I don't believe all pro-life people deserve the level of vitriol that is sometimes directed at them on boards.

I have no issue with those who call themselves pro life (whatever that is supposed to mean. I have a serious issue with those who call themselves pro life constantly claiming that they serve the interests of the 'unborn' in some way. They don't. They simply ignore the fact that thousands of 'babies' are brought to the UK and other countries, for reasons ranging from fatal foetal abnormality to socio economic difficulties to rape and everything else in between. I have a serious issue with the pro life 'solution' to every single pregnancy, which is to remain pregnant regardless of any other considerations to the contrary. I have a serious issue with the pro life 'adoption solution' for women who do not wish to remain pregnant.
I couldn't give a fiddlers what label posters put on themselves. What I do give a fiddlers about is the fact that 30 odd years ago the government was browbeaten by pro life people like you into a referendum that has caused 14 year old rape victims to be brought before the high court, that has forced an asylum seeker to remain pregnant and that forces women in Ireland carrying 'babies' with no brains to seek medical treatment elsewhere.
I'm sick and tired of labels. I'm sick and tired of the pro life brigade claiming some smug moral superiority while not actually wanting to do anything about the fact that the 'babies' they supposedly care so much about are brought away to be killed by the thousand. I'm sick and tired of other people being allowed to tell me what I can and can't do with the contents of my uterus.
Defend those who cannot defend themselves? Really? How exactly are you doing that, when thousands of defenceless babies are brought away to be killed? What does defending the defenceless even mean?

Bruthal

MrPudding wrote: »

Her father did not bring a case to establish the legal position of the foetus. He brought a case to have the machines turned off so that his daughter could die. That is what the case was about. In order to make the decision the court had to look at the legal position of the foetus.

Look at the bottom of the 2nd page of the judgement, that final paragraph of page 2, which ends on page 3, is the reason the case was brought before the court. There is no mention of the unborn.

It was simply a case to allow the woman to die.

MrP

If the woman had not been pregnant, would any case have been brought?

MrPudding

Bruthal wrote: »

If the woman had not been pregnant, would any case have been brought?

You are confusing the purpose of the case with what had to be looked at in order to make the decision and why the case had to be brought. That does not change the fact, as per the paragraph in the judgement I suggested you read, that the case was brought for the purpose of having life support removed in order to allow the woman to die.

MrP

opiniated

lazygal wrote: »

I have no issue with those who call themselves pro life (whatever that is supposed to mean. I have a serious issue with those who call themselves pro life constantly claiming that they serve the interests of the 'unborn' in some way. They don't. They simply ignore the fact that thousands of 'babies' are brought to the UK and other countries, for reasons ranging from fatal foetal abnormality to socio economic difficulties to rape and everything else in between. I have a serious issue with the pro life 'solution' to every single pregnancy, which is to remain pregnant regardless of any other considerations to the contrary. I have a serious issue with the pro life 'adoption solution' for women who do not wish to remain pregnant.
I couldn't give a fiddlers what label posters put on themselves. What I do give a fiddlers about is the fact that 30 odd years ago the government was browbeaten by pro life people like you into a referendum that has caused 14 year old rape victims to be brought before the high court, that has forced an asylum seeker to remain pregnant and that forces women in Ireland carrying 'babies' with no brains to seek medical treatment elsewhere.
I'm sick and tired of labels. I'm sick and tired of the pro life brigade claiming some smug moral superiority while not actually wanting to do anything about the fact that the 'babies' they supposedly care so much about are brought away to be killed by the thousand. I'm sick and tired of other people being allowed to tell me what I can and can't do with the contents of my uterus.
Defend those who cannot defend themselves? Really? How exactly are you doing that, when thousands of defenceless babies are brought away to be killed? What does defending the defenceless even mean?

I've made no claim to serve the interests of the unborn. I have no power or means to do so.

I most certainly have not claimed, that the "solution" to this pregnancy was to remain pregnant, regardless of any other considerations. (Though, ironically, that is what actually happened!)

I most certainly have not claimed any moral superiority, much less a "smug" moral superiority. I merely mentioned that pro-life people were not the heartless monsters that they are sometimes accused of being.

As to defending those who cannot defend themselves.
That's simple enough.

It means countering the belief, held by some people, that an unborn baby should have no rights. I don't, and never will, believe that is the case. Just because the unborn cannot speak for themselves does not mean the cannot think, or feel.
For example, what if this case involved a woman who was at 30 weeks gestation? Should life support be turned off if the family wanted it? What if the baby was within 3 days of being viable and healthy?

Just removing the eighth amendment will not change hard cases in the future - it will only remove the rights of viable babies, in favour of whatever doctors or relatives feel is the right decision at the time.