Baby of brain dead woman finally delivered weighing less than 2 pounds

[Soubriquet]

link

It’s evil what was done to that poor woman. At one point she was literally rotting just so she could incubate the fetus that little bit longer. He’s finally been born, and he’s so small. They are confident he will make it, but I think they HAVE to say that to justify what they did.

Least she can rest in peace now

This whole story is horrifying. The lady had a DNR in place which was clearly ignored, and the wishes of her family ignored. Foul that they have been expected to pick up the tab too.

I doubt the baby will be unaffected by this, both physically and mentally.

Mum was basically a corpse on life support. I think some people conflate comatose with brain death. Someone in a coma still have a living brain that is controlling their body processes. Someone who is brain dead, does not. Everything has to be artificially supported. There will probably be an impact on the baby from the drugs used to keep their mum's body going.

If you followed the case of the poor lad, Archie, kept on life support after brain death, you’ll have read very distressing details of what was happening to his body. It isn’t at all like being in a coma. The medics have to work hard to slow down decay, but some areas simply can’t be helped and decay continues.

This woman’s body was rotting. That’s why they delivered the baby so early. No one wants to deliver a baby at 25 weeks. They had to.

So please don’t talk about inflammatory language, and accuse posters of being over dramatic. Read up on it.

That is exactly what came to mind when I read about this case. His brain had rotted and was detected in his lower spine.

It's clear that he was born very urgently in the end. It wasn't meant to be until August, such would have been much safer for him. He was born by emergency section in the middle of the night!

I would assume it was more to do with him needing to come out urgently, than mum's condition suddenly deteriorating though, as after he was born, Adriana was kept alive for another 4 days, until a planned withdrawal, so must have remained stable-ish.

He's survived for 5 days so far, so the odds are definitely on his side now. Wishing him all the best.

Because of this…

My choice to be pro-choice means that you still have the opportunity to NOT have an abortion. To decide to keep a pregnancy, no matter how problematic or difficult. I’d go to the barricades for you to do that. No control over your body at all.

Your choice to be pro-life is one of two positions. Either:

Pro-life for YOU.
Pro-forced-birth for other women.

The first is great, fine, wonderful, knock yourself out.
The second is repulsive and deserving of censure. It is misogyny, because it doesn’t prevent abortion. It only prevents safe, legal, free abortion. Countries where it’s illegal in all cases typically have many more abortions than countries where it’s fully legal. Making abortion illegal is both stupid and misogynistic. Not wanting an abortion yourself isn’t either.

Hope this kid grows up and sues them all

Sues who, and for what?

Dad, the hospital and the doctors. For physical and emotional distress.

I’d imagine.

I'm pro life in general. Not just for me, but for everyone. I personally think abortion is an immoral and abhorrent act (in most circumstances). But that's my view that I came to after a lot of thinking and wrestling with what I believe about morality and life.

But that's my position I came to. Whatever I believe will no way impact what anyone else does. What I believe is what I believe and will no way impact UK policy at all. I understand both sides of the argument but I believe what I think is right

Who is "we"? Northern Ireland is a part of the UK and it's only been legal for about five years there. Women have died and others travelled to England.

The right decision was 100% made in the case of Archie. However, your description of what happened to him isn't accurate. He experienced coning, which is where the lower bit of the brain/brain stem is pushed (due to pressure) towards) through the opening at the bottom of the skull where the spinal column starts.

It's incredibly serious, often (but not always fatal) and a v bad sign in this sort of case. There were other areas of the brain that were degrading, but bits of it weren't dropping to the bottom of his spine.

You make it sound as if bits were decomposing and falling down, rather then being pushed down because of increased pressure. In itself coming can be survivable if treated as an emergency. Obviously not the case here.

Archie was way beyond any form of help.

But it wasn’t a baby was it? At 9 weeks it was a very small foetus that existed purely as part of a mother’s body and she was never asked if she wanted her dead body artificially kept going for months to gestate said foetus. What mother would genuinely want that start for a child? It’s such a throwaway, thoughtless thing to say.

The second defence of the doctors and hospital would be that they were complying with state law on abortion.

The first defence - well, I’m not sure you can sue for physical and emotional distress resulting from an action, if that action not happening would have resulted in your death/non-existence.

Sorry - I should have said Great Britain.

Sorry, yes you are right. It was coning and what you described is what happened. Maybe I was too clunky in my description. Bu yes, his case was grim and very sad. Scans showed parts of his brain were rotten. He had no chance.

Sadly, I know someone who lost their son in very similar circumstances (only a couple of years older than Archie, found him at home with a ligature) and she let him go a couple of days later. She mentioned Archie on her FB when talking about her son. Said her lad "died twice".... and the limbo in between those deaths was cruel and unfair.

Archie's mum kept him "going" because she was selfish and delusional, and obviously in a lot of pain too.
The lady in this case... just being kept going as a vessel for a child that is probably not going to have the easiest of lives.

IMO yes, it was a foetus. Others feel strongly that a pregnancy is a baby from the point of conception. Anyway, my objection was to the poster’s language about romanticising.

I do not believe this woman should have been kept on life support in this manner and for this purpose.

What happens if the mother is brain dead and inevitably deteriorating on life support if you try from the point of the second missed period.

It's not that much of a leap to women not being permitted to die until after it's been proven they haven't conceived in the last couple of months. More money for private healthcare in the meantime. Maybe see if an ectopic can reach viability in situ as the woman isn't conscious of pain, too. Could be useful in considering alternatives to meet a market demand for infants without pesky mothers in the picture.

And it's also not that much of a leap technically to say that if it is found after human experimentation (which is what this is) that it's perfectly possible to go from conception to birth that fertile women who are brain dead could be used as 'surrogates'/unconsenting incubation organs. Got to pay for the expenses incurred in trying to treat whatever led to the brain death, after all - and this lovely couple/person really, really wants a baby and can afford the costs...

And it's also not that much of a leap technically to say that if it is found after human experimentation (which is what this is) that it's perfectly possible to go from conception to birth that fertile women who are brain dead could be used as 'surrogates'/unconsenting incubation organs

Show me the money.

@NeverDropYourMooncup inserting a fertilised embryo into a woman on life support would be a lot more expensive and a lot more likely to result in premature birth than paying a surrogate.

It was very sad and very grim in Archie's case

The child here is certain going to have some emotional challenges!

Whether that is better than not being here at all is probably a very individual decision, and one we couldn't know unless we were in that situation.

The important thing now is that he gets a supportive and living upbringing. His grandparents named him Chance because he's got a second chance.

It's weird though, what we are and aren't comfortable with though isn't it. I hate the idea of my organs being removed, and as much as I'd love to, I'm not an organ donor. It would give me nightmares even thinking about it. However, I'd want to be kept alive for my baby in this scenario (providing they had a decent chance), and the one thing that sends shivers down my spine is the thought that I'd never met t then, and they'd never know my love. But I'd lend my body so they could live, without a doubt.

His grandparents named him Chance because he's got a second chance.

How do you know his grand parents named him rather than his father?

Yeah but dead women can't say no...

They gave an interview.

Noted, but honestly? Many, many “live” women couldn’t say no, whether because the payment was high enough to change a tough life or because they were coerced.

I don’t disagree with the dystopian vision, per se. It’s just this is a very difficult way to achieve the proposed outcome.

Ah, I’ve read a few articles today but not seen that, can you link?