to think it's wrong for a dead woman to be used as an incubator?

[twofingerstoGideon]

One of the most dreadful stories I've read in a long time. Could be triggering.

'Clinically dead' (that's dead, isn't it?) woman kept on life support machine to support 17 week fetus. Her own parents want the life support switched off. I really can't get my head around this at all.

AIBU to think we need to do everything possible to prevent our abortion laws becoming more restrictive and fight against the anti-choice demonstrators who are becoming more and more vociferous and ever-present outside clinics.

Surely even the most staunch anti-choicer can't argue that this is right.

story here

I've just read a few more articles about it. I don't really understand how the right to bodily autonomy argument comes into it. We don't know what the woman's choice would have been. If she would have chosen to be kept alive for her baby then wouldn't switching off the life support be going against her decision? How can people argue that this is going against her right to bodily autonomy when they don't know what her decision would have been?

sashh, you clearly haven't read the study you quote, as it found no evidence at all that babies born to brain-dead mothers suffered any developmental problems.

StackladysMorphicResonator

Is that why out of 30 cases there are only 12 children?

Oh and I didn't quote it, I gave it as an example for further reading

25 weeks?

almost makes the whole thing pointless. outcomes are pretty bad at that gestation without the drugs and artificial support the mum received.

why deliver only to potentially have teh poor thing subjected to huge amounts of intervention and possibly dying anyway. And dying alone with no one even to notice he or she was even born.

and turning off life support now is considered the worse choice?

The average gestational age of BD occuring was 22 weeks,BD occured here at 14. The two cases of gestational age below 22 weeks were miscarried. A 22wk foetus is obviously going to fair better than a 14 wk. Its an interesting study but it cannot be compared to this. Its like saying a 24 wk prem baby is the same as a 32 wk one.

Also want to add that Irelands current cuts to special education,services and benefits for children with disabilities means that should it become viable does not mean it will get the help it needs. Theres thousands of children in underfunded care. Life at any cost but don't cost us when you are living mentality.

There are quite a few parallels with the Munoz case in Texas this time last year. Both women were 14 weeks pregnant, both collapsed from a stroke/blot clot away from a hospital which resulted in oxygen deprivation for an extended period, and both had existing children.

A medical report on the Munoz baby stated that she had, 'fluid building up inside the skull, a possible heart problem, and lower extremities “deformed to the extent that the gender cannot be determined.”'

Too many very kind posters to thank for their warm words and well wishes to remember individually to thank but I really do appreciate you all taking the time to post. And Kay, please don't worry, your description didn't upset me and I do feel you were right to highlight the reality of the situation. I really appreciate your sensitive response though, thank you so much.

I hope I haven't upset anyone by talking about my experiences of a loved one on life support and I hope I didn't make any poster feel they couldn't express their thoughts for fear of upsetting me; I really don't want to shut down debate. I just wanted to indicate that whatever you think you would feel, you really can't fully imagine a loved one ending up on life support and it's something I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy.

My sister only passed just over a year ago and it was hard to post about so I'm really grateful no-one misunderstood my intentions in posting and indeed, for being so kind towards me

I think a pp had it spot on when they said "the body will be kept alive, but it won't be kept healthy"

So sorry to hear about your sister Rusty.

I've been chatting about this with DH this morning and neither of us think this actually has anything to do with abortion laws in Ireland. The link that some posted earlier to the study about the 30 cases said this:

"When confronted with BD in a pregnant woman, physicians must primarily focus on saving the life of the fetus, and therefore the treatment protocol should give special recommendations on how to support the mother in a way that she can deliver a viable and healthy child."

so it doesn't seem to be that this only happens in Ireland.

We both think it seems more like a case of presumed consent in organ donation which most people do seem to agree with in theory.

You weren't shutting down debate at all, Rusty, and what you said was so important at dismissing a few myths regarding the "sleeping beauty" image a lot of people had. I too was completely ignorant about what happens to a brain dead body on life support.

I really am sorry for your dreadful loss.

I'm just thinking... if the baby is given a shot at life, and then a few years later they are told the circumstances of their birth. They do an internet search and they come across a thread like this- people saying how wrong it is for the mother to incubate the fetus, saying the baby shouldn't be born

In my opinion, the woman is tragically dead, but she isn't suffering. Why pour the chance to rescue the baby down the drain for no good reason? Because it makes people uncomfortable? I think it is a miracle

Thatsjustthewayitis I've just read a few more articles about it. I don't really understand how the right to bodily autonomy argument comes into it. We don't know what the woman's choice would have been. If she would have chosen to be kept alive for her baby then wouldn't switching off the life support be going against her decision? How can people argue that this is going against her right to bodily autonomy when they don't know what her decision would have been?

Its based on the very fundamental fact that the person would die without outside medical interference. Therefore there can be no consent. Death is the natural result.

As far as I see it, legally, its a issue of burden of proof. The Irish approach seems to be contorted, in that they have somehow assumed that it has shifted from their need to prove that the State has the right to medically interfere with a brain dead person's body to keep it alive for purposes they determine as important, to those who wish to let natural death occur.

I would hazard a non-legal guess that this line of thinking is based on a twisted political and/or religious favouring of the rights of the foetus over that of the mother. Its very twisted thinking and logically, it is the stuff of nightmares.

What if I or any other non-Irish citizen were on holiday in Ireland, knowingly or unknowingly pregnant, and sadly suffered an accident which left me brain dead. Am I at risk of having my body put on life support in an Irish hospital just in case it produces a healthy baby some months in the future, or is it just Irish women who are subject to this risk?

Unfortunately YourKid the chances of this baby surviving and having the mental capacity to perform a Google search independently aren't looking good.

interesting chandler... I'd think.. not legal person... that the maternary hospital would feel the same pressure re legal difficulties if they took any action which endangered fetus ie turn off life support...

Oh, and another thought, will the Irish state be keeping Irish men who have similar accidents resulting in brain death, alive on life support just in case sperm can be taken from them and result in a live birth?

What if an Irish man makes a living will to allow for this possibility?

What if an Irish man has made no such provision, but has expressed his desire to have children with his wife one day? Would he then be kept alive on life support indefinitely so as to allow for sperm to be taken from his body while on life support, until a live birth is achieved?

TheChandler it would apply to you too and any other person in Ireland should it happen to. The same as if you were visiting any other country you are bound to their laws,rules and regulations.

Irish men... doesn't arise as no conception has taken place... I presume.. I've no legal knowledge

A man is not regarded as secondary to the contents of his scrotum so no he would not be kept alive,his sperm may be extracted if a living will exists.
A pregnant woman or girl will always be secondary to the contents of her uterus at every stage. There is no equal right to life its a convenient myth.

What is interesting is one of the main people who wrote the law under which this situation is occurring does not believe it will hold up in court. He says the law was never designed for this scenario and he sees no reason why the mother is being kept alive because of it. He refused, of course, to acknowledge the lack of certainty that doctors have to act under because if this stupid law but it was interesting to hear his opinion as he would sadly be considered to be one of the foremost constitutional lawyers in the country.

I think it is being heard in Tuesday by the president of the high court who has expedited the case. It will be very sad case.

Fay TheChandler it would apply to you too and any other person in Ireland should it happen to.

Yes, I know. I am adding Ireland to the list of countries I will not visit (have been once and it was nice) in the future, because of their inhumane treatment of women, because its too risky and because I don't wouldn't enjoy visiting anywhere I would be regarded as having less rights than a man, simply because of my gender. It includes Saudi Arabia, and many Middle Eastern countries.

Why on earth would I want to visit a country like that?

another What is interesting is one of the main people who wrote the law under which this situation is occurring does not believe it will hold up in court. He says the law was never designed for this scenario and he sees no reason why the mother is being kept alive because of it.

That would be the logical legal thought process. The Irish State are in effect playing games to prolong cases like this (and the suicidal refugee who was tortured and raped and in effect forced to give birth by the Irish State).

Its also indicative of a lack of leadership. If the law is uncertain (which it isn't, not to a normal, well adjusted State which has no wish to abuse women's bodies), then update the law.

Chandler, I agree with you entirely. The real issue here is that the law states that this woman will be used as an incubator. The views of the family and any ethical issues are completely redundant. You are not hazarding a guess when you say the line of thinking is based on twisted political and or religious favouring and is the stuff of nightmares. This issue is not about saving the foetus' life. The Constitution decrees that a mother's life is equal to the foetus.

Take it from me women in Ireland are treated like second class citizens. Women are lauded as Irish mammies so long as they do exactly what they are told to do by the patriarchal state and church.

I was reared there. When I was in my late teens (now late 40's) contraception was illegal in Ireland. I used to get the pill from the Well Women's Centre and could have been arrested had I been caught. It finally became legal in 1980 to obtain contraception in Ireland, although only with a prescription, and either the doctor or pharmacist could refuse to provide them on the grounds of religious objection. A pharmacist once refused to give me the pill on those grounds.

Divorce only became legal in 1997. Abortion is illegal. 12 women a day travel from Ireland to England for an abortion.

For years and up until the late 80's lots of women and girls (aka sinners) who got pregnant - by men - had their children taken into care against their wishes by the State and their children were illegally adopted or faced a life in a home where they stood a high chance of being abused in the care of religious orders.

I don't know how a UK citizen would stand if they on a visit to Ireland and became brain dead whilst pregnant. Earlier this year an Eastern European teenager who was raped outside Ireland and realised she was pregnant when she arrived in Ireland was denied permission to leave Ireland for an abortion in England. After she threatened a hunger strike to protest against the decision the local health authority obtained a court order to deliver the baby prematurely by cesarean section at 25 weeks.

The child was born with complex disabilities and was placed in care. Lawyers have made a submission to the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women in relation to reproduction in Ireland.

Make no mistake this is not about saving the life of a much wished for child.

No doubt Ireland will be up in front of ECHR again over their treatment of pregnant women and girls many more times.

Make no mistake this is not about saving the life of a much wished for child.

No, I absolutely agree. Its astonishing that its going on in this day and age. It seems to be more of an excuse of abusive men and their enablers getting a kick out of controlling what right minded people would find incorrugable.

I read about the torture refugee pregnant by rape who was forced to give birth by C-section. I thought that she did actually refuse food and drink, and suffered health problems as a result? Obviously she was also suicidal during the pregnancy, as she admitted to wanting to die rather than give birth, because of the rape and torture associated with the conception.

I read some comments on the press releases from people defending the Irish state along the lines of Ireland having supported a much larger population than in the past than now, against so the "plenty of people in the world already argument".

Well no bloody wonder! If I lived in a country with as dreadful policies towards women's rights as that, I'd leave too!

The partner of the woman is with the family in this. He, and I would imagine anyone who cared about her, wants her to be allowed to die with some dignity. here

This is such a sad situation, but is intrinsically linked to Ireland's need to remove women's bodily autonomy from them. There is no equality of need when it comes to pregnancy in Ireland. The foetus, regardless of it's viability will always take precedence over the woman's wishes or needs, even when that means the death, or in this case, protracted death of the woman until the awful 8th is repealed.

The chances that this foetus would make it to a point where it was deemed viable are slim to none anyway, so they are actually sentencing the foetus to a protracted death as well.

I think it's worth remember that there are UK citizens living under practically the same draconian laws and if the "conscience" clause passes it's only going to get worse for us. We're really not in a position to be disparage the Irish too much if British women are facing the same.