Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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

365 replies

twofingerstoGideon · 18/12/2014 07:11

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

OP posts:
randycheeseburger · 18/12/2014 08:32

I've heard a story like this in America, the mum passed out and didn't recover,they kept her alive but even her dh said he wanted them to let her go. They did in the end but he had to fight for it. The baby wasn't doing well and it wasn't fair anyway.

SistersOfPercy · 18/12/2014 08:33

Have to say though, by the time the parents have mounted this legal challenge etc how far along will this foetus be? If she's 17 weeks now and courts move as slowly over in Ireland as here they could be looking at a viable foetus which puts a whole new spin on it.

FluffyMcnuffy · 18/12/2014 08:33

Sorry for being ignorant but why is this "setting a dangerous precedent"?

Very sad (and thankfully very rare) situation but in think if I were to die id want them to give my baby every chance of life.

MidniteScribbler · 18/12/2014 08:34

Pro-choice can also mean making a choice to keep a baby.

Aeroflotgirl · 18/12/2014 08:34

It says in the article that doctors have been unable to switch the life support off due to a constitutional amendment giving the unborn babies right to life equal importance to that of the mother.

The woman's parents are supposidly her next if kin, there is no mention of a partner or husband.

Gileswithachainsaw · 18/12/2014 08:35

Surely there's a chance though that this won't be some happy ending with a baby at the end of it.

how long do they plan on doing this. What happens if there's infection or the drugs stop working or the baby is compromised some how.

is there facilities there to cope with a severely pre. baby of they have to deliver early. can the family take care of the baby and all it could need if things go horribly wrong.

what happens to the other living children if baby ends up miles away as it needs care beyond what the hospital can provide.

not to mention. The expense of it all. Will the hospital be able to afford to keep her alive.

It can't all be risk. free

Original poster
twofingerstoGideon · 18/12/2014 08:36

It has happened because Ireland is a country where the fetus has 'rights'. That's the connection to abortion. I have to go to work, so can't post again today, but I feel we're in dangerous territory here. The family hasn't expressed a wish for the fetus to be kept alive apparently.

If we argue that a woman's body can be used to sustain life and therefore it should be kept alive, why not use the bodies of other women in similar circumstances? I know this sounds far-fetched, but why not, if it's desirable to sustain the fetus in any circumstances?

OP posts:
SistersOfPercy · 18/12/2014 08:39

I guess the next pertinent question is assuming the father isn't around (the article gives no impression of a husband) what happens to the child if it gets to term.

Do the parents raise a grandchild they fought to let die? Thinking into the future there will be so many issues in this case and not just for the baby.

NotYouNaanBread · 18/12/2014 08:45

I am pro choice and I think it is a heartbreakingly wonderful thing that even though this man has lost his wife, he may not have to lose their child as well.

I would absolutely want to be kept "alive" to save the life of my unborn child in. This scenario.

Aeroflotgirl · 18/12/2014 08:49

Notyou the article says nothing of a husband or partner, I presume he's not on the scene or with the woman.

APlaceInTheWinter · 18/12/2014 09:04

I think the article is really distasteful. It's trying to get political mileage out of a personal tragedy and there are no direct quotes from the parents. It's all hearsay to push the political agenda which may have had no influence on this case at all.

It's easy to assume there is no partner, and it's easy to assume this situation has occurred because of legislation but there isn't one attributable fact in that article to prove that is the case. It's shoddy and manipulative. And I say that as a former journalist. They've taken two unrelated stories and merged them together for emotional effect without ascertaining the truth and with no respect for the family involved. The only precedent it sets is for personal tragedy to be used for political reasons and turned into a moral crusade.

skylark2 · 18/12/2014 09:07

"If we argue that a woman's body can be used to sustain life and therefore it should be kept alive, why not use the bodies of other women in similar circumstances?"

I can choose to donate my body after death to help a premature baby reach term which otherwise wouldn't have a chance? Pass the form. I'll sign up now.

I guess what people are worried about is the concept of the dead woman baby farm, but I really don't think it's the same thing.

Chefpepperjack · 18/12/2014 09:12

I agree Winter

Mmolly2013 · 18/12/2014 09:12

Why should the baby not have a chance to live. The woman obviously wanted the baby to be born. If it was me I would certainly want to be kept alive so my baby could have a good chance of life.

Although it is awful that the parents are against it and have to go through it but at the same time so when the baby is born they are going to turn their backs on their grandchild, heartless

Mmolly2013 · 18/12/2014 09:13

And yes I'm from Ireland so maybe my thinking is clouded. I'm proliferation

Mmolly2013 · 18/12/2014 09:13

autocorrect *prolife

Gileswithachainsaw · 18/12/2014 09:18

I think. It's unfair to label.the parents heartless..They just lost their daughter. They want presumably to bury her and say goodbye.

They are older too so maybe not in the best of health or in a situation to raise child. especially if there are problems.

spare a thought for people forced to have their dead dd effectively growing and breathing in front of their very eyes. For months. what kind of sick torture that must be for them.

Writerwannabe83 · 18/12/2014 09:21

If I was pregnant and died I would want the doctors to do EVERYTHING they could to keep my baby alive. I wouldn't give crap if I was being used as an 'incubator'. I would never, ever want my baby to be allowed to die.

RojaGato · 18/12/2014 09:21

No, that's too long. If it was just a couple of weeks to go it would be different, especially if it had been her dying wish that her unborn child be brought safe into the world.

Think it sets a kind of scary precedent for unscrupulous people to baby farm at a later point in history to. Shudders.

Gileswithachainsaw · 18/12/2014 09:23

There's no such thing as pro life either.

If there was they'd be consideration for the family as a whole and the situation they are in. You'd care about risks to the baby. or the psychological trauma to all involved.

your just pro birth. birth at any cost.

Number3cometome · 18/12/2014 09:26

If it was me, I would want my body to be kept 'going' in order to incubate the baby as long as the baby's father agreed.

I do not think this should be a matter of choice for her parents, I think it should be about the father of the child making a decision and if he is absent or this wasn't a long term relationship then they should have let her go.

The mother has already very sadly died - she is not in pain by being kept artificially alive. The parents have the choice whether or not they wish to visit the dead mother. They would of course have to delay a funeral for the mother as she is being kept 'going' (not alive 'she' has already gone, her body is just a vessel now)

What I don't understand is why this one woman? I am sure they have been many cases where a pregnant lady has been declared brain dead. Why did they choose to save this one? This makes me think there is more to the situation than what is in the press.

It's a very sad situation, in England the child would unfortunately be left to die with the baby if it was not viable, however I don't necessarily agree that is right either.

What a very sad situation.

OriginalGreenGiant · 18/12/2014 09:26

Regardless of the gestation, I think the decision should be made based on the last known wish of the mother.

If it was a tried for, wanted baby that she had had every intention of giving birth to then the parents wishes, although it must be a difficult situation, should not count IMO.

I also wonder where the father is...no mention of a husband but that doesn't mean there's not a long term dp. If so, I wonder what his wishes are...and in this very specific case, even if he's not the 'legal' next of kin, he should still have a say IMO.

Nordicmist · 18/12/2014 09:26

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

WannaBe · 18/12/2014 09:27

I don't see why this is such a big deal. We're not talking about actually keeping someone alive - we're talking about someone being kept on life support in order to maintain the life of her as yet unborn child, a child which she presumably chose to have.

She's dead. That's not going to change. Whether she's on life support for another six months or six minutes, she's dead. so why is it so important that the parents be able to bury their daughter now rather than in six months time when there is a new life in the equation? a life which would be there had she not died in these circumstances?

Too much is being made of so-called women's right to choose and anti abortion legislation. This isn't an abortion, but let's just say then for arguments sake that she wasn't dead but incapable of making a decision for herself, yet she had chosen to have this baby, how many people would think it appropriate that the next of kin be allowed to decide that she should have an abortion? no? well then why should it be ok for the next of kin to be allowed to say the baby should die in these circumstances.

Fwiw I don't think that next of kin should be allowed to override someone's wishes to donate their organs either.

marne2 · 18/12/2014 09:28

I agree with writer, if it was me I would want the doctors to do what they could to save the baby. I know it must be hard for the family but how amazing will it be to have a child ( a part of their daughter )? I think it should be up to all of them ( her if she knew this situation could happen, the father of the child and the woman's family ).

Swipe left for the next trending thread