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 don't get it - surely Ireland's abortion laws, at their very root, are about 'not unaturally destroying a life that God has created' and that if a woman gets pregnant its because God willed it and so destroying it is wrong because it goes against God?

Well in this case it was 'God's will' for the baby to die, because the mother died. Surely keeping it alive in this way in 'unnatural and going against what God wants'?

It seems a bit contradictory to me, but then again Ireland's abortion laws are crazy and full of holes and grey areas anyway.

capsium
"What constitutes abuse of a dead body?"

Well I'm not interested in 'a' dead body but only my own. I would say anything that goes against my personal wishes is abuse of my body. (my family are aware my views/wishes).

Interesting forever, but you don't always get to choose.

I don't think there is an easy answer and at the moment there is a family grieving which is terribly sad.

It is not obvious to me that this has anything to do with abortion or views on choice since the mothers choice was clearly made by continuing the pregnancy. This is purely based on the right to life of the unborn and the worst legislation in Irish history. The lengths at which the 8th amendment to the Irish constitution -the equal right to life if the mother and baby- has been used are pretty startling. It has been used to force medical procedures on pregnant women and this has been tested in court. There is a very grey area around consent in pregnancy for medical procedures. It has been used to prevent women having an abortion in all circumstances bar the imminent death of a mother. It is being used here as far as I can see to ignore the will of the next of kin of a dead woman who presumably died without making her wishes on anything of this nature clear.

It is an absolute abomination that this failed legislation is still enshrined in the constitution.

I think that forever has a point.

She may be clinically dead. However I would class poking and prodding maybe internal examinations as abusing a dead body.

and what if she gets a massive infection at one of the iv sites or where things are attached. How far do they go. do they accept they are fighting a loosing battle or do they remove limbs or dying parts systematically to keep the body and pregnancy going.

She may be clinically dead. However I would class poking and prodding maybe internal examinations as abusing a dead body.

This happens regardless of this particular situation though. In most cases the deceased has to have a post mortum, before a funeral takes place, to establish cause of death. Only in certain circumstances will a doctor be able to establish a cause of death without one. Added to this there is embalming, if a person is not to be buried straight away.

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.

The courts in England are capable of moving very quickly indeed in urgent cases, and I suspect that Ireland is the same. This wouldn't be in the same category as a life or death type case where they can convene within hours, but I suspect it would certainly be expedited.

A body does not need embalming if it is on life support, the life support is keeping her heart beating, blood circulating, she is only brain dead the machines are keeping the rest of her body alive in order to keep the baby alive. She won't decompose .

I'm sure they will do a c section as soon as they feel the baby is safe to come out.

I think what needs to be borne in mind is that the report says that there is a high possibility that the baby will not survive anyway. I have read elsewhere that in these cases it really is not as straightforward as assuming the mother's body will provide a nice, safe cosy incubator until the baby reaches term, and that there is a high risk of premature birth, infections and other complications, and a risk that the baby will not survive or will be severely disabled. So in considering the mother's wishes, you need to take into account whether the mother would have wanted that for her baby; and whether it is appropriate in effect to abuse her body for several months if the baby probably won't survive.

If the woman is already 'dead' then I see no problem in trying to keep that baby alive, why lose another life for the sake of ethics.

marne My comment was in relation to 'invasive' examinations on a body. The point being why is keeping someone, who is brain dead, alive being seen as more abusive to their body than embalming or a post mortum examination?

Although saying that I don't think the baby will be viable anyway, I'm not sure the physiological changes will happen that need to?

Yes they need to find out cause of death.

They don't however need to pump bodies full of drugs and hack off parts so she can grow a baby that might not even survive or be severely brain damaged through oxygen deprivation, have a raging infection, or have to be delivered dangerously early if yen body starts to shut down.

Two entirely different things.

one uncovers genetic defects that can help save siblings or children or reveals drug reactions. previously unknown etx

the other tortures a family going through something extremely traumatic, and sees a body systematically abused and potentially brings an incredibly sick child into the world which may mean it's hard to place in a family.

This isn't just a couple of weeks to allow steroids to work. or to ensure a good outcome.

This is hitting and hoping drugs are effective enough for long enough and the body doesn't shut down before the baby even stands a chance.

Giles Is there overwhelming evidence that the child will be born with very severe, life threatening, disabilities? Where do you stand on preserving life, in general? At what point do you think medical intervention, in order to preserve life, is inherently wrong?

Is there evidence that it won't? I'm asking if chances are worth taking when the potential negative outcomes are severe enough to cause people to question of the right choice is made. She's 17 weeks. There's a long time until that baby will be able to be brought into the world with the chance to lead a normal or relatively very normal life.

This matters, like it or not, when the parents aren't going to be there to raise the baby. because for all medicine can do, it can't provide the love and care and all the things the child needs to make it through. are their adoptive families who can provide the home the baby needs as well as the round the clock care.

I don't believe life should be preserved at any cost no. I have my own set of feelings on how far gone I personally am prepared to carry on.

and other people will differ. However if they and the families are there to support that is up to them.

But this baby may not have a family.

Equally this baby may be born healthy and have a family. We do not know this do we?

There is just not anyway we can judge whether this is right or wrong from the outside. Someone said earlier these decisions need to be made on a case by case basis and I think I agree.

And also many have disabilities and live full meaningful lives...

I too don't see how this goes against abortion rights.

I am strongly pro choice and believe the rights of the mother to choose always outweigh the rights of the foetus.

But here the mother is dead. In that situation I believe that the rights of the father/foetus outweigh the rights of the mother.

I don't think the two are at all incompatible.

Not sure. Ive heard stories before about keeping mum alive for a couple of weeks for babies sake. However this unborn baby is only 17 weeks. Thats a long time and i should imagine the risks are very high. I dont see this pregnancy ending well sadly. Horrible for all concerned x

Sorry haven't read thread or link but I would absolutely want my unborn child to survive if at all possible. As long as the woman is not suffering I would just be giving thanks for medical technology.

I too would want to be jelly artificially alive to save my baby. So sad.

Yes they do.

But they presumably have families. that's the point.

couples have a baby and sadly are dealt a shitty hand but they cope and child thrives with disability.

but here the grand parents may not want the baby the father hasn't been mentioned and would a baby in care receive the same encouragement and love and support that got others where they are today. despite their health problems.

People have families outside their birth family Giles. Also not everyone who has a disability feels they have been dealt a 'shitty hand' - they can be thankful for what they have, which can be a full and meaningful life.

What seems questionable to me is valuing a child's life's worth based on their family situation, Giles.