Being kept alive for the sake of the unborn baby..

[QueenofmyPrinces]

A bit random, but just after some other people’s thoughts about a discussion I had with my husband last night and some of our friends.

We had all been watching Kill Bill and were chatting about the fact that the main character had been shot whilst pregnant, and was in a coma for ‘x’ amount of time and then when she woke up she saw her bump wasn’t there - I guess she assumed the baby had died but in the second film, she learns that the baby didn’t die and had been living with the father for 6 years.

I then said that if I was pregnant, and something happened to me that resulted in me being clinically dead, I would want doctors to put me on a ventilator, to keep me ‘alive’ in order to preserve my baby‘s life and then deliver it at 40 weeks.

DH said that hypothetically he would want the same as we would both want the baby to be allowed to live even if something happened to me.

One of our friends was pretty horrified by the idea though and said she couldn’t put her finger on the reason why, but she just didn’t like the thought of it.

I asked why wouldn’t she want the doctors to keep her ventilated to keep the baby safe and ultimately be born, but she couldn’t give a specific reason and just said it didn’t seem right.

We didn’t get into any big debate about it or anything but I’m just interested in what other people think.

I would absolutely want to be “kept alive” to enable the safe delivery of my baby and allow it to have a chance at life.

AIBU to think most women would feel like that?

I don't like the idea of it either but (as others have said), if my pregnancy was quite advanced, a growing baby not a foetus, then, yes, I think all efforts should be made to let the baby carry on growing in the mother until such time as a c section is considered safe. Keeping mother alive on life support from, say, two months of pregnancy seems like taking advantage.

It is of course a terribly sad situation whatever the circumstances. One would hope the baby's father would be capable of and willing to look after a little one from birth, preferably with some good and loving help. The baby would need loads of love and cuddles from the start in order to feel secure and content without mum - whom he/she will have 'known' and will greatly miss for a while.

if you are in a deep coma at least some part of your brain is working & the autonomic body functions will continue & possibly support a pregnancy - brain death means no oxygen is going to the brain & the autonomic body functions will fail which means the mothers body will not be able to keep a baby alive. Hence in the first case the baby can grow & survive in the womb (has a chance) unless the mother deteriorates & brain death occurs -

Brain death leads to organ failure. There was a case in the US of a woman being kept 'alive' for weeks on her familys insistence. The doctors wanted to switch off life support - her body was actually decomposing. I can't imagine a fetus doing well in those circumstances.

I'm uneasy about it because of there not being a massive leap between keeping brain dead women alive to grow a baby to impregnating brain dead women to grow a baby. And once that rubicon is crossed, why not keep her body going to produce milk? Or donor organs? Or to satisfy another couple's desire for a child if a live, consenting surrogate is unavailable

At present, it's the woman's body, so she has the right to make choices when conscious and individual decisions are made in extreme circumstances. It could become that she's the fetus' incubator and her rights and decisions become irrelevant in comparison to what somebody else white males mostly decide they want.

Depends on how far I was, and the impact it would have on my husband and our sons (5 with autism & a 2 yo).

I think if I was 35Wks+then yes, keep me alive due to baby having less chance of issues, being in NICU and strain on my family. Earlier than that, no.

It would be easier for him to grieve us than to grieve me and take care of two children and a newborn with possible issues on his own. It would mean needing to likely sell our home and him moving closer to his family for help which would mean getting the boys used to a new environment and the oldest getting used to new people and key workers hoping he’ll get the same standard of care that he does where we are (which is excellent) while getting them used to a new sibling.

By all means perform a cesarean and put baby in an incubator at 24 weeks+, but if I'm dead bury me.

There are organs I could donate if brainstem dead, that's potentially many lives saved as opposed to the slim chance a baby would develop healthily over several months.

Until birth, the woman is the only patient. Thank fuck for that.

It just doesn't medically work like that though. And the links PP provide demonstrate that.

When you are in a coma / badly injured your body is not working efficiently to support the developing foetus. You couldn't be 'kept alive' to allow the baby to develop without almost definite adverse affects.

Regarding a cardiac arrest, yes, an immediate c-section is needed to save the mother's life - that's because blood supply stops & there's no way to resuscitate the mother while the baby remains in utero (too much pressure).

If you were catastrophically injured, the option to deliver the baby then could be explored. Keeping you alive indefinitely isn't a realistic proposition outside movies.

The Irish case (I'm in Ireland) was horrific. It was caused due to ambiguity in our laws and because the baby had a heartbeat. The doctors did not want to do this, they were compelled up get legal direction and did. It was truly terrible for all involved. Thankfully our laws have addressed this (to an extent, but that's another thread).

In the case of brain death, a person could theoretically be kept on life support however their body would quickly begin to break down and they'd be highly susceptible to infection, organ failure, etc. Unless the woman was days away from her due date or already beyond the point of viability then it would be an exercise in futility and simply prolonging death for both woman and foetus as there would be no way to get her/the foetus from (for example) 8wks to 24wks+. If she was past the point of viability and/or days away from her due date then there would be no reason to keep her on life support anyway as an immediate caesarean could be performed.

In the case of someone being in a persistent vegetative state (i.e., not brain dead but with no higher/meaningful activity) they could be kept 'alive' indefinitely until it was safe to deliver but at what ethical and moral cost? And what would the effect be on the foetus?

Both scenarios are equally horrific and, once again, women are not incubators.

Well as mother I’d want my baby to live and I wouldn’t want DH to lose his wife and child.

I’d be fucked anyway but my child wouldn’t be, seems very cruel to let the baby die too...

Keeping a ventilated patient alive is not easy especially if the person is already brain dead.

Each invasive device can cause infection. Complications include such as ventilator acquired pneumonia, severe hypotension, thrombosis, etc. So apart from ventilation, there will be drugs that will be pumped into your body which will also pass in to the baby.

Really depends on how close the baby is to term.

I think most people would find a few weeks acceptable, 25 weeks unacceptable, and the inbetween is up for debate.

Obviously the woman's wishes, if known, should be taken into account; failing that, the father's.

once that rubicon is crossed, why not keep her body going to produce milk? Or donor organs? Or to satisfy another couple's desire for a child if a live, consenting surrogate is unavailable

Exactly this.

It would be the thin end of the wedge and would open the gates to further 'foetus preserving' measures.

What's that, love? You don't want to be pregnant? Well you have to carry it to the point of viability. If a living corpse can do it then so can you...

Obviously the woman's wishes, if known, should be taken into account; failing that, the father's.

The woman's wishes if known and failing that the medics should act in the woman's best interests as she is the patient.

I would sign a document that allowed for me to be kept ventilated to protect my unborn child’s chance of life.

I explicitly told DH as I went to theatre for an emergency delivery that if it came to a choice, pick the baby over me. I don’t know if he’d have had that power, but that would have been my wish.

I think I would be happy to be kept alive long enough for DH to be fully informed and for me to have an emergency c-section if that was the decision. I would not want to be kept alive longer than a few days as I don't think that would be best for our existing children.

No I would want to be let go of regardless of the stage of pregnancy. If I had an accident and was conscious to make the decision fair enough but otherwise no. I do not view myself as a human incubator and the relationship between a mother and unborn child is so much more than that, to reduce it to being considered a 'carrier' is far too simplistic. In reality I don't think it would be as easy as just removing the unborn foetus from its mother, if your organs are shutting down that is going to have an adverse effect on the foetus.

No you wouldn't @TSSCNDOP

In a situation like that your life would be prioritised, if it came to that.

Many people are not being sensible here - if the baby is at viability it will be delivered. No need to wait. If not, there may be some limited scope to wait, depending on the mother's condition and gestation. But in no case would prolonged keeping the mother alive make sense, clearly not for the mother (who has essentially died) or the baby (who cannot continue to grow / thrive in this scenario).

I was told in no uncertain terms that if during labour the medical team had to choose between my life or that of my baby, they would make me a priority. The reason I was told this as I was deemend a risky pregnancy and a c-section could have caused life threatening bleeding. Not quite in line with your question....but you get the point.

I would like it in theory but as pp's have mentioned the case in Ireland the devastation for the family watching their daughter fade away. The hardest thing in the case is they refused to scan the DM with severe headaches for 3 days before she had an aneurysm.
My Dad only said you can make another baby not another mammy, it was common to save the baby back in his youth.

once that rubicon is crossed, why not keep her body going to produce milk? Or donor organs? Or to satisfy another couple's desire for a child if a live, consenting surrogate is unavailable

Has this ever happened?

There are loads of disenfranchised, conscious women across the globe who are trafficked/sold into slavery/forcibly impregnated if their keepers spot an opportunity. Probably better we worry about them first than this extremely complicated, expensive hypothetical.

I was told in no uncertain terms that if during labour the medical team had to choose between my life or that of my baby, they would make me a priority.

What would happen in a scenario like this where the woman explicitly said she wanted the baby to be the priority, and they should try and save the baby’s life over her own?

Would doctors be allowed to do that?
Or do they have to prioritise the mother over the unborn baby despite her wishes?

The Irish case (I'm in Ireland) was horrific. It was caused due to ambiguity in our laws and because the baby had a heartbeat. The doctors did not want to do this Agree it was a very complex situation around the Eighth.

I asked questions when trying to decide on VBAC or ELCS. Rupture is a risk and one of my questions was whether they would save my baby. The consultant told me very bluntly that in an ideal world they would save us both but in reality the priority would be to save my life and the baby would be secondary to that.

There’s a lot of research currently being carried out on in-utero brain development and the the pre-birth mother-child connection. Until more is known I would be concerned about the impact on the development of the unborn child that develops in the shell of their dead mothers body.

Last year a 8 months pregnant woman was murdered by her ex, the baby’s father. The child was delivered by Caesarean section at the scene of the crime. Much to the grief of her family the child died 4 days later. It was very sad but it spared the baby the burden of growing up without a mother and knowing what sort of a man the father was.

www.thesun.co.uk/news/9490009/man-25-arrested-murder-pregnant-kelly-mary-fauvrelle-baby-died/

Assuming the baby was likely to be born in a state to have a reasonabke quality of life then without a doubt yes I'd want to be kept 'alive'. If I was unconscious anyway I really wouldn't care what my body was used for. In the same way I'd donate organs after I died. I see no reason not to. If the baby was likely to suffer or have major issues though then no I wouldn't want to continue.