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?

They're not going to go off-piste and say 'how about we see what happens if we kill the mother just in case it happens to save the baby', are they?

For such a tragic and serious topic this really made me laugh! . Sorry.... carry on...

There is no “letting the mother die to save the baby” - if the mother dies, the baby will need delivering pretty damn quickly or it will die too.

If the mother is very sick in ITU, the likelihood is that delivering the baby gives it the best chance of survival too - unborn babies don’t do well with maternal sepsis, hypoxia or low blood pressure either.

There may be circumstances where despite everyone’s best efforts the mother still dies, but the baby has been delivered safely and survives - that is random chance (or gestational age of baby and sickness of mother). There’s not really any way to “aim” for that IYSWIM.

I apologise for making you laugh.

But if we can't laugh where are we, right?

Slightly different scenario but many years ago, my mother's cousin was pregnant with her first baby. Her early pregnancy was very hard with bleeding and bloating and extreme vomiting, horrendous pain. It transpired that she had advanced cancer. The hospital recommended immediate termination (early 2nd trimester) and radical hysterectomy and aggressive treatment. She refused, wanting to carry the baby to term if possible which she was told was unlikely and certainly 6 more months of untreated cancer was a life sentence. The fall out was heartbreaking and the family is still affected by it to this day. As the pregnancy progressed, the choice was between maternal health and the life of the baby and that emotional toll is hard to explain. Balancing the rights and wants of the mother vs the father vs the grandparents vs the obligations of the medical profession against the philosophical right to life of an unborn baby is impossible.

My neighbour's child was born at 26 weeks and is perfectly healthy. So Kept alive until a cesarean could be done safely, that should be the route.

@Saulgood if she had advanced cancer, her survival rate was lower than low, especially with ovarian cancer, for example. It's normal she went to mantain her baby's life, she knew hers was done. A horrific scenario, but these things happen.

Thank god for the vote on the Eighth amendment. This is outing if my cousin is on here, after iui treatment she became really sick, it turned out the consultant had pierced her bowel. She was close to death yet they waited to see if the embryo had taken for 3 days after admission pumping her with antibiotics, her DH begged they saved her eventually she gave up her dream of a baby after it.

No, I would not wish to be used as an incubator in that way, and, while it's up to the individual, I don't think it should be expected. Apart from the way that the mother is being used, it is in most cases likely to be a very non-optimal environment for the baby. If the baby is pre-viable, then it's unlikely that they'd survive for many weeks inside what is basically an already-dead mother. If they are viable, even if very premature, then they will probably have a better chance of healthy survival if they are delivered immediately and placed in NICU rather than remaining in the mother's body. Of course, there are always exceptions, but it's not something I'd choose for myself or a loved one.

My knee jerk reaction is that I'd want to be kept going for baby to be born but when I really think about it if I was early in pregnancy then I wouldn't want to be and if I was in later stages of pregnancy then they could deliver early.

If I were pregnant and dying my dying wish would be for my baby to live. Surely any right minded person would want the same? Once the person is dead, the body is just a body, the womb is nothing more than an incubator without a consciousness attached to it. I really don’t see it as any different to organ donation or cannibalism in times of famine. I suppose the only thing is that I think that the woman should be declared dead when she goes brain dead (insurance, estate and all that) but if it were me, that wouldn’t be particularly important to me, my baby would come first.

So Kept alive until a cesarean could be done safely, that should be the route Not all DC are perfect after 26 weeks. Would it fair if the child was profoundly disabled.
Obviously if there is an accident deliver the baby immediately, I think keeping a person on life support any longer than a few days is wrong.

I would want my husband to decide, as he’d be the one living with the consequences.

Surely any right minded person would want the same?

No, not really. The womb isn't just an incubator without consciousness - it is an organ which is going to decay along with the rest of the body. Under no circumstances would I want my corpse to be oxygenated in the vague hope that a foetus would survive. I cannot imagine the psychological damage this could result in for any child that survived.

Surely any right minded person would want the same?

That is a very interesting turn of phrase. Can we extrapolate from that that you feel that women who do not wish for this horror show are wrong minded?

Do you actually understand what is being discussed? Do you know what happens when the brain shuts down? The brain controls everything. You don't have long after brain death to get the organs out in good condition.

Why would you think it was OK to subject a baby to that?

Surely any right minded person would want the same

Does that comment mean that those of us who oppose this are not in our right mind? The thought of it fills me with horror, and I am not exaggerating. I find it nauseating to think that my dead body could be used as in incubator, for something that is unborn, has no rights, is not an established person in its own right.

That those of us who oppose this are somehow selfish, not right-minded, not as selfless? I am lost for words.

There have been cases where a baby's is delivered because the mother won't survive.

I would want the babies father to have the decision. Even if I'm being 'kept alive' technically I'd be dead.

If they could keep me alive for a few hours/days and save the baby then that baby has a right to life and as it's also the fathers baby I'd want them to have a say.

I don't agree before 24 weeks and before viability though the decision should be offered. And I know a baby born at 23 weeks who is fine!

There was a car accident a few years ago and the female driver was heavily pregnant, I'm not sure how far, but an emergency caesarean was attempted at the scene when it became clear she was dead/dying. I don't know what the outcome was but there is a world of difference between immediate life saving measures and prolonging death for an indefinite period

That will have been done in a final attempt to save the woman, not the baby. Delivering the baby means more blood flow for her, improved circulation, increase in blood pressure, easier to perform CPR etc.

Thank god for the vote on the Eighth amendment. This is outing if my cousin is on here, after iui treatment she became really sick, it turned out the consultant had pierced her bowel. She was close to death yet they waited to see if the embryo had taken for 3 days after admission pumping her with antibiotics, her DH begged they saved her eventually she gave up her dream of a baby after it

I am so sorry to hear this, it is disgusting what Irish women went through before the 8th. Thank god no more will suffer like this.

Im with you op. In that case id want to be kept artificially alive so that my unborn child could live. Id die for my children if it meang they could live (in z hypothetical situation) and i felt that way from the moment i found out i was pregnant with each of them. So being unaware of being kept artificially alive seems like a small thing in comparison.

QueenofmyPrinces

"..... this was a vaginal birth

How on earth did they manage that?"

' they' didn't. The woman went into labor naturally. She wasn't induced.

It was in Japan (they often take a different view of switching off life support than the UK), and mum committed suicide. The family declined both the withdrawal of life support and a caesarean. Mum went into spontaneous labor, baby was born and mum died a year after brain death (so several months after birth).

Suicide raises all sorts of other issues, and it's all quite upsetting. The principle though that a brain dead woman can successfully gestate then naturally birth a baby is interesting though.

People can be kept on life support whilst brain dead for a very long time if they are stable. Not everyone's body shuts down as in the tragic Irish case.

@SVRT19674

Of course her survival chances were low, practically non existent but the baby's survival chances were also extremely low and to allow her to incubate the baby as long as possible, she had to refuse all treatment meaning her husband and parents, friends and family, as well as her doctors had to let her suffer immeasurably.

@saulgood, that must have been so awful for you and all of her family. I'm so very sorry for your loss.

*I can't bring myself to read the links. sad"

And that's saying something, @EmeraldShamrock, when the horrifying links are court judgments!

I came on to reference the case Crumpets124 has highlighted.

The scenario is highly unlikely to happen, if you are pregnant and have a cardiac arrest one procedure that will happen if you are not responding is an emergency cesarean.

the womb is nothing more than an incubator without a consciousness attached to it.

You are so wrong, there are hundreds if not thousands of processes that go on in a pregnant woman's body, all are controlled by the brain.

You're not unreasonable to think most people would share your views but as you can see, many do not!

I've seen a perimortem caesarean performed. Baby was 33 weeks and fine. It was after a cardiac event though.