Clinically dead Irishwoman being used as human incubator

[FayKorgasm]

I am on my phone so cannot link but I was reading an article about a pregnant Irish woman who is clinically dead being kept alive against her next of kins wishes. The Irish constitution gives equal right to life of both woman and foetus.

Very sad situation made a million times worse .

Good.

But I still don't get it.

This:

"Lawyers for the unborn child had told the court that it must be satisfied that there was no real possibility of the foetus surviving before allowing the machine to be turned off."

Clearly the foetus cannot itself hire and direct lawyers as to it's wishes. So who are these lawyers speaking on behalf of? Who are they a mouthpiece for? Their statement is that anything to do with the state of the woman, or the distress caused to her family, or even that the foetus might survive but be very damaged, is irrelevant, all that matters is whether the foetus the foetus has any chance of survival whatsoever. Who is that coming from? I find it really disturbing and don't understand whose views these actually are that are being put forward in an attempt to prevent this.

Anyone have any ideas?

There are well established procedures in many jurisdictions globally for appointing lawyers for those who cannot speak for themselves (either/both literally or legally).

I am not familiar with Irish procedures in this, but in E/W it's via the Courts (Court of Protection, being made Ward of Court, etc) and of course it applies at any age.

What I don't get about this case is why it took so long to secure the ruling (for it will surely be so much harder for the poor family that it straddled Christmas, and possibly other dates important to them).

Irish independent has more:

www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/doctors-told-they-can-withdraw-life-support-for-clinically-dead-pregnant-woman-30863340.html

"Senior Counsel Conor Dignam, representing the interests of the unborn, said that the Constitution requires the right to life of the unborn be vindicated where "practicable" and that that right surpasses the right of a non-sentient woman to a dignified death."

The foetus is non-sentient as well.

I find all of these statements coming out utterly disturbing.

Whose actual views are being represented by this lawyer.

It goes on to get even more bizarre:

"Lawyers appointed to represent the dead mother's interests said maintaining a brain dead person on life support for such a long time had been described as grotesque and experimental but said that one man's experiment may be another's pioneering treatment.

Senior Counsel Cormac Corrigan, representing the woman's interest, said her wishes can be inferred from her love of her other children and the fact that she was a Catholic, that she was happy to be pregnant again and was proud of her pregnancy."

So now we have lawyers acting against the wishes of someone's live family, her partner, her parents, her actual born children, on the basis that they assume she would have wanted this. And how can they describe keeping a dead body going on machines as a "treatment" - treatments make you better, improve your quality of life.

Who has hired these lawyers, who are they a mouthpiece for?

They made the right decision.

AuntieStella

But how does that work here?

Of course you can get lawyers to represent people who for some reason can't speak for themselves, and generally they either advocate for what is obviously the interests of that person, or they advocate on what someone else wants.

So in eg the case where there was a child with FAS, wanting access to the funds for crime victims. So the case was brought on behalf of the child by the LA, they were saying well obviously the child needs money to be supported and so we are going to act on their behalf to try and get this money so we don't have to pay for this any more.

But in this case, there is no obvious or straightforward answer as to what the woman and the foetus would have wanted. Their immediate families were all against prolonged support. So who instructed these lawyers as to what to assume the wishes of these entities were, why were these assumptions made as to what they would have wanted? It doesn't make sense, it's not obvious. So whose voice were these lawyers actually representing?

Omnipotent there is little doubt that the perspective in Ireland certainly that the foetus would want a chance at life. The legal representatives for the mother were likely to be framing the mother's position from what was know about her decisions to date about wanting this child. In short though the counter argument was being presented on behalf of the mother and child and a good court decision could not be made without a counter argument. I believe a good decision was made.

What will be argued in every case will be different.

And it is not really about expressed wishes, but rather best interests. And there is a level of presumption that death is not in someone's best interests, so establishing the legalities of a decision that will end the life in question is fairly rare and very much dependent on the precise circumstances.

It is also unusual to have to consider two (or more) separate legal entities in one body (no idea how this would work out in practice most of the time). It would only apply in PG or to conjoined twins.

Will Ireland have to make its way (possibly slowly) through a series of precedent-setting cases to sort all this out?

I find it terribly disturbing though.

For assumptions to be made on behalf of people who had no way of expressing a preference, and this used to attempt to block the wishes of the actual surviving family. To call them the advocates for the foetus and the woman is a total misnomer. It is in no way clear or obvious that the foetus or the woman would have wanted this, were they in a position to want anything

It just seems like playing devils advocate for, what purpose I have no idea, and who instructed the lawyers or anything. I assume it was the state who hired and instructed the lawyers what assumptions to make.

It's all just hideously grotesque.

But it's this isn't it:

"the foetus would want a chance at life"

The foetus is not sentient, it doesn't know or want anything. It can only do that retrospectively, and if there is a high chance of permanent severe / life limiting disability, who on earth can say unequivocally "that is what the foetus would want"?

It's just all nonsensical. And really really un-nuanced and cruel.

It seems to me that this case was only decided because the court was convinced that there was no chance of survival (in any form).

And that if there had been a 1% chance of survival, even if with a limited lifespan or severe disabilities, the decision might have gone another way.

This is the right decision but the whole framework and law and everything is utterly insupportable, IMO.

"Obviously this involves someone making a call about the child's best interests that may well differ from the wishes of the parent/s. Irish law seems to give the foetus the same status as a baby that has already been born, hence separate legal representation. "

That helps Chunderella.

I suppose if you see it as a "baby" from the moment of conception that makes sense. To me it just seems warped. I'm more disturbed and confused by the advocate for the dead woman though, the assumptions of what she would have wanted - I mean why so confident? How do they know? Why do they think she would have different views to her surviving relatives, want to cause emotional trauma for her existing children etc?

I am really struggling with this.

I mean if something happened to me, I would want DH to be able to make decisions on my behalf, not have some random lawyers appointed by god knows who and told what what assumptions to make by god knows who to tell him No we know what she would have wanted better than you. It's horrifying.

I find it really hard to agree that the unviable foetus is 'person' in this case and that it had legal representation. It isnt a person. It is an attatchment to a dead woman's body.

It basically helps to think of the foetus as not different from any other human being.

Oh yes i can see how it helps those opposed to abortion. That is obvious. But it doesnt help me because it isnt accurate. The unviable foetus is not the same as a born baby living independantly of another person's body.

What interests me is that NOK very often are the ones who make the decision to switch off a person's life support system. Why are NOK able to for a non pregnant person but suddenly not able to for a pregnant person? For starters the (potential) NOK for the foetus are the same people who are NOK for the patient. If the baby was born and the mother dead it would be the same people making the decision if the baby was on life support. Why is that not the same in this case?

It also gives rise to situations where say a pregnant woman needs treatment for something which has a 30% chance of saving her life, but an 80% chance of killing or damaging the foetus, then doctors would have to refuse her treatment knowing that will kill her, because of the unacceptable risk to the foetus.

This was the sort of thinking that resulted in that poor woman who died wasn't it.

Even the law is worded interestingly, I posted upthread, it reads that any "unborn" has an absolute right to life from conception, and the rights of the woman are added in as an afterthought. It is really tellingly worded.

Will they start testing women and girls for pregnancy when they need medical treatment?

Have there been any situations in Ireland yet where women have been prosecuted for doing things that have harmed the foetus (outside of trying to administer an abortion) eg excessive alcohol consumption, attempting suicide?

Court ruling is in and life support can be switched off.

BBC story here

A poster has asked for information about the legal procedures here.
Apologies, i thought your comment was direct response to my previous post but i understand now what you were saying.

Afaik in Ireland a father would have no legal next of kin rights over their child unless they were married to the mother.

It would seem in this case he would have no NOK rights over either mother or baby even if he were married to her. Her parents who were NOK had no rights. This is what i dont understand.

The ruling must be such a relief to the poor family. The fact they were put through any of this on top of their already tragic loss is disgusting.

I sincerely hope that everyone can take some comfort from the fact she can finally be put to rest now.

those poor poor children having to see their mother like that

just awful for All those involved.

NOK can be over-ruled in UK as well, they don't always make sensible decisions.

Sometimes it needs court etc though.

Usually around parents refusing consent for important medical treatments AFAI can remember.

I think for us in the UK it is hard to put ourselves in the mindset of someone who sees an "unborn" as a person with full righst that can and may over-ride the rights of the person housing it. I use housing it as that seems to be the approach. In this case it was the argument well the woman's dead so what does it matter, now she's housing this foetus and that is what is all important, which I found a really disturbing approach.

If what you do to dead people doesn't matter then will Ireland be refoming it's laws (which I'm sure they have) around grave desecration, necrophilia and so on?