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 .

they haven't determined brain death - she's clinically dead, which isn't always the same - it means clinically she cannot support life - cessation of breathing and circulation - eg heart has stopped. However, with an artificial circulation then blood would be circulating to the brain. If dead, no pain. If in suspended state of perideath to incubate pregnancy, I'd think she may retain some local reflexes but not feel pain. People in comas can feel pain of course. But she is dead, so should not be doing so. I wonder if what they really mean is, she hit rock bottom and won't wake up off ventilator/dialysis/etc - but that actually, she has retained a degree of basal function including pituitary etc functions and is therefore in a state of switched off, will die - but still supporting pregnancy.

Also think would depend on level of insult to fetus at time of death or injury - so how long was it without blood flow for instance? however fetalHb is amazing, and can last a long while. Thus fundamental issue is whether the fetus is viable. In the Munoz case in Texas, I remember feeling horror, revulsion at it - but see key point is that fetus not viable. Assuming this one is, then they need to look at their constitutional amendments,laws, and perhaps use external viability or near-viability as a cut off for this. An early pregnancy clearly not the same as a baby who can survive outside and only needs a little bit more time.

The husband in the Texas case described how his wife had become so stiff that her bones cracked, and she developed a horrible smell. She isn't lying there looking like sleeping beauty, her body is deteriorating and she is being denied any dignity in death. It's disgusting.

Ah, I'm sorry.

But, but ... do we know for sure there is no pain?

I know that sounds stupid. But I do not follow how we can know? How can we be sure it's not simply that her body no longer has the capacity to register that pain in any way we can measure?

There isn't a right answer here, of course. And it happens so rarely that precedent can't be set.

Personally, if this happened to me, I would like every chance of life to be offered to my child and would be horrified if my parents overrode this. There is every chance the fetus can survive.

I don't see this as anti-feminism. Just a ghastly moral question with no absolutely correct answer. But perhaps some good can come of it ie new life.

Sorry posted to soon

• rather than a view that the foetus was viable.

And now my previous post has disappeared. I was basically just saying that my concern is that the foetus may have suffered traumatic injuries too, but all that needs to be present, as in the previous case, is a foetal heartbeat for intervention that would result in the death of the foetus to be ruled out. In other words viability or likelihood of an outcome not involving long-term harm may not have been a factor, although I hope this isn't the case.

Regardless of what anyone would personally wish for, the law amendment that has led to this decision is absolutely anti feminist.

but if doctors actively did anything now, it would be known to them that the baby would die, with certainty

What rubbish - every minute her body receives artificial life support, doctors are 'actively doing something'. The woman is dead. Current situation is an intervention. This intervention will remain continuous until foetus dies or is extracted, or the law is changed.

I don't fancy being the relative (who doesn't want responsibility for the child anyway) to tell the kid they were incubated in their mother's dead body.

Do we know there isn't a right answer, though?

I feel that the right answer is, if the woman has not left record, then she should not lose her human rights.

I do understand (and feel) that many of us as individuals might passionately want to waive that. It's not the same as the situation where a woman diagnosed with cancer forgoes treatment that would harm or kill her foetus, but it's possible to compare, isn't it?

We'd all want the chance to forgo treatment. We'd none of us (I think?) want the law to assume we would all want to forgo treatment and to take the decision away.

basgetti I'm resolutely feminist and would be horrified in this situation if the rights of my soon to be useless body overrode those of my unborn child.

Let's flip this. The law requires her life support to be turned off. Yet her husband/parents are desperate for the baby to be given a chance to live. They assert this is what the woman would want. But no - a judge decrees a lifeless body takes preference over the unborn one. The parents protest - but are powerless to prevent this potential termination of life for their grandchild.

Just as horrific, isn't it?

YY, basgetti. Why not use the dead bodies of young women as incubators for artificially implanted foetuses? It's just so gruesomely ... impersonal.

"Personally, if this happened to me, I would like every chance of life to be offered to my child and would be horrified if my parents overrode this."

You wouldn't be horrified, Rooner. You'd be dead.

Would you want your own daughter kept in this state, were you unlucky enough to suffer her death?

No, I don't think it is as horrific (though I agree it is hard to think of any of these situations).

Often, spouses and parents want to prolong someone's life support. It is natural, but it's not right IMO. I don't think you are flipping the situation with that comparison.

I also think, if this case were to become representative, we should all have the option of living wills to say what we wanted. Just like a DNR.

To feel pain you need central processing over complex neural networks - I think she must be deader than that eg yes brain stem (they haven't said not in the article)
But if eg, someone on life support but not 'dead' then technically possible.
This is clearly bad law, and perhaps unconstitutional/ contra- ECHR
but hard to argue rights for a dead person
I think it's not taking into account the woman's wishes, as in what they would have likely been, the family's wish should be weighed alongside the prognosis. I think the law sounds like it doesn't allow for any of that and doctors there are just following the legal rules. If a court were to intervene now, perhaps it may prompt clarity. however, if I were on life support and pregnant, I would want whatever the best possible outcome could be for my baby and unless likely to suffer/ known severe medical problems, I would wish that baby to havea chance at life. I think also a wider aspect about population, what do they have to lose, how scary is this for them? does it impact on perception of women, rights in terms of abortion, or in terms of respecting personal choice in labour and delivery at end of healthy pregnancy? overruling womens choice and bodily integrity should never happen, but if dead without expressing choice in advance - then perhaps nothing to lose. You can be pro life and still consider each case on individual facts. A blanket rule is never going to work - clearly need to reform this.

Rooner, the point of the argument is that the law should not be robbing doctors & relatives of the right to make such decisions. Your hypothetical case would be just as bad.

“Difficult decisions that should be made by women and their doctors, a couple or the next-of-kin where there is no capacity, and on the basis of best clinical practice, are now made on foot of legal advice. That isn’t how it should be.”

cafe - this may not be the time or place - but how can we know that, about feeling pain? I just don't follow, because surely, if there were a capacity to feel pain in this situation, almost by definition we mightn't know of it?

Garlic is right of course it's an intervention, thus active. But the outcome would be clear. In cessation of the intervention it may be more omission than action, thus letting nature take its unfortunate course. But, is it a tiny bit different if fetus is actively well in there (and this law says it has rights)- that's knowingly altering their course with full foresight of consequence and no justification other than we are just not treating. I think viability outside body is best way to judge plus family/ individual's prior expressed wishes.

garlic yes, I would choose that if, god forbid, this was my daughter.

And in response to your flippant remark, as a living person, I feel horrified, currently, that should this happen to me, my parents could choose not to give my baby a chance at life.

These need to be dealt with on a case by case basis. We are not talking about using random dead women as vessels, as asserted above. We are trying to balance competing interests in an almost unique and very complex situation.

I don't agree that it is just as horrific Rooner. It is sad, but it is fact of life that if a woman dies in early pregnancy the foetus will die with her. That is the natural outcome which this intervention is preventing so I don't think the two situations can be compared. It is also possible that this woman's parents who presumably knew and loved her may have some insight into how she would have felt and are trying to uphold her wishes in allowing her to die peacefully rather than be forced to partake in this grim medical experiment.

Jeanne generally you'd need a level of awareness to feel pain, and however dead she is, there is no awareness now. The pathways relay up to higher centres for processing, except the local pathways. If brain activity ceased then she won't feel anything from eg needles, procedures. I'm assuming they've done many scans and traces to be certain there is no brain activity. If not, then arguably is she dead? in which case this clearly breaches a whole load of convention rights. What is death defined as legally? at what point has her personhood ceased to exist? is her treatment now compatible with any existing personhood she retains through her physiology.

[confued] But you said she wasn't brain dead. So why would brain activity have ceased?

Sad situation all around.

What would she have wanted?

I'm pregnant and as far along as she is. I hope DH knows that I would want him to do this and save our baby if at all possible. Why not?

I think it's horrific on many levels.

If it was me, no, I wouldn't want my 14 week old foetus to be forced, by law, to be incubated inside my dead body. God alone knows what health issues are being created for the poor thing. Let alone the emotional trauma of finding out you were incubated in your dead mothers body. Then there's no father on the scene, the grandparents have chosen against this...what's going to happen to the poor mite should it survive? A life in care? No, I most certainly would not want that for my baby. I can't understand how any of you would.

If the baby's Dad was there to bring the baby up then I'd feel differently and would want him to make the decision. I'd be happy for my body to be 'used' like this, that's not my issue.

The law is disgraceful.

My heart goes out to her parents and that poor little foetus who should have been allowed to die with it's mother, not suffer this.

CheerfulYank. What would you want your DH to tell your older children?

That my mind and soul were gone but my body was keeping the baby alive as I would have wanted, I suppose?

I've actually just gone to tell DH about this and make my wishes clear.

The poor parents though, and that poor young woman. So sad.