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 .

..............and while the legal beagles take their time & argue the finer ethical points there's a grieving family who's lives are in limbo.

I think it's enormously sad but it's down to the restrictive abortion laws of the land, the doctors fear to turn off the life support.

If it were me, I think I'd want to try and keep the baby alive too - but I don't know, who can say unless they're in that situation. :(

So sad for her family, all of them.

I haven't read the whole thread, but have got to a poster saying "I imagine the woman would be allowed to die in theatre following C/S". This quote to me highlights what this woman has been reduced to - a tool, a thing, an incubator, which will discarded once there is no more use for her.

What if a woman is in the process of IVF and is in this situation, is her husband allowed to give their frozen embryos a chance of life by impregnating her body, after all, she's dead, what harm would be done? What's the difference with a bundle of cells in a petri dish and a bigger bundle of cells already in the uterus?

This is just horrific.

The more I think about this the more I think it's very morbid and I feel sad for the rest of her family

OhFestive - the lady in question is already technically dead, so allowing her to finally die completely is the only option after CS, if it even gets that far, which I think is unlikely.

I doubt very much indeed that your second suggestion would work, let alone be allowed. Frozen embryos aren't living foetuses, the case is not the same.

I know she's technically dead, it was just that phrasing that got to me. The picture of the CS theatre, removing the baby from the woman, and so she is 'allowed to die'. This permission being given, function has been performed, the tool is discarded. She is a human person, with human dignity, she should be 'allowed to die' now.

Whether or not the IVF example would work, frozen embryos are very much like living foetuses - they are unviable without a woman's body. The woman's rights have to come first. She has a right to not be used like this.

Must stop googling. I'm back on the fence because there have been three similar cases according to the daily mail mail link sorry in the case they discuss in the article feotus was 15 weeks at the time of mothers stroke, baby born alive and healthy by c- section at 27 weeks. It was ultimately discharged from hospital with no known health issues due to prematurity.

A case in Ireland a few years ago determined that both the mother and father concerned in IVF must give consent for usage. The case arose after a separation; mother wanted to proceed, father didn't, and the court (Supreme, I think) decided his withdrawal of consent meant that the frozen embryos could not be later used.

Well, the fact that this woman was pregnant seems to be enough to consider her consenting to this situation, so I can't see consent being a problem if she was all set to go ahead with IVF beforehand.

But you wouldn't be able to assume that her consent was continued, OhFestive and you wouldn't be able to obtain it, obviously. She could have withdrawn her consent/ changed her mind at any time prior to implantation, so unless she had drawn up a document that stated unequivocally that she wanted to be impregnated whatever state she was in, it still wouldn't count. But chances of it working are still negligible, even it was allowed.

But don't you think consent is an issue where this woman's body is being used after her death in this way? Don't you think explicit consent prior to death should be required to do this? Or at the very least pay attention to her next of kin's wishes?

This makes me feel genuinely sick to my stomach. Where is there respect for the dead? Let her rest in peace.

I'm with those who would say that at 14 weeks pg I would want to die and the foetus too. The alternative is macabre, and highly unlikely to have positive outcome, for either the foetus or frankly her existing family.

Does this mean that women and girls could be tested for pregnancy and the treatment they receive vary depending on whether they are pregnant or not. It opens up a whole can of worms.

If I were dead on a bed and DH said let her go and the authorities said no that's just horrible to think of.

The idea of "letting her die" once they've delivered just walking away feels like that for me too OhFestiveDay. She's being used to grow something, she is irrelevant, once she has served her purpose she'll be discarded.

This is such a disturbing situation. The 1983 amendment to the constitution asserted that a foetus has an equal right to life as the mother. But that's not how it's turned out to be. Whatever the framers of that amendment meant, it's subsequently been about the rights of the foetus trumping any rights that the mother, whether alive or clinically dead, has or had.

In this case, the woman is clinically dead and the chances of her foetus surviving without harm in that clinically dead body are possibly minimal - though, obviously, there's thankfully little in the way of prior evidence.

There have been too many examples where the interpretation of that amendment has been far too rigid, and women have suffered as a result of that. Equal rights should be just that - equal as in rights shared by equals. But attempts to impose equality in cases of women and foetuses just doesn't work in some real-life situations, because the "right to life" works in very different, and sometimes completely opposing, ways.

The idea that "the unborn" has an equal right to life to the woman it resides in from the moment of conception is terrifying.

I just looked at the amendment and the way it is worded even makes it clear that it is the unborn whose right to life is paramount, with the part about the woman's equal right seeming an afterthought & almost lip service. Look at the way it is wrtten:

"The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right."

I find that terrifying. it is the right to life of "the unborn" that is guaranteed, the right to life of the woman only needs to be given consideration. It's there in black and white where their priorities lie.

Is it really that different from keeping a clinically dead organ donor alive till thd organs are removed then "letting her die in theatre"?
Personally I am much more worried about the rights of living women.
I know that I'd find it impossible to switch off a life support machine knowing a perfectly healthy foetus would die. I doubt my parents could do it if it were me and their future grandchild.
And I say this as a committed pro-choicer (if the woman is alive to have an opinion).

QueenoftheUniverse
Good point. Where does this stop? Do we test women to see if they are pregnant before switching off life support? Or is it only a problem if the doctors know she was pregnant.

The comment about the hormones made me think too - how do the doctors know that the baby will develop normally without the hormones that the mother would have in her body during pregnancy?

Museummum this is about the rights of living women.

If the foetus trumps the mother then it would be fine to deny a pregnant woman with cancer life saving surgery or chemo, to oblige accidentally pregnant patients with life threatening cardiac or blood conditions to continue the pregnancy despite deteriorating health.

This is the reality for women in Ireland. Actually whether the woman wanted this is irrelevent really the big issue is that this case more than most shows that law has reduced women to incubators without the rights given to men.

That the legal horror is matched by my feelings for the poor family who want to be able to bury their dead daughter/mother just affirms the awful injustice.

When it comes to rights to life, I would much prefer to see Ireland investing in decent care for its vulnerable children.

Yes, what I meant is that this particular story doesn't worry me nearly as much as ones I've heard about the woman who died because medical staff were concentrating on keeping the foetus alive so as not to be accused of abortion etc.
I agree entirely about the whole situation but I'm surprised that this case seems to be the one most people find horrific.

Museumum, that case caused outrage on here too; unfortunately it was too late for that particular woman. This is an ongoing case.

The quote that somebody gave earlier by the husband of the Texan woman was bad enough. Absolutely horrific, I don't wish to repeat it. In that case the foetus was 14 weeks when the woman died, so not viable. By 22 weeks scans showed that the baby was "distinctly abnormal", presumably as a result of being allowed to develop inside a dead mother. (The cause of death also wasn't known, is it possible that something wrong with the baby could have killed the mother?) Either way, it's just horrendous. Nature would never ever allow this to happen, we shouldn't be playing god in this way. I'm aware that there are things we intervene in which nature wouldn't allow to happen but nothing that comes close to this, IMO. We don't know enough about what the consequences could be, we absolutely shouldn't be attempting it. It is inhumane.

In the other case of the baby being born in the article which compared two cases, the baby was much closer to viability and the woman's body was only kept "alive" for a much shorter time, which seems like a more acceptable choice to make, even though still morally questionable.

I think it's naive beyond belief to think that you can keep the body "warm" and the blood circulating and the baby will be okay. Perhaps for an extremely short time, but from 11 weeks to 26 weeks - no. A woman's body is not just an incubator, nor is it in any way similar.

The comment about the hormones made me think too - how do the doctors know that the baby will develop normally without the hormones that the mother would have in her body during pregnancy?

They don't. And as far as Irish law is concerned it doesn't matter. As long as there is a heart beat then this pregnancy has to continue. If the foetus is diagnosed with something that means it will die within minutes of birth, the pregnancy has to continue. If the foetus develops in to something we may not regard as human (thinking some sort of molar pregnancy), but it has a heart beat, then the pregnancy has to continue.

If this woman was a nine year old, the pregnancy a result of rape, the foetus being a mole with zero chance of viability the Drs would have to do everything possible to continue the pregnancy.

I don't think people are more horrified by this than by other cases. Many of those other cases have been brought up on here and people have expressed their shock and sadness and fear for what it means about women's rights.

I'm not sure how this thread suggests that people are more horrified by this than by any of the other cases. But it is a tragic and appalling situation so people are going to express that view

Sorry only read a couple of pages as need to go wake son..

What an awful situation though 4 months ish ...depending how long pregnancy continues is a long time to watch your own daughter dead but breathing by the help of a machine.

I also wonder what the mum would want. I know for me I would want my baby born if I was dead.

I also think if my child was dying letting part of him live on would be some comfort for me ( though I have a son so can't be pregnant)

This is really complex and hope it can be resolved without courts