Keeping a body alive: women with fewer rights than the foetus.

[Iris65]

'Numerous states have adopted laws restricting the ability of doctors to end artificial life support for terminally ill pregnant patients. Twelve of those states (including Texas) have the most restrictive of such laws, which automatically invalidate a woman's advance directive if she is pregnant. Such laws state that, regardless of the progression of the pregnancy, a woman must remain on life-sustaining treatment until she gives birth.' From: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Marlise_Muñoz

This case makes me feel sick. A woman could be 8 weeks pregnant and her body kept alive as a biological incubator for the sake of a person who doesn't yet exist.

I understand that if a an infant is viable a caesarian section would be justified but keeping her body alive for months to allow the infant to reach viability is profoundly disrespectful of her rights as an individual.

It is disgraceful. Women are not just wombs.

In reality it's beyond disgusting. I've read up on this before, her body starts breaking down. I'll spare the gory details but it becomes very very clear that this isn't like keeping a person asleep for a long time. This is torturing a corpse.

That cannot possibly be in the best interests of the fetus. If it is born with a disability, if the father cannot or won't look after it and it ends up in care, the USA systems are even worse than in the UK.

It is horrific. Sorry but can I ask a really stupid question? How can they keep the baby healthy and growing if the mother is in that sort of state? It doesn't seem fair for anyone involved, along with everything else that's wrong with it.

Imagine being that child, if it is delivered successfully and it is healthy.

That can't be good for the baby.

That's disgusting. If a woman was near full term, and if it can be proved that she would have wanted it, I can understand an argument for keeping her "alive" for a few more weeks to give the foetus the best chance of survival before a ceasarian is performed.
The case described in the link is heartbreaking. If I understand correctly, in many cases its not even about keeping a pregnant woman "alive" until her baby is delivered (bad enough) - its about keeping her "alive" as the foetus develops, until the foetus becomes so deformed that it is considered non-viable. Because I can't see how a viable foetus can develop in those conditions.

It's not good for the foetus and it's incubating in a decomposing body kept alive via ventilation and strong antibiotics.

There was a case in Ireland regarding a brain dead woman who was pregnant who was kept alive solely because those treating her feared prosecution under the laws in Ireland regarding abortion.

www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/26/ireland-court-rules-brain-dead-pregnant-womans-life-support-switched-off

Reading further into this case may well be triggering.

Imagine being that child, if it is delivered successfully and it is healthy.

Exactly. This is the chorus that comes from those who deny women choice, what about the life of that poor unborn 'child'. They don't give a fig about it once it's born though. Imagine being told you were born and your mother had died weeks previously? I would be horrified to discover that.

God that's disgraceful it really is. Statistically surely the odds aren't good for the baby?

As pp said what happens when this pre term likely very sick baby is delivered and the dad isn't around or can't possibly support his family on benefits as he had to quit work.

What are they going to do with the baby?

Ugh, how disgusting.

"Your mother died before you were born, but she had written in her will she wanted her body kept alive so you could live, because she loved you that much" is ... well, still horrific, but much better than "Oh, actually, your mother didn't want to be kept alive artificially, but we disrespected her wishes and let her slowly rot to death with you inside because we wanted you to live. Not that we care about you now you're born. Fuck off."

What are they going to do with the baby?

Hand it to some orphanage and forget about it, most likely. It is not about the babies. It is never about the babies. It is only about oppressing women.

Hand it to some orphanage and forget about it, most likely

I'm always amazed at how people can think spending your life unloved in an orphanage where there's no way your needs cab ever be truly met would some how be better than never being born. At least you would be with your mother who loved you in whatever afterlife scenario you believed in.

This is truly dystopian. It's terrifying.

Giles, I am not so sure those people really believe that it is better for the child.

Perhaps they say they believe that, and perhaps they convince themselves that's why, but the original sentiment that motivates them is not wanting women to decide what happens to their own bodies. Not even after death.

Oh the irony that potentially a male baby would be basically "sacrificed" mentally probably physically and emotionally just to prove a point...

I suspect in the US a baby born this way would go straight to adoptive parents, as newborn adoption is pretty common there

I suspect in the US a baby born this way would go straight to adoptive parents, as newborn adoption is pretty common there

But probably not if there are any disabilities ...

Though I wonder how long it will be until they make the body of any braindead woman officially property of the state and use her as a womb, impregnating the body again and again, to produce babies for couples who want to adopt.

It's dystopic.

There are thousands in the care system as it is really can't see anyone jumping to take a baby where the effects from all the drugs etc used to keep the mother alive for weeks and weeks.

Plus I can well imagine alot of therapists are trained in attachment disorders and obviously loss of family members and the resulting grief.

Is there a " how to deal with a child who grew inside his mother's dead deteriorating body" module? :(

I'm a therapist and am aware how stress, cortisol in the mother affects the baby. I dread to think what the impact would be.

Is there a " how to deal with a child who grew inside his mother's dead deteriorating body" module?

No doubt that it would all be heavily romanticised "your mother achieved the pinnacle of feminine saintly-ness by sacrificing herself for her child, even beyond her own death blahblahblah..." So fucked up on so many levels. And like pps have said, the child is going to be disabled with serious problems even if it were to survive to full term at all (unlikely). The chances of a child being born with a decent quality of life who makes it into adulthood are going to be very slim. And once that heavily disabled, (possibly in pain) child is born, do they give a fuck about where it goes? Because I can't imagine many adoptive couples being willing (or able) to take on a baby with such complex needs and health problems anyway.

Medical records would be able to be requested though wouldn't They?

Surely the chikd all those years down the line would be able to view their parents advance directives etc see there was no consent to be kept alive?

How would they explain that

How would they explain that?

Well, its every woman's obligation to incubate a child at whatever cost, and feel blessed to do so no matter whether she has consented to or not. How lucky, to be able to make the ultimate sacrifice! Logic would say that a sacrifice not freely made is not a sacrifice, but I bet it would still be spun in that heavily romanticised way to the child, whatever the medical notes and evidence said.

It's actually relatively rare for patients to become diagnostically brain-dead even if they are prognostically terminally ill. They can be in a state of deep coma which is non-recoverable, with extensive brain damage, without ever becoming brain-dead. How long they can then be ventilated for will depend on whether they contract any infections and whether they can be treated successfully with antibiotics.

There are all sorts of traumatic situations which children are born into. How those situations are communicated probably has more impact than the situation itself on the child. Children born as a result of rape, incest, and affairs all need sensitive communication. Children who are adopted need sensitivity around their birth stories. Children whose mother delayed treatment for cancer so they could be born, and then died as a result, will also need support with hearing their birth story.

I think it's a mistake to think that because you may find something distasteful, that the resulting life is not worth living. It will all come back once again to 'when is a life a life', I suppose.

I'm not sure what I think. In fact..... I'm surprising myself in thinking that, despite considering myself more 'pro-life' than many on here, I think that I come down on this issue in the middle: if an expectant mother is aware she is dying and expresses a wish to be kept alive until the viability of her baby, that should be done if possible. But there should be no enforced preservation of life to allow growth of a foetus.

I find this very interesting.

I read an article on charlie gard from a us perspective, basically saying making him a ward of the state was the effect of socialised medicine, and the parents should have the right to decide on the childs medical care, choose how, where and when.

But this is basically the same isn't it? Removing the parents rights and handing decisions regarding the child to the state.

Americans are bizarre sometimes.

It's either a grieving spouse who requests the attempt to save the fetus or grieving parents who then raise the child as their own. Women in theses cases generally are very loved and missed.

I agree with you lougle

There must be pretty extenuating circumstances for this situation to ever occur, and for a woman to be pregnant and then braindead in the relatively short space of time between conception and birth, maybe they are simply going on the assumption that some proportion of women probably wanted to carry those babies to term, and if they cannot obtain this information for sure because of the mother's condition (i.e cannot ascertain the pregnancy was unwanted anyway), isn't it safer to bring the baby to term rather than let them die?

It must be a difficult decision to make as a doctor but it's not the same as some blighted child being born of a rotted, festering corpse. If the mother is "only" (sorry for lack of more appropriate and sensitive word) then the body will continue to function on life support as a living body - otherwise this wouldn't work in the first place.

And what is happening to the women after birth? Genuinely I don't know - are they only on life support because they are pregnant, or because families have not consented to having life support turned off? BEcause that adds a whole other dimension as well, if the woman is not solely being kept alive to give birth to her baby.

I don't think it is necessarily an intentional oppression of womens rights, more of a very ethically difficult situation to navigate maybe?