http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/front/2001/0615/fro1.htm
Personally, it makes me vomit.
Personally I don’t understand why a pro-abortion person would oppose this. Who is being harmed if this woman is kept alive? Why are you so desparate to have both woman and fetus die?
(Note to Mods: can you please change the title of this thread to “would any ANTI-CHOICER like to defend this.” If they aren’t going to show us the courtesy of using the term we prefer, why should we extend the same courtesy to them.)
Izzy - she was 3 1/2 months pregnant. If the fetus had been anywhere near viable, it might have been a different story. This brain-dead woman would have been kept on artificial life support for months against the wishes of her husband purely to use her body as an incubating machine.
I find that incredibly creepy.
I have to agree with ruadh it is kind of creepy. One of the first things that come to mind after reading the article was who is going to foot the bill for keeping the lady on life support?
The taxpayers.
I agree that it’s really creepy, and wrong.
But that is because the State did this thing against the wishes of the husband. I think it would be much more of a poser to me if the husband had requested it.
It would still be creepy, but I could understand the desire of the husband to try to bring the fetus to term. And I believe that the current consensus is that a person who is brain-dead is not experiencing pain (or anything else).
What would your feelings be under that circumstance?
It seemed like an excersize in futitlity. She wasn’t far enough along for the fetus to survive, they knew she couldn’t live long enough on life support for the fetus to be viable - it all seems expensive, pointless, and painful for the husband, who probably wanted closure.
It seems creepy, yeah. I think the story would be entirely different had the woman been farther along in her pregnancy, though.
If I wished to bring a child into the world, but was rendered brain-dead before the fetus was viable, I would not mind if I was kept alive for a while to permit the fetus’ maturation; I did intend to have the child after all, although I would likely have assumed I would be there to raise it. Perhaps we need DNR orders that take into account what to do about a nonviable fetus, so that women who die before the fetus reaches viability can choose to “abort-by-default”. As far as I’m concerned, once I’m brain-dead if it pleases you to keep me breathing for however long you wish and for whatever reason you wish, I don’t really care…'cause I’m dead.
There is the problem of the only living and compentent parent not wanting the child, but presumably the woman did want the child or she would have done something about it before 3 1/2 months–that’s awful late for an unwanted pregnancy. Also, it seems the consensus was that it was remarkably unlikley that keeping the woman alive would even work, so you have a very very unlikely very expensive procedure that even if it does result in a viable child, the only living parent doesn’t want it. I don’t think the doctors necessarily made the right decision in that circumstance, but I don’t think it was completely off-the-wall either.
Are you sure you wish to change the title, ruadh? There’s no point in insulting all pro-lifers because one is discourteous. I’d rather not have to deal with people calling me a “pro-abortionist” because one pro-choicer called them “anti-choice” once.
ruadh, I’m pro-choice (no, IzzyR, I’m not “pro-abortion”, and you are smart enough to know better. Tsk, tsk.), and the concept of what happened here doesn’t offend me.
The details do. The husband’s wishes should have been respected. Better yet, the woman’s should be, if she had left a strong indication of them. Furthermore, even if the husband had agreed, the mother shouldn’t have been kept alive here when the overwhelming medical consensus seems to be that it was futile.
Sua
Let’s look at this rationally. What is the justification for abortion? Usually it is argued that a woman’s right to control over her own body outweighs whatever hypothetical rights the fetus might or might not have. That is, we cannot force a woman to provide life support for a third party if she is unwilling to do so.
However, in this case the woman is essentially already dead. Since she is dead, our actions cannot infringe on her right to autonomy over her own body. Since the woman is dead, the only party whose rights are under consideration is the fetus. There is no tension between the woman’s right and the fetus’s rights, since the woman is dead. Therefore, the fetus’s potential viability outweighs the deceased woman’s right to have her body disposed of gracefully.
Of course, this assumes that the baby has a chance of survival until viability. If there is no chance, then shut off the machines. If there is a chance, then keeping this woman’s body on life support for a few more months does not significantly violate her rights.
Not necessarily. This is Ireland. Abortion is illegal, and while that doesn’t always prevent women from having them, it most certainly does mean some women give birth to children they’d rather not have.
I’m not suggesting that was the case here, just that your presumption isn’t a safe one.
Nah, not really. I was just making a point.
I agree that the husband’s wishes not being respected was a primary issue; that’s why I put it in italics. Theoretically I’d oppose keeping a brain-dead person on life support for that long; in a real-life situation, though, I’d understand his desire to at least save his child. But as yosemitebabe noted, this probably just prolonged his suffering - and did so pointlessly, as most of the doctors knew it would.
This is an excellent example for teaching and I will use it in my Values presentations. It exhibits the fear that drives the termination of pregnancy debate from both sides:
Pro-choicers are worried that by keeping the mother’s body alive, they are assenting to a little bit of the claim that a fetus has rights.
Pro-lifers are worried that by allowing the mother to expire, they are assenting to a little bit of the claim that the fetus is merely a body part of the mother.
No wonder the ethics people at the hospital wanted to get it ‘right’.
And BTW I am neither pro-abortion nor anti-choice; sitting uncomfortably on the fence.
all right, yup i think it’s creepy too. yes, i’m pro-choice, and yes i am irish. i think it should be up to the husband really, it’s his wife and his kid, since she can’t make the choice, he should. that’s my opinion.
however, here’s the rub…irish law.
ABORTION IS ILLEGAL. ANY DOCTOR WHO PERFORMS AN ABORTION IS LIABLE TO BE STRUCK OFF FOR MALPRACTICE AND ETHICAL MISJUDGEMENT. IN IRISH LAW THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A “VIABLE” FOETUS, ALL THE UNBORN HAVE A “RIGHT TO LIFE” IT’S IN THE CONSTITUTION.
as is the only thing that is legal in ireland is the “unavoidable death of the unborn child as an unlooked for side-effect of medical treatment carried out IN ORDER TO SAVE THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER”.
since turning off the life-support isn’t saving her life the state is in a predicament and they have to settle it in the courts.
the actually horrendous thing is the fact that irish women aredenied choice, that 6000+ travel to england every year for abortions, that many others canot afford to do so, and that the government continues to pander to the pro-life/religious groups, most of whose members will never be in a crisis pregnancy situation.
rant over.
Hard cases make for bad law, and this has to be one very tough one.
I know that life support has been used like this in the UK before but this was with the consent of the father and the pregnancy was much further advanced, IIRC the birth was done by Caesarian section.
As for Ireland’s approach to abortion, well that is for them, but I do wonder if there are any Catholic nations that allow it.
One would hope that education, welfare and adoption would be better answers but in some countries the stigma of unmarried motherhood is too great.
What is Ireland position on contraception ?
1: I think that though tragic, it is wonderful that they can save the baby.
2: If you think it is a sick thing to do to keep the braindead mother alive so her baby survives, I can’t see how you don’t think ripping a baby out of a mother for the purpose of killing it is not sick
3: You Don’t like the term pro-abortion, but I think pro-choice is very misleading how about pro- right to abortion and anti-abortion. (hey I’m trying to comprimise here)
4: I think Lemur866 gets to the issue very well.
5: This is another topic that I might start later - I think pregnant women should be able to drive in HOV lane.
I seem to remember a couple of years ago that a women who had frozen embryoes stored sued for the right to implant them following the death of her husband.
Do those who believe that keeping the mother’s body on life support for the sole purpose of incubating the foetus is “right” not also see this as a very slippery slope?
k2dave, the foetus in this case died and life support was turned off two days later.
Er, they couldn’t. That was kind of the point. They kept the woman alive (though she was brain-dead), againt the husband’s wishes, and even though the chance that she would survive long enough for the fetus to be viable was practically non-existent.
Why? The whole point of HOV lanes (as I understand it) is to promote carpooling, thus reducing the number of cars on the road. Allowing pregnant women to drive in them would not accomplish this, since it is not as if the fetus could drive to work on its own even if it wanted too–it couldn’t even see over the steering wheel, and it’s feet would never reach the pedals. 
As well, you can’t really tell if a woman is pregant for several months, and some you can’t tell even when they are 6 months pregnant, so how would you know if a woman was telling the truth when she says she pregnant and can drive in that lane? Are we going to have roadside pregnancy tests performed by the police, or do we only allow “obviously” pregnant women to drive in that lane (and of course, we have to lift up their shirt and look at their belly to prevent them from just sticking a pillow in there).
No not very slippery, maybe a slight slope but with pleanty of footholds. The only way I can see you making this statement is if you think women who recently died in a way that the body can be kept alive would be implanted with babies. I just don’t see that.
I just read the 1st few sections. I still think it was worth a try
True, but a parent and child can be in the car pool lane. One thing that people who are pro right to abortion have to remember about us who are against abortion. We think of the baby (fetus) as a human. As such there would be 2 people in the car… and… as such when one dies and you have a chance to save the other you do it. This would be no diffrent to me then if there were co-joined twins and one died but could be kept alive via life support to keep the other alive - except that the baby could be sepperated eventually.
casdave FYI: ireland’s position on contraception, roughly the same as the uk. condoms freely available, as is the pill. but, not having the NHS, emergency contraception costs money (£20).
Sadly, emergency decisions involving co-joined twins generally involve performing operations in which involve the immediate death of one twin in order that the may have a chance at survival. They don’t involve keeping one or both twins on life support for many months in the hope that separation will be more viable at a later date.
I don’t know that I would have been thrilled had the husband in this case have wanted his wife kept on life support and been willing to pay the costs, but I certainly would have been less creeped out by that situation than by his wife being maintained on life support as an incubator against his wishes.
And yes, it is a slippery slope. A precedent has been set which will allow this decision to be applied in the future, and which will allow it to be applied in respect of younger foetuses.
Relatives of “brain dead” people have chosen in the past to maintain them on life support for years - it is far from inconceivable that at some point a grieving man will seek to have his brain dead wife implanted with a frozen embryo (which is not to say that I believe courts will allow it). Our laws rarely keep pace with our technological capabilities, and we rarely envisage all of their potential consequences until they are applied in a way we didn’t foresee.