Forums → WEPR → End-Of-Life Decisions
| 32 | 20592 |
This thread is for discussing end-of-life directives and the implications (moral, legal, ethical, etc) surrounding them.
As a starting topic,
In Texas, a pregnant woman was found unconscious in her home. She was taken to a hospital, physically revived and put on life support. The fetus is showing signs of activity. However, she was declared brain dead, which is considered legally dead and medically dead. Against her proclaimed wishes and those of her next-of-kin (husband) and her parents, she remains on life support due to a state law that says, "A person may not withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment under this subchapter from a pregnant patient." She is being used as an incubator without her consent.
[source]
What do you make of this case? Is the hospital doing the right thing? What should be done?
- 32 Replies
What do you make of this case? Is the hospital doing the right thing? What should be done?
In this matter, I would hold the woman's right to die above all else. If the woman is legally dead, the law cannot rightly apply to her (it being impossible to sustain the life of the deceased). The fetus should not complicate the matter, as allowing her to die would be analogous to an abortion.
hmmm... this is a tough one and an interesting one...
but ihave to ask... isnt there a way to get the fetus out and take care of it in a medical way? im sure that technology today is advanced enough for that?
personally... i think that it was ok... i think its heartless to use her body like that but still... its her baby. if she didnt do abortion im sure it means she wanted it to live. im sure most parents would want their children to live on even if they died regardless of their age.
i cant get inside her mind and give my own personal decision if i was in her place... its a really tough one... maybe we should just ask? if a pair is planning for a baby they should make sure if the woman wants that or not and then it would be solved.
In Texas, a pregnant woman was found unconscious in her home. She was taken to a hospital, physically revived and put on life support. The fetus is showing signs of activity. However, she was declared brain dead, which is considered legally dead and medically dead. Against her proclaimed wishes and those of her next-of-kin (husband) and her parents, she remains on life support due to a state law that says, "A person may not withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment under this subchapter from a pregnant patient." She is being used as an incubator without her consent.
I assume she is unconscious and has no recallection of what is happening. Not sure what you mean by *Against her proclaimed wishes* Does she have something like a will that say in this situation to just let her die?
As for the fetus i am not knowledgeable in the stage of it's development, If it has a consciousness or not. If it is able to survive like this is unknown, If they can save it, then they should try?
As for the law(in my country atleast inform me if it is different there.), there will probably not be any specific laws on this exact issue. Normally in life support situations unless there is something written the next of kin decides,
but ihave to ask... isnt there a way to get the fetus out and take care of it in a medical way? im sure that technology today is advanced enough for that?
I don't think so, there is something for premature children for upto like 10 weeks before due date like an incubator.
What do you make of this case? Is the hospital doing the right thing? What should be done?
We are not to decide on what other people do, be it wrong or not. If they are going totally against the law that is wrong.
Also a question, Does where this happened, A fetus count as a life?
This is an interesting situation. Tough to judge as well. The fact that she is being used as an incubator is not right however. And I do believe, if there is no way to save her, that she should keep the status dead.
Preserving the child's life? Possibly a good decision. It depends on the families input on the matter. I would say yes to preserving the child's life.
I assume she is unconscious and has no recallection of what is happening.
It's not a simple coma or vegetative state. Life-sustaining brain activity has stopped irreversibly, which means even the brain stem doesn't work.
Not sure what you mean by *Against her proclaimed wishes*
Apparently she made it clear to her close relatives that she didn't want to be put on life support, so it's not like the cases where the person was silent on the issue and they have to guess.
The woman is brain dead, which means she's dead; this is out of question. Merely her body is still physiologically active, only thanks to life-supporting machines. This is solely so that the foetus can be kept alive.
We have a conflict of interests here. The husband and the parents ask for the life-support to be shut down since there is no way to save her, and probably out of respect for her. Medical personnel however is sworn to do everything they can to keep patients alive.
Whether or not the doctors are allowed at all to put off the machines depends on the reglements of the hospital concerning the definition of patient (does the foetus fall under the definition or not) and what the policy concerning last wishes/family wishes says.
Preserving the child's life? Possibly a good decision. It depends on the families input on the matter. I would say yes to preserving the child's life.
But this is exactly the problem: keeping the body as an incubator is the only way to keep the foetus alive and maybe, maybe bring the pregnancy to terms. I'm sure the parents and husband know that, and yet they don't want that; this only means they don't want the foetus to be born, at least not under those circumstances. I was surprised at first; you'd think the husband would want the foetus to be born. However I can imagine that the child would be a constant reminder of what happened; and a weird birth it would be.
Personally I think the hospital should listen to her family. Sometimes the compulsive efforts and sacrifices to desperately keep someone alive a little longer (mostly talking about old or sick people now) are just not worth it.
The woman is brain dead, which means she's dead; this is out of question. Merely her body is still physiologically active, only thanks to life-supporting machines. This is solely so that the foetus can be kept alive.
There is still something to consider. Will the child grow to be healthy and in no need of help if the birth process ends in disaster? I think this tips the scale in decision making a bit.
I was surprised at first; you'd think the husband would want the foetus to be born. However I can imagine that the child would be a constant reminder of what happened; and a weird birth it would be.
Weird indeed.
Personally I think the hospital should listen to her family. Sometimes the compulsive efforts and sacrifices to desperately keep someone alive a little longer (mostly talking about old or sick people now) are just not worth it.
If the child were to be born, it may not be born healthy. It would be best for her to remain deceased, even if a child is involved.
This is a story i have not heard of before but I can understand both sides to this argument. From the hospitals point of view and out of their interest the death of two humans (in this case a mother and her foetus) in their care is not good for their record. This draws attention to the possible reasons for why the hospital let it happen, this could potentionally mean that the hospital will have to blame the doctors who took in the woman and lay them off or else questions will arise as to what the hospital did to prevent this happening again. All of the above is in the hospitals interest not the subject of this event, the mother. Saving the foetus by putting the legally dead woman on life support would minimise this the above, but in my opinion I feel it is immoral that the hospital's decision over rides that of the husband and family's.
I want to pose a hypothetical question. If the fetus does survive all this and is born. What is going to happen to it? It seems clear to me since the Husband and family did not want for it to be born that they wouldn't want to have it live with them.
The only thing i can see about the woman remaining on this even though she is dead so it doesn't really matter what happens since she can't be aware anyway. Is the family would be in their terms unable to grieve for her loss. So they can have a funeral for her, while this is happening.
Apparently she made it clear to her close relatives that she didn't want to be put on life support, so it's not like the cases where the person was silent on the issue and they have to guess.
So she has actually wrote a will saying that in this situation (on life support) to just turn it off? If that is true then that is the wishes of someone. Which either from your point of view, right or wrong is what must be done.
From what i know about Texas (correct me if i am wrong) is a Republican state? From the point of view of them a fetus count as a life? I am not sure if they have the right to overrule a will or family on these issue. Something does need to change.
It would be best for her to remain deceased
I'm not sure what you mean by this. There's not a choice involved in that area. She can't be brought back.
I want to pose a hypothetical question. If the fetus does survive all this and is born. What is going to happen to it?
Likely intensive medical care until it dies.
even though she is dead so it doesn't really matter what happens since she can't be aware anyway
This raises questions about what others can legally do with your body after you're dead without your consent. For example, it might be in a hospital's best interests to use revived bodies as constant suppliers of blood, especially if the former patient was type O-. If a person's body belongs to the hospital after they die, they could simply harvest organs from dead patients without their consent as well, in which case killing could become a business.
So emperor, you are saying that we should just let the fetus dies, in order to honor the wills of an already dead mother? in my perspective, it is possible that the mother itself didn't even want to let her child live on, because she said should she be in a coma and/or dead, just pull out the life support system. because of that, then letting the fetus died by pulling life support of the dead mother, would then be equal to honor the mother's will to kill the child, which i think would be equivalent to a premeditated murder. but then not pulling out the life support system and let the fetus live, that would be dishonoring someone's last wish, which happens to be it's mom .so it is essentially a lose-lose scenario in which any choice is wrong in it's own right. what i think is the best solution for this matter, is that maybe someone can move the baby into an in-vitro tank, but that is of course not possible. so i propose that we let the fetus use the mother's body until it is safe enough to be surgically removed then pull out the life support system. now everybody's happy right?
So emperor, you are saying that we should just let the fetus dies, in order to honor the wills of an already dead mother?
Are you saying it's okay to use someone's body without their consent (or the consent of their next-of-kin)? How does it differ from the other scenarios?
because of that, then letting the fetus died by pulling life support of the dead mother, would then be equal to honor the mother's will to kill the child
Is someone who doesn't consent to donating their organs killing the people who would otherwise need them?
When did the mother say she didn't want to be kept on life support? Was it before or after she became pregnant?
Because one would think, that given that she is 14 (i think it was 14) weeks in, and hasn't aborted, she would want the baby to be born.
~~~Darth Caedus
When did the mother say she didn't want to be kept on life support? Was it before or after she became pregnant?
Likely before. But it's irrelevant. Since she didn't put it in writing, legally the decision ultimately goes to the next-of-kin (husband in this case). As a hypothetical parallel scenario, a mother and son are in a car crash in which the mother is declared dead and the son needs a liver. The only one available in time is his mother's. She didn't sign to be a donor and before the crash had made it clear to her relatives that upon her death she wanted to 'remain whole'. The next-of-kin decides to keep her request. Does the hospital have the right to transplant the liver?
The husband don't want his son to live, so he wants all the money for himself?
You must be logged in to post a reply!