Ireland's at it again(Unborn right to life shenanigans)

[Ifreann]

Clinically dead pregnant woman being kept alive by hospital
Life support machine being used to protect unborn baby

A PREGNANT woman who is clinically brain-dead is being kept on a life support machine in hospital to keep her baby alive, the Irish Independent can reveal.

The mother of two in her 20s is around 17 weeks pregnant and the baby is still alive. But the mother is being kept alive against the wishes of her parents.

[...]

According to sources with knowledge of the latest case, the woman’s parents have expressed their wish that the life support machine be switched off.

However, doctors have been unwilling to do this due to the constitutional amendment which gives the rights of mothers and the unborn equal status.

Sources said the woman’s parents were now considering a legal challenge to the decision not to allow the life support machine to be turned off.

The case is expected to end up in court where the State would have to get involved to represent the unborn child.

The woman, who is in her mid to late 20s and from the midlands, suffered a catastrophic internal injury as a result of a blood clot and was transferred to Beaumont Hospital in Dublin, where the country’s leading neurosurgery department is based, a fortnight ago.

Doctors were unable to save her, but kept her on life support so her unborn baby could have a chance of life.

Sources said that following a clinical assessment, it was decided to transfer her back to a regional hospital last week.

That hospital has foetal assessment facilities, which are not available at Beaumont, and it also allows her to be close to her family.

It is understood that the hospital is now seeking legal advice on whether it can legally accede to her parents’ wishes.

“The legal advice would be there is one life here and it is the unborn child. Everything practicable has to be done – and that’s both under the constitution and the legislation passed last year. There is also a high possibility the unborn child will not survive,” a senior source said last night.

Are you listening, foetal personhood advocates? This is what happens when you get your way. The rights of women, and now the rights of their next of kin, are subordinated to the right to life of the unborn. We've created a situation where pregnant women aren't people, not really. They're just incubators for real people. Even after they effectively die their body will belong to the unborn, not to their family, no matter they will most likely not survive.

Is this right, NSG? Should clinically dead pregnant women be kept on life support, contrary to the wishes of their next of kin?

[Canyon Falls]

Why should their body belong to the family and not the fetus?

[Ifreann]

Why should their body belong to the family and not the fetus?

That would be what generally happens when people die. The next of kin, parents, siblings, spouse, whoever, sees to their burial or cremation or what have you.

[Kelinfort]

Are we to believe this foetus will survive birth or longer? I don't see why this woman should be kept as a vegetable for a 17-week old foetus. This is outrageous and yet another insult to women worldwide.

[Canyon Falls]

Why should their body belong to the family and not the fetus?

That would be what generally happens when people die. The next of kin, parents, siblings, spouse, whoever, sees to their burial or cremation or what have you.

Tradition is your reason?

[Jamzmania]

And what's so evil about giving an unborn a chance at life?

[Risottia]

Why should their body belong to the family and not the fetus?

Because
1) it's not about property. It's about who has the duty to take decisions about someone else when the latter is incapacitated.
2) even if it was about property (and you should be properly ashamed of considering a living human person something that can become "property"), a fetus, lacking legal personhood, cannot own property.

That would be what generally happens when people die. The next of kin, parents, siblings, spouse, whoever, sees to their burial or cremation or what have you.

Tradition is your reason?

More like law of the land.

[Ashmoria]

except for the part where it is unlikely to end with a living baby i don't have a big problem with it.

it doesn't hurt the dead woman.

[Canyon Falls]

And what's so evil about giving an unborn a chance at life?

Particularly as there's no indication that the mother was planning on an abortion or anything of the sort. This is really more an argument in favour of increasing the popularity of advanced directives/

[Rustantinople]

This is ridiculous. The baby isn't even half developed and they are still trying to protect it? I understand that abortion is illegal there, but I wouldn't call taking that woman off of life support abortion. To her parents, she is already dead. There is no way she will come back, as it is stated that she is brain dead. Her body is not a baby life support device, it is a corpse that has not undergone whatever burial rites her next of kin wants for her.

[Old Tyrannia]

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to argue here. Are you saying that the doctors are wrong in trying to save the life of the child? Why, exactly? Because their grandparents don't want them? As far as I'm concerned, medical professionals have a duty to do everything in their power to save the life of a patient, and the unborn child is a patient just as much as their mother. I can't actually see any argument in the OP against trying to save the child's life beyond some sensationalist attack on a strawman.

[Canyon Falls]

Why should their body belong to the family and not the fetus?

Because
1) it's not about property. It's about who has the duty to take decisions about someone else when the latter is incapacitated.
2) even if it was about property (and you should be properly ashamed of considering a living human person something that can become "property"), a fetus, lacking legal personhood, cannot own property.

Tradition is your reason?

More like law of the land.

Ifreann is equating the body to property. Take your complaint up with him.

The Irish constitution apparently states :

"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."

The law of the land is on the side of the fetus

[Risottia]

Ifreann is equating the body to property.

No, you are.

Why should their body belong to the family and not the fetus?

(red mine)
Don't build strawmen.

The Irish constitution apparently states :
"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."

Right to life, when practicable.
Not right to own property or duty to take medical decisions about someone else, aka the mother.

Also, the Constitution cannot be applied directly. You may want to quote directly a law on the subject.

[The Conez Imperium]

I don't think that baby will be happy to learn he/she has no mother and that the family voted for his/her existence to be terminated.

[Need a Name]

But isn't the woman dead? What heck is wrong with giving the fetus a chance if the woman is dead? Wouldn't the woman want her unborn child to live?

[Canyon Falls]

Ifreann is equating the body to property.

No, you are.

Why should their body belong to the family and not the fetus?

(red mine)
Don't build straw men.

Replying to the context Ifreann set in the OP. It's the first post. Read it. :

Even after they effectively die their body will belong to the unborn, not to their family, no matter they will most likely not survive.

The Irish constitution apparently states :
"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."

Right to life.
Not right to own property or duty to take medical decisions about someone else, aka the mother.[/quote]

They're not taking medical decisions for another, neither are they stating a claim to ownership.

[Herargon]

Are we to believe this foetus will survive birth or longer? I don't see why this woman should be kept as a vegetable for a 17-week old foetus. This is outrageous and yet another insult to women worldwide.

Oh, come on! You don't want to be killed, no?
That's the case with the unborn baby. And women in coma and such can give birth to children - and as thus, the child may do so too!

Let the child be born when the development has gone far enough - through a C-section - and then let the mother die as wished by the parents! Everyone happy.

[Boomhaueristan]

Tough call, for me.

A person that's brain dead being kept "alive", I'm kinda... Against that.

But her child has the chance to live, which I'm for being Pro-life and al...

While I'm against abortion is most cases, I can't really defend this. Using a dead person as an incubator just screams "No" to me, I mean sure you can claim she's "alive" because of the "life support" but if she's brain dead then all her memories, dreams, experiences, emotions, et cetera are all gone, what's left is but a shell that serves that persons will, now being used as a incubator.

I find this just as sick as abortion really, and can't defend the hospitials position.

Maybe if on the off chance she had a note with her lawyer expressing her wishes for her corpse to be used to house the fetus in the event of brain death, I maybe could get it. Still, sounds disgusting.

Fucking bloodclots.

[Risottia]

No, you are.


(red mine)
Don't build straw men.

Replying to the context Ifreann set in the OP. It's the first post. Read it.

Exactly where did Iffy claim that a living human person can become property? Point it out.
Because, so far, you're the only one who claimed that a living human person should be the property of a non-person.

[Canyon Falls]

Replying to the context Ifreann set in the OP. It's the first post. Read it.

Exactly where did Iffy claim that a living human person can become property? Point it out.
Because, so far, you're the only one who claimed that a living human person should be the property of a non-person.

It's in the post in red and large font. A complaint that the body will belong to the fetus and not the family

Stop setting up straw men

[Old Tyrannia]

Are we to believe this foetus will survive birth or longer? I don't see why this woman should be kept as a vegetable for a 17-week old foetus. This is outrageous and yet another insult to women worldwide.

Women are insulted by an attempt to save the life of an unborn child? Personally, I find the suggestion that the child should be left to die so that the mother's parents can bury her more quickly outrageous. The loss of this woman was a tragedy, but I see absolutely no rational argument as to why this tragedy should be compounded with the death of the child as well. And what about the father? Shouldn't he have some say as to whether his unborn child lives or dies?

[Risottia]

Exactly where did Iffy claim that a living human person can become property? Point it out.
Because, so far, you're the only one who claimed that a living human person should be the property of a non-person.

It's in the post in red and large font. A complaint that the body will belong to the fetus

That's Iffy's comment to the stance YOU are defending.

Stop setting up straw men

Hark hark.

[Canyon Falls]

It's in the post in red and large font. A complaint that the body will belong to the fetus

That's Iffy's comment to the stance YOU are defending.

He replied to what you claim is my stance in advance? Wow what a guy he is. Wish I could predict the future.

[Fionnuala_Saoirse]

As far as I'm concerned, medical professionals have a duty to do everything in their power to save the life of a patient

Fortunately that isn't the reality no matter your opinion

[Sjovenia]

Clinically dead pregnant woman being kept alive by hospital
Life support machine being used to protect unborn baby

A PREGNANT woman who is clinically brain-dead is being kept on a life support machine in hospital to keep her baby alive, the Irish Independent can reveal.

The mother of two in her 20s is around 17 weeks pregnant and the baby is still alive. But the mother is being kept alive against the wishes of her parents.

[...]

According to sources with knowledge of the latest case, the woman’s parents have expressed their wish that the life support machine be switched off.

However, doctors have been unwilling to do this due to the constitutional amendment which gives the rights of mothers and the unborn equal status.

Sources said the woman’s parents were now considering a legal challenge to the decision not to allow the life support machine to be turned off.

The case is expected to end up in court where the State would have to get involved to represent the unborn child.

The woman, who is in her mid to late 20s and from the midlands, suffered a catastrophic internal injury as a result of a blood clot and was transferred to Beaumont Hospital in Dublin, where the country’s leading neurosurgery department is based, a fortnight ago.

Doctors were unable to save her, but kept her on life support so her unborn baby could have a chance of life.

Sources said that following a clinical assessment, it was decided to transfer her back to a regional hospital last week.

That hospital has foetal assessment facilities, which are not available at Beaumont, and it also allows her to be close to her family.

It is understood that the hospital is now seeking legal advice on whether it can legally accede to her parents’ wishes.

“The legal advice would be there is one life here and it is the unborn child. Everything practicable has to be done – and that’s both under the constitution and the legislation passed last year. There is also a high possibility the unborn child will not survive,” a senior source said last night.

Are you listening, foetal personhood advocates? This is what happens when you get your way. The rights of women, and now the rights of their next of kin, are subordinated to the right to life of the unborn. We've created a situation where pregnant women aren't people, not really. They're just incubators for real people. Even after they effectively die their body will belong to the unborn, not to their family, no matter they will most likely not survive.

Is this right, NSG? Should clinically dead pregnant women be kept on life support, contrary to the wishes of their next of kin?

Sure, why not? I mean the baby's are a part of the human species so I guess its okay. A little disturbing at first but I mean….isnt there a way to do this without using "human incubators"?