Feel free to compare and contrast the rights of a patient rights versus the rights of the unborn. Also feel free to use religion to make the compare and contrast. But remember, I have a nose for hypocrisy, so please be consistent.
2006-11-21 04:24:19 · 34 answers · asked by hichefheidi 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
WOW no one remembers this case. Let me clarify...you 'force' a woman to do this by prolonging her life (and possibly suffering) for the sake of having the child. Second, it was the husband who wanted it, the parents did not. No living will. The child was delivered, and dies a few hours later. This was a case of precedence (the first and only case of it's kind). In law you will use precedence to map out the logic of a case. According to this precedence, it should never happen again. But my question is whose life do you respect? And if it was god's will, why the need for life support machines?
2006-11-21 04:32:11 · update #1
Should the government be making any laws regarding this issue, or should it be between the patient, doctor, and family?
2006-11-21 04:36:25 · update #2
Oh that is a tough situation and I dont think you can make one decision that will fit everyone. I think it would depend on how far into the pregnancy you are, which would still be a tough decision to make. I don't have kids or particularly want them, but if I were pregnant and I was in the situation I personally would want to be kept alive long enough for my child to survive. Most sane normal women would want that. That is a personal decision however and the goverment should keep its nose out.
2006-11-21 04:29:50 · answer #1 · answered by Perplexed 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Well you left out a critical fact, how far along is the pregnancy? If the brain dead woman can be sustained long enough for the baby to become viable outside the womb, I would say yes. But I also say it depends on what the guardian, next of kin say. For, since the woman is not able to judge for herself, the guardian would have the say. The choice to take her of life support would in effect be making the choice similar to that of an abortion. The US Supreme court says abortion is largely unrestricted for the first two trimesters. So, the guardian could decide to have the fetus aborted and then have life support withdrawn from the braindead woman.
To net this all out to my answer, my personal choice would be to keep the woman alive to deliver the baby, but unless I am the guardian of this woman, it is not my choice or anybody else's. Its up to the guardian to decide and nobody can upset that unless they can show the guardian is not acting in the woman's best interests. So, if the guardian chooses to pull the plug, while my choice would be otherwise, I have to live with this decision. There is no balancing of the patient rights against the fetus rights, its all the patient's rights as exercised by the guardian, at least while the fetus is in the first two trimesters. After that, when the child becomes viable outside the woman's body, then and only then do others have a say. This being in accord with the Supreme Court's position that the states may interfere with the abortion decision in the 3rd trimester.
2006-11-21 04:31:59 · answer #2 · answered by William E 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Good question.... I do believe there was just a case where the mother had some type of freak thing happen and she was around 7/8 months pregnant...and long story short, she was on life support, but the baby was born healthy....
My opinion is that everyone should have a living will that indicates whether or not you wish to be on life support. I do believe that if there is no risk to the unborn child and there is a chance that the child will be born healthy, yes, I believe the mother should stay on life support to protect and preserve the life of the child. I do believe God has a purpose for every situation and life. I don't think these decisions should be made by our Government...I believe that the individuals closest to the situation should be the only decision makers. In the case of Terri Schaivo, it is unfortunate that both sides were more intent on making the other party suffer and lost sight of the issues....thus that reinforces my statement, that I believe it is up to each individual to have living will.
2006-11-21 04:33:34 · answer #3 · answered by favrd1 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I think this is a very difficult situation. As always this is such a personal decision that will vary from family to family. But it should be left up to the family.
I feel horrible that this poor lady who is basically dead it being forced to stay on machines. She is basically just a shell of a person. No one really knows what condition the fetus is in. If they both went without oxygen for an hour or so that fetus is probably not in good shape either it can be brain dead itself. they probably hear a heart beat of signs of life because the mothers body is being supported by the machines.
I believe that this is such a personal and sensitive decision that should be left up to the family. Each family would most likely handle it differently from family to family. No one and no government should have the power to over ride their decision.
This poor family can not grieve the loss of his wife and their daughter (basically a shell of a person) is being forced to be kept breathing because of the machines. The family can not properly go through the grieving process. They are in a suspended situation until she is taken off the machines.
2013-12-27 18:11:38 · answer #4 · answered by Pj Sanchez 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You've hit on the question as to when does life begin and end. What constitutes life or death? Breathing, heartbeat, brain function? A brain dead woman is forced to be kept artifically alive and her body used basicly as an incubator. She may have wanted to do that for her child and if she did it was a choice. We have a girl here that is basicly a vegetable and on support that was raped by some worker in the home and has been kept going through the pregnancy and had the child because of the parents wishes. This poor girl didn't have a choice in any of it. I don't think she was aware of anything and I assume treated "humainly" but where were her "rights"?
2006-11-21 04:49:13 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
If the woman is suffering in the vegetative state, then they should pull the plug. If people really believed in God's will, then why do they accept life support? Isn't that meddling with natural life order? In the case you mention, it was selfish to prolong the state of the woman only to have the child born and died a few hours later. I think it should only be acceptable if the woman has left a will stipulating that she wants to continue the pregnancy. Also, if the pregnancy won't interfere with the woman's medical state.
2006-11-21 05:55:09 · answer #6 · answered by cynical 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
wow, quite a question. I would not pull the plug on someone unless they had told me at some point earlier that in that situation, that is what they want. Even then, it is still their choice. If they had told me not to, I wouldn't. But abortion I think deals with something else. It deals with a baby that can't voice its thoughts yet. Science has proven that blood is circulating through the baby a few seconds after conception which in turn makes it a human life. I also think that abortion is unnecessary unless it is a situation where both mother and baby will die without it, because there are thousands of families that cannot have children.
2016-03-29 04:22:09 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Interesting. I suppose one line of reasoning could look at it like this: once upon a time, the pregnant woman herself was considered "merely a clump of cells" to which many would ascribe no rights at all. (Even though a unigue genetic blueprint was in place.)
Given that this pregnant woman started with no rights at all and could have been destroyed at will, then how can anyone get worked up about the rights of this larger, more independent "clump of cells" today? In short, who cares who does what to her?
I tried to be scrupulously consistent. And I was careful not to bring the dreaded superstition of "religion" into it. I hope people grasp the concept of sarcasm. I'm in a mood today.
2006-11-21 06:22:32 · answer #8 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Did she get pregnant before she became brain dead? I hope so. If indeed she is pregnant and the baby is presumably healthy they should definitely leave her hooked to life support until delivery or longer. If delivery is possible and the family is considering pulling the plug afterward then that's a delicate situation that must be prayed upon and may involve a judge.
2006-11-21 04:31:17 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. What will be the child's future? Will a relative raise the child? Will the child be put up for adoption? Will the father now or in the future blame the child for the death of the mother? Would the mother have been kept alive if she wasn't pregnant?
2006-11-21 04:33:30 · answer #10 · answered by Pancake 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋