LIfe Support?

Question

This was previously posted but with little good response......

2. Here in Pittsburgh, a young pregnant woman suffering from malignant brain cancer has a Pennsylvania living will. She has become comatose and can no longer communicate, but made it clear before her coma that she did not want to be kept alive, or have her baby kept alive, if she could not live to mother it. She is only eight weeks pregnant, but her doctors feel they can keep her alive until the baby is viable. Her husband has petitioned to withdraw her life support; her parents, who want a grandchild, are opposed; the doctors/hospital is refusing to withdraw life support without a court order. You are the judge; how do you rule, and why?

Answer 1

Assuming she has a living will, it will take priority. However, I have difficulty believing that somewhere during the first 8 weeks of pregnancy such a will was drafted that covered her fetus. Regardless, her husband (as next of kin) should have the final say as to how this is handled.

Answer 2

Remove the mother from life support before the birth of the baby.

If properly executed the Living Will is a contract and legally binding therefore it should be fulfilled. Since the mother made it clear that she wanted the life of her baby terminated along with her if she could not care for it then both should die. The baby's death would be considered an abortion.

With a malignant brain cancer there is no realistic form of treatment that can save the woman's life. She will die, and probably will never regain consciousness, that is a cold hard fact and thus it activates the Living Will.

It sounds cruel, but as written the law is about what is right and what is wrong, not about what is just or moral. That is left up to the decision of the courts, and in this case the doctors.

A court order should not be required, but I would suggest getting one as soon as possible.

Now lets discuss the things that you did not cover. Can the mother's life be saved? Can the tumor be removed or can she recover and be able to live a life beyond that of a vegetable? It looks like she can't, but if she can then that is grounds to cancel the Living Will. What are the father's desires? The father has rights to the child as well as the mother, depending on the state laws. If he wants the child then he needs to go to civil court and file a case where he wants the child. In that case the judge has to determine if the living and functioning male parent has rights that supersede those of the mother who is basically only a living corpse, with no meaningful chance for recovery. A lot of judges might rule in favor of the father, after all the mother is for all intent and purposes dead.

Is the hospital a religious one that refuses to perform abortions? An outside doctor could perform the abortion, but the hospital will work to prevent it. This is a case that falls into the realm of Church and State. If the church supported hospital refuses to allow an abortion then the state can't interfere. However, if it is a state/county/public hospital then the abortion should be legal and so life support can be removed.

A case never stands in isolation; you always have other factors that influence it. I need to know those factors, and they vary in every case, to make a decision. However, based on what you told me the mother and her baby should be removed from life support and allowed to die in peace.

I would like to see the baby saved, but you asked for a legal opinion, not a moral one. Morally I would side with the hospital, provided the father wanted the baby. If not then I would order the Living Will to be applied and life support to be terminated.

Answer 3

I question the facts of your case here. Many women (arguably most) may not know they are pregnant at 8 weeks, let alone have the presence of mind to alter a living will to include such details as the care of her unborn baby. What about the abborhent lack of consistency in your facts that a married couple would even seek to have a baby when the mother has been diagnosed with brain cancer?! It is highly likely that the mother would NEVER be there to raise that child, let alone in the event of her incapcitation during pregnancy. I think that you are purposely leaving out facts of this case to make your question seem more "interesting" or provoking.

Your living will does not give you legal rights over another. You cannot for example put in your living will that your power of attorney can make medical or legal decisions for your spouse in the event of his/her simultaneous incapcitation. Your spouse would require a living will naming the same power of attorney. Your rights begin and end with you in these matters. I doubt a case could be made that the "life of the mother" is jeapordized by the unborn child as the pre-existing medical condition is the reasonable conclusion of her present condition.

Answer 4

Based on this set of facts, and assuming them all to be true, I would rule to honor the mother's wishes and withdraw life support. My reasoning would be as follows: although the Pennsylvania Crimes Against Unborn Children Act attaches criminal liability to one who causes the death of an unborn fetus, I don't believe this Act would apply in this case. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has recently ruled on a case interpreting this Act. Matthew Bullock appealed his conviction on manslaughter charges in the death of his girlfriend's 22-week fetus, in part claiming that the state's fetal homicide law violated the state's equal protection clause because it punishes men who kill a woman's fetus, but not a woman who kills her own fetus. While acknowledging that the law resulted in women being treated more leniently, the high court rejected the equal protection argument, saying a mother's "unique connection" to a fetus necessitated that she be given special consideration. "Simply put, the mother is not similarly situated to everyone else, as she alone is carrying the unborn child," the court wrote. "The fact of pregnancy gives her, and only her, certain liberty interests in relation to the termination of that pregnancy." [Citation unavailable. Opinion published December 28, 2006.]
Based on this decision, I would rule that the mother has the right to elect to terminate the life of the fetus, especially given the fact that the fetus is not viable. My ruling might be different if, in fact, the father was opposed to the withdrawal of life support and inevitable death of the fetus. However, the only opposition appears to come from the wife's parents. Just as they would have no say in their daughter's right to elect an abortion were she conscious, they have no right to demand the woman be kept alive artificially to give them a grandchild.

Answer 5

I would rule in favor of honoring her wishes. The husband in this case is obviously trying to do right by her, and the parents are being selfish.

Answer 6

I don't think healthy babies can develop inside comatose women.

Answer 7

Aren't her wishes, per her living will, supposed to be honored and upheld? (I'm just a layman.)

Answer 8

her wishes are hers but the baby is something totally different and if they kill her now , they will kill the baby and be murderers