Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let that poor woman go. Let nature/god determine her fate and her body not be kept ARTIFICALLY alive by machines soley to be used as an incubator. Nobody is talking abourt ABORTION here. If her body cannot be kept alive, then she will die. Fact of life. Anyone remember Karen Quinlin? She lived even after machines were turned off for years. If this woman then lives long enough for fetal viability, then the fetus may live. If not? Well, then perhaps that is what is meant to be.
Years ago none of this would have been an issue. She, and the fetus, would have been long dead. Nature, or god if that is what one believes.
Mom is already dead. Brain dead is dead. If she were only in a coma or a persistent vegetative state, that would be different.
Let that poor woman go. Let nature/god determine her fate and her body not be kept ARTIFICALLY alive by machines soley to be used as an incubator. Nobody is talking abourt ABORTION here. If her body cannot be kept alive, then she will die. Fact of life. Anyone remember Karen Quinlin? She lived even after machines were turned off for years. If this woman then lives long enough for fetal viability, then the fetus may live. If not? Well, then perhaps that is what is meant to be.
Years ago none of this would have been an issue. She, and the fetus, would have been long dead. Nature, or god if that is what one believes.
poor woman? yes, its unfortunate what happened to her but if she is "brain dead" there is no need to pretend like you care about her current suffering. you are being fake because it works for your preference.
as far as "let nature take its course" that's all very convenient until modern technology saves you or a loved one. we develop medical advances for a reason; to suggest that we just let nature run its course is to suggest we stop innovating in medicine.
I don't really think your points are valid. i believe valid points may be that abortion would be legal anyway, there is a great cost to this type of hospital care and that the baby may have suffered his/her own damage.
Last edited by CaptainNJ; 01-24-2014 at 10:14 AM..
poor woman? yes, its unfortunately what happened to her but if she is "brain dead" there is no need to pretend like you care about her current suffering. you are being fake because it works for your preference.
as far as "let nature take its course" that's all very convenient until modern technology saves you or a loved one. we develop medical advances for a reason; to suggest that we just let nature run its course is to suggest we stop innovating in medicine.
I don't really think your points are valid. i believe valid points may be that abortion would be legal anyway, there is a great cost to this type of hospital care and that the baby may have suffered his/her own damage.
I disagree. If letting nature run its course means we stop innovating in medicine then we need to eliminate the concept of hospice. Insist that the 80 year old with dementia undergo chemotherapy for cancer.
There is no ethical requirement in medicine to pursue futile care.
There is no ethical requirement in medicine to pursue futile care.
I don't believe the issue here is the brain dead mother, its the life in her uterus.
going along with jo48's line of thinking; what if the father of the child did in fact want to keep his wife alive and have the child? should we now respect his wishes or is it back to "let nature run its course" and let them both die?
I don't believe the issue here is the brain dead mother, its the life in her uterus.
going along with jo48's line of thinking; what if the father of the child did in fact want to keep his wife alive and have the child? should we now respect his wishes or is it back to "let nature run its course" and let them both die?
We should allow the husband of the mother to make that decision.
That is why a living will is coupled with a medical power of attorney. It allows one (the mother in the case) to designate someone else (the husband here) to decide when to stop treatment.
We should allow the husband of the mother to make that decision.
That is why a living will is coupled with a medical power of attorney. It allows one (the mother in the case) to designate someone else (the husband here) to decide when to stop treatment.
I know all about that. 30 years ago 75 year old Mom had a Living Will and gave me POA. She said in it, "I do not want to become a vegetable so I can be a science experiment for doctors to see how long they can keep me alive." "When my brain goes, let my body go." Before I was given POA, she sat me down and quite literally read me the riot act. She told me that if I didn't follow her wishes, she would haunt me until the day I died. Specific enough? When she went into cardiac arrest in the hospital, the doctors could do nothing. If they didn't follow her Living Will, I could, and would, have sued them. She was my mother and it was her death, not mine, not the doctors, not the hospital, and certainly not some outside group with an agenda.
Let nature take it's course means no HUMAN INTERVENTION. We are not born hocked up to breathing tubes, or machines. That is not NATURAL.
I don't want this either. I am 65 years old now. You have the legal right to refuse any and all medical treatment. This makes the case that in today's world we need LIVING WILLS.
I know all about that. 30 years ago 75 year old Mom had a Living Will and gave me POA. She said in it, "I do not want to become a vegetable so I can be a science experiment for doctors to see how long they can keep me alive." "When my brain goes, let my body go." Before I was given POA, she sat me down and quite literally read me the riot act. She told me that if I didn't follow her wishes, she would haunt me until the day I died. Specific enough? When she went into cardiac arrest in the hospital, the doctors could do nothing. If they didn't follow her Living Will, I could, and would, have sued them. She was my mother and it was her death, not mine, not the doctors, not the hospital, and certainly not some outside group with an agenda.
Let nature take it's course means no HUMAN INTERVENTION. We are not born hocked up to breathing tubes, or machines. That is not NATURAL.
I don't want this either. I am 65 years old now. You have the legal right to refuse any and all medical treatment. This makes the case that in today's world we need LIVING WILLS.
As a health care worker, I can only say "hear hear!"
I can't tell you the number of times we've crushed the ribs of some poor 80 year old with little to no chance of recovery, simply because they had no one to speak for them or those who did refused to let them go peacefully.
im not really sure its entirely fair to blame the hospital for trying to comply with the law. they are the ones that face legal consequences if they break the law. im assuming thats why they are doing what they are doing. i guess the alternative theory is because they can probably bill a ton for what they are doing for this lady/fetus.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
