Unborn right to life surpasses mother’s right to dignified death, court told

[barryqwalsh]

The Constitution requires that the right to life of the unborn must be vindicated as far as possible and that right surpasses the right of a clinically dead pregnant woman to a dignified death, the High Court has been told.

Unborn right to life surpasses mother s right to dignified death court told

 

[JakeStarkey]

This argument was well argued. None of the seven doctors said the fetus had a reasonable expectation to survive if delivered; comments were also made about "experimental" medicine.

 

[PratchettFan]

The Constitution requires that the right to life of the unborn must be vindicated as far as possible and that right surpasses the right of a clinically dead pregnant woman to a dignified death, the High Court has been told.

Unborn right to life surpasses mother s right to dignified death court told

I have no idea what the Irish Constitution requires, but the US Constitution certainly does not.

 

[barryqwalsh]

If I was a pregnant women in Ireland, I would not have my baby in Ireland. I would move and have the baby elsewhere.

 

[Derideo_Te]

This is not even so much about a dignified death as it is about what the family is being forced to endure because of a "life at all costs" mentality. All of the doctors say that the fetus won't survive so this treatment is merely prolonging the agony of the family. That is inhumane in my opinion.

 

[JoeMoma]

The Constitution requires that the right to life of the unborn must be vindicated as far as possible and that right surpasses the right of a clinically dead pregnant woman to a dignified death, the High Court has been told.

Unborn right to life surpasses mother s right to dignified death court told

I am prolife. That being said, if the concensus of the doctors is that the fetus has little chance of surviving, I can understand taking the woman off life support. On the otherhand, what's the rush? Would it really hurt anything to give the unborn a couple of weeks and another evaluation? It's not like the woman will be on life support indefinitely.
There are many people alive today that have defied the odds of a doctor's prognosis.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The Constitution requires that the right to life of the unborn must be vindicated as far as possible and that right surpasses the right of a clinically dead pregnant woman to a dignified death, the High Court has been told.

Unborn right to life surpasses mother s right to dignified death court told

I am prolife. That being said, if the concensus of the doctors is that the fetus has little chance of surviving, I can understand taking the woman off life support. On the otherhand, what's the rush? Would it really hurt anything to give the unborn a couple of weeks and another evaluation? It's not like the woman will be on life support indefinitely.
There are many people alive today that have defied the odds of a doctor's prognosis.

Have you never had a loved one on life support with no hope of recovery?

Do you have any idea of the emotional harm that causes to the family?

 

[PratchettFan]

The Constitution requires that the right to life of the unborn must be vindicated as far as possible and that right surpasses the right of a clinically dead pregnant woman to a dignified death, the High Court has been told.

Unborn right to life surpasses mother s right to dignified death court told

I am prolife. That being said, if the concensus of the doctors is that the fetus has little chance of surviving, I can understand taking the woman off life support. On the otherhand, what's the rush? Would it really hurt anything to give the unborn a couple of weeks and another evaluation? It's not like the woman will be on life support indefinitely.
There are many people alive today that have defied the odds of a doctor's prognosis.

That would be a decision for the family. The government should have no involvement in it at all.

 

[JoeMoma]

The Constitution requires that the right to life of the unborn must be vindicated as far as possible and that right surpasses the right of a clinically dead pregnant woman to a dignified death, the High Court has been told.

Unborn right to life surpasses mother s right to dignified death court told

I am prolife. That being said, if the concensus of the doctors is that the fetus has little chance of surviving, I can understand taking the woman off life support. On the otherhand, what's the rush? Would it really hurt anything to give the unborn a couple of weeks and another evaluation? It's not like the woman will be on life support indefinitely.
There are many people alive today that have defied the odds of a doctor's prognosis.

Have you never had a loved one on life support with no hope of recovery?

Do you have any idea of the emotional harm that causes to the family?

It seems to me that the family has two people on life support. One has absolutely no chance of recovery. The other the doctors beleive has almost no chance. Now if you read my post again you may notice that I said that I can understand the family taking the woman off of life support under these conditions. However, I do understand why some want to give the fetus a chance. I would think that loss of the baby is also a source of emotional harm. Since the doctors do not beleive the fetus would survive, I would support the family taking the woman off life support.

 

[JoeMoma]

The Constitution requires that the right to life of the unborn must be vindicated as far as possible and that right surpasses the right of a clinically dead pregnant woman to a dignified death, the High Court has been told.

Unborn right to life surpasses mother s right to dignified death court told

I am prolife. That being said, if the concensus of the doctors is that the fetus has little chance of surviving, I can understand taking the woman off life support. On the otherhand, what's the rush? Would it really hurt anything to give the unborn a couple of weeks and another evaluation? It's not like the woman will be on life support indefinitely.
There are many people alive today that have defied the odds of a doctor's prognosis.

That would be a decision for the family. The government should have no involvement in it at all.

What if the doctors beleives the fetus had an excellent chance of surviving and being born healthy if the mother remained on life support? If the family wanted to take the woman off life support under these conditions, should the goverment get involved?

 

[PratchettFan]

The Constitution requires that the right to life of the unborn must be vindicated as far as possible and that right surpasses the right of a clinically dead pregnant woman to a dignified death, the High Court has been told.

Unborn right to life surpasses mother s right to dignified death court told

I am prolife. That being said, if the concensus of the doctors is that the fetus has little chance of surviving, I can understand taking the woman off life support. On the otherhand, what's the rush? Would it really hurt anything to give the unborn a couple of weeks and another evaluation? It's not like the woman will be on life support indefinitely.
There are many people alive today that have defied the odds of a doctor's prognosis.

That would be a decision for the family. The government should have no involvement in it at all.

What if the doctors beleives the fetus had an excellent chance of surviving and being born healthy if the mother remained on life support? If the family wanted to take the woman off life support under these conditions, should the goverment get involved?

That is a decision for the family to make. The government should have no involvement in it.

 

[JoeMoma]

The Constitution requires that the right to life of the unborn must be vindicated as far as possible and that right surpasses the right of a clinically dead pregnant woman to a dignified death, the High Court has been told.

Unborn right to life surpasses mother s right to dignified death court told

I am prolife. That being said, if the concensus of the doctors is that the fetus has little chance of surviving, I can understand taking the woman off life support. On the otherhand, what's the rush? Would it really hurt anything to give the unborn a couple of weeks and another evaluation? It's not like the woman will be on life support indefinitely.
There are many people alive today that have defied the odds of a doctor's prognosis.

That would be a decision for the family. The government should have no involvement in it at all.

What if the doctors beleives the fetus had an excellent chance of surviving and being born healthy if the mother remained on life support? If the family wanted to take the woman off life support under these conditions, should the goverment get involved?

That is a decision for the family to make. The government should have no involvement in it.

And if the woman had a good chance of recovering if left on life support for a few weeks, would you support a family taking her off that life support before she is given time to recover? Should the government get involved in this case, or is it always a decession to be made by the family?

 

[PratchettFan]

The Constitution requires that the right to life of the unborn must be vindicated as far as possible and that right surpasses the right of a clinically dead pregnant woman to a dignified death, the High Court has been told.

Unborn right to life surpasses mother s right to dignified death court told

I am prolife. That being said, if the concensus of the doctors is that the fetus has little chance of surviving, I can understand taking the woman off life support. On the otherhand, what's the rush? Would it really hurt anything to give the unborn a couple of weeks and another evaluation? It's not like the woman will be on life support indefinitely.
There are many people alive today that have defied the odds of a doctor's prognosis.

That would be a decision for the family. The government should have no involvement in it at all.

What if the doctors beleives the fetus had an excellent chance of surviving and being born healthy if the mother remained on life support? If the family wanted to take the woman off life support under these conditions, should the goverment get involved?

That is a decision for the family to make. The government should have no involvement in it.

And if the woman had a good chance of recovering if left on life support for a few weeks, would you support a family taking her off that life support before she is given time to recover? Should the government get involved in this case, or is it always a decession to be made by the family?

That is a decision for the family.

 

[JoeMoma]

I am prolife. That being said, if the concensus of the doctors is that the fetus has little chance of surviving, I can understand taking the woman off life support. On the otherhand, what's the rush? Would it really hurt anything to give the unborn a couple of weeks and another evaluation? It's not like the woman will be on life support indefinitely.
There are many people alive today that have defied the odds of a doctor's prognosis.

That would be a decision for the family. The government should have no involvement in it at all.

What if the doctors beleives the fetus had an excellent chance of surviving and being born healthy if the mother remained on life support? If the family wanted to take the woman off life support under these conditions, should the goverment get involved?

That is a decision for the family to make. The government should have no involvement in it.

And if the woman had a good chance of recovering if left on life support for a few weeks, would you support a family taking her off that life support before she is given time to recover? Should the government get involved in this case, or is it always a decession to be made by the family?

That is a decision for the family.

At least you are consistent!

 

[PratchettFan]

That would be a decision for the family. The government should have no involvement in it at all.

What if the doctors beleives the fetus had an excellent chance of surviving and being born healthy if the mother remained on life support? If the family wanted to take the woman off life support under these conditions, should the goverment get involved?

That is a decision for the family to make. The government should have no involvement in it.

And if the woman had a good chance of recovering if left on life support for a few weeks, would you support a family taking her off that life support before she is given time to recover? Should the government get involved in this case, or is it always a decession to be made by the family?

That is a decision for the family.

At least you are consistent!

I do my best.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Constitution requires that the right to life of the unborn must be vindicated as far as possible and that right surpasses the right of a clinically dead pregnant woman to a dignified death, the High Court has been told.

Unborn right to life surpasses mother s right to dignified death court told

I am prolife. That being said, if the concensus of the doctors is that the fetus has little chance of surviving, I can understand taking the woman off life support. On the otherhand, what's the rush? Would it really hurt anything to give the unborn a couple of weeks and another evaluation? It's not like the woman will be on life support indefinitely.
There are many people alive today that have defied the odds of a doctor's prognosis.

That would be a decision for the family. The government should have no involvement in it at all.

What if the doctors beleives the fetus had an excellent chance of surviving and being born healthy if the mother remained on life support? If the family wanted to take the woman off life support under these conditions, should the goverment get involved?

(1) That is not the issue here.
(2) We have that situation all the time here in America. Most of the time the families wait and give the unborn a chance.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The Constitution requires that the right to life of the unborn must be vindicated as far as possible and that right surpasses the right of a clinically dead pregnant woman to a dignified death, the High Court has been told.

Unborn right to life surpasses mother s right to dignified death court told

I am prolife. That being said, if the concensus of the doctors is that the fetus has little chance of surviving, I can understand taking the woman off life support. On the otherhand, what's the rush? Would it really hurt anything to give the unborn a couple of weeks and another evaluation? It's not like the woman will be on life support indefinitely.
There are many people alive today that have defied the odds of a doctor's prognosis.

Have you never had a loved one on life support with no hope of recovery?

Do you have any idea of the emotional harm that causes to the family?

It seems to me that the family has two people on life support. One has absolutely no chance of recovery. The other the doctors beleive has almost no chance. Now if you read my post again you may notice that I said that I can understand the family taking the woman off of life support under these conditions. However, I do understand why some want to give the fetus a chance. I would think that loss of the baby is also a source of emotional harm. Since the doctors do not beleive the fetus would survive, I would support the family taking the woman off life support.

There is no chance that the fetus will survive according to the sworn testimony of all of the medical professionals. None of them gave the fetus a chance to survive.

The Health Service Executive (HSE) has said, because of its medical evidence that there is no reasonable prospect the foetus will survive if the treatment continues, the court should declare it is not unlawful to cease the treatment.

Of seven doctors who gave evidence to the court, none took the view there was a reasonable prospect the foetus would survive if the somatic treatment continued. A number of doctors testified that the treatment amounted to “experimental medicine”. Dr Peter McKenna, former Master of Dublin’s Rotunda Hospital, said to continue it would represent a move from the “extraordinary” to the “grotesque”.​

 

[JoeMoma]

"The Health Service Executive (HSE) has said, because of its medical evidence that there is no reasonable prospect the foetus will survive if the treatment continues, the court should declare it is not unlawful to cease the treatment"

The above statement makes no sense!

 

[Derideo_Te]

"The Health Service Executive (HSE) has said, because of its medical evidence that there is no reasonable prospect the foetus will survive if the treatment continues, the court should declare it is not unlawful to cease the treatment"

The above statement makes no sense!

It is just a double negative because the Irish law declares that the life of the fetus should be protected.

Since no amount of treatment can save the fetus, terminating the treatment would be lawful in this instance.

 

[JoeMoma]

The Constitution requires that the right to life of the unborn must be vindicated as far as possible and that right surpasses the right of a clinically dead pregnant woman to a dignified death, the High Court has been told.

Unborn right to life surpasses mother s right to dignified death court told

I am prolife. That being said, if the concensus of the doctors is that the fetus has little chance of surviving, I can understand taking the woman off life support. On the otherhand, what's the rush? Would it really hurt anything to give the unborn a couple of weeks and another evaluation? It's not like the woman will be on life support indefinitely.
There are many people alive today that have defied the odds of a doctor's prognosis.

That would be a decision for the family. The government should have no involvement in it at all.

What if the doctors beleives the fetus had an excellent chance of surviving and being born healthy if the mother remained on life support? If the family wanted to take the woman off life support under these conditions, should the goverment get involved?

(1) That is not the issue here.
(2) We have that situation all the time here in America. Most of the time the families wait and give the unborn a chance.

Tell me something I don't know!