Georgia's anti-abortion law forcing brain-dead woman to remain on life support

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. Am I the only one who if I was the mother here would want any chance my baby had at life? I am pro-choice to be clear (or at least pro-choice as it used to be, not late term, reasonable limits), but God, if I was that mom I would not care what they did to me to give my baby a chance at survival.

I am confused by the reaction here. I’ve had multiple pregnancies and in any one of them, I would have done almost anything to ensure the survival of the baby.

I feel like you do. And I think the reactions here are pretty extreme. The mother is dead, so it really comes down to the feelings of her husband & parents, vs the survival of the baby. I would personally place survival over feelings.

Your prioritization of the fetus is also a feeling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure if this was covered already, but her estate would be bankrupt but not her mom or boyfriend. I agree that the health insurer should sue on her behalf but she might be on medicaid at this point.

+1

Yes, there are a lot of serious issues in this case but the people in this thread talking about lifelong debt or bankrupting the family are flatly ignorant and plainly irrational. There are enough serious real issues here that a fake one doesn’t need to be added to the list.

Oh but the baby will be alive to bill! And any small nest egg she had that should have gone to her actual living kid will go to the hospital.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. Am I the only one who if I was the mother here would want any chance my baby had at life? I am pro-choice to be clear (or at least pro-choice as it used to be, not late term, reasonable limits), but God, if I was that mom I would not care what they did to me to give my baby a chance at survival.

I am confused by the reaction here. I’ve had multiple pregnancies and in any one of them, I would have done almost anything to ensure the survival of the baby.

I feel like you do. And I think the reactions here are pretty extreme. The mother is dead, so it really comes down to the feelings of her husband & parents, vs the survival of the baby. I would personally place survival over feelings.

Yeah, the reaction in DCUM seems pretty extreme to me. She is dead, so as you say this is the feelings of the family over the survival of the baby.

I think nine weeks is a factor, it’s not clear to be that the baby can survive (although in the grotesque rape cases of comatose women, they have survived), but it’s not like this is such an easy case.

For all the people screaming in here about how she is just an incubator, would you have said the same if she was 27 weeks and the family wanted to let her die, but her body could be kept alive to ensure delivery at 32 weeks? At what point do the feelings of her family stop trumping the survival of the baby for you?

I just do not understand the DCUM reaction here. It seems so extreme to me.

Because this never would have happened but for the extreme Georgia abortion laws. It’s not a normal thing at all. This is an extreme, new thing doctors are doing because the new law requires it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am copying and pasting my post:
If I died when the baby was nine weeks, no. Not a chance. There is no way to bring a healthy baby into the world given those circumstances and bankrupting my family while my body rotted from the inside is an absolute.no.

Maybe if I were 30 weeks.

Adding: it is not extreme at all to not want your body to shut down over 30 plus weeks and incur lifelong and crippling debt.

How on earth is THAT position extreme?

As a practical matter how is she incurring lifelong debt? She will die, and they can’t recover money from a corpse. Why the exaggerated references to lifelong debt and bankruptcy? The taxpayers and hospitals will pay for this, not her family. Georgia isn’t a community property state, which is the more common situation where medical debt before death can attach to the surviving spouse.

Also, comatose women on vents have birthed babies before. It’s a terrible situation but you are being extreme by not at least acknowledging that has happened.

Again, extreme language.

I get that you would not want to do this yourself. But the discussion here on DCUM has been so extremist that I find it baffling.

Every moment this woman is on life support the baby is experiencing medical.trauma that will follow the family and their finances for life.

Comatose women have given birth...not braindead women who were out on life support at NINE WEEKS!!

How specifically is the family going to have financial trauma follow them? If the child survives, are you referring to the cost of raising a child?

How do you know for sure there has not been a case of survival like this before? I do not know for sure one way or another but I did a quick NIH search and found the case below which is 16 weeks, and there are references to others. I don’t understand how you can be so certain. Are you a medical researcher?

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8141338/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure if this was covered already, but her estate would be bankrupt but not her mom or boyfriend. I agree that the health insurer should sue on her behalf but she might be on medicaid at this point.

+1

Yes, there are a lot of serious issues in this case but the people in this thread talking about lifelong debt or bankrupting the family are flatly ignorant and plainly irrational. There are enough serious real issues here that a fake one doesn’t need to be added to the list.

Oh but the baby will be alive to bill! And any small nest egg she had that should have gone to her actual living kid will go to the hospital.

The baby won’t inherit her medical debt. What are you talking about?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. Am I the only one who if I was the mother here would want any chance my baby had at life? I am pro-choice to be clear (or at least pro-choice as it used to be, not late term, reasonable limits), but God, if I was that mom I would not care what they did to me to give my baby a chance at survival.

I am confused by the reaction here. I’ve had multiple pregnancies and in any one of them, I would have done almost anything to ensure the survival of the baby.

if I was 35 weeks pregnant sure. But not 9 weeks. Because the baby will be gravely disabled. dead bodies cannot actually gestate healthy babies.

Well, it’s happened before at 16 weeks in the literature. I don’t know if it’s happened earlier. But 35 weeks is a far outlier position. Nobody is keeping anyone alive at 35 weeks. That baby would just be delivered. So you aren’t actually saying anything here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. Am I the only one who if I was the mother here would want any chance my baby had at life? I am pro-choice to be clear (or at least pro-choice as it used to be, not late term, reasonable limits), but God, if I was that mom I would not care what they did to me to give my baby a chance at survival.

I am confused by the reaction here. I’ve had multiple pregnancies and in any one of them, I would have done almost anything to ensure the survival of the baby.

I feel like you do. And I think the reactions here are pretty extreme. The mother is dead, so it really comes down to the feelings of her husband & parents, vs the survival of the baby. I would personally place survival over feelings.

How far does that go? If she was 3 weeks pregnant? Sustaining her on medications which can impact the fetus while her body gets contractures and pressure wounds till the end? If you place survival over feelings then you believe in forced organ donation against someone's will?

You believe your view should override someone else's desires for their own body?

But we don’t know what she desired for her own body.

We don't keep people brain dead on vents forever, we defer to the family in such cases as power of attorney, and the family indicated she would not have wanted this.

-RN

The family wished to remove her from life support, but the activist decided to use her body for a political show.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. Am I the only one who if I was the mother here would want any chance my baby had at life? I am pro-choice to be clear (or at least pro-choice as it used to be, not late term, reasonable limits), but God, if I was that mom I would not care what they did to me to give my baby a chance at survival.

I am confused by the reaction here. I’ve had multiple pregnancies and in any one of them, I would have done almost anything to ensure the survival of the baby.

I feel like you do. And I think the reactions here are pretty extreme. The mother is dead, so it really comes down to the feelings of her husband & parents, vs the survival of the baby. I would personally place survival over feelings.

How far does that go? If she was 3 weeks pregnant? Sustaining her on medications which can impact the fetus while her body gets contractures and pressure wounds till the end? If you place survival over feelings then you believe in forced organ donation against someone's will?

You believe your view should override someone else's desires for their own body?

But we don’t know what she desired for her own body.

We don't keep people brain dead on vents forever, we defer to the family in such cases as power of attorney, and the family indicated she would not have wanted this.

-RN

The family wished to remove her from life support, but the activist decided to use her body for a political show.

No, it is because the hospitals lawyers are making the final say based on risk of litigation rather than the family or medical team (and the team will change by shift and daily). I work in healthcare and your repeated claim of this is utter BS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. Am I the only one who if I was the mother here would want any chance my baby had at life? I am pro-choice to be clear (or at least pro-choice as it used to be, not late term, reasonable limits), but God, if I was that mom I would not care what they did to me to give my baby a chance at survival.

I am confused by the reaction here. I’ve had multiple pregnancies and in any one of them, I would have done almost anything to ensure the survival of the baby.

if I was 35 weeks pregnant sure. But not 9 weeks. Because the baby will be gravely disabled. dead bodies cannot actually gestate healthy babies.

Well, it’s happened before at 16 weeks in the literature. I don’t know if it’s happened earlier. But 35 weeks is a far outlier position. Nobody is keeping anyone alive at 35 weeks. That baby would just be delivered. So you aren’t actually saying anything here.

Sustaining people for months on vents at their own expense (financially, ethically, biologically), against their own wishes, their families wishes, the medical team'a oath of "do no harm" is really effed up. You are a dead person's biological tissue to sustain a fetus against their will.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. Am I the only one who if I was the mother here would want any chance my baby had at life? I am pro-choice to be clear (or at least pro-choice as it used to be, not late term, reasonable limits), but God, if I was that mom I would not care what they did to me to give my baby a chance at survival.

I am confused by the reaction here. I’ve had multiple pregnancies and in any one of them, I would have done almost anything to ensure the survival of the baby.

if I was 35 weeks pregnant sure. But not 9 weeks. Because the baby will be gravely disabled. dead bodies cannot actually gestate healthy babies.

Well, it’s happened before at 16 weeks in the literature. I don’t know if it’s happened earlier. But 35 weeks is a far outlier position. Nobody is keeping anyone alive at 35 weeks. That baby would just be delivered. So you aren’t actually saying anything here.

And is considered ethically wrong to do against the wishes of the surrogate decision maker. GA law overrides the medical ethics team's say though.

https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/should-patient-who-pregnant-and-brain-dead-receive-life-support-despite-objection-her-appointed/2020-12

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am copying and pasting my post:
If I died when the baby was nine weeks, no. Not a chance. There is no way to bring a healthy baby into the world given those circumstances and bankrupting my family while my body rotted from the inside is an absolute.no.

Maybe if I were 30 weeks.

Adding: it is not extreme at all to not want your body to shut down over 30 plus weeks and incur lifelong and crippling debt.

How on earth is THAT position extreme?

As a practical matter how is she incurring lifelong debt? She will die, and they can’t recover money from a corpse. Why the exaggerated references to lifelong debt and bankruptcy? The taxpayers and hospitals will pay for this, not her family. Georgia isn’t a community property state, which is the more common situation where medical debt before death can attach to the surviving spouse.

Also, comatose women on vents have birthed babies before. It’s a terrible situation but you are being extreme by not at least acknowledging that has happened.

Again, extreme language.

I get that you would not want to do this yourself. But the discussion here on DCUM has been so extremist that I find it baffling.

Every moment this woman is on life support the baby is experiencing medical.trauma that will follow the family and their finances for life.

Comatose women have given birth...not braindead women who were out on life support at NINE WEEKS!!

How specifically is the family going to have financial trauma follow them? If the child survives, are you referring to the cost of raising a child?

How do you know for sure there has not been a case of survival like this before? I do not know for sure one way or another but I did a quick NIH search and found the case below which is 16 weeks, and there are references to others. I don’t understand how you can be so certain. Are you a medical researcher?

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8141338/

That was 16 weeks. Are YOU a medical researcher?

As for the bills - the father will be responsible for the child’s bills obviously. Total medical bankruptcy for the survivors and the gravely disabled child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure if this was covered already, but her estate would be bankrupt but not her mom or boyfriend. I agree that the health insurer should sue on her behalf but she might be on medicaid at this point.

+1

Yes, there are a lot of serious issues in this case but the people in this thread talking about lifelong debt or bankrupting the family are flatly ignorant and plainly irrational. There are enough serious real issues here that a fake one doesn’t need to be added to the list.

Oh but the baby will be alive to bill! And any small nest egg she had that should have gone to her actual living kid will go to the hospital.

The baby won’t inherit her medical debt. What are you talking about?

The baby is a person being treated under Georgia law dumb*ss. That’s the whole reason we are in this situation. And will be born severely disabled requiring more treatment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. Am I the only one who if I was the mother here would want any chance my baby had at life? I am pro-choice to be clear (or at least pro-choice as it used to be, not late term, reasonable limits), but God, if I was that mom I would not care what they did to me to give my baby a chance at survival.

I am confused by the reaction here. I’ve had multiple pregnancies and in any one of them, I would have done almost anything to ensure the survival of the baby.

I feel like you do. And I think the reactions here are pretty extreme. The mother is dead, so it really comes down to the feelings of her husband & parents, vs the survival of the baby. I would personally place survival over feelings.

How far does that go? If she was 3 weeks pregnant? Sustaining her on medications which can impact the fetus while her body gets contractures and pressure wounds till the end? If you place survival over feelings then you believe in forced organ donation against someone's will?

You believe your view should override someone else's desires for their own body?

But we don’t know what she desired for her own body.

We don't keep people brain dead on vents forever, we defer to the family in such cases as power of attorney, and the family indicated she would not have wanted this.

-RN

The family wished to remove her from life support, but the activist decided to use her body for a political show.

Can you clarify who exactly the activist is here and what the political show is?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am copying and pasting my post:
If I died when the baby was nine weeks, no. Not a chance. There is no way to bring a healthy baby into the world given those circumstances and bankrupting my family while my body rotted from the inside is an absolute.no.

Maybe if I were 30 weeks.

Adding: it is not extreme at all to not want your body to shut down over 30 plus weeks and incur lifelong and crippling debt.

How on earth is THAT position extreme?

As a practical matter how is she incurring lifelong debt? She will die, and they can’t recover money from a corpse. Why the exaggerated references to lifelong debt and bankruptcy? The taxpayers and hospitals will pay for this, not her family. Georgia isn’t a community property state, which is the more common situation where medical debt before death can attach to the surviving spouse.

Also, comatose women on vents have birthed babies before. It’s a terrible situation but you are being extreme by not at least acknowledging that has happened.

Again, extreme language.

I get that you would not want to do this yourself. But the discussion here on DCUM has been so extremist that I find it baffling.

A woman's body is being kept alive artificially against the wishes of her family for a 9 week old fetus that is most likely to die or live and suffer.

The people saying that's wrong and grotesque are the ones being extreme?

You think the rational and reasonable stance here is to ignore the fact that she cannot consent, and to ignore the wishes of the family and the father of the baby, so her dying body can be used like a piece of machinery to gestate a baby that is unlikely to live and very likely to suffer?

It's like we live in some backwards upside down world. I will never understand how you people navigate life with a brain that works like this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. Am I the only one who if I was the mother here would want any chance my baby had at life? I am pro-choice to be clear (or at least pro-choice as it used to be, not late term, reasonable limits), but God, if I was that mom I would not care what they did to me to give my baby a chance at survival.

I am confused by the reaction here. I’ve had multiple pregnancies and in any one of them, I would have done almost anything to ensure the survival of the baby.

if I was 35 weeks pregnant sure. But not 9 weeks. Because the baby will be gravely disabled. dead bodies cannot actually gestate healthy babies.

Well, it’s happened before at 16 weeks in the literature. I don’t know if it’s happened earlier. But 35 weeks is a far outlier position. Nobody is keeping anyone alive at 35 weeks. That baby would just be delivered. So you aren’t actually saying anything here.

Sustaining people for months on vents at their own expense (financially, ethically, biologically), against their own wishes, their families wishes, the medical team'a oath of "do no harm" is really effed up. You are a dead person's biological tissue to sustain a fetus against their will.

We have no idea whether this is against her wishes or not.

But let’s explore this. How far are you going to take this position? A woman gets in a car accident at 35 weeks. She cannot survive. Should her body be stabilized enough to deliver the baby by c-section? Or is that using a dead person’s biological tissue against her will, in your view?

What if the car accident happened at 30 weeks? 26? 20? Etc.

Is this always using a dead person’s biological tissue against their will, in your view?