Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s the unborn baby’s prognosis?

What’s your hot take on violating HIPPA?

Posters in this thread have stated as fact that the baby will be born dead or severely disabled. Where did they get that information?

It’s in the original AP article that started the thread. Did any of you read it?

“Newkirk told WXIA that doctors told the family that the fetus has fluid on the brain and that they’re concerned about his health.

“She’s pregnant with my grandson. But he may be blind, may not be able to walk, may not survive once he’s born,” Newkirk said. She has not said whether the family wants Smith removed from life support.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s the unborn baby’s prognosis?

What’s your hot take on violating HIPPA?

Posters in this thread have stated as fact that the baby will be born dead or severely disabled. Where did they get that information?

Anonymous wrote:I read this thread and I understand more why DCUM was so utterly shocked and confused that voters across the country did not share DCUMs position on abortion in the 2024 election. You are seen as extremist but you don’t understand that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s the unborn baby’s prognosis?

What’s your hot take on violating HIPPA?

Anonymous wrote:What’s the unborn baby’s prognosis?

Anonymous wrote:Another horrific consequence of abortion bans. Plus this poor fetus will not likely survive. This is truly disgusting.

https://apnews.com/article/pregnant-woman-brain-dead-abortion-ban-georgia-a85a5906e5b2c4889525f2300c441745

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the text of Georgia's law:

“‘Abortion’ means the act of using, prescribing, or administering any instrument, substance, device, or other means with the purpose to terminate a pregnancy with
knowledge that termination will, with reasonable likelihood, cause the death of an unborn child.”

I suppose you could argue that the doctors aren't removing life support *in order to* terminate the pregnancy, but they certainly wouldn't be doing it for the benefit of the mother, right? She's dead. And they certainly have knowledge that removing life support ("any other means") will be reasonably likely to cause the death of an unborn child.

For SURE there is someone out there, some right to lifer, willing to sue the doctor who removes life support. So since the law doesn't specifically say they can do this - they can't do it.

They are not terminating a pregnancy. They are allowing the body of the woman to die naturally.

This is 100% activism on the medical professional level.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another horrific consequence of abortion bans. Plus this poor fetus will not likely survive. This is truly disgusting.

https://apnews.com/article/pregnant-woman-brain-dead-abortion-ban-georgia-a85a5906e5b2c4889525f2300c441745

This isn’t about abortion, it is about activist healthcare professionals abusing this poor woman’s body to make a political statement.

And it is gross.

Smith’s family says Emory doctors have told them they are not allowed to stop or remove the devices that are keeping her breathing because state law bans abortion after cardiac activity can be detected — generally around six weeks into pregnancy.

There is no law saying they have to keep this woman’s body alive. This is awful, unethical and public use of women’s bodies to make political points.

Uh no, healthcare professionals do not do this. JFC you are insane.

To think that healthcare professionals are incapable of activism is being naive.

We have seen the same activists healthcare providers maim children to “affirm” gender.

Healthcare providers have been part of eugenics.

This woman’s body is being used as a public display of activism to say: See what you made us do!

Absolute effing BS. I am an RN. The hospital is sustaining the patient for the fetus because their lawyers are telling them to. Because of the way the law is written, they are legally tied at the moment. Typically there might be a team ethics consult but because it is a legal matter, the law trumps even the ethics consult.

That you think ab entire team of doctors and nurses (who likely change daily if not weekly), nursing managers, hospital administrators, social workers, and more, are all collaboratively scheming to keep her alive (at hospital expense, taking up a needed bed) as a form of activism or to make a statement, is tin foil hat level absurd.

Identify the law that requires a woman's body to be maintained in a state of artificial or mechanical life after brain death to prevent the entire system from failing to protect a pregnancy.

There isn’t one. They aren’t performing an abortion by pulling the plug.

They are proving a point by using this woman’s body.

They are following the law and protecting an unborn baby- why do you not support that? The baby will be a gift to the grieving family.

I’m sure a go fund me will take care of the hospital bills.

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.

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

You believe a single article in a single ethics journal defines in absolutist terms what is ethically right or wrong for all situations and all women?

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.

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?

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.

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