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

Analysis of similar situation in Nevada in 2020 that discusses the moral and legal ethics, and pretty strongly supports the wishes of the family in this case, plus consent/implied consent and objectification of the woman's body.

Even if the ethical consult allows it, the legal consult may have a different view - these laws also vary locally. In the end, doctors do not want to be prosecuted or deal with litigation and have to follow legal protocol.

Various states have laws that can override a woman's advance directive if she is pregnant, so this is not just GA. In GA, the law includes a 2007 advance directive that may not apply if pregnant with a potentially viable fetus. Couple that with GA law declaring a fetus a "person" and abortion as withdrawal of care while the mother is already dead (so cannot be done to save her when she is already gone), but fetus still medically viable (sounds like that is on a downhill trajectory but perhaps not sufficiently at "threshold" yet).

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.

Well wait a second. No, the law doesn't explicitly state that they must keep the woman's body alive. But the problem is, the law DOES state that they can't cause an abortion once a fetal heart beat is detected. Since stopping life support is absolutely going to result in termination of the fetus, I can understand why they are scared to cease life support for the mother.

Even there is exception for "life of mother" since she is brain dead, you can't legally argue that the fetus is harming her, right?

I think the doctors are right to be concerned that they'd be accused of the crime of ending the life of a fetus. What protections do they have?

I don't see why that is a problem. Look at the fact that they've learned to exclude treatment for ectopic pregnancy from ani-abortion laws, and the Catholics allow such treatment. Because the death of the embryo or fetus is simply incidental to treating the patient, so it does not count. If you can hold out that stopping life support is ethical medical treatment for the mother, I would think that would be legal.

You’re trying to apply logic to a situation that doesn’t allow for logic and reason. They’ve already let women die. Whatever it takes to try to save the baby, even if it’s impossible for the baby to survive. It doesn’t matter how expensive it is or how much distress it causes the family. It doesn’t matter that they don’t want to pay for the support the families need to care for severely disabled children born in these circumstances, even though they forced the families into these circumstances. Nothing matters to them except getting to claim that they’re saving babies.

Getting to prosecute doctors would give them so much fuel for their cause. Think about how they’d twist it: A doctor wanted to kill a baby so badly, he took the mother off life support just to terminate the pregnancy. We already have people on this thread saying the doctors are only keeping her on life support to make a statement. They don’t need consistency or logic. They just say a thing over and over to people who don’t want to know all the details and it becomes the truth.

The laws are intentionally vague and meant to be misinterpreted and inconsistently applied. It’s a no win situation for doctors. If they do the morally right thing that the family wants, the doctors can lose their livelihood. If they follow the advice of their lawyers and do the conservative approach, the politicians who created this mess will say the doctors misinterpreted the laws, or like the posters in this thread, they can accuse the doctors of trying to make a political statement. Plus they have to live with this on their conscience, knowing they used a woman as a literal incubator. It’s tragic and cruel.

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

Analysis of similar situation in Nevada in 2020 that discusses the moral and legal ethics, and pretty strongly supports the wishes of the family in this case, plus consent/implied consent and objectification of the woman's body.

Anonymous wrote:Abortion means termination of pregnancy either through (medical) intervention or miscarriage (spontaneous). If she dies it’s not an abortion. It’s maternal death leading to fetal death.

Your definition is not the legal definition in GA.

I think I am going to throw up….

Anonymous wrote:A particularly grotesque aspect is the plan to induce labor when the fetus is old enough. A brain-dead pregnant body convulsing in labor is a horrific thought.

Most likely will be a csection.

A particularly grotesque aspect is the plan to induce labor when the fetus is old enough. A brain-dead pregnant body convulsing in labor is a horrific thought.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Georgia gives personhood to the fetus legally. This likely means the hospital must separately consider the fetus' health before removing the mother from the ventilator. While the mother is "braindead" if the fetus is otherwise healthy, cannot be removed.

I saw an interview with the grandmother who said there are signs the fetus is not healthy, including significant water on the brain.

Yeah, which means the fetus will immediately go in for surgery after birth for either a shunt placement or ETV. A lot born with hydrocephaly don't make it, though, and those that do have severe cognitive issues.

They're keeping the fetus alive for a lifetime of suffering. SO pro-life.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The family does not want to continue life support. The baby also has fluid build up in the brain and there is a high probability (greater than 50%) that it will die after delivery. If the baby survives it will have severe long-term health issues (brain damage, blindness, etc). This baby is very likely to die and if they survive their quality or life will be terrible. The government has taken possession of a corpse to serve as an incubator for a no longer viable pregnancy. They are putting this woman’s family through unimaginable suffering and burdening them with millions in medical bills because apparently it is pro-life to store dead people in hospital rooms.

And once the disabled baby is born, the family will have to pay medical bills for the baby as well as the dead woman being artificially kept alive.

They will probably be completely bankrupt for the rest of their lives, and the baby won't have much chance at quality of life.

In the "good old days" both mother and baby would have been allowed to die a more peaceful death.

I really hate "pro lifers" now with the heat of many suns.

This is awful. I'm thinking people may choose safe haven.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

About 50% of babies are born on Medicaid. There’s a decent chance the government is paying this hospital bill. How do you like that, MAGA?

MAGA has a solution for that: end Medicaid

So, MAGA, do you want hospitals to pick up the tab? Or for this woman to be denied care so she and her baby can die at home?

Anonymous wrote:Abortion means termination of pregnancy either through (medical) intervention or miscarriage (spontaneous). If she dies it’s not an abortion. It’s maternal death leading to fetal death.

Go ahead and risk your medical license on that in the state of Georgia where politicians and lawyers get to decide if your interpretation is correct, or if they’ll make an example out of you for political gain.

Anonymous wrote:Georgia gives personhood to the fetus legally. This likely means the hospital must separately consider the fetus' health before removing the mother from the ventilator. While the mother is "braindead" if the fetus is otherwise healthy, cannot be removed.

I saw an interview with the grandmother who said there are signs the fetus is not healthy, including significant water on the brain.

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.

Well wait a second. No, the law doesn't explicitly state that they must keep the woman's body alive. But the problem is, the law DOES state that they can't cause an abortion once a fetal heart beat is detected. Since stopping life support is absolutely going to result in termination of the fetus, I can understand why they are scared to cease life support for the mother.

Even there is exception for "life of mother" since she is brain dead, you can't legally argue that the fetus is harming her, right?

I think the doctors are right to be concerned that they'd be accused of the crime of ending the life of a fetus. What protections do they have?

I don't see why that is a problem. Look at the fact that they've learned to exclude treatment for ectopic pregnancy from ani-abortion laws, and the Catholics allow such treatment. Because the death of the embryo or fetus is simply incidental to treating the patient, so it does not count. If you can hold out that stopping life support is ethical medical treatment for the mother, I would think that would be legal.

Fetuses have legal personhood in Georgia so the hospital likely has to separately consider the impact of removing the mother from the vent on the fetus whereas the mother would usually have priority. This is likely the legal difference and conundrum specific to GA.

Abortion means termination of pregnancy either through (medical) intervention or miscarriage (spontaneous). If she dies it’s not an abortion. It’s maternal death leading to fetal death.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The family does not want to continue life support. The baby also has fluid build up in the brain and there is a high probability (greater than 50%) that it will die after delivery. If the baby survives it will have severe long-term health issues (brain damage, blindness, etc). This baby is very likely to die and if they survive their quality or life will be terrible. The government has taken possession of a corpse to serve as an incubator for a no longer viable pregnancy. They are putting this woman’s family through unimaginable suffering and burdening them with millions in medical bills because apparently it is pro-life to store dead people in hospital rooms.

And once the disabled baby is born, the family will have to pay medical bills for the baby as well as the dead woman being artificially kept alive.

They will probably be completely bankrupt for the rest of their lives, and the baby won't have much chance at quality of life.

In the "good old days" both mother and baby would have been allowed to die a more peaceful death.

I really hate "pro lifers" now with the heat of many suns.