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.

What YOU would have done.

She was an RN. People who work in the medical field are far less likely to want interventions like this because they have seen the reality of it. It was from 9 weeks! Do you know what living on a vent long term does to a body? Contractures, pressure wounds, etc. I am an RN and have told my husband repeatedly that if he ever sustains me long term on a vent, I will haunt the eff out of him.

Some states actually have laws that supersede a mother's advance directives for withdrawal of care if she is pregnant. I find that abhorrent.

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 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.

Anonymous wrote:So is the state going to be responsible for that astronomical hospital bill?

The fetus?

The woman's family?

Ultimately it will be a gofundme.

So is the state going to be responsible for that astronomical hospital bill?

The fetus?

The woman's family?

Straight up Handmaid's Tale.

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.

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.

This is what happens when doctors fear a politician’s interpretation will end up costing them their license and freedom.

This isn’t fear, it’s activism.

How omniscient! You know the thoughts of the professionals?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That is so messed up. If I were her family, I’d visit and accidentally trip on the power cords, unplugging them.

They could figure out it was you. Willing to risk being tried for voluntary manslaughter?

Georgia Code Title 16. Crimes and Offenses § 16-5-80

(e) A person convicted of the offense of voluntary manslaughter of an unborn child shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than 20 years.

This literally could not happen. It would immediately cause alarms in other ways (backup battery, unplugged alarm, telemetry alert and telemetry folks will call if the heart monitor stops) and nursing staff would rush in.

Anonymous wrote:That is so messed up. If I were her family, I’d visit and accidentally trip on the power cords, unplugging them.

They could figure out it was you. Willing to risk being tried for voluntary manslaughter?

Georgia Code Title 16. Crimes and Offenses § 16-5-80

(e) A person convicted of the offense of voluntary manslaughter of an unborn child shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than 20 years.

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.

Nevada’s abortion laws are the opposite of Georgia’s.

That is so messed up. If I were her family, I’d visit and accidentally trip on the power cords, unplugging them.

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.

Horrible question but... if she is "dead" can they still bill the family? She has no legal existence anymore.

The fetus needs a lawyer to file for Medicaid for it. If life begins at conception, of personhood begins at conception, then that person (fetus) has no income and should qualify for Medicaid.

Alternatively, any right to lifer could legally adopt it and shoulder the bills.

Anonymous wrote:
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.

I am not a lawyer but... I'm pretty sure the reason you can ethically stop life support for someone who is brain dead is because "death" can legally be defined as, well, however you define bread dead. (I am also not a doctor...I assume there are clinical signs like, um, no brain waves or whatever?)

Anyhow, if the woman meets the legal definition of dead then she is dead, right? So as long as the doctors certify she is brain dead, it's OK to remover her from life support.

But everything else is in legal limbo in GA. They have a law that says you cannot end the life of a fetus once it has certain signs (a heartbeat?). The fetus DOES have a heartbeat. So how, in the law, can you say with certainty that a doctor won't be charged with a crime if he does something 1) that will CERTAINLY end the life of the fetus and 2) is being done for no other reason whatsoever (i.e. health of mother is in no way at stake?)

Your ectopic pregnancy exclusion is different, because 1) hopefully the embryo isn't developed enough to have a heartbeat and 2) removing it SAVES the life of the mother.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't know if Georgia has this rule, but in at least some states if you kill a pregnant woman you can also be charged for the death of the baby.

I don't think it is as simplistic as you are stating, OP. If doctors don't have legal protection from prosecution, they will not be willing to risk their license in this case.

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.

Omg you are so close to getting it. Politicians, not doctors, wrote laws that are vague because again - they aren't doctors and have no medical training. These vague laws come with some pretty significant consequences for the actual medical professionals, but since the laws are vague, the determination as to whether or not they were broken would happen after the fact in a court of law *if* some poitician decides - again, based on their non-medical opinion - that the medical staff broke the vague non-medical laws they wrote.

If you were a doctor, or hell the hospital's lawyer, what would you do to reduce exposure to liability and CYA in this situation? Pray you have a really good lawyer and a favorable judge who isn't guided by religious fervor, in Georgia?

If I were the family I'd send all the bills right to Govenor Kemp.