Dead mother incubator
 

You may be familiar with this story where a husband asked hospital staff to keep his brain dead wife on life support for two days in order to give their baby a high chance of survival.

I find it interesting that some people are against this decision by the husband and the hospital. More so because Dazza and I had a discussion about this very same topic quite a few months ago after I had a very near miss while driving. It was my very express wish that he keep me on life support until our baby could be born safely.

What do you think?

They did the right thing, IMO. Give the baby a fighting chance.

It would seem pointless not to. And it makes for an AWESOME band name. Dibs!

What would the mother have wanted? That's the only question that needs to be answered. Most mothers-to-be would rather do whatever they could to give their baby a better chance. Dad should know.

Smart and logical choice by the family and hospital. In this country they probably would not have even given the father a choice.

I think the father's wishes are important too. After all, the baby belongs just as much to him.

...And he would have chosen differently, why? :confused:

I couldn't see making a decision other than the one he made. Losing his wife would be bad enough. Why let the baby die too?

Do you feel the same way if the life of the baby is to be ended?

Just asking because I'm genuinely curious as to how people approach this.

See? I knew it would take a couple of posts for this to come up. lol
;)

Yeah. I hate being the one to have done it, but it followed naturally.

You expect a guy to shell out cash for it, he should have a say in all the other decisions.

No, I don't mean he would have chosen differently. I mean, if people are against keeping her alive and think he made the wrong choice to prolong her life, why is "she would have wanted this" the only thing that matters? Why isn't it just as valid for the dad to say "I don't care what my wife would've wanted - I want that baby to live."

As far as ending the baby's life, actually, I don't think it's up to either of them. IMO if it is possible for the baby to survive by keeping the mother on life support, it would be unethical for anyone to choose otherwise. When you conceive, you are an incubator. Your body belongs just as much to the baby as to yourself. But then, I'm staunchly pro-life so I guess I'll get flamed now.

If he doesn't want the baby now that mom's dead, I'm sure there are many loving couples who would want to adopt a newborn. It's the older ones that are hard to place.

My original point, though, was para #1. I get weary of father's rights being disregarded.

But it doesn't matter. I'm just a dumb ass anyway.

I would be very much against an abortion of a healthy viable foetus with a father ready to take in and take care of the child once it is born.

In that case, yes I would expect the mother to wait an extra two days in order for medical facilities to be available.

Do I think men have a right to insist their sexual partner carries an embryo to term if she has no wish to be a mother? No. I am an atheist, I have no belief in souls, I do not call a foetus a baby. If a man has a strong desire to be a father there are plenty of women in the world happy to comply with him. If he knocks up someone with the same views as me, perhaps he should have got to know his partner before having intercourse. I have always taken preventative measures, but do not feel having an unwanted child is acceptable if they fail.

The contraceptive pill is technically abortion. I took it for 10 years, no doubt aborting many clusters of cells. I've also taken the morning after pill more than once, potentially killing even more. I've been aware at every stage of what I am doing and how. At least that way if I burn in Hell I won't spend an eternity boring my neighbours with, "But I didn't know.....!"

I accept there are some (few) reasons why a viable foetus might be aborted. But as far as I am aware, the mother changing her mind is not one of them.

Murderer!!

Just kidding. lol!!


I wonder how much cash a uterus and fetus go for these days........hmmmm? I think I would charge steeper prices than what would be affordable.

I tried to donate eggs.
FAIL.

But at least I tried.

2 days is not much of a big deal here guys. But here is where the controversy is, I don't think many of you know what it takes to keep someone on "lifesupport" when they are brain dead. The usual goal is to preserve organ function for harvest. In that case it is not simply a case of organ preservation, it is a problem related to organ preservation without doing harm to the baby. Even one or two days would most likely put the baby at some risk, the longer the need to preserve the fetus in utero, the greater the risk to the mother and infant. There is no way anyone is going to say there is no risk to the fetus in this case. So no it is not that simple of a decision.

But it's a medical decision, not an ethical one.

Why would you think that keeping someone on lifesupport is not an ethical decision or not, fetus in utero or not?

Who is against it?

The report they had on the news the other night had a comment that some 'groups' were against the decision by the father, but they didn't elaborate.

I imagine it'd be moral/ethical issues that've been raised here.

One cannot take the idea that every sperm and egg is sacred, or even great:elkgrin: too far, either in logic, or religion, or biology. You end up trying to believe that menstruation is murder (women only) or that masturbation is murder (men only) when the fact of the matter is every reproductive action in the natural world is accompanied by an expenditure of a large number of reproductive cells, eggs, units, cloud of fish sperm, or other bio-whatevers.

But to topic: this was a technically elaborated version of that old sorrow of dying in childbirth -- and saving the baby. This should be a consolation to the family.

Agreeing with UG... The world is about to end.

Did you read the article, or the OP?

Aha, much is clearer now, jinx. Merc was arguing against something that wasn't even being considered.

Yes I read it. Steroids were not the only thing she received. The admin of steroids to pregnant women is a normal thing if they are threatening premature birth.

No, I was not arguing against anything, other than a statement that it was an ethical decision as well as a medical one. I was pointing out some facts related to the preservation of brain dead people and that information was missing.

So what you're saying is that while giving the mother steroids to develop the lungs is necessary, if that were to be ongoing it could cause damage to the mothers organs which in turn would endanger the health of the baby? Or are there other health risks that laypeople wouldn't know about unless they were in that situation, in which case, can you give us a rundown? Might help people understand your point better.

Sure, no prob.

The administration of steroids is common to women who are in premature labor, specifically because studies have shown that you can help speed the maturity of the lungs of the fetus and improve, but not ensure, their outcome, morbidity and mortality.

When people are brain dead and on life support their bodies shut down. The only way to keep them alive is through ventilatory support and the administration of quite a few drugs to maintain, heart rate, blood pressure, oxygenation, perfusion of the kidneys, etc. These other drugs are the things that can affect the blood flow to the fetus, and in many cases affect the fetus directly. These direct and indirect effects can be detrimental to the fetus. Twenty-four and better forty-eight or seventy-two hours of treatment with steroids is better, but all of that is balanced against the fight to keep the body alive, esp if she is an organ donor.

Thanks Merc, that was helpful for me at least. I had no idea that people on life support had to have other drugs as well as ventilation.

Here is a comment from someone who is involved in organ harvest, not me.

"We do about one per week at my institution. Each harvest is a bit different, depending on the hemodynamic stability of the donor and the organs being harvested. Often these patients are on dopamine, dobutamine, epinepherine, neosynepherine, nipride, nitro, beta blockers, or any other vasoactive/cardioactive gtt you can think of. Preservation of the kidneys and the heart require specific protocols for each. Since most are head injuries, increased intracranial pressure and specific affected brain tissue can cause a host of hemodynamic and physiologic difficulties. Many are trauma patients requiring continued resucitation with blood products.
Anesthetic agents are most oftened tailored to hemodynamic response desired to maitain organ perfusion. Muscle relaxants facilitate a relaxed surgical field for greater access. Often there are multiple surgical teams, one for each organ type. The heart is stopped in a similar manner as in open heart surgery with bypass. Once the heart stops, anesthesia is done, the monitors and the machine are all turned off and the heart is harvested (snip, snip...pretty quick). The final harvest for bone tissue, corneas and skin takes place after this."

Yeah, all of this was covered in the article

I just don't see any organ donation controversy.

The way I see it, it's not even a matter of organ donation. It's that the drugs used to keep the other organs functioning normally could be harmful to the baby over time.

Well, not the end of the world End Times... but somewhere a trash dump caught fire. And somewhere else, somebody dropped a full bottle of wine.

That sounds like something from a Pratchett book :)