Redux: Rape, Abortion, and "Personhood"

[Bells]

what part of that link confirms *there is no hope for further fetal viability beyond 14 weeks* in the case of Marlise Monez.

Given that Munoz suffered a loss of oxygen to her brain because of the clot, the fetus may also have suffered grievous harm, as well, Caplan says. "You probably have a fetus who is terribly devastated," Caplan says. "I do think the family's wishes should be honored."

[source]

And there are plenty of reasons to stop treatment, even given concern for the fetus. Medical experts agree that trying to bring a fetus to term in a dead body is highly “experimental.” The right to say no is a fundamental right governing any and all experimental interventions. In addition, sadly, there is a good chance that when the mother went without oxygen, so did the fetus, and thus a strong chance that the fetus is in poor health. The legislature ought not be compelling a husband and a family if they do not wish a pregnancy to proceed facing long odds.

[source]

If she went so long without oxygen that she ended up brain dead, then her foetus also went through the same thing.

And once again, there are linked articles (with even more details offered than what your references afford) to show cases (even cases involving brain dead pregnant women) *where this is not the case* (at least to meet the end of delivering a child).

I mean if there are examples of cases where medical procedures potentially* do as well as do not succeed*, what does that tell you?

It tells me that in this instance, the hospital and the state of Texas is seeing fit to experiment on a cadaver without consent.

To remind you, LG, a dead woman cannot be pregnant. She cannot be a patient. As a dead person, she cannot deliver a child. Dead people cannot deliver anything. Nor can dead people have any medical procedures or treatments done to them. Because they are dead.

There has been no case where a dead woman is kept on life support from 14 weeks of pregnancy, after being without oxygen for over an hour and the foetus surviving and being normal. Absolutely none.

This is an experiment on a dead person without any consent whatsoever.

 

[ElectricFetus]

If she went so long without oxygen that she ended up brain dead, then her foetus also went through the same thing.

That very faulty logic, cut off of blood to her brain was what cased her brain damage, how long the whole rest of her body went without oxygen is unknown. The 1 hour claim is merely that she left the bed and the husband found her 1 hour later, and began doing pulmonary resuscitation then and there, not 1 hour of proven lack of oxygen. Frankly if her body had been without oxygen for 1 whole hour more then her brain would be gone, heart cells begin dying after just 20-30 minutes without oxygen for example.

It tells me that in this instance, the hospital and the state of Texas is seeing fit to experiment on a cadaver without consent.

Probably, but that happens a lot anyways, how wrong ethically is it? There dead, so who is being harmed?

To remind you, LG, a dead woman cannot be pregnant. She cannot be a patient.

Yes, unfortunately that for a court of law to decide, a judge needs to validate the interpretation that A) brain-dead is 'dead' and B) the the dead can't be patients.

As a dead person, she cannot deliver a child. Dead people cannot deliver anything. Nor can dead people have any medical procedures or treatments done to them. Because they are dead.

That a matter of semantics, since we have had cases of brain-dead people growing fetuses to term.

There has been no case where a dead woman is kept on life support from 14 weeks of pregnancy, after being without oxygen for over an hour and the foetus surviving and being normal. Absolutely none.

yeah and there has been no other case in which a Marlise Munoz has been kept alive against the will of her legal guardians either, what your point? Are you saying it is impossible that a 14 week old fetus can be brought to viability, improbably yeah sure, but you know absolutely, 100%, for sure its impossible?

 

[lightgigantic]

If she went so long without oxygen that she ended up brain dead, then her foetus also went through the same thing.



It tells me that in this instance, the hospital and the state of Texas is seeing fit to experiment on a cadaver without consent.

To remind you, LG, a dead woman cannot be pregnant. She cannot be a patient. As a dead person, she cannot deliver a child. Dead people cannot deliver anything. Nor can dead people have any medical procedures or treatments done to them. Because they are dead.

There has been no case where a dead woman is kept on life support from 14 weeks of pregnancy, after being without oxygen for over an hour and the foetus surviving and being normal. Absolutely none.

This is an experiment on a dead person without any consent whatsoever.

So what iyho is the difference between *probably* and *impossible*?

(As in " she probably won't deliver a living child because she probably went without oxegyn for one hour" and "it's impossible for her to deliver a living child").

 

[wynn]

Yes, unfortunately that for a court of law to decide, a judge needs to validate the interpretation that A) brain-dead is 'dead' and B) the the dead can't be patients.

Simply assign them special status, in a similar way as, say, special status is assigned to the dead bodies of people who have donated their bodies to science or offered organs for harvesting after their death.

Those dead bodies are not treated the same way as other dead bodies who are not assigned that special status.

 

[billvon]

If she went so long without oxygen that she ended up brain dead, then her foetus also went through the same thing.

Incorrect. Fetal hemoglobin has a much stronger affinity for oxygen - and thus can remain oxygenated even when the mother is severely hypoxic. Further, fetuses at 8 weeks are severely hypoxic at basleline (by adult standards) to begin with; their O2 saturation is about 20%. This rises to about 60% of an adult's by 13 weeks.

All of which means that fetuses have far lower oxygen needs than their mothers do.

To remind you, LG, a dead woman cannot be pregnant. She cannot be a patient. As a dead person, she cannot deliver a child. Dead people cannot deliver anything. Nor can dead people have any medical procedures or treatments done to them. Because they are dead.

Well, then, no moral dilemma! There is no issue of consent, because dead people cannot have experimental medical procedures performed on them; they are dead. It's just a matter of what to do with the body. And if the body has some utility in saving another life, then no issues in using it for that.

(However, some people see the woman as more than just a corpse, and feel that she still has some rights - which is where the controversy comes from.)

 

[billvon]

(Even fetal heart rate monitoring will tell a lot about the level of function in the brain.)

The heart beats without the brain.

Correct! But it never changes if the brain is gone. If it shows all the variation of a normal fetus, odds of it being brain damaged go way down. (This is one of the reasons that fetal heart rate monitoring is a valuable tool.)

All this is supposition, but it would be very interesting to know, of course we should not have known, this should have been a private matter, but now that this is public I think its in the public's interest to know because of the great legal repercussions this case could have.

I disagree. It's still a matter between her and her family. They can, of course, choose to release the information if they wish. And if a child is delivered, and does survive, that will be a matter of public record.

 

[Bells]

So what iyho is the difference between *probably* and *impossible*?

(As in " she probably won't deliver a living child because she probably went without oxegyn for one hour" and "it's impossible for her to deliver a living child").

She's dead LG. You know, dead. Not living. No chance of ever living.

She is incapable of delivering anything.

What the doctors plan to do is use her corpse to try to grow a baby in it without anyone's consent. They do not know if the foetus is viable - ie has a viable brain, because as linked so many fucking times now it's ridiculous, her doctors suspect she was without oxygen for an hour or more.

Her heart was not beating. Which is why her husband started CPR and which is why they pumped her so full drugs and shock her to get her heart started again, but it was too late, she was without any oxygen for too long and so, was brain dead.

“They did a CAT scan and an EEG and there was no brain activity,” Machado said. “She was clinically declared brain dead. The doctors said she had been without oxygen for well over an hour.”​

No one knows the state of the foetus or if it is viable or will be able to be viable because she was without oxygen for so long.

In the emergency room, doctors restarted Marlise Munoz’s heart, but couldn’t undo the damage that an hour or more without oxygen wrought on her brain.​

The stupidity of the arguments made here astound me. Even her doctors say she was without oxygen for well over an hour and her heart was not beating. In an article about how they found c-sections of women who are suffering from heart failure and whose hearts have stopped and they have died could actually be saved by the c-sections and how in some instances, their hearts start beating again even after they have been dead for a few minutes (the mother, not the baby), one point was made clear. Once the mother's heart stops beating, you have a few minutes to get the baby out because even with assisted oxygen while trying to resuscitate her heart immediately from when she goes into cardiac arrest, within a few minutes, the foetus becomes affected. The most important part of this article, is the amount of time you have, even with heart compressions and forcing oxygen into the dying mother, to get the baby out:

For a long time, it was thought you had a few minutes to resuscitate a mother who had no heartbeat. If after a few minutes of chest compressions, assisted breathing, and lots of heart-shocking electricity and medications, you were not successful, then you probably weren’t going to be. And at that point, the teaching was, you should cut the baby out.

The thinking was that the mom would probably be dead no matter what, and if not, the extra strain of surgery probably would kill her. But you would have a shot at getting a baby out who had received oxygenated blood relatively recently, and who might live, although likely be damaged. The surgery would be essentially bloodless because, of course, there was no active maternal circulation—to the uterus or to anywhere else.

This is the historical cesarean, the cesarean section as it was probably initially invented, before hospitals and supportive care, as a last, desperate measure. It was a surgery that mothers would not survive, but that, rarely, could salvage a live infant from a catastrophe.

This was Plan Z at the time G was in the hospital. In her room was a bottle of iodine surgical prep, a set of surgical drapes, and a scalpel. There was also an infant warmer with neonatal supplies taking up a large corner of her room.
​

Marlise Munoz was without oxygen, according to her doctors, for over an hour. Her heart was also not beating. The discussion linked above is for women who are receiving oxygenated blood during resuscitation attempts, so her heart stopped in the hospital and her breathing also stopped. You have a few minutes, even with oxygenated blood, to get the baby out and as the doctor who wrote that article states, even in those few minutes and with oxygenated blood, it is likely the baby will be damaged...

At >24 to 25 weeks of gestation, the best survival rate for the infant occurs when the infant is delivered no more than 5 minutes after the mother's heart stops beating.175–178 Typically this requires that the provider begin the hysterotomy about 4 minutes after cardiac arrest.

[source]
​

I mean sure, a foetus uses less oxygen than say the mother. But if the mother's heart is not beating, which we know in this case it was not, because her husband started CPR and she had not been breathing for long enough to render her unconscious and brain dead - which the doctors speculate was for more than an hour - possibly because she was blue from the lack of oxygen, it's a fair bet to say that the child was not have been getting oxygen for more than a few minutes. But yet, people here seem to know even more than the doctors who are keeping her corpse as an incubator.

The heart can beat without the brain, which could very well be what is happening with the foetus. No one knows whether it has a viable brain though.

 

[Capracus]

Incorrect. Fetal hemoglobin has a much stronger affinity for oxygen - and thus can remain oxygenated even when the mother is severely hypoxic. Further, fetuses at 8 weeks are severely hypoxic at basleline (by adult standards) to begin with; their O2 saturation is about 20%. This rises to about 60% of an adult's by 13 weeks.

All of which means that fetuses have far lower oxygen needs than their mothers do.

Why impose these avoidable risks on any prospective parents or children?

Carter told MedPage Today that the medications given to Munoz in the emergency department to resuscitate her would also have benefited the fetus. But, that the impact of the maternal incident itself is what poses the greatest risk.

"As we consider the impact of maternal illness, or an arrest, or episode of significant shock at 14 weeks, it's the fact that the fetus in utero also suffered the same phenomenon," Carter said.

Carter said the infant is at high risk of cerebral palsy.

Heine agreed. "The real issue has to do with the event that caused her to go on life support. That damage is really hard to predict. We think that 80% to 90% of all cases of cerebral palsy are due to in utero events."

"About 20% of cardiac output goes to the utero-placental unit and serves the fetus, so a maternal event such as has been described for this woman can't help but impact the fetal development in a negative fashion, and I would be very concerned about the impact that it has specifically on fetal brain development," Carter said.

http://www.medpagetoday.com/OBGYN/Pregnancy/43736

In places like North Dakota they do it because they can.

With the governor’s signature on the ban earlier this year, North Dakota has become the first state to ban abortions based on genetic “defects” like Down Syndrome. When diagnosed before birth, such genetic abnormalities prompt couples to have abortions 90 percent of the time.

The state legislature approved the measure and Republican Gov. Jack Dalrymple signed it in March.

The measure would also ban abortion based on gender selection, an issue of increasing concern in the United States has people from nations like China and India migrate to the United States and bring their cultural preference for boys with them.

http://www.lifenews.com/2013/09/12/...irst-to-ban-abortions-based-on-down-syndrome/

 

[lightgigantic]

She's dead LG. You know, dead. Not living. No chance of ever living.

She is incapable of delivering anything.

What the doctors plan to do is use her corpse to try to grow a baby in it without anyone's consent. They do not know if the foetus is viable - ie has a viable brain, because as linked so many fucking times now it's ridiculous, her doctors suspect she was without oxygen for an hour or more.

Her heart was not beating. Which is why her husband started CPR and which is why they pumped her so full drugs and shock her to get her heart started again, but it was too late, she was without any oxygen for too long and so, was brain dead.

“They did a CAT scan and an EEG and there was no brain activity,” Machado said. “She was clinically declared brain dead. The doctors said she had been without oxygen for well over an hour.”​

No one knows the state of the foetus or if it is viable or will be able to be viable because she was without oxygen for so long.

In the emergency room, doctors restarted Marlise Munoz’s heart, but couldn’t undo the damage that an hour or more without oxygen wrought on her brain.​

The stupidity of the arguments made here astound me. Even her doctors say she was without oxygen for well over an hour and her heart was not beating. In an article about how they found c-sections of women who are suffering from heart failure and whose hearts have stopped and they have died could actually be saved by the c-sections and how in some instances, their hearts start beating again even after they have been dead for a few minutes (the mother, not the baby), one point was made clear. Once the mother's heart stops beating, you have a few minutes to get the baby out because even with assisted oxygen while trying to resuscitate her heart immediately from when she goes into cardiac arrest, within a few minutes, the foetus becomes affected. The most important part of this article, is the amount of time you have, even with heart compressions and forcing oxygen into the dying mother, to get the baby out:

For a long time, it was thought you had a few minutes to resuscitate a mother who had no heartbeat. If after a few minutes of chest compressions, assisted breathing, and lots of heart-shocking electricity and medications, you were not successful, then you probably weren’t going to be. And at that point, the teaching was, you should cut the baby out.

The thinking was that the mom would probably be dead no matter what, and if not, the extra strain of surgery probably would kill her. But you would have a shot at getting a baby out who had received oxygenated blood relatively recently, and who might live, although likely be damaged. The surgery would be essentially bloodless because, of course, there was no active maternal circulation—to the uterus or to anywhere else.

This is the historical cesarean, the cesarean section as it was probably initially invented, before hospitals and supportive care, as a last, desperate measure. It was a surgery that mothers would not survive, but that, rarely, could salvage a live infant from a catastrophe.

This was Plan Z at the time G was in the hospital. In her room was a bottle of iodine surgical prep, a set of surgical drapes, and a scalpel. There was also an infant warmer with neonatal supplies taking up a large corner of her room.
​

Marlise Munoz was without oxygen, according to her doctors, for over an hour. Her heart was also not beating. The discussion linked above is for women who are receiving oxygenated blood during resuscitation attempts, so her heart stopped in the hospital and her breathing also stopped. You have a few minutes, even with oxygenated blood, to get the baby out and as the doctor who wrote that article states, even in those few minutes and with oxygenated blood, it is likely the baby will be damaged...

At >24 to 25 weeks of gestation, the best survival rate for the infant occurs when the infant is delivered no more than 5 minutes after the mother's heart stops beating.175–178 Typically this requires that the provider begin the hysterotomy about 4 minutes after cardiac arrest.

[source]
​

I mean sure, a foetus uses less oxygen than say the mother. But if the mother's heart is not beating, which we know in this case it was not, because her husband started CPR and she had not been breathing for long enough to render her unconscious and brain dead - which the doctors speculate was for more than an hour - possibly because she was blue from the lack of oxygen, it's a fair bet to say that the child was not have been getting oxygen for more than a few minutes. But yet, people here seem to know even more than the doctors who are keeping her corpse as an incubator.

The heart can beat without the brain, which could very well be what is happening with the foetus. No one knows whether it has a viable brain though.

So once again, along practically identical lines, what, iyho, is the difference between *likely* and *impossible* ... as in " it is likely the baby will be damaged with perhaps even life threatening conditions" (which, funnily enough is the same reasoning the abortionist brought to his trial for the strangulation of live born fetuses inwhich Gianna_Jessen was brought as an "exhibit") and "it is impossible for this child to come forth without damage resulting in death"?

Btw despite all the information we have about surviving oxegyn deprivation, there are quite a few anecdotal instances (even instances exceeding one hour ... ewa wisnierska's 10000 m+ paragliding accident comes to mind) that confound such understandings

 

[lightgigantic]

Why impose these avoidable risks on any prospective parents or children?

Gianna_Jessen, a famous abortion survivor, was born with cerebral palsy.
What eugenical reasoning do you employ to suggest the best solution lies in removing the opportunity such people have to be alive?

 

[Bells]

So once again, along practically identical lines, what, iyho, is the difference between *likely* and *impossible* ... as in " it is likely the baby will be damaged with perhaps even life threatening conditions" (which, funnily enough is the same reasoning the abortionist brought to his trial for the strangulation of live born fetuses inwhich Gianna_Jessen was brought as an "exhibit") and "it is impossible for this child to come forth without damage resulting in death"?

Btw despite all the information we have about surviving oxegyn deprivation, there are quite a few anecdotal instances (even instances exceeding one hour ... ewa wisnierska's 10000 m+ paragliding accident comes to mind) that confound such understandings

Ewa Wisnierska's condition is not really confounding. Doctors even explained to her why she survived:

Wisnierska says experience told her she had no chance of survival, but a doctor told her that blacking out had saved her.

"It was because that I got unsconscious because then the heart slows down all the functions - it saved my life," she told ABC radio.​

Her heart didn't stop.

Unless you think not breathing for an hour and your heart stopping is not going to affect the foetus, then I would suggest you provide proof of that. If a few minutes in a dying woman will result in some damage, how much is 1 hour in a woman not breathing and her heart stopping for god knows how long going to do?

 

[Capracus]

Gianna_Jessen, a famous abortion survivor, was born with cerebral palsy.
What eugenical reasoning do you employ to suggest the best solution lies in removing the opportunity such people have to be alive?

She wasn’t aborted because of a diagnosed chance of cerebral palsy, her likely illegal and/or unethical third trimester abortion was the cause of her cerebral palsy. Viability is the ethical and legal threshold for personhood, she was already there, and baring obvious evidence of some terminal abnormality, she had the right to be born free of the torments of the medical malpractice she obviously suffered.

 

[billvon]

Why impose these avoidable risks on any prospective parents or children?

Well, as Bells keeps saying, there's no risk to the mother - she's already dead. Thus the question is - is the fetus viable? As I mentioned, a fetal HRM and/or ultrasound would go a long way there.

 

[Capracus]

Thus the question is - is the fetus viable?

Its gestational age at the time of hospitalization would indicate it wasn't.

 

[wynn]

What eugenical reasoning do you employ to suggest the best solution lies in removing the opportunity such people have to be alive?

Uh, it's all a power game.

Besides, do you really expect that a karmi could adequately explain the workings of maya? Because that's what it would take to answer your question.

 

[wynn]

What eugenical reasoning do you employ to suggest the best solution lies in removing the opportunity such people have to be alive?

Uh, it's all a power game.

Besides, do you really expect that a karmi could adequately explain the workings of maya? Because that's what it would take to answer your question.

 

[Capracus]

Uh, it's all a power game.

What human endeavor isn't? So what’s your stake in this power struggle?

 

[Bells]

Well, as Bells keeps saying, there's no risk to the mother - she's already dead. Thus the question is - is the fetus viable? As I mentioned, a fetal HRM and/or ultrasound would go a long way there.

The foetus cannot live outside of the womb, so no, it is not viable.

Respecting the wishes of the deceased and her husband and parents would go even longer than using her corpse to experiment with trying to grow the foetus without consent.

Also, the heart rate is not always an indication that all is well. For example, an Anencephalic foetus also has a healthy enough heart rate while in utero. So relying on HRM as an indicator is not really reliable.

 

[billvon]

Respecting the wishes of the deceased and her husband and parents would go even longer than using her corpse to experiment with trying to grow the foetus without consent.

Doesn't matter. Hospitals often hold on to corpses for some time to do autopsies etc. I am sure they'll release her body to her family in good time.

Also, the heart rate is not always an indication that all is well. For example, an Anencephalic foetus also has a healthy enough heart rate while in utero. So relying on HRM as an indicator is not really reliable.

Fetal heart rate is a good indicator of brain activity. An anencepahlic fetus will not have the same heartbeat variability as a healthy fetus.

 

[lightgigantic]

Ewa Wisnierska's condition is not really confounding. Doctors even explained to her why she survived:

Wisnierska says experience told her she had no chance of survival, but a doctor told her that blacking out had saved her.

"It was because that I got unsconscious because then the heart slows down all the functions - it saved my life," she told ABC radio.​

Her heart didn't stop.

Unless you think not breathing for an hour and your heart stopping is not going to affect the foetus, then I would suggest you provide proof of that. If a few minutes in a dying woman will result in some damage, how much is 1 hour in a woman not breathing and her heart stopping for god knows how long going to do?

so do you think that in a repeat scenario of such a paragliding accident, medical professionals would describe it as *likely* that one would not survive.