[6th ed. = Case 33]
Rea: outline the case, distinguishing ethical from medical/social/legal/other issues, and any other information necessary to understanding the case (you might want to do a tiny bit of research if there's some particular angle that seems interesting to you). You are also responsible for constructing relevant (thought-provoking) questions to start discussion on the case issues.
Others: respond to Rea's awesome questions/discussion prompts.
Remember, many of these issues are emotionally-charged. Please be respectful of your classmates.
This case features a young woman who suffered a massive seizure during her pregnancy, and was declared “brain-dead.” She was kept alive until the birth of her seemingly healthy (albeit premature) child, at which point she was disconnected from the respirator. All decisions about Rosa J and her fetus were carried out by family and physicians. The ethical issue at hand is whether it was moral to make these decisions for Rosa J (in effect using her for the sake of her baby). This is different from legal issues of who should have legal responsibility for the child (and who therefore should make decisions concerning the child). This is also different from medical issues such as whether or not they should have administered antibiotics to a pregnant mother (which could have negatively impacted her child).
ReplyDeleteBelow are some questions I have compiled. Don’t feel you need to answer all of them. They are just there to help!
Does being “brain-dead” qualify as being alive? At what point is the developing fetus considered alive? Do brain dead people have the same Kantian rights as others? Did Rosa J’s family and physicians act morally right by maintaining Rosa J’s functioning for the sake of her child? Would the morality of their actions change had they kept Rosa J on a respirator after the birth of her child? What if they had decided to do nothing (aborting the baby and allowing Rosa J to die)? Is Rosa J’s child better off alive (with no mother, possibly suffering complications of its premature birth) or dead? Under what conditions are a fetus considered not worth saving?
In the given case, I believe the choice to keep Rosa alive by means of a respirator until her child could live was the correct decision. The family, presumably the husband or child’s father, wanted the child to be born which means it will be taken care of. Rosa was not being used simply as a means to someone else’s end, but to her own end. She wanted to have a child with someone she loved, that goal was still accomplished. I feel that keeping her on a respirator to enable her child to live was what she wanted and that people's wishes, even after death, should be respected and followed. If they had kept her on the respirator after the child’s birth I would question their reason since she wouldn’t be able to come back, but that was not the case. In addition, if the family had said “no, we don’t want her child,” then both should have been allowed to die since the family has authority in that case.
ReplyDeleteIf someone is brain dead, there is no way for them to be alive except my mechanical means, so I would not consider them a person anymore but a body. However, the person’s wishes or the best assumption of what their wishes would be should be valued as if they were alive.
Rosa was only 23 weeks pregnant,when she was declaired brain dead.Maintaining her life on a respirator for 9 more weeks to do c-section and gave birth to a child was a miracle in my opinion. I believe she was given excellent care for herself and the baby being fed and kept alive on the respirator. I believe because she was already pregnant and this was not caused intentionally and the means were available for the baby to survive the physician did nothing wrong, he prevented the death of two, and saved one.
ReplyDeleteI believe the family and physicians made the right decision by keeping the baby alive until it was developed enough to be delivered. Rosa obviously had intended to carry the baby full-term considering she was 23 weeks pregnant when the accident occurred. The family is ultimately the next line of decicion-makers and I believe they decided for what Rosa would have wanted; and that is to have the baby. I do not think Rosa should be kept on the respirator following the birth. A brain-dead person will not survive without the help of machines, and therefore is not really alive. I agree with Shaia that the person is merely a body. I do not think the family was using Rosa merely as a means to others ends. I believe this is what Rosa would have wanted and were just respecting her wishes.
ReplyDeleteI also believe they were only keeping Rosa alive in a sense to carry out her wishes which were to have a baby. Its awesome that today's technology allows people to give birth to healthy yet underweight babies even though the mother might be brain dead. I'm sure it is exactly what Rosa would have wanted. Just save her baby if she couldn't be save so her baby could live on. I think the family and physicians were making the right ethical decisions to keep Rosa alive on a respirator until the baby was able to live on her own.
ReplyDeleteI believe that keeping the mother alive to save the baby was the right decision. Lauren and Shaia made a great point when they said the mother is simply a body; she had no chance of higher functioning. She was not going to feel pain or pleasure of any sort, but her body still remained the "home" for the child. In my opinion, it would have been cruel to allow the mother to die because there were no noticeable complications with the baby. By taking the mother off the respirator, the baby would have eventually starved to death. New technology proved to be successful in allowing the baby to grow and develop, and physicians made the right decision with regard to the family's wishes.
ReplyDeleteIt is considered by the medical profession and supported by legal and some ethical consensus that if a person's entire brain is dead, the person is dead. I think Rosa’s family and physicians did act morally right by maintaining Rosa’s functioning for the sake of the child. If she was not maintained, two lives would have been lost. Through keeping Rosa alive, the life of her baby was saved. Rosa’s child is far better off being alive than having no life at all. The technology we use today is amazing in that a baby did not have to lose its life despite its mother becoming brain-dead.
ReplyDeleteFriendly and quick. For a person who hated going to the dentist I am not dreading my next cleaning!
ReplyDeletepainless root canal treatment in chennai