Pregnant, dead, and on a ventilator: A few thoughts in response to Prof McQuoid-Mason

Abstract

Advances made by medical science are able to extend human life, sometimes by highly technical means such as life-support systems. Often these procedures prove life-saving, and the patient recovers fully; at other times, however, life-extending treatment is futile, such as when the patient is declared brain dead. Advances in reproductive technologies, similarly, have been able bring hope by treating and curing infertility. This article responds to an article by Professor McQuoid-Mason entitled 'Terminating the pregnancy of a brain-dead mother: Does a fetus have a right to life?' He examines the law in South Africa and the legal implications of the Munoz case, which concerned an application for a court order to have a brain-dead pregnant woman removed from a ventilator. Departing from Prof. McQuoid-Mason's discussion, this article highlights a few of the ethical and legal implications of new technologies that enable pregnancy to be extended beyond the pregnant woman's life. This article questions the ethical and legal appropriateness of the use of new technologies, especially in situations where such use is contrary to the pregnant woman's express wishes. In this context, the article deliberates on whether the dead may be considered to be the bearers of rights that must be respected.

Ethical Analysis of Baby Devran Case

“…Eğer fetüsün yaşayabilir olduğu tıbbi kanısı var ise, ölü anneden sezaryen ile doğum yaptırılır. Eğer hekimde bu kanı oluşmadı ise fetüs anne karnında ölüme terk edilir (10). Yaşabilirlik ile ilgili iki farklı tanım olduğunu söylenebilir.…”

Does withdrawing treatment from a pregnant persistent vegetative state patient resulting in her death constitute a termination of pregnancy?

“…It has been suggested that a South African (SA) court would have come to a similar decision but for different reasons. [2] A recent article commenting on the Munoz case, [3] begs the question of whether if the pregnant woman had been in a persistent vegetative state (PVS) the courts in South Africa would have reached the same conclusion on the basis that she had expressed her wish not to be kept alive in an advance directive, and that keeping her alive against her wishes would have been a violation of her constitutional rights to equality, dignity, privacy and bodily integrity. [3] To answer this question it is necessary to consider the following in the context of SA law:…”