Problem here is that under state law IF she was really brain-dead, life was not being sustained by this treatment. Instead, a corpse was being artificially stimulated to continue blood circulation, etc.
Let us remember that true brain death is very different from the Schiavo case. When the brain actually dies the body begins to deteriorate regardless of what is done to keep it "alive."
This is a very sad situation, obviously. There is a decent argument to be made that an attempt to keep the body of the dead woman functioning long enough for her baby to be born would be appropriate.
But there needs to be some criteria to determine legal death, and I think most will agree that true brain death is the most logical one.
My (limited) understanding of the issue is that true brain death, once achieved, is not something from which anybody ever gets better. This is quite different from various stages of coma and "persistent vegetative state," from which people awaken all the time.
It is of course possible to misdiagnose brain death, but I don't think conservatives or prolifers should get trapped in a position contrary to medical or scientific knowledge that any beating heart must be kept beating.
“But what of Lazarus?”
/obscure reference
Very well said. In addition, when the poor soul collapsed due to a blood clot in her lungs then chances are excellent that the unborn child suffered severe brain damage during the episode and probably would not have survived.
Can a human body that has suffered severe brain damage sustain an unborn child from a nutritional standpoint? Can her body send the proper nutrients to the unborn child? Can artificial feeding of the brain-dead female suffice to ensure a healthy baby? I do not know and neither does anyone else.
It is at the very best a very difficult situation for everyone involved. No one on this thread knows how the husband is suffering at the loss of both his wife AND his child.
I do not remember the exact saying but it says something about.....”Until you walk in my shoes”.
The headlines stated “the baby was killed” and that is the truth. Cutting of the baby’s life support (his mother) killed him. A living child, who was not brain dead, was just killed. So what part of “THOU SHALL NOT KILL” do those of you who claim to be believers in God, not understand?
Good, well-balanced response.
This whole situation is sad. But we need to try to understand the situation from the widower’s perspective, and extend some grace. It’s heartbreaking.