and only slightly less, the facility that failed to protect her. How horrific if that child has no family at all to care for him or who feel capable of caring for him.

This is sick

From the rape to the forced pregnancy and birth.

Can't consent to giving birth if you're in a vegetative state - so someone pushed for it. Forced it.

I doubt any doctor would perform an abortion in that situation (do no harm, and all) when there is no threat to the life of the mother (I assume there wasn't). A doctor probably would violate his oath performing an abortion under these specific circumstances.

Even in a vegetative state - she was the only one that mattered.

Until the baby appeared.

monitoring her vitals day in, day out?

Wouldn't they at least notice she was getting a big belly? Unless she is very heavy? Which I kind of doubt, because in vegetative state one doesn't over eat.

You would think that- in NINE MONTHS- somebody would notice SOMETHING? I'm really surprised that childbirth would even happen in a vegatative state. Our bodies are remarkable pieces of biological machinery.

In vegetative state, person is brain damaged, but not brain dead.
The body could function just fine and therefore can sustain pregnancy. But how nobody notices she is pregnant when she is supposed to be getting nursing care is beyond my understanding.

due to the pregnancy.

The question is not who is harmed, the question is what the woman wants. That is inherent in the "choice".

Pregnancy can only be considered a "harm" if it is unwanted, right?

her wishes. Unless she was specific about not wanting to have an abortion in any circumstance before she went into vegetative state.

And I want to be clear I am not talking about the rape. I mean that once she was pregnant by any means, it is unclear how she would feel about the pregnancy.

The prior poster had raised the question of "harm", but I think that we can only determine that the pregnancy is "harmful" if we know her wishes. Since we don't, then the pregnancy cannot be seen as "harmful".

Now, if there was a relative who purported to know her wishes, then we would rely on them, trusting that as a relative they were not misleading us.

and assume the non-consensual pregnancy is harmful because it is non-consensual.

For instance, what if the victim was very religious and against abortion to the point where she would not even get one in the case of rape? This is why we have living wills that let relatives make such decisions.

In the absence of such a decision-maker here, I think it would be wrong to assume she would want the abortion and do so without any type of consent. Furthermore, it would probably be against the doctor's oath to take the action of abortion without the patient or competent decision-maker giving consent (assuming no danger to the woman's life).

For me it comes down to the ethical difference between action and inaction. In this case, I feel it would be unethical to take an action such as an abortion, as opposed to remaining inactive. The fact that the pregnancy was initiated by rape doesn't change that calculation in my mind.

The rape was rape, i.e., non-consensual, therefore the pregnancy was non-consensual. There is no sane defense for any of this.

I disagree, as I am providing one.

The rape was non-consensual, but that doesn't mean the woman automatically wishes to terminate the pregnancy. That is the meaning of the concept of "choice". We do not force women to undergo abortions in this country.

Thus, the vegetative woman's choice matters. Since she cannot make the choice, someone must choose for her. If there is a guardian who knows her wishes (or was entrusted by her to know them), then that person can make the choice. If there is no one so entrusted by her (or no close relatives who know what she would want), then the choice cannot be made (or rather, inaction must be chosen).

My point is that if the state is choosing, then the only ethical choice is to continue the pregnancy. It would be unethical to subject the woman to a medical procedure to which she did not consent (outside of an emergency situation). Any doctor who did it would probably violate their oath in doing so.

the bullet would be removed and the medical condition would be remedied, no questions asked, and "consent"/"choice" would not be an issue.

This victim was "shot" in the commission of a crime, with "bullets" from the weapon chosen by the criminal to commit the crime.

If the state is "choosing" in this horrible scenario, then the only ethical choice in this specific scenario, in which is it abundantly clear that the victim could not consent to be assaulted, is to remedy the medical condition that was done to the victim by the criminal's weapon of choice. Both pregnancy, and gunshot wounds, are medical conditions that carry risks up to and including permanent disability and/or death.

In this specific sad and awful scenario, the rights of the victim to be made as whole again as possible, after a violent criminal assault, should be the guiding principle. Otherwise, what the state would in effect be doing, would be "choosing" to confer nonexistent "rights" upon a gestating entity, that unlike the victim, is not a person invested with rights at birth as our laws provide for.

If the removal of the bullet is deemed more risky than leaving it where it's at, which does actually happen with surprising frequency.

And if the "bullet" the rapist left in her wasn't life-threatening, removal of said "bullet" becomes moot in this argument.

And bullets are left in place in scenarios in which more damage/injury would result were they to be removed.

The analogy holds up quite well. No one would dream of withholding care from a shooting victim to make the victim as whole as possible after the violent assault - but *some* think it's justifiable to withhold care from an innocent victim that was criminally impregnated.

But the family member who has control over her care has to authorize an abortion. It could also be the staff did not realize she was pregnant until it was too late for an abortion.

It’s hard for me to see that there is a person to be harmed either way, except in the sense of a convenient fiction that any marginally functioning human body is a person in the legal sense.

Is she married? Are her parents still around? I’m sure that there is someone that can make the decision.

I guess the best we can hope for is that whoever made the call knew what she would have wanted.

birth.

Some medical facility, missing something like that, huh?

until she went to the hospital to give birth. She just didn't really show. If they weren't testing for pregnancy, I can see there's a possibility they might not know she was pregnant. I have no clue what the woman looks like, etc.

So shocking and horrible.

But apparently (from reading other sources) staff had no clue that the woman was pregnant until she started giving birth.

And by the way, sounds like the staff there didn't even know she was pregnant.

will soon be spitting in the bottle. DNA test for the guys. How sick is that?

and a particular person committed it.

Compelling DNA form males based solely on coincidence of working in a particular location at a particular time is an unreasonable search.

she didn't produce the baby on her own. So is there a doubt a crime took place?
They can ask men to volunteer their DNA, they have done this in other cases. Of course one doesn't have to agree, but if everybody else agrees and somebody doesn't, well, that's going to raise some red flags.

but there are legal issues with taking absence of voluntary consent as a suggestion to support a warrant.

Legally you don’t have to take any test without reasonable cause. However, as a “condition of employment” they may fire you for refusing.

If there is no employment contract, and the state is an at-will state, yes. In that case, since you can be fired at will, testing can be imposed as a condition of continued employment. But not all states are at-will states, and soem employees have employment contracts. Either would likely make mincemeat out of your propsal.

if one male refuses. Civil case allow more evidence, like polygraph. Plaintive can demand DNA and if he refuses, judge or jury could decide quilt on refusal of test. State could then demand support. Leaned a lot from my lawyer, she was great.

Civil discovery is broader than search warrants, but generally does not extend that far.

wrongful termination language, but "at-will state" doesn't really mean anything.

And is she married? Lots of messy legal issues.

I presume father will be entitled to a prison sentence, not care for the child.

Where rapists are permitted to see their children. And the mother is incapacitated in this case so that leaves him.

If not he child could be adopted. Apparently the child is healthy.

Yes, he is obligated to financially support the child - and they would have to prove him an unfit parent to terminate his parental rights and, in at least some states, the fact that he raped the mother is not sufficient to establish that. (There are women who are forced to permit the child to visit the rapist father. https://nypost.com/2017/10/09/convicted-rapist-gets-joint-custody-of-victims-child/

by DNA testing of the nursing home's male employees.

https://www.southcoasttoday.com/article/20000212/News/302129980

"A former nursing home aide who raped and impregnated a comatose patient was sentenced yesterday to 11 years in prison.

Israel Moret pleaded guilty in Essex Superior Court, admitting he raped the woman. The woman later gave birth prematurely to a baby who suffered severe brain damage. The baby now needs round-the-clock care just as her mother does.

.........

Police asked for male employees of the nursing home to submit blood samples and, using DNA matching, identified Moret as the father of the baby. He admitted yesterday to the judge that he was guilty." (more)

The legal issues (as to obtaining the samples) come if one or more refuse to cooperate.

Police can ask them to voluntarily submit DNA.

a very creepy movie. It's sick. The DNA tests will out the culprit. We can be a very sick society.
In the movie, there was revenge.

should be tested. I would assume the baby has already gotten it's blood tested, the markers from that likely will help investigators narrow the list of potential rapists.

What is wrong with people.

Sick fuck.

My thought too....

Any DA would be remiss in NOT collecting DNA from male employees. The protection of the helpless patients must be the prime concern. They have the means. Do the tests.

patients.

the rapist should be castrated, then sentenced to prison.

Like Prison Rape, vengeance cannot be part of a sentence.

Except when it can, like Capital Punishment.

As in - this is exactly what happens in the movie. Except, in the movie, pregnancy result in a stillborn baby - but it brings the woman out of a coma.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk_to_Her

You have a good memory!

I think I've seen every one.

Lots of fucked up shit goes on there that you will never hear about

… this story. Never been to AZ, and I don't know their TV news. Are we really to believe this woman being pregnant was not known until the baby was born? What kind of health care is this? Who could survive 14 years under such care? Was the woman married? Who is her power of attorney? I'm guessing - only guessing - she is unmarried and parents make the decisions? If they've kept her alive in a vegetative state for 14 years I'm guessing they are pro-life. However, nobody decided anything, because they did not know she was pregnant! After 14 years, I would expect being grossly overweight is not an issue. Also, what staff are there? Everyone with access to her needs to be screened as a possible rapist... there are, perhaps, multiple rapists... I hope the discover what happened.

They can find out who the rapist is with DNA testing and put him away. Hopefully if she has family they will want to take the baby.

Jesus!

Someone was providing nutrition to this pregnant woman -- enough nutrition so the baby was healthy.

There is NO WAY this woman went through a full term pregnancy and no one noticed.

in a vegetative state for that long? There’s a lot of fucked-up shit in this story, and that part isn’t being discussed.

I mean raping someone in that condition is horrific, but not letting them die for FOURTEEN years??!!!

before pneumonia finally got him.

Nothing special was done for him other than routine care. He was a great guy.. so sad.

The Terry Sciavo case is Florida was in court for about that long as the parents fought the husband's request to have her respirator turned off.

Right behind someone like Ted Bundy or some of the other crazy murderers who have sex with the people they kill and wear their skin.

Unreal.

but how FUCKED UP is a health care system that keeps someone alive in a "persistent vegetative state" for 14 FUCKING YEARS?

Yes, I'm yelling. And I bet the answer will be found in who profits from it.