If you had a family member on life support...

Who would you want to make the decision of when (and if) the plug is pulled?

I have often sat back and listened as various folks here on DU discuss abortion. Many who find abortion personally offensive often try to come to some sort of compromise position.

"What if it was only legal prior to 20 weeks? 28 weeks?"
"What if it was only legal in cases of incest or rape?"
"What if..."

Since I am probably one of the few women on the board who has had a late abortion, I feel compelled to share my experiences in the hope that those who are struggling with this can better understand and, perhaps, cut through all the emotional garbage out there.

You should know that women do not wake up one day when they are 6-9 months pregnant and suddenly decide they can't deal with it anymore. You should also know that the vast majority of abortions which occur late in the pregnancy are not matters of convenience or even wanted events.

The last statistic I had was that more than 99% of late abortions are performed due to fetal abnormalities - the most common being anencephaly. (A condition where the skull doesn't form properly and brain matter is floating outside the body. To simplify, they all die -- some prior to birth, most during birth and very few have a few, short moments after birth.) This condition, along with other neural tube defects, is what prompted my late abortion.

When this type of diagnosis is received by the expectant woman and/or family, the first thing you feel is total numbness and an other-wordly quality. ("This cannot be happening to me.") Remember, these are wanted pregnancies! While there have been many medical advances which seek to disclose such serious information earlier in the pregnancy, there are still limits. Anencephaly cannot be fully ruled out until about 16 weeks.

In essence, the families are faced with a death sentence -- much like having a loved one on life support. My question to those of you who think abortion -- especially late abortions -- should be limited: Who should make the decision when and if a loved one is removed from life support? Should that be dictated by the government or should it be left in the hands of the families and their medical professionals?

they know to pull the plug on me

is the woman carrying the baby. Period. Not her spouse, not her parents, not her church, not her doctor and definitely not her government.

but when I was faced with the possibility of having to make this decision myself, I was thankful for the love, support, and agreement of my husband and family. I'm glad I didn't have to go through it alone. However, you cannot legislate a strong marriage or a supportive family. Legally, it would have been my decision and, ultimately, I took comfort in that.

edited to add that, in the case of removing life support, it's the patient's decision but if there is no clear legal directive than the family must take that burden. This isn't something to be handled via some government agency.

It was a horrible experience. The couple would have been a lot better off with a late abortion IMO.

what a decision to have to make. You, as the parent, should be allowed to make the determination on a matter such as that.

If the baby is going to be born with gross abnormalities then late term arbotions should be permitted...


I think where the ethical and moral dilemmas arise for folks in the middle is at what stage in the abortion scheme as proposed by the Supreme Court should abortions of healthy fetuses be allowed...


As to your second question the removal of life support is best left in the hands of the parties involved....

Is it then moral for the government to decide that all parents carrying a child who will have life-long difficulties must abort?

Is a fetus with Down's Syndrome considered healthy? Spina bifida?

You said: "Gross Abnormalities" Who makes the distinction between gross and minor?

It's up to the woman. With the advice of her doctor & the support of her husband.

I'm sure someone can supply links to medical sites showing gross deformities.

be if the fetus could live outside the mother without any life sustaining apparatus.

The friend I spoke of in a different post carried her anencephallic daughter to term and spent 40-some minutes with her before she died. No apparatus was needed. Once the child was born, the medical teams left the room so she and her husband could spend what time they had with the infant.

I can't define it .....

My only point is I think there's a consensus that if the baby is going to be born with gross abnormalities then an abortion should be permitted at any stage...The debate become murkier when you are discussing healthy fetuses....

Let me flip our discussion. Let's say the government does define gross abnormalities and Spina Bifida is included in their definition. Would that then dictate that doctors urge parents of spina bifida children to terminate pregnancies? What if the parents wanted to continue the pregnancy? Would then the government refuse to help support that child?

It all eventually comes back to choice -- the woman and her family's. They will be the people who have to make all the adjustments and sacrifices required for a special needs child. The family should not be forced into such a situation any more than it should be forced out of one.

Nobody likes to discuss the costs of keeping babies alive. There is no way our Repug government will help people with sick children. That is just another hypocrisy we see with the pro-life crap.

Personally, I think it would be easier for me to terminate a pregnancy than sit for hours watching a child die. Hopefully, we will all have the right to make the decision that is best for us alone.

if the government 'defines" normal vs gross, they will be opening the door to having to pay for the care of severely handicapped kids.. Right now, the hodgepodge of insurnace coverages is handling this,m but as costs rise, and employers stop offering coverage, there will be realy dollars attached to these conditons..

the ones who "love life at any cost" will change their tune when they have to start paying for all these medical costs..

When things come down to dollars we can always figure what side the repubes will land on..


Right now they are hanging on to the "moral" issue, because the do not think they are being asked to pay money..

My opinion is that the definitive decision rests with the woman, she's the one carrying the baby, it's her decision.

I'm sorry you had to go through that, we've known two women that faced similar situations, neither took your route, whether they regretted their decisions is inconsequential compared to what they and you had to go through. What I may think of their decision is also inconsequential compared to showing love and support.

I believe that the family and physicians should make these decisions without interference from the Government. I believe that people should respect those decisions.

A friend of mine was placed in the same situation as I was. She chose to carry to term.

One day I tearfully admitted to her that I thought she was so much stronger that I was because of the decision she made. She immediately teared up as well and told me she always thought I was the stronger because of my decision.

We finally decided that we were both equally strong because we made the decisions we felt were the best for ourselves and our families. (Not to mention that we both lived through subsequent pregnancies with all the anxiety, fear and unknowns.)

I don't want to advocate any one position here. Not all women will choose to terminate a pregnancy even when they know the outcome will be horrific. I want to advocate that the choice should remain firmly in the hands of the woman. She's the one who will have to re-learn how to live after the fact -- she's the one who is losing a loved one.

This is my main concern with abortion laws.

My best girlfriend and I were pregnant at the same time. I gave birth to a healthy 10 lb boy, perfect in every way. My friend had a baby girl with microcephaly, among other birth defects. We didn't know; the pregnancy seemed normal. I blame the doctor for not letting her know, but that's a whole "Nuther Oprah".

We were both crushed. We had planned on our children growing up together, attending each other's birthday parties, etc. We still did all those things, but I always felt guilty for having a healthy child.

We talked about it many times, and she always said she would never have put that precious little girl through that tough life (she was only "supposed" to live a year or two, but lived for 11 years). It was hard on everyone concerned; physically, financially and emotionally. The other children in the family had to do without a lot of attention, but they loved their baby sister. But mostly it was hard on baby Jenn, who had to undergo many surgeries and much therapy, most for nothing.

Much like an adult on life support with no hope of a future, as family, we have to decide how selfish we are. The most giving thing, the most unselfish thing, IMHO, is to let that dear life go so as not to be subjected to pain and suffering with no hope of a "normal" future.

Q#1. It was my father. He was unconscious due to brain swelling following a stroke. He was 52 years old. His affairs were not in order so under MA law his wife (2nd) decided to pull the plug after it was clear that the drugs were not working. Previously, he has awakened for a short time because of drugs, but they stop being effective after awhile. The prognosis was pretty grim. He was not brain dead or in a PVS, but it was clear that he would never wake up.

For my single self, I want the probate judge making the call. I have no children and do not trust my collateral relatives with the decision and do not want to burden my wife with it.

Q#2. The individual should decide in all cases except when she is unconscious. Then the descision should be based on her likely wishes. That's what should be. On the other hand, I'm getting pretty sick of losing elections because of this issue. Right-to-lifers vote on this issue alone. Pro-choice voters do not. In most of Ohio, politicians are either pro-life or unemployed. If Roe is reversed, maybe we will get some single issue voters.

There are liberals who hold the right to choose as a trump card. I'm one of them. It is the first and last position I look at before marking my voting card.

I'm terribly sorry about your father. It doesn't matter if you've known the person for years or for a few short weeks, when you love him/her it is always difficult to say goodbye.

If a physician says there is no hope then the decision should rest with the family. I hate to even say it but with some Dr.s (and pharmacists) thinking they have the moral answers to prescribe and decide for others, I would appreciate only family making that decision for me.

...but that the choice; the final choice, lays with the woman because as many of us know, women don't take aborting a child in any trimester lightly, no matter what the right-wing men, and their Stepfordish wives try to shrill to the public.

In an ideal marriage, I believe the husband has as much input in the decision as the wife, but seeing that this is very uncommon these days, the last word should remain with the woman since the woman is the one who carries all the psychological and physical burdens and after-affects.

Being a Christian, I believe I have NO RIGHT to judge another "lest I be judged". In my belief, a man and woman, when married becomes ONE in body, soul and mind, therefore he has as much to say in such a dire matter. However in a good marriage, that's need never be a problem.

As for continuing or ending artificial lifesupport...I believe that when one spouse is incapable of making that decision his/herself, the other half has that sole responsibility.

Good and true Christians know this. They know that when a man takes a girl to his tent, and makes her a woman, she becomes his, and he becomes hers, and all decisions about them, and their nuclear family after-wards, is no concern of the outside family.

That's just how we see it here in my family.

I don't know any State where a healthy woman in her third trimester with a healty fetus can just walk into an abortion clinic and get an abortion. If there is one, I'd like to know, but I seriously doubt it. Most clinics only perform abortions in the first trimester and it gets harder to find one that can do it in the second. After that point, legal abortions just don't happen unless some serious health issue for the mother or fetus comes up.

If someone can prove me wrong on this, enlighten me.

...although I've never been put in that, what I see as, difficult position myself.

My best friend had one abortion when she discovered she was three and a half weeks pregnant.

Her doctor made NO fuss about it, and she went to the clinic and had it performed. This happened some 13 years ago, here in (liberal) Southern California.

She's African American and she had one child back then; no father, and no income, and she did what she thought was best for her and her then infant son.

Another woman, a staunch Republican (Bush lover) and Peruvian-who-wished-she-was-Cuban (for some strange reason) had no less than FOUR, though she refused to allow her then 13 year old, sexually active daughter to take contraceptives "because they're Catholic".

The result? The girl was a mother at 15.

We had a heated discussion about this (as liberal Democrats and staunch Republicans usually do) and told her that should I notice my daughter "weedle-waddling" in front of boys, I'll take her straight to the doctor for the pill.

She accused me of "making it easier", and "encouraging" my daughter to be sexually promiscuous, and then I pointed out to her the fact that I had raised my younger sister (see her pic at the upper left corner) and when she turned 17 and was becoming sexually active, I advised her to take the pill to protect herself.

Of course, this was before Aids and other deadly sexually transmitted diseases were so well-known--but it helped her, and she did not become a mother before her time--unlike this ex-friend's daughter.

With so many ways to avoid unwanted pregnancies in this era, abortion should no longer be necessary, but again, religion enters the picture, and because of religious beliefs of the parents, young girls of all races find themselves mothers before their time because they were simply not informed by their parents about alternative methods to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

To date, my daughter, who is 13 (going on 30--mea culpa!), has not had a boyfriend, and is more focused on getting straight 'A's' (so far she's won herself this school year four out of six that she's sure of).

Before, when I spoke frankly with my sons and daughter about sex, and they giggle or look uncomfortable, I simply tell them that the reason I am doing that is because as a mother, I don't want to send them into the big world unarmed, and uninformed.

Then they understand it, and now we talk openly about relationships, and what they are, and are not ready for; they feel they can talk to me about these things, openly and unafraid, and that's exactly the culture I have fought to create between me, as their parent, and them, my precious children.

But I understand that in some households this doesn't happen, therefore I believe that a woman's right to choose should remain law of the land, until it becomes commonplace for parents to speak openly, and unrestrained with their children in a serious, open discussion and debate.

That's just what works for us...

Not picking on you specifically, but every time we have one of these discussions on DU there seems to be a misunderstanding from some regarding the current state of abortion law. Can't tell you how many times I've seen "I'm for Roe with restrictions" followed by all of their emotional arguments as if that isn't already the case.

Your Subject line just triggered one of my pet peeves, thats all! :)

Namaste

In *every* state in the US, abortions on fetuses that are diagnosed as medically viable post 24 weeks are illegal. Now, viability is legally required to be proven by the attending physician and doesn't just include gestational age as qualifying criteria. You can have a living fetus at 32 weeks be considered non-viable becase it has a medical condition (genetic disorder, pronounced organ maldevelopment, etc.) that renders it incapable of surviving outside the uterus.

Then there are also the practical and ethical limits that bind physicians from performing late abortions. No responsible physician would ever jeopardize the health of their patient unnecessarily. Considering that late abortion carries a similar statistical risk to the woman's health as continuing a pregnancy to term and delivery also carry, physicains are morally and ethically bound to only perform a late abortion where there is a compelling medical reason to justify the procedure, including endangerment of the woman's health and/or the fetus is compromised to the point theat viability will never be achieved. Any doctor who is found to have gone beyond these bounds needn't worry just about the legal status of their actions. They will also lose their license and board certification qualifications which allow them to practice medicine in the first place...

I was pretty sure that was the case.

Namaste

If we ever start putting restrictions on abortion, that one should be left unrestricted. I'm not going to get tripped up with "who defines abnormalities" We'll cross that bridge when we come to it. I hope we never do.

The wishes and desires of the individual should be respected first. If unavailable then the wishes and desires of the loved ones comes next. In the case where there are no family or loved ones avail the state decides.

It is my considered opinion that it is not simply life that we protect. Specifically it is the continued existance of the mind. From the moment it is reasonable to presume that a mind exists we should consider its continuation as a moral factor.

From the moment such a condition of a mind exists to the point where there is no hope of its continuation one should struggle to maintain it.

Medically speaking there are occaisions when damage can occur to the brain that renders the mind nonfunctional. But our medical learning leads us to understand that such conditions can be corrected either through our skills or natural healing. In such a case we extend same rights we give to an existing mind in the hopes that it will return. Should we become aware that there is little to no hope of their return it is appropriate to allow the body to die as the mind is no longer there.

There are of course individuals that for various reasons choose to embrace death. While this is their right it is also your right to challenge them and struggle to keep them from making that descision. You cannot prevent them but if you believe that there is reason for them to stay then present it.

In matters of abortion until there is a functional brain present there is no chance of harming a mind. Until that point IMO it is merely a medical procedure with no moral consequence. But once a brain is present and functional we begin moving into morally uncertain territory.

The mere presense of a brain does not mean there is positively a mind present. A mind is not just the wiring of the brain. It is a brain combined with enough experience to create a neural net sufficient to give rise to a mind. Thus a fetus with a brain is a cipher. It may or may not have a mind. The further along in the gestation the more complex the moral issue becomes.

And sentimentality, and religion and myth, which are all unnecessary, as far as I'm concerned.

I'm a libertarian, and I favor restrictions on abortion. Sounds kind of fucked up, doesn't it? My problem lies with the idea that "life, liberty or property," should not be infringed upon by either the government, or another human being.

Not to say that a fetus is a human -- I don't necessarily need to assign either full-blown "baby" status, to a fetus, nor can I, in good conscience, call what some people see as their unborn children "parasites."

Science is getting closer to guiding us toward a reasonable point where the fetus takes on "self awareness," "consciousness," and can "feel pain." Since I do not believe in "souls," this is all I have to go on. Between political theory and modern medicine, I believe that rational adults should be able to work out a fair, enforceable compromise to all of this -- and we should leave the sloganeering, framing, blanket assertions and sentimentality behind.

The problem is thus: technically, the law of the U.S. is not supposed to rule upon what the prevailing religious charlatans are currently defining as "life." Even though the anti-choicers see it as "absolutism," it is only absolute insofar as their little bubble stretches. There are conflicting definitions, conflicting science revelations, conflicting expert opinions, and all of this, of course, has to take into account the "rule of law," the questions of privacy, ownership, etc.

Which is to say, that, out of this evidence, which includes broad- brush sloganeering, such as "it's the woman's body, and she has the right to choose," any person can reaonsably cobble together an "opinion," or a "worldview," of abortion, life, what it means to be alive, etc.. In other words: IT'S COMPLETELY ARBITRARY.

Therefore, in my opinion, the best way to settle this question is through arbitrary means, i.e. compromise, rather than absolutist, black-and-white pronouncements. The way you settle an arbitrary dispute is through consensus building. It seems, that, in this case, consensus building would involve restrictions and regulations on abortion that appease neither side, completely, but leave a certain window open for people to rationally exercise their own rights and best interest.

And I hear those who say, "the fundies will never rest," -- well, I hear that fundie, over in the corner, screeching his or her head off about Jeebus and who knows who in the womb, and what not, and I say to the fundie: "shut the fuck up, and come to the table."

By relegating this debate to the continued and eternal head-butting of absolutist ideologies, we've created an opportunity for tons of other issues to fall by the wayside, provided an emotional, hot-button wedge for the right to manipulate their footsoldiers, and make ourselves look, too, cold and unwavering, in the process.

One person's blastocyst is another person's baby. We can't forget that. And the question of the right to one's own body can also apply to the unborn child, whether people want it to, or not.

Also, I understand that almost all late-term abortions are for medical reasons. You don't think that we can't work this out? And I'm aware, too, that we can actually broaden the definition of life to include BORN CHILDREN, in this process, as well, and perhaps take footsteps toward an actually healthy attitude about sex, and bodies, in this country. Some people don't want any "compromise," but all laws ass some people out, whether officially, or through other channels. What the left stands to gain from sensible restrictions on abortion is much larger than what we stand to lose.


**edited for bolding

In my mind's eye (which I realize is not your mind's eye), there shouldn't be a public debate. We have allowed the shrills to rule the day and force the issue into a wedge. I'm advocating removal of the wedge.

At the end of the day, no one - especially the government - should have a say on what my doctor and I deem medically appropriate for my situation. In fact, no one should have a say on what I deem medically appropriate for myself.

In my experience there is no larger joy or unsumounted agony than pregnancy. The subsequent pregnancies following my anecephallic child were excruicating. There were times when I thought I might completely fall apart from all the "what ifs" and medical procedures.

Since it is a proven fact that no birth control method is 100% effective, should my husband and I then be forced to live our lives as celebate roommates? It isn't only the one pregnancy which ends horribly that is on the table here... it is the subsequent pregnancies as well. If my husband and I had sex and I became pregnant, should he and I not have the right to look to our own mental and physical health?

I can see of absolutely no circumstance when a woman/family should have to turn over their reproductive rights to the government. I suppose that means that I would not be welcome at your table.

It is also irrational to believe that fundies will come to the table.
They are not coming to the table.
They are extremists.
Adopting what we believe to be a 'reasonable' position on the matter can't be much more than posturing.

after their vacation break is about doctor assisted life termination. State of Oregon.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/04-623.htm

The 'frame' around this issue is either:
Assisted 'suicide', or, assisted 'death'

You decide the frame with your beliefs.

It's important that we all understand what and how late term abortions are.

I had a friend who had a late term abortion. Like you, she wanted this child but found the child would not live. Further, it was likely that she would bleed to death if she continued to carry this child. Even under these circumstances, having the abortion was extremely difficult for her. She was Catholic and the church did not support her decision.

Her experience changed my views on abortion. I was always pro-choice but choice became a much more important issue to me. It is a matter of life and death for women.

To answer your question...Ideally, my loved ones would have living wills or would tell me ahead of time what their wishes are. I believe the individual should make the choice. If not, then the immediate family and the doctors should make the decision.

following any expressed wishes of the person in question.

sorry.

should be left in the hands of the family, even when the loved one has not left specific instructions. The government should not be dictating this most personal and difficult decision, in any way. Sometimes even the doctors, other than giving their diagnosis, should not be involved due to the fact they may have religious beliefs that dictate their opinion.

As far as abortion, including late abortions, the decision to have one should be left to the woman. It is a most difficult decision at best and again the government has no business in the woman's choice.

When I make all my decisions, I consult George Bush first.
If he is unavailable (i.e., on vacation) I put up my personal medical issues to a public referendum.

I also consult community standards of decency before I think about engaging in a sexual activity. If my community would disapprove, I try to fantasize about something else.

In short, I believe in family values; and that means that nothing should ever be decided privately by families.

Those of us who believe in limited government intimately understand how we need unlimited government in every aspect of our lives so that we will be a rigid, morally obnoxious, uniform people who need no moral governing. Hence we are free.

My president is a smart man. He makes the decisions.

My dear Father was dying of Cancer of the everything after 5 pretty good years fighting mixed non-hodgkins lymphoma. After 5 years, all of a sudden it metasticized to everything. He decided to call it a day.

Over a four month period I got a lot of closure with a man I knew as well as I know anyone now or knew anyone before. At the end he was about a week from dying: he was jaundiced with ascities and had a morphine drip with a demand pump. When I knew no one was watching, I hit the demand button for an extra dose, and watched my watch for the 5 minute reset. I repeated this for 6 hits; with the dose he was getting, I knew this would be a fatal overdose. He went quietly with my mother watching his last breath and me holding his hand.

This was a PROUD man, and he said during the last months that it was a race as to which was going to kill him first: cancer or mortification.

I have never regretted this action.

I vote that government should stay out of medical decisions but I hate America so what do I know? :sarcasm:

I don't know any doctor who would recommend any other course of action than what you took, and it must have been extremely painful for you to make that choice. I'm truly sorry.

for sentimental, religious and denial reasons. These poor people are comatose, often in pain and susceptible to infection, pneumonia and decubitus. There is no quality of life whatsoever.
I've told my kids and my brother that I do not want to be kept alive under these circumstances.
As far as a family member being incapacitated like that, I would painfully opt for discontinuing their lives being prolonged in that manner.