Does the mother or the baby take priority?

I assume the woman is completely out of it, so where is the harm in keeping her going for another few months to give her child the chance of life? What would be gained by switching off her life support and thereby killing the child?

I think in these cases the authorities have usually got it right.

Oh dear! This can't go on .... I'm inclined to agree with jings.

How tragic for the family. To lose the baby, too, would be even more tragic. I think the baby should be given a chance to live and they're being supported whilst the baby is allowed to reach a viable stage. Such mixed emotions they will be experiencing when the mother is allowed to die after delivering the baby.

It's not necessarily against her wishes. Nobody wants to be kept alive when in a vegetative state, but things alter when you are pregnant, it's not just your life any more. Reading between the lines the husband and family fear that the baby might be damaged too due to lack of oxygen when the mother collapsed and died.

I think this has happened before, and in the UK, although I think the mother was 7 or 8 months pregnant. They kept her on the life support equipment so that the child could mature a bit more, increasing its chances of being healthy and viable when born. I think the outcome was just that; a healthy baby who was only a few weeks rather than a few months premature.

I'd say if the foetus viable then keeping the mother's body going for a few more weeks is reasonable, to give the baby a better chance.
In most countries of course there would be no choice as the cost of keeping the mother's body going would be unaffordable. Os the state of Texas footing the bill I wonder?

Many people make bold statements regarding DNR and no life-support when they are in good health and not expecting to die soon.

I'm sure this young mother would want her child to live.

On this occasion I'd say the authorities are right.

Let's hope that in a few months there'll be happy pictures of the baby with its remaining family.

Is it any different from when they kept my sister on life support for several days so that they could remove her liver and kidneys for transplantation?

I guess there might be an issue with the drugs needed to keep a pregnant woman alive for so long?

Agree with Jing

An interesting article.

www.salon.com/2014/01/08/when_anti_abortion_law_hurts_a_grieving_family_texas_denies_brain_dead_pregnant_womans_rights/here

From my personal perspective I feel the DNR should be upheld.

This case brings the book 'Brave New World' (Aldous Huxley) to mind. Apparently the foetus was at 17 weeks gestation when the lady 'died'. This foetus would not be viable at this stage. The family were against the intervention. Whose interests are being served by this intervention? Not the lady's, not the family's, probably not the foetus when even if it born un damaged, the possible mental trauma of realising that it had been incubated in its dead mother for months must be mind blowing.
The medics are performing experiments here...sad and worrying.

I haven't googled, but if Joelsnans summary of the situation is correct, that makes me feel uneasy. At 17 weeks, it must be right to say the foetus would not be viable.
If family members were unhappy with the medical/legal decision, that must be heart rending for them. I hope that the family are able to care for this baby when s/he is born. If the child is subsequently adopted, I feel helping the child understand his or her origins will be even more difficult. I do understand the need to maintain life, and I'm not saying the decision was wrong, but that it's one of those decisions that I suppose, must be made by impartial medical/legal people. I don't know what state this is happening in. But, in my view, some the the US support for the right to life goes beyond reason. (Shooting abortionists for example, whose right to life is put first there)

The state is Texas, Iam64.

Yes. When I read the original post it didn't register with me how early on in the pregnancy this poor woman was. This report here says that she was only 14 weeks gone when she collapsed.

Considering all this, I think the baby should have been allowed to die with the mother. It does sound as though this is all down to outdated, bigoted laws.

It would be a different thing if the baby was in the third trimester.

One of my close friends collapsed, and died when on the phone to her GP. She was 8 months pregnant. The GP didn't send an ambulance, but drove over 45 mins later. By then my friend had been dead for at least 40 minutes. Her baby was delivered by section. The baby was profoundly disabled, having been deprived of oxygen for so long. The paediatrician apologised, he told the father "we do some dreadful things to parents Mr x". The baby lived in hospital for 9 months. The father was repeatedly asked to take the decision to stop life support. He was unable to do this, for obvious reasons. The little baby was tube fed, and had repeated infections. The little one eventually died when the father was able to suggest that more antibiotics weren't in the child's interests.
I apologise for hijacking this thread. I know the OP isn't about the kind of situation my friends were in. But, the little baby suffered throughout life. The father suffered alongside his child.

I'm still with the doctors on this.

What are they to do if all active treatment is withdrawn and the woman continues to breathe, but inadequately and intermittently, as often happens?

Taking her off the ventilator at this stage could result in even more damage to the foetus.

TV medical dramas are to blame for leaving the public with the impression that when machines are switched-off the patient peacefully passes away. It's not like that, things can get messy.

I think the point here is that the abortion law in Texas is cruel and inhumane. The poor father already has a very young child to care for and why should the state of Texas dictate that the foetus cannot be allowed to die with its mother - only perhaps to be severely disabled when it is born.
iam64 that is appalling delivering a baby from a mother that had been dead for more that long. Surely there cannot have been any foetal heartbeat by that stage?
I think sometimes medical staff should make the call not to strive too hard. When my GD was admitted for neonatal jaundice there was a child in the same ward who had been born with very little digestive system and the NHS had been working at keeping it alive for over a year. Child and parents doomed to misery. Children with such gross deformities are never going to achieve anything like a quality of life. It is one thing sticking up for the rights of disabled people and another thing failing to admit defeat in the face of accidents and disasters so early in life.

A woman, 14 weeks pregnant becomes critically ill.
Her husband knows her wishes about DNR and asks hospital to turn of life support when, 3 weeks later, it is clear she cannot 'live' unaided by life support.

The state intervenes and keeps her breathing so a fetus can develop into a viable independent being. Against the will of all those who love her and would have loved her child.

What a dilemma. My instinct is to say that she and her child should have been allowed to die. If the unborn child had been at an independently viable stage I would probably think differently.

The use of the phrase 'DNR' is being mis-used in this case.

DNR (do not resuscitate) applies to someone with say a terminal illness who doesn't want CPR in the event of their collapse. That is very different from intervening when a young woman suddenly becomes unconsciousness - the doctors must attempt to resuscitate when she's brought into A&E. She was a young fit woman - she wouldn't have had a DNR directive, why would she?

Then when it became obvious that she wouldn't recover, that's when the legal wrangling starts, meanwhile the doctors have to continue to treat their patient.

What a horrid predicament--makes one realize how lucky we are.

Riverwalk I used DNR as meaning Do Not Maintain Life Artificially. i am not sure what the medical term is. It was something it appears the couple had talked about and when it became clear she was not able to live without artificial support then they asked for life support to be switched off.

Back in 1972. when I was pregnant with my DS2 there was a local tragedy involving a pregnant woman. She was full term and had gone into labour.Her husband was driving her to hospital and they were involved in a crash.Her husband was uninjured but the lady was dead on arrival at hospital from serious head injuries.She had an immediate section and her baby was born alive but seriously disabled from the lack of oxygen caused by her mother's death.She was never allowed to leave hospital as needed constant care, tube fed and blind and deaf.She died just before her first birthday.
It goes without saying that the father was in a terrible state over it all.He had two older children as well.There were even reports that he had been driving too fast but was exonerated due to the circumstances.
I still think of this even after all these years.