Does the mother or the baby take priority?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.