SM said- Not going to argue over semantics.
It's not mere semantics: after centuries of debate by bioethicists, it's how modern medicine currently defines death: brain dead IS dead.
The bottom line is that once the brain is declared dead, so is the person, and their personality; the lifeless body remains and starts to decompose, UNLESS we artificially maintain blood circulation and respiration (and even that doesn't last as long as a living person, doing it on their own, i.e. the body starts to degrade, anyway).
This kind of issue hasn't arisen in the past, since we didn't HAVE the means to keep the body artifically alive after the brain died. It's a byproduct of modern medicine (artificial heart/lung machines), since in the past, the women died and nothing could be done to save a non-viable fetus.
SM said- If she was dead this would not be an issue as the baby would also be dead. Since her body is still funcitonal and only her brain is dead, the state decided to wait until the child is born before they pull her off of life support. Why kill the child when it can be saved? If the dad doesn't want the child he can simply put it up for adoption. I don't see the controversy here.
Did you read the legal brief (I linked to above) that they filed yesterday, seeking motion for relief? It covers the issues you're apparently not seeing.
In a nutshell, a cornerstone principle of freedom is that everyone own their OWN BODIES, and have the right to decide what happens to it when alive (i.e. you're able to refuse any medical treatment, for ANY reason, good or bad; it's why JWs are allowed to refuse blood transfusions), and why you're able to express wishes for what happens to your body when unconscious and unable to (AKA advanced healthcare directive), or the handling of your body after you died (cremation/burial, etc). Your body is treated as your property, your possession, and it's yours to do with as you will.
The State of TX is over-riding that, in essence saying none of that counts IF the person in question is pregnant: she's been kept on a machine since November, against her and husbands wishes (both are paramedics, and they understand the definition of death). The family is in limbo, and the husband is prevented from carrying out what his wife wanted, since the State in essence is playing God by preventing them from disconnecting her and letting them bury her and grieve, dealing with their loss. THAT is unethical.
Apo said- Me neither; if the baby can be saved, then isn't this the ethical thing to do?
Well, that's the question, and why it's interesting to consider who's rights trump: the fetus' right to be given a chance, or the mother's right to decide what care she receives, and happens to her body after death?
The pregnant woman was dead for up to an hour before they found her, and the fetus was deprived of oxygen and likely suffered long-term injury and harm; it's unknown what the long-term effects will be, but it's highly likely the child will sustain some effects. If the fetus survives to determine viability (in 4 weeks), they'd have to further violate the deceased rights to maintain bodily integrity by cutting into her to perform a Caesarian delivery, where it's considered unethical to cut into a dead body (eg to take a kidney, or perform a C-section) against the patient's expressed will. T hat's exactly WHY we have a system of voluntarily organ donation: the State needs your consent before you die in order to 'harvest' your organs AFTER you die. However, that concept of being able to decide is what's in jeopardy now.
Legislators in TX are imposing their religious morality on all citizens of the State, as if trying to force a "silver lining" to be had, when the reality is it's a painful and intensely personal matter for the family alone to decide and face; for the State to intrude into that decision, forcing a decision on the family without respecting their or the deceased wishes is simply wrong.
Adam