The foetus was relying on the mothers blood for oxygen, its cells need oxygen as much as the mothers, it is the same supply. We can hope that by some physiological chance, sufficient oxygen was either diverted to or given to the foetus (via intervention) before damage was done. Though this is a huge roll of the dice at just 14 weeks development.
As for the heart pumping, hearts can beat by themselves without brain input, in fact human hearts can beat by itself even if removed from the body as they have their own pacemaker cells. Experts would not dare guess at the state of this foetus, to do so in ignorance on a religious forum is not appropriate. Once more people refuse to say 'we can't know' and so make up facts/science/reality to suit their personal belief.
This case is a huge unknown, it is a hugely difficult ethical dilemma. If the mother was 37 weeks I would see the logic, despite the questionable ethics. At 14 weeks, it seems to be a deisicion based on someones personal beliefs about life support and importantly that person is neither the dead mother, the partner or family as they all denied the right to this action taken. It is a predominantly a religious state's opinion, overriding patient autonomy, I hope this is not why it happened, it would be a dangerous prescident.
We won't know the result of this desicion for some time, right now a dead woman is being artificially given oxygen and nutrients via her veins to maintain a foetus in an unknown viable state. The family wish to bury them both and grieve, the state are keeping the body artificially viable. If the foetus is delivered and is a healthy baby and goes on to live with great respect and appreciation for the state we can all be glad to be wrong. But this seems to be based on no educated estimations or evidence, but a currently unrealistic want for such an occurence to take place. If the foetus is born impaired, which IF it survives is more likely than not, then the ethical dilemma is huge, a family who now has to care and maintain a child that by nature would have died, but was artificially maintained by the state. Basic issues like 'who pays the extraordinary hospital costs etc' are suddenly very relevant.
There is no right and wrong answers with ethical issues, that is lesson 101 in medicine, you can only examine the evidence and discuss the scenario's and make a desicion of best interest, if legal and .....importantly.... if with consent and respect for autonomy of the patient. This is the big issue here, they have denied the patients autonomy as she did not want this, she was a paramedic and knew the reality of 'Life support'. Her capacity is handed to her partner and family on dying, which shockingly was then also ignored. Priority was given to the autonomy and capacity of a foetus, who not having any due to being a foetus is once more handed to the parents, who again were overidden by the state.
It is an ethical nightmare and in all honesty there is no science or evidence defending the actions of the state. so what was the motive? As i said it appears TO ME to be a personal belief interpreted in a misused law about preservation of life in a pregnant woman. But, and prepare yourself for an unpleasant but honest sentence....but.... this is not a pregnant woman, it is now an artificially maintained pregnancy in a dead body. The hospital spokesman said "you cannot withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment for a pregnant patient." which makes sense, if the woman is alive, she is no longer alive, they are NOT SUSTAINING LIFE, she has already died.
It was doubtless a tough decision to make and we can't judge as easily as it appears we can, but it does seem to be based on ideology not evidence, which is perhaps regrettable. We have protocols in the UK that prevent doctors from attempting to resuscitate a premature baby below specific weeks, 21 weeks is the current line, as it is unethical to prolong an unviable life due to the probability of a very temporary and disabled existence. I am reminded of this ethical stance with this case.
