Brain-Dead Woman 'Gives Birth'

A few weeks ago, the media was all over a touching story: A 26-year-old pregnant woman, suffering from a fast-moving malignant melanoma, tragically died when the tumor attacked her brain. Unlike the Terri Schiavo case, the woman's grieving husband and family all accepted that she was dead. But, believing that she would have wanted them to save her baby against all odds, they arranged for her to stay on life-support until the fetus was viable enough to be taken from its brain-dead mother.

The woman's body was kept “alive” for 3 months until the cancer, which was also growing due to the life support, ravaged the body and threatened to harm the fetus. At that time, the baby was removed from the mother's body, which was allowed to finally die along with the brain. Delivered at 29 weeks, the baby is reportedly healthy and doing well; any implications of the mother's disease to the baby are not yet known, but, according to the media quoting the doctors, it seems unlikely.

Happy Ending or Ethical Nightmare?

Much has been made in the popular press and in news releases from certain right-to-life groups about the dead mother's “noble sacrifice.” The family itself wisely kept largely out of the media spotlight, preferring to grieve and to welcome the baby in privacy. The situation itself, however, raises grave doubts:

According to The Washington Post, the decision to save the baby was made by the husband, who strongly felt that he was following his wife's wishes. There is no mention of these wishes being put into wording by the wife before her death, although that does not mean that she did not have them. We assume, although we do not know, that the husband had power of attorney. But what if, or in a similar case, he did not? Like the Shiavo case, the action of keeping a loved one's brain-dead body alive without specific instructions from the individual is troubling, since it implicates their right to privacy.

If the baby had emerged damaged or dead, could the doctors who kept the mother's body alive have been held liable, and, if so, under what legal theories — such as wrongful birth?

Suppose the woman's body had rejected life support, thereby killing the unborn fetus. Again, would the doctors be liable? Or, perhaps, would the husband also be liable?

Should the woman's health insurance cover the costs of keeping her body alive so that the unborn child could become viable during this incubation time? Or should it just cover the unborn child? And, how would it be possible to differentiate the two?

Call for Responses

It seems that the implications of keeping alive a brain-dead body, whether for purposes of prolonging a pregnancy, or because family members cannot accept the fact of death, is fraught with ethical implications and moral hazards. We invite our readers to send us their comments, which we will print in a future issue in a Forum format. Send your thoughts to Editor-in-Chief Michael Clark, [email protected]; or the author at [email protected]. We are very anxious to know your thoughts.

A few weeks ago, the media was all over a touching story: A 26-year-old pregnant woman, suffering from a fast-moving malignant melanoma, tragically died when the tumor attacked her brain. Unlike the Terri Schiavo case, the woman's grieving husband and family all accepted that she was dead. But, believing that she would have wanted them to save her baby against all odds, they arranged for her to stay on life-support until the fetus was viable enough to be taken from its brain-dead mother.

The woman's body was kept “alive” for 3 months until the cancer, which was also growing due to the life support, ravaged the body and threatened to harm the fetus. At that time, the baby was removed from the mother's body, which was allowed to finally die along with the brain. Delivered at 29 weeks, the baby is reportedly healthy and doing well; any implications of the mother's disease to the baby are not yet known, but, according to the media quoting the doctors, it seems unlikely.

Happy Ending or Ethical Nightmare?

Much has been made in the popular press and in news releases from certain right-to-life groups about the dead mother's “noble sacrifice.” The family itself wisely kept largely out of the media spotlight, preferring to grieve and to welcome the baby in privacy. The situation itself, however, raises grave doubts:

According to The Washington Post, the decision to save the baby was made by the husband, who strongly felt that he was following his wife's wishes. There is no mention of these wishes being put into wording by the wife before her death, although that does not mean that she did not have them. We assume, although we do not know, that the husband had power of attorney. But what if, or in a similar case, he did not? Like the Shiavo case, the action of keeping a loved one's brain-dead body alive without specific instructions from the individual is troubling, since it implicates their right to privacy.

If the baby had emerged damaged or dead, could the doctors who kept the mother's body alive have been held liable, and, if so, under what legal theories — such as wrongful birth?

Suppose the woman's body had rejected life support, thereby killing the unborn fetus. Again, would the doctors be liable? Or, perhaps, would the husband also be liable?

Should the woman's health insurance cover the costs of keeping her body alive so that the unborn child could become viable during this incubation time? Or should it just cover the unborn child? And, how would it be possible to differentiate the two?

Call for Responses

It seems that the implications of keeping alive a brain-dead body, whether for purposes of prolonging a pregnancy, or because family members cannot accept the fact of death, is fraught with ethical implications and moral hazards. We invite our readers to send us their comments, which we will print in a future issue in a Forum format. Send your thoughts to Editor-in-Chief Michael Clark, [email protected]; or the author at [email protected]. We are very anxious to know your thoughts.