Jehovah's witness, patient autonomy and pregnancy

[edge_w]

As an extention of this thread:

 

The consensus is basically that the state can intervene to treat a newborn child, regardless of whether the parents give their consent.

 

What I'm curious about though, is whether this extends to children who aren't born yet? Lets say if a late-term fetus required some sort of in utero procedure, and the mother refused, would the same rules apply?

 

Discuss!

[The Law]

I thought about that same question! haha

 

I think that if the child is unborn, then it is up to the woman to decide what she wants to do with her body. I really believe that women should not be forced to undergo procedures on their body unless they want to do it. Our bodies are our mode of existence, they are our "property"... you can't take that away from someone. It wouldn't be right.

 

Of course, people will argue that "unborn children" have rights, but again this goes into a gray area where it really depends on one's subjective definition of whether or not a fetus growing in a womb should be considered as "alive and independent" from its mother.

[Jixe]

Since the woman may be at risk in this scenario, the decision would be hers.

[TimmyMax]

Hey,

 

Under the current law of the land, a fetus isn't a person until it's born. Therefore, the mother can do whatever she wants to it and not be held criminally responsible, such as refuse said life-saving in utero procedure or stab her own abdomen repeatedly in hopes of spontaneously aborting the child (although there are more painless ways to do such).

Does this make such actions ethically justifiable? Probably not, but they are perfectly within our society's laws!

[The Law]

or stab her own abdomen repeatedly in hopes of spontaneously aborting the child (although there are more painless ways to do such)

 

Yeah, I'd definitely hope so.

[Satsuma]

Hey,

 

or stab her own abdomen repeatedly in hopes of spontaneously aborting the child (although there are more painless ways to do such).

Does this make such actions ethically justifiable? Probably not, but they are perfectly within our society's laws!

 

It is sad but several years ago there was a case of a woman who had done just that. Just a few short days before her due date she stabbed her "fetus" since she decided she didn`t want it. It sparked a HUGE debate of the rights of a fetus and when those rights should come into play....since in terms of development there really isn`t much difference between stabbing your day1 old baby (for which she would have been charged with murder) and stabbing your full-term fetus about to be born in just a few days.

 

Not that I think laws would have prevented this woman from stabbing herself and her child...

[Smurfette]

Well, in the case of the fetus and the pregnant mother because the two entities are not separate. You can't physically do something to the fetus without doing something to the mother. If you operate on the fetus without the mother's consent, you are physically assaulting the pregnant mother. Since the fetus can't really make decisions (and under Canadian law, it isn't considered a human being yet), the decision rests entirely with the mother.

 

The newborn child is different because they are physically separate entities. You can give a blood transfusion to the newborn child without affecting the mother (physically anyways...the emotional or psychological or spiritual effects is a whole different issue).