You are on page 1of 22

Nurse Reveals STD Patient to Girlfriend, Man Sues

The underlying case involves a nurse employed by Guthrie Clinic Steuben in


Corning, New York. When the nurse learned of a patient's sexually transmitted
disease, she sent 6 text messages to the patient's girlfriend, who was the nurse's
sister-in-law, about the patient's condition. The patient -- identified in court
documents as "John Doe" -- learned about the text messages, called the clinic to
complain, and then sued the clinic, despite the clinic having terminated the nurses
employment. Among other things, the patient claimed that the clinic and several
related entities had breached their responsibility under the law to keep his health
information confidential.
A trial court dismissed the plaintiff's claims, at which point he appealed to the
Second United States Circuit Court of Appeals. This court, in turn, asked the state's
highest court to decide the following question: Could a plaintiff sue a medical clinic
for breaching his rights to confidentiality when that breach was the result of a
nonphysician staff member acting outside the scope of her job duties?
Typically under New York common law, employers are liable for the actions of their
employees under 2 conditions: that their conduct was something that should have
been foreseen, and that they were acting within the scope of their employment.
Regarding the latter condition, a nurse who, in the process of transmitting medical
records to a doctor, accidentally transmits those records to an unauthorized third
party would be said to be acting within the scope of her employment. If, on the other
hand, she transmitted these same records in order, for personal reasons, to
embarrass or defame the patient in question, her employer would not be liable for
her conduct.

In asking the high court to certify the question at issue, the appeals court indicated
its belief that New York's conditions for employer liability appeared not to be met in
this case -- in other words, that the nurse's actions seemed unforeseeable and
beyond the scope of her employment. But the plaintiff has countered that "medical
clinics and corporations are separately and strictly liable under New York law" -- that
is, they can be assigned responsibility for an injury absent proof of fault -- "for
breaching their fiduciary duty to keep personal health information confidential."
Experts believe that the high court's decision could have significant implications for
future confidentiality cases in New York and beyond

Grandmother died of THIRST on an NHS ward 'after nurse refused to give her a
drink in case she wet the bed'

Edna Thompson, 85, was admitted to Maidstone hospital with eye condition
Given mannitol, which causes dehydration, to reduce pressure on her eyes
Drug is normally prescribed for 48 hours, but she was given it for five days
Her family raised concerns about her dehydration with an agency nurse but they refused
to give her a drink in case she wet the bed
Hospital trust have now issued an 'unreserved apology' for the errors
By THOMAS BURROWS FOR MAILONLINE
PUBLISHED: 09:28 GMT, 13 February 2016 | UPDATED: 12:08 GMT, 14 February 2016

2.5k

shares

1.7k
View comments

A grandmother died of thirst in hospital because a nurse refused to give her a drink - in case she wet the bed.
Edna Thompson, 85, a mother-of-three from Harrietsham in Kent, was admitted to Maidstone hospital with an eye condition
but died from dehydration eight days later.
The hospital trust have now issued an 'unreserved apology' for the errors and have taken steps to ensure it does not happen
again.

+3
Edna Thompson, 85, pictured with her late husband Fred, died when she was refused a drink as a nurse was concerned she would wet the bed

The pensioner's ordeal began when she was admitted to hospital in September last year with suspected malignant
glaucoma - a rare eye condition - after she started losing her sight.
Specialists advised an appointment at Moorfields eye hospital, while she was prescribed mannitol - known to cause
dehydration - to reduce pressure on her eyes.

The drug is typically prescribed for 48 hours, but Mrs Thompson was given it five days in a row.
Her family raised concerns about her dehydration with an agency nurse but they were allegedly told it would be inconvenient
if she had too much liquid as it would require staff to change her bedding more often.
Six days after she was admitted to hospital, her carer arrived and was unable to wake her. She raised the alarm and the
pensioner was put onto intravenous drips.
She suffered acute kidney failure and died two days later.
Her daughter, Ann Brown, said: 'I am just appalled. If they had dealt with this better, none of this would have happened and
our mother could still be alive.'

+3
The former librarian was admitted to Maidstone hospital with suspected malignant glaucoma - a rare eye condition - after she started losing her sight,
but died from dehydration eight days later

Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust chief executive Glenn Douglas admitted a catalogue of mistakes had occurred
and apologised to the family.
He said: 'I would like to offer an unreserved apology for the errors. Regrettably we cannot alter the sad outcome.
'However, I can assure you we have recognised the need to ensure this type of event does not occur again.'

+3
The pensioner from Harrietsham, subsequently suffered severe dehydration and renal failure eight days after being admitted to hospital

He said a review was underway and new procedures had been introduced to prevent it happening again.
A trust spokesman added: 'We are very sorry that Mrs Thompson did not receive the high standards of care we would expect
and we offer our deepest condolences.
'We have implemented a number of improvements to our systems and processes to improve patient care.'
The trust said the agency nurse who refused Mrs Thompson water was no longer being assigned shifts.
Mrs Thompson's family paid tribute to the former librarian who was an active member of the Women's Institute and her local
church.
As well as daughter Ann, she leaves behind daughter Sue Ealding and son Mark Thompson.
He said: 'I did not know that my first visit to her in hospital would also be the last time she would be awake or conscious
enough for us to have a coherent conversation.
'She did say, referring to both my sisters and myself, how grateful she was for everything we did.
'So now I'll say, as I wish I could have then, thank you for everything you have done for us.'
Edna, whose husband Fred died in 2012, was otherwise fit and healthy aside from multiple sclerosis and osteoporosis. She
had a live-in carer to help with cleaning and cooking.
The trust's apology comes the same week as a coroner called for changes when a patient died after being denied a CT scan
at Tunbridge Wells Hospital - because it was the weekend.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3445367/Grandmother-died-THIRST-NHS-ward-nurse-refused-drink-case-wetbed.html#ixzz43W6lc7hn
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Sydney nurse who took explicit


photo of patient under anaesthetic
still practising in NSW
By medical reporter Sophie Scott
Updated 6 Nov 2015, 2:23pm

PHOTO: Breanna's doctor told her a nurse had taken an


explicit photo of her while she was under anaesthetic.(Fairfax Media: Louise Kennerley)
MAP: Sydney 2000

Sydney school teacher Breanna (not her real name) checked into
a private hospital for routine gynaecological surgery late last
year and a few days later, the surgeon rang with the good news
that she did not have cancer.
But the doctor from Norwest Private Hospital in Sydney's north-west
had another bombshell.
She told Breanna one of the nurses had taken an explicit photo of her
while she was under anaesthetic.
"I felt like my world was exploding. I felt I was in great peril that this
photo was going to destroy my life, my career and that my son would
find out," she said.

But what has made her really angry is that there is little she can do to
stop it happening to others.
Do you know more about this story? Email investigations@abc.net.au

A 'serious invasion' of privacy


What has made Breanna really angry is that there is little she can do
to stop it happening to others.
In New South Wales, there is no law protecting patients from having
similar photos taken.
"I am an information technology teacher. I know how bad it could get
and that the photo could have ended up on the internet and being
shared," she told the ABC.
"The photo was explicit and left nothing to the imagination."
I am a larger woman. To me, it's obvious she took it to make fun of fat
people.
Breanna

Under section 91 L of the Crimes Act, it is an offence to photograph or


film someone's private parts for the purpose of obtaining, or enabling
another person to obtain sexual arousal or sexual gratification.
But that was not the case in this circumstance.
Breanna's lawyer, Fiona McLay from Harris Freidman, said there is a
serious gap in NSW criminal law.
"Breanna is genuinely concerned that no other patient suffer a similar
indignity," she said.
"The law in NSW needs to brought in line with the law in Victoria and
Queensland where it is an offence to take a photo of someone's

genitals without their consent, in circumstances where they could


reasonably expect to be afforded privacy."
The photo was shown to two other nurses in the recovery room, who
alerted hospital management.
New South Wales privacy commissioner Dr Elizabeth Coombs said
she was deeply concerned by what she called a "serious invasion" of
privacy.
"As privacy commissioner, I think people of New South Wales deserve
to have their privacy protected, and have a means to get redress
when a serious invasion has occurred," she said.

Nurse still practising without restrictions


The nurse was sacked from Norwest private hospital and her
behaviour referred to the Nursing and Midwifery Council of New South
Wales.
It found she had "expressed sincere apologies and remorse for her
actions, displayed the requisite degree of insight and level of contrition
and has taken steps to improve her practice".

PHOTO: Fiona McLay says there is a serious gap in

NSW criminal law. (Fairfax Media: Louise Kennerley)

But the nurse is still practising without restrictions or supervision.

"She now works in another operating theatre in a private hospital in


Sydney," Breanna said.
A spokesman for the hospital said it deeply regretted the incident,
which was investigated by the hospital executive and the patient's
doctor.
"The rogue actions of the nurse were a one-off occurrence in the
hospital," a hospital spokesman said.
"The nurse's colleagues, recognising the abhorrent behaviour,
followed the hospital's policy and quickly escalated the incident to the
hospital executive team."
Breanna is not seeking financial compensation but is disappointed by
the hospital's actions.
"The hospital has a clear patient's bill of rights but they haven't done
the right thing," she said.
"They should have accessed the phone and ensured that the image
was deleted as soon as possible."
The hospital said it offered her support after the incident and that
phones and cameras are banned from operating theatres.
But Breanna is frustrated the nurse cannot be charged with a criminal
offence.
"I just want to see laws changed so this doesn't happen to any other
patients," she said.
Eventually, the nurse agreed to hand over the phone and provide a
statutory declaration that the intimate image had been deleted.
The reasons why the nurse took the photo remain unclear.

But Breanna has her suspicions.


"I am a larger woman. To me, it's obvious she took it to make fun of fat
people," she said.

Breanna unable to function from stress


Since finding out about the explicit photo, the stress has meant
Breanna has been unable to function properly.
She has had to temporarily give up her job as a school teacher.
On the day of her operation, she made small talk with the nurse who
took the photo, before going under the anaesthetic.
"She told me she lived in the same area as I do and that she had
school-aged kids. So I was worried that I would bump into her
somewhere," she said.
The NSW Upper House standing committee on law and justice is
currently investigating serious breaches of privacy.
It will look at whether existing laws are sufficient to protect people's
privacy.
A spokesman for NSW Attorney-General Gabrielle Upton said the
Government was keeping a close watch on the inquiry.
"The NSW Government awaits the findings of the inquiry and will
consider any recommendations carefully," she said.
Breanna has made a confidential submission to the inquiry.
She hopes by making her story public she can get laws amended so
other patients will not undergo the same fate

Pro-abort witnesses: Its ok to deny


care to babies born alive after
botched abortions
Wed Mar 16, 2016 - 12:25 pm EST

Abortion , Dick Durbin , Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act , Senate

WASHINGTON, D.C., March 16, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) In a discussion that showed


the clear divide between pro-life advocates and supporters of abortion, two
Democratic witnesses told a Senate committee that it was defensible to remove care
from babies who survive abortions .
The comments took place at Tuesday's Senate Judiciary hearing about the "Pain
Capable Unborn Child Protection Act." The bill, a top priority of the pro-life
movement, has passed the U.S. House and failed in the U.S. Senate.
During the hearing, entitled "Late-Term Abortion: Protecting Babies Born Alive and
Capable of Feeling Pain," Senator David Vitter, R-LA, sought to clarify whether
anybody "disagrees that a child born alive should get all available medical care for
survival."
Dr. Diana Greene Foster, an associate professor of Obstetrics, Gynecology &
Reproductive Sciences and the director of research for advancing new standards in
reproductive health at the University of California-San Francisco, told Vitter that "I
can imagine there are situations where the doctors and nurses have decided that
there's not a point in medical intervention, and by whisking the baby away you've
taken away a woman's chance to hold her child and say goodbye."
When Vitter clarified his question, Foster said that "the [20-week bill] says that the
child has to be taken away and receive medical care if there are signs of life, which
doesn't allow for the physician, or the nurse, or more importantly the wishes of
the family to say that they don't think care will help in this case, and they want to be
able to hold their child."

Foster also argued that "doctors, and nurses, and women themselves, know best
whether care would lead to survival. This bill doesn't allow for that judgment to be
made."
Former abortionist and now pro-life advocate Dr. Kathi Autman immediately
disagreed with Foster, saying that "the worst complication for an abortionist is to
have the baby born alive. And I do not feel an abortionist has the best interest of that
child at stake. And the mother may not, either."
"The bill is not saying you must give that baby extraordinary care they're just
saying you have to [give] them the same care you would give to any baby at that
gestational age. ... The mother can go with them."
Christy Zink, who testified as a woman who had an abortion, said regarding her son
that "there is a possibility that this situation in itself, that ... diagnosis was not lethal.
But if he had been born, he would have been born into a life of seizure, of pain, of
suffering. And that to me, this question of survival, gets very complicated."
Dr. Colleen A. Malloy, an assistant professor of pediatrics-neonatology at the
Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, told Zink that not all children
"with seizure disorders ... live a life of pain and suffering." She also said that
abortionists do not have the best interest of the child in mind.
In a press call after the hearing, Vitter told LifeSiteNews, "The reason I asked the
question was because, from their perspective, I don't think there was any good
answer. Either they agree ... absolutely, if there's any child is born, including after a
failed abortion, that any medical assistance should be [inaudible] survival, or they
don't. And they basically didn't. They tried to muddle it up."
Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

"They basically said no, which I think tells you where they're coming from, and
where they're headed."
The mostly tame hearing did have its tense moments, such as when Melissa Ohden,
an abortion survivor and pro-life advocate, accused the Democratic witnesses of
considering only mothers, not babies who survive abortion.
Religious liberty also worked its way into the hearing. As part of his praise for
"family planning" during the hearing, Assistant Minority Leader Dick Durbin of

Illinois, the Senate's number-two Democrat, said that "when we talked under the
Affordable Care Act of extending the coverage of insurance to include contraception,
we ended up in a battle royale over religious belief."
The comments, a reference to the Obama administration's mandate that religious
groups participate in insuring contraceptives, abortifacients, and sterilization, came
shortly before Durbin tied the religious liberty fight to so-called "family planning"
policies of the U.S. federal government.
"We are continuing to restrict access to family planning in America," said Durbin.
"And as we restrict access to family planning, there are more unintended, unplanned
pregnancies, which lead to more abortions."
Durbin's office did not respond to multiple requests for comment about a study
showing that widespread access to contraceptives leads to more abortions or why the
senator was dismissing religious liberty concerns.
Vitter also asked if any witnesses denied the existence of fetal pain in babies at 20
weeks' gestation. Jodi Magee, president and CEO of Physicians for Reproductive
Health, said that research shows that no fetal pain exists until the third trimester.
When Vitter asked why doctors use anesthesia on babies for other operations, Magee
said she "cannot speak to the clinical question" asked by the senator.
Another witness, Charlotte Lozier Institute's Angelina Baglini Nguyen, said that only
one study says fetal pain doesn't exist until the third trimester the evidence is
"heavily favored in the direction" that at or before 20 weeks' gestation, unborn
children are "able to perceive and feel pain."
After the hearing, Live Action president Lila Rose said in a statement that "today,
America clearly saw the abortion industry's agenda: abortion on demand up until the
day before birth, and babies who are accidentally born during an abortion should be
left to die if that's what the mother and abortionist choose. In poll after poll, a
majority of Americans reject this disgusting position and believe abortion should be
restricted at least after 20 weeks."
Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-TN, who chairs the House of Representatives' Select
Panel that is examining the fetal parts industry, said in a statement that "it is
haunting that the testimony at the hearing revealed that abortion advocates believe
the right to terminate a pregnancy continues after the child has been delivered."

"Science tells us that these babies can feel pain and it is simply unconscionable that
any organization would allow a child born alive to die a position that was voiced
during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing this morning," said Blackburn

Paternalism vs partnership
Written by: Scott Lister | Published: 03 February 2016
How much should healthcare professionals share with patients before treatments?

Comment on this article

Last years Supreme Court case around consent, Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board (Scotland) [2015]
UKSC 11, has been called as one of the most significant in healthcare law for over 30 years. The decision has
far reaching ramifications for healthcare practice. This article explores how the case of Nadine Montgomery and
the injuries to her son during childbirth signalled a major change in the requirements placed on doctors and
nurses practice.
The thread running through the case law and discussion concerned a patients right to self-determination and
autonomy by making informed choices and decisions. The days of the doctor or nurse knowing best and
making decisions for their patients, however well intentioned, are well and truly at an end.
A doctor or nurse is bound to respect their patients rights and the law, by seeking informed consent prior to
commencing treatment. This obligation is contained in the regulatory requirements of the General Medical
Council and the Nursing and Midwifery Council. As the nursing profession develops and specialist nurses take
on more niche roles an understanding of the law on consent becomes increasingly important. For example, with
the advent of non-medical prescribing, nurses are discussing, advising and prescribing their patients drugs for
often complex and multiple problems or conditions.
The Montgomery Case
In July 2014 the Supreme Court heard the appeal of Nadine Montgomery. Mrs Montgomery gave birth to a
baby boy in 1999 at Bellshill Maternity Hospital in Lanarkshire. As a result of complications during the delivery,
the baby was born with severe disabilities. Mrs Montgomery commenced legal proceedings to recover
compensation, attributing her sons injuries to the negligence of Dr McLellan, a consultant obstetrician and
gynaecologist.
Two distinct grounds of negligence were identified. Firstly, it was contended she ought to have been given
advice about the risk of shoulder dystocia during vaginal birth and whether a C section delivery was possible.
Secondly, it was contended that the labour was managed negligently as Dr McLellan had failed to perform a C
section in response to abnormalities indicated by the cardiotocograph (CTG).
Both grounds were rejected by the Court and the decision was upheld by the Inner House. The appeal to the
Supreme Court focused on the first ground of fault. The Court was invited to reconsider the duty of a doctor
towards a patient in relation to advice about treatment.

Mrs Montgomery was described by the Court as a highly intelligent person with a scientific background.
Healthcare practitioners are aware that there can be a risk of shoulder dystocia due to the larger size of the
baby in diabetic pregnant women. Mrs Montgomery was told that she was having a larger than usual baby.
However, she was not told about the possible risks during the labour.
The obstetrician said that it was not her practice to spend a lot of time, if any, discussing potential risks of
shoulder dystocia. She explained that this was because, in her estimation, the risk of a grave problem for their
baby resulting from shoulder dystocia was very small. She considered, therefore, that if the condition was
mentioned, most women will elect to have a C section. She went on to say if you were to mention shoulder
dystocia to every diabetic patient, if you were to mention to any mother who faces labour that there is a very
small risk of the baby dying in labour, then everyone would ask for a C section, and its not in the interest for
women to have C sections.
In her evidence, Dr McLellan stated that Mrs Montgomery had not specifically asked about the risks and
therefore she had not advised her about shoulder dystocia. She had not mentioned the risk of shoulder
dystocia, because, it was her view that the risk of injury to the baby was very slight. Mrs Montgomery said that
had she been told about the risks she would have asked the doctor to perform a C section.
The delivery was a traumatic one. The child suffered with cerebral palsy caused by oxygen deprivation. He also
suffered Erbs palsy.
With GMC intervention, the Supreme Court unanimously allowed the appeal against the claims she brought on
her own behalf and that of her son.

Making decisions with an adult who has


capacity to decide
June 2015
Consent is about patients and doctors making decisions together. It is a familiar theme in the care of
children and young people, older patients, patients who are dying, and patients who have limited
mental capacity. However issues of consent can arise in all areas of care.
A recent high profile case, NM Vs Lanarkshire (pdf), enforces the need for doctors to make sure they
seek informed consent from patients and their families. NM, the mother of a child born with cerebral
palsy, sued Lanarkshire Health Board arguing that her treating consultant should have warned her of
the particular risks to her and her baby of shoulder dystocia (a mechanical problem) occurring during
delivery. She also argued that she should have been advised about the alternative possibility of
delivery by caesarean section, which would have avoided these risks and prevented her childs injury.
We were asked to clarify the correct position for doctors in this situation, as follows.
Fundamental to the doctor and patient relationship is the requirement that a patient with capacity to
decide should be informed about the treatment options open to him or her; the risks and benefits of
each option; and be supported to make their choice about which treatment best meets their needs.
The judgement is complicated and the implications for doctors are summarisedhere in this blog from
GMCs Assistant Director for Standards and Guidance, Mary Agnew. We keep all our guidance for
doctors under review, and we expect to begin outlining the potential scope of new consent guidance at
the end of this year. Keep an eye on our website for further details.

Looking back
To gain an understanding of where we have arrived it is important to look back at the development of law in this
area. A study of case law demonstrates that, in line with public attitudes, the law has shifted from an
acceptance of the medical and nursing professions paternalism to a primary acknowledgement of individual
patient autonomy.
Healthcare practitioners may be aware of the case of Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee (1957) 1
WLR 582 - a leading case setting out the test which decides if a healthcare practitioner has breached their duty
of care. The Bolam test tells us that if a practitioner acted in accordance with a practice accepted at the time
as proper by a responsible body of medical opinion they were not guilty of negligence.
The case of Sidaway v Board of Governors of the Bethlem Royal Hospital & Maudsley Hospital [1985] AC
871 wasconcerned with whether a doctor should have told the patient about the risks involved in a surgical
technique. The Court found that in order to answer this question, the Bolam test was to be applied: ie whether a
responsible body of doctors would have told the patient about the risks involved with the surgical procedure.
Importantly, patients were only to be given information that doctors felt they should be given. Accordingly,
consent cases were decided by this objective test. Expert witnesses would inform the Court what was the
reasonable standard and acceptable to a responsible body of practitioners.
A significant change was marked by Pearce v United Bristol Healthcare NHS Trust [1999] PIQR p53. In this
obstetric case it was decided that it was important to consider what may be significant to the patient, when they
are making their decision, as opposed to the significance of the risk. It was acknowledged that while a risk of a
particular event occurring may be low, this may be particularly significant to a patient and so should be
discussed with them. This led to the case of Chester v Afshar [2004] UKHL 41;[2005] 1 AC 134 which
prioritised patient autonomy: patients of sound mind should be allowed to make decisions which affect their
lives and bodies for themselves.
Take home message
There are a number of important principles here that should be considered by healthcare practitioners. They
must take reasonable care to ensure patients are aware of any material risks involved in a recommended
treatment and of any reasonable alternatives. What constitutes material cannot be reduced to percentages,
multiple factors will need to be considered, such as the nature of the risk, and the effect it would have on a
persons life. The test on whether something is material depends on the circumstances of the clinical encounter.
In deciding if a risk should be considered material it should be asked if a)
a reasonable person in the patients position would be likely to attach significance to the risk, or b) the doctor is,
or should be, reasonably aware that the particular patient would attach significance to it.

What is important is the relationship between the healthcare practitioner and patient. For the healthcare
practitioner to meet the test, they need to have a relationship with the patient and have had sufficient dialogue
with them.
For many years doctors and nurses have provided their patients with an increasing amount of information and
have moved to a partnership.
The Montgomery case places broader and more onerous responsibilities on clinicians. Therefore, the case is
arguably not merely the courts catching up with clinical practice but radically changing the rules. No longer will
consent cases be decided by expert witnesses applying objective tests but decided by the Court applying a
subjective test.
Healthcare practitioners must understand that Montgomery places obligations on them beyond just delivering
care that is seen as acceptable and common among responsible practitioners. Every patient should be
considered and treated as an individual, with individual needs and with individual thoughts as to risk.
There are some exceptions to this general rule. A practitioner will not have to comply with these rules if the
person does not have capacity or if they are a child and not Gillick competent (whether a child under 16 is able
to consent to his or her medical treatment). The law also allows for a therapeutic exception whereby information
can be withheld from a patient in certain circumstances to protect his or her health. However, this is a very
limited exception and should be carefully considered before relying on it.
Montgomery takes an axe to medical paternalism and puts patient autonomy central. Decisions
about healthcare must be made by the patient in partnership with the treating practitioner. Doctors and nurses
must ensure that patients are told about material risks and alternatives in language and ways they understand.
Consent must be an organic process and not a five minute form filling exercise. Accurate and contemporaneous
medical notes and records must be kept demonstrating the process followed and discussions which took place.
Paternalism in healthcare is giving way to partnership.

The Right To Life: Baby Born To Clinically Dead


Mother, But Will The Same Ring True In
Controversial Irish Case?
Dec 22, 2014 05:28 PM By Dana Dovey

If the right to end an unborn childs life is a mothers choice, what happens when she is no longer able to make this
decision? Thus was the case for a 23-week pregnant woman whose life was abruptly ended by a brain hemorrhage in
October. At the request of her family, however, doctors managed to keep the woman alive on life support just long enough
to save her baby.
The woman, whose identity has been withheld, was rushed to the hospital after suffering a brain hemorrhage, but
unfortunately doctors were not able to save her life, the Daily Mailreported. The womans family, however, requested that
her body be kept alive just long enough to deliver her child.
Nine weeks later, after keeping the woman alive using machines to maintain her breathing and blood flow, a team of
doctors delivered the child via cesarean section. The baby boy was born weighing nearly 4 pounds, and according to local
reports, was in perfect health.
Behind this joy, we can't forget the pain the family is feeling over the loss of this young woman, explained one of the
doctors working at Milans San Raffaele hospital, the Daily Mailreported.
Although keeping the mother alive long enough to save her baby was an easy decision for the hospital, what happens when
the family of the woman doesnt actually want this? A case of this exact kind is currently going underway in Dublin,
Ireland.
A 17-week pregnant woman in Ireland is also currently being kept alive in order to save the life of her unborn children;
however, her parents insist this is against their personal wishes. As reported by The Independent Ireland, the womans
parents have expressed their desire for their daughters life support to be switched off, despite the fact that this guarantees
the death of their grandchild.
Although choosing to take an individual off of life support is a relatively simple request to carry out, restrictive abortion
laws in Ireland are making the situation rather tricky. In Ireland, abortion is only legal if the life of the mother is in danger
or if the child has a life-threatening abnormality. Because none of these are present in this case, doctors are legally
required to do everything within their means to save the life of the child, even if this means keeping the daughter hooked
up to a ventilator against her parents wishes.

The parents are reported to be seeking legal action to pull their daughter off of life support,The Independent reported.
According to Metro, a Dublin high court will most likely make the final decision whether or not to keep the young woman
on life support.
Update: The Irish court ruled in December that the family had the right to switch off the life support machine of their, at
the time, 18-weeks pregnant brain-dead daughter. Mother and unborn child have since passed.

You might also like