White, Pamela

English

The seeds of the anti-abortion success realised by Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization were planted decades ago by earlier judgments designed to limit access to legal terminations and by state legislatures inserting foetal personhood rights into laws and regulations not directly related to abortion. Adoption by 36 US states of ‘pregnancy exclusion clauses’ in advance directives is one such example where a pregnant person’s agency and advance decision-making can be overruled to ensure the development of a gestating foetus. This paper explains current legal frameworks. It notes that nations not recognising foetal legal personhood need to be mindful of attempts taken to weaken autonomous decision-making and of utilitarian arguments advocating for foetal preservation based on a limited number of successful maternal life-support studies. The fact that a braindead, PVS or comatose pregnant woman has no conscious awareness does not give clinicians, or anyone else, licence to perform unwanted medical procedures irrespective of supposed treatment benefits accruing to a foetus. To do so undermines the very foundation of ethical health care

Kent Academic Repository

White, Pamela (2022) Right to Life Means No Right to Death with Dignity.  feminists@law, 11 (2). pp. 1-5. ISSN 2046-9551. Kent Academic RepositoryDownloaded fromhttps://kar.kent.ac.uk/104448/ The University of Kent's Academic Repository KAR The version of record is available fromhttps://doi.org/10.22024/UniKent/03/fal.1114This document versionPublisher pdfDOI for this versionLicence for this versionCC BY (Attribution)Additional informationVersions of research worksVersions of RecordIf this version is the version of record, it is the same as the published version available on the publisher's web site. Cite as the published version. Author Accepted ManuscriptsIf this document is identified as the Author Accepted Manuscript it is the version after peer review but before type setting, copy editing or publisher branding. Cite as Surname, Initial. (Year) 'Title of article'. To be published in Title of Journal , Volume and issue numbers [peer-reviewed accepted version]. Available at: DOI or URL (Accessed: date). EnquiriesIf you have questions about this document contact ResearchSupport@kent.ac.uk. Please include the URL of the record in KAR. If you believe that your, or a third party's rights have been compromised through this document please see our Take Down policy (available from https://www.kent.ac.uk/guides/kar-the-kent-academic-repository#policies).                                                                                                                                                                        ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________feminists@law Vol 11, No 2 (2022)Right to Life Means No Right to Death with DignityPamela M. White1 The seeds of the anti-abortion success realised by Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization2 were planted decades ago by earlier judgments designed to limit access to legal terminations3 and by state legislatures inserting foetal personhood rights into laws and regulations not directly related to abortion. Adoption by 36 US states of ‘pregnancy exclusion clauses’ in advance directives is one such example where a pregnant person’s agency and advance decision-making can be overruled to ensure the development of a gestating foetus.4 The 1981 Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA) and adoption of state AdvanceDirective legislation5 during in the mid-1980s, triggered a two-pronged campaign by the Pro-Life lobby to challenge legislation that might obstruct life-support treatments for braindead individuals, especially pregnant women.6 One prong argues for a religious-based definition of death: cessation of pulmonary-cardiac function.7 It challenges the legal neurologicaldefinition of death including administration of the apnoea test, considered by clinicians as thedefinitive assessment of brain-death.8 The apnoea test has come under increased scrutiny in 1 Pamela M. White, LLM, PhD, Senior Lecturer in Medical Law, Kent Law School, University of Kent. Email:p.white-229@kent.ac.uk.2 Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, No. 19-1392, 597 U.S. ___ (2022)3 Use of state trigger laws. See Guttmacher.org State legislation tracker. https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy4 ES DeMartino, BP Sperry & CK Doyle “US State Regulations of Decisions for Pregnant Women WithoutDecisional Capacity’ JAMA 2019 321(16) 1629-1631 at 1630. See Flanagan at n6 for an update on figures.5 1985 Uniform Rights of the Terminally Ill Act (URTIA).6 Shea Flanagan, ‘Decisions in the Dark: Why Pregnancy Exclusion Statutes are unconstitutional and unethical’Northwestern University Law Review. 2020 114:9697 New Jersey has legalised religious definitions of death.8 Ariane Lewis, David Greer. ‘Medicolegal Complications of Apnoea Testing for the Determination of BrainDeath. Bioethical Inquiry. 2018. 15. 417-428.1                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Pamela M. White No Right to Death with DignityUS,9 Canadian,10 and UK11 courts. Opposition to the neurological determination of death notonly frustrates organ donation, but also enables ongoing life-support until organ death occurs. Without a definitive brain-death determination, administration of life-support cannot bedefined as futile treatment and will therefore carry on until organ death occurs.12 The second prong of the campaign encouraged state legislatures to include pregnancy exclusion clauses in advance directive legislation, thereby circumventing Roe v Wade.13 By 2020, just 14 states permitted physicians to honour a pregnant woman’s advance medicaldirective. Foetal ‘viability’ legally (not medically) set at 14 weeks gestational age14 overridesan advance directive in 12 states, with another 5 states making life-support dependent on treatment benefits accruing to the foetus. In the remaining 19 states, maternal life-sustaining therapies must be provided regardless of foetal viability or existence of an advance directive.  Prior to Dodds, over 70% of US states had legislated ‘right-to-life’ for the gestating foetusand mandated ongoing life-support for pregnant women in PVS, braindead, or persistentcoma conditions until the baby can be safely delivered usually by caesarian section or dies in 15utero. 9 See: (Israel Stinson v Children’s Hospital Los Angeles [2016] BS164387; Re Guardianship of Hailu [2015]361 P.3d 5; McMath v California [2015] No. 3:15-06042 N.D. Cal.; Re Allen Callaway [2016]; Re Mirranda Grace Lawson [2016]; Brett and Yvonne Shively v Wesley Medical Center and Lindall Smith [2006]; Alex Pierce v Loma Linda University Medical Center [2016]); Brett and Yvonne Shively v Wesley Medical Center[2006], Court of Appeals of the State of Kansas); Re Allen Callaway [2016] DG-16-08); Re Mirranda Grace Lawson [2016] CL16-2358; Alex Pierce, thirteen-years-old (In Alex Pierce v. Loma Linda University MedicalCenter [2016];Durbin K. Monroe Co parents proposing “Bobby’s Law” in honor of son taken off life support.The Blade. Published 2019. Accessed December 9,2019.https://www.toledoblade.com/local/suburbs/2019/12/02/bobbys-law-bobby-reyes-monroecounty-taken-off-life-support-university-ofmichigan/stories/2019120215010 Morlani et al v Haddari 2021 ONSC 7288.11 Re M (Declaration of Death of Child) (CA) [2020] 4 WLR 52; Barts Health NHS Trust v Dance & Ors [2022] EWHC 1435 (Fam) at 75-76 and 99; Barts Health NHS Trust v Dance & Ors [2022] [2022] EWFC 80, 2022 WL 02792515 at 2 and 17.12 G Yanke, MY Rady, J Verheijde and J. McGregor. ‘Apnoea testing Is Medical Treatment Requiring Informed Consent’ The American Journal of Bioethics 2020 20(6) 22-24. AR Joffe, ‘the Apnoea test: Requiring Consent for a Test that is a Self-Fulling Prophecy, Not fit for Purpose and Always Confound?’ The American Journal ofBioethics 2022 2096) 42-44.13 E Villarreal, Pregnancy and Living Wills: A Behavioral Economic Analysis, 2019 128 YALE L.J. F. 1052.14 The notion of viability at 14 weeks gestation does not align with medical understandings of foetal viability commonly thought to be 22-28 weeks gestation and defined as when the The limit of viability is the gestationalage at which a prematurely born fetus/infant has a 50% chance of long-term survival outside its mother's womb.See: Breborowicz GH (January 2001). "Limits of fetal viability and its enhancement". Early Pregnancy. 5 (1): 49–50.15 ES DeMartino, BP Sperry & CK Doyle “US State Regulations of Decisions for Pregnant Women WithoutDecisional Capacity’ JAMA 321(16) 1629-1631 at 1630.2                                                                                                                                   ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________feminists@law Vol 11, No 2 (2022)Legislative removal of a pregnant patient’s medical decision-making autonomy has not goneunchallenged. The 2013 Muñoz case exposed a disturbing situation of a neurologically braindead pregnant Texas resident being kept artificially ‘alive’ for two months against thewishes of her husband.16 Yet, the US in not alone in overruling family wishes of a peacefulpassing for their pregnant braindead family member. Natasha Petrie, a pregnant Irish residentwas pronounced neurologically dead in December 2014.17 Concerns about the legalimplications of Ireland’s Eighth Amendment establishing equal rights for the ‘unborn child’ and the pregnant woman contributed to the decision to sustain Natashia’s body on life-support for a month against her family’s wishes.18 Truog observes it is women who are being kept biologically alive contrary to their own or family members’ directives or even standard medical practice so to enable the delivery of aviable child.19 A 2021 study of 35 cases worldwide reveals that most cadaveric pregnancies are sustained for about 7 weeks though 120 days is not unknown.20 Yet, survival is low for foetuses under 14 weeks and barely reaches 55% for those between 14 and 19 gestationalweeks. Higher survival rates have been reported for foetuses at 20-23 weeks of gestation (92%) with most born alive when maternal life-support is initiated at 24 gestational weeksand over. To date, little research has been undertaken to assess longer term health of thesechildren.21 While some may conclude that cadaveric pregnancies are becoming technologically possible, healthy live births tend to be over-reported.22 Moreover, life-support cases involveconsiderable maternal medical intervention and constant foetal monitoring. The 2021 study revealed extensive serious multiple maternal complications including pneumonia, sepsis and urinary tract infections, circulatory instability, hypothalamic dysfunctions, thermalvariability, and pituitary hormonal imbalances.23 Families, care staff, and clinicians find the16 Muñoz v John Peter Smith Hospital Cause No 096270080-14. [2014] Tarrant County District Court, 96th Judicial District, State of Texas. 17 PP v Health Service Executive [2014] IEHC 622.18 C Hurley, 'PP v Health Service Executive' (2015) 18 Trinity CL Rev 205 at 209.19 RD Truog ‘Defining Death: Lessons from the Case of Jahi McMath’. Pediatrics 2020; 146(s1): S75–S80 at S77.20 MG Dodaro, A. Seiderari, IR Marina, V Bergella and F Bellussi. ‘Brain death in pregnancy: A systematicreview focusing on perinatal outcomes’. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2021 245(2) 445-469.21 Ibid n18. Apgar scores for 24 week+ babies was in the normal range.22 Ibid n1823 See Tables 2 and 3 at n18.3                                                                                                                                 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Pamela M. White No Right to Death with Dignitysignificant deterioration of the maternal body disturbing, with reports of nurses experiencing not insignificant levels of emotional distress.24 When families contest state-ordered maternal life-support, success has been patchy. In 2019, the Petrie family received an apology and a financial settlement from Ireland for the lack of consent for their daughter’s medical treatment. The victory in Muñoz was achieved on thecourt’s acceptance of Mrs Muñoz being declared legally dead and that foetal death had occurred in utero. In April 2021, four pregnant women25 successfully contested Idaho’soverride of their advance directives (Almerico et al. v. State of Idaho et al)26 though it restson constitutional rights found in the First, Fourteen and Fifteen Amendments and case law27 subsequently challenged and struck down by Dodds.With the reversal of Roe v Wade,28 the constitutionality of Almerico et al. v. State of Idaho etal. enabling pregnant women to make healthcare decisions stands in jeopardy.  Moreover, theability of US states to dictate medical treatment now extends to all persons with a uterus, regardless of their pregnancy status. Dodds is broadly drafted such that in many US states, women with autoimmune diseases or cancer risk being refused medications and treatmentsdesigned to address their illnesses as the prescribed drugs and chemotherapy might damage adeveloping foetus or result in a miscarriage.29 Not only does Dodds remove autonomous medical decision-making from over half of the USpopulation, uterus-containing bodies are simultaneously transformed into non-autonomouspregnant and potentially pregnant beings. For pregnant US women, the prospect of cadavericgestation has become a reality regardless of potential for foetal viability and irrespective of advance directives, family wishes, or surrogacy contracts that may have been completed.  24 L Staff, M Nash, ‘Brain death during pregnancy and prolonged corporeal support of the body: A criticaldiscussion’ Women and Birth. 30 (2017) 354–360. L Winborg, ‘Sheila’s Death Created Many’ Nursing. 1993: 45-49.25 Almerico et al. v. State of Idaho et al Case No.1:18-cl-00239 BLW.26 Case No.1:18-cl-00239 BLW.27 Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey (91-744), 505 U.S. 833 (1992); Cruzan v. Director, MissouriDepartment of Health, (88-1503), 497 U.S. 261 (1990)28410 US 113 (1973)29 M Whyte, "ViablyFertile" Patients AreDeniedEssentialMedicineBecauseofRoev.Wade’LATimes18.07.2022;https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/post-roe-abortions-aren-t-only-healthcare-being-denied-women-n12969284                            ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________feminists@law Vol 11, No 2 (2022)The implications of past legislative initiatives now affirmed by Dodds will lead to significantchallenges to the definition of death for women, girls, and persons with uteruses. Foetuseshave a ‘right-to-life’, but their gestating mother who has no corresponding ‘right-to-death’ or ‘end-of-life care with dignity’ is called upon to make the ultimate sacrifice. Un-wanted cadaveric pregnancies will be a reality, not an exception. Nations not recognising foetal legal personhood need to be mindful of attempts taken to weaken autonomous decision-making and of utilitarian arguments advocating for foetalpreservation based on a limited number of successful maternal life-support studies.  The factthat a braindead, PVS or comatose pregnant woman has no conscious awareness does notgive clinicians, or anyone else, licence to perform unwanted medical procedures irrespectiveof supposed treatment benefits accruing to a foetus. To do so undermines the very foundation of ethical health care.  5

Right to Life Means No Right to Death with Dignity

University of Kent Open Access Journals

                                                                                                                                                                       ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________feminists@law Vol 11, No 2 (2022)Right to Life Means No Right to Death with DignityPamela M. White1 The seeds of the anti-abortion success realised by Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization2 were planted decades ago by earlier judgments designed to limit access to legal terminations3 and by state legislatures inserting foetal personhood rights into laws and regulations not directly related to abortion. Adoption by 36 US states of ‘pregnancy exclusion clauses’ in advance directives is one such example where a pregnant person’s agency and advance decision-making can be overruled to ensure the development of a gestating foetus.4 The 1981 Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA) and adoption of state AdvanceDirective legislation5 during in the mid-1980s, triggered a two-pronged campaign by the Pro-Life lobby to challenge legislation that might obstruct life-support treatments for braindead individuals, especially pregnant women.6 One prong argues for a religious-based definition of death: cessation of pulmonary-cardiac function.7 It challenges the legal neurologicaldefinition of death including administration of the apnoea test, considered by clinicians as thedefinitive assessment of brain-death.8 The apnoea test has come under increased scrutiny in 1 Pamela M. White, LLM, PhD, Senior Lecturer in Medical Law, Kent Law School, University of Kent. Email:p.white-229@kent.ac.uk.2 Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, No. 19-1392, 597 U.S. ___ (2022)3 Use of state trigger laws. See Guttmacher.org State legislation tracker. https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy4 ES DeMartino, BP Sperry & CK Doyle “US State Regulations of Decisions for Pregnant Women WithoutDecisional Capacity’ JAMA 2019 321(16) 1629-1631 at 1630. See Flanagan at n6 for an update on figures.5 1985 Uniform Rights of the Terminally Ill Act (URTIA).6 Shea Flanagan, ‘Decisions in the Dark: Why Pregnancy Exclusion Statutes are unconstitutional and unethical’Northwestern University Law Review. 2020 114:9697 New Jersey has legalised religious definitions of death.8 Ariane Lewis, David Greer. ‘Medicolegal Complications of Apnoea Testing for the Determination of BrainDeath. Bioethical Inquiry. 2018. 15. 417-428.1                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Pamela M. White No Right to Death with DignityUS,9 Canadian,10 and UK11 courts. Opposition to the neurological determination of death notonly frustrates organ donation, but also enables ongoing life-support until organ death occurs. Without a definitive brain-death determination, administration of life-support cannot bedefined as futile treatment and will therefore carry on until organ death occurs.12 The second prong of the campaign encouraged state legislatures to include pregnancy exclusion clauses in advance directive legislation, thereby circumventing Roe v Wade.13 By 2020, just 14 states permitted physicians to honour a pregnant woman’s advance medicaldirective. Foetal ‘viability’ legally (not medically) set at 14 weeks gestational age14 overridesan advance directive in 12 states, with another 5 states making life-support dependent on treatment benefits accruing to the foetus. In the remaining 19 states, maternal life-sustaining therapies must be provided regardless of foetal viability or existence of an advance directive.  Prior to Dodds, over 70% of US states had legislated ‘right-to-life’ for the gestating foetusand mandated ongoing life-support for pregnant women in PVS, braindead, or persistentcoma conditions until the baby can be safely delivered usually by caesarian section or dies in 15utero. 9 See: (Israel Stinson v Children’s Hospital Los Angeles [2016] BS164387; Re Guardianship of Hailu [2015]361 P.3d 5; McMath v California [2015] No. 3:15-06042 N.D. Cal.; Re Allen Callaway [2016]; Re Mirranda Grace Lawson [2016]; Brett and Yvonne Shively v Wesley Medical Center and Lindall Smith [2006]; Alex Pierce v Loma Linda University Medical Center [2016]); Brett and Yvonne Shively v Wesley Medical Center[2006], Court of Appeals of the State of Kansas); Re Allen Callaway [2016] DG-16-08); Re Mirranda Grace Lawson [2016] CL16-2358; Alex Pierce, thirteen-years-old (In Alex Pierce v. Loma Linda University MedicalCenter [2016];Durbin K. Monroe Co parents proposing “Bobby’s Law” in honor of son taken off life support.The Blade. Published 2019. Accessed December 9,2019.https://www.toledoblade.com/local/suburbs/2019/12/02/bobbys-law-bobby-reyes-monroecounty-taken-off-life-support-university-ofmichigan/stories/2019120215010 Morlani et al v Haddari 2021 ONSC 7288.11 Re M (Declaration of Death of Child) (CA) [2020] 4 WLR 52; Barts Health NHS Trust v Dance & Ors [2022] EWHC 1435 (Fam) at 75-76 and 99; Barts Health NHS Trust v Dance & Ors [2022] [2022] EWFC 80, 2022 WL 02792515 at 2 and 17.12 G Yanke, MY Rady, J Verheijde and J. McGregor. ‘Apnoea testing Is Medical Treatment Requiring Informed Consent’ The American Journal of Bioethics 2020 20(6) 22-24. AR Joffe, ‘the Apnoea test: Requiring Consent for a Test that is a Self-Fulling Prophecy, Not fit for Purpose and Always Confound?’ The American Journal ofBioethics 2022 2096) 42-44.13 E Villarreal, Pregnancy and Living Wills: A Behavioral Economic Analysis, 2019 128 YALE L.J. F. 1052.14 The notion of viability at 14 weeks gestation does not align with medical understandings of foetal viability commonly thought to be 22-28 weeks gestation and defined as when the The limit of viability is the gestationalage at which a prematurely born fetus/infant has a 50% chance of long-term survival outside its mother's womb.See: Breborowicz GH (January 2001). "Limits of fetal viability and its enhancement". Early Pregnancy. 5 (1): 49–50.15 ES DeMartino, BP Sperry & CK Doyle “US State Regulations of Decisions for Pregnant Women WithoutDecisional Capacity’ JAMA 321(16) 1629-1631 at 1630.2                                                                                                                                   ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________feminists@law Vol 11, No 2 (2022)Legislative removal of a pregnant patient’s medical decision-making autonomy has not goneunchallenged. The 2013 Muñoz case exposed a disturbing situation of a neurologically braindead pregnant Texas resident being kept artificially ‘alive’ for two months against thewishes of her husband.16 Yet, the US in not alone in overruling family wishes of a peacefulpassing for their pregnant braindead family member. Natasha Petrie, a pregnant Irish residentwas pronounced neurologically dead in December 2014.17 Concerns about the legalimplications of Ireland’s Eighth Amendment establishing equal rights for the ‘unborn child’ and the pregnant woman contributed to the decision to sustain Natashia’s body on life-support for a month against her family’s wishes.18 Truog observes it is women who are being kept biologically alive contrary to their own or family members’ directives or even standard medical practice so to enable the delivery of aviable child.19 A 2021 study of 35 cases worldwide reveals that most cadaveric pregnancies are sustained for about 7 weeks though 120 days is not unknown.20 Yet, survival is low for foetuses under 14 weeks and barely reaches 55% for those between 14 and 19 gestationalweeks. Higher survival rates have been reported for foetuses at 20-23 weeks of gestation (92%) with most born alive when maternal life-support is initiated at 24 gestational weeksand over. To date, little research has been undertaken to assess longer term health of thesechildren.21 While some may conclude that cadaveric pregnancies are becoming technologically possible, healthy live births tend to be over-reported.22 Moreover, life-support cases involveconsiderable maternal medical intervention and constant foetal monitoring. The 2021 study revealed extensive serious multiple maternal complications including pneumonia, sepsis and urinary tract infections, circulatory instability, hypothalamic dysfunctions, thermalvariability, and pituitary hormonal imbalances.23 Families, care staff, and clinicians find the16 Muñoz v John Peter Smith Hospital Cause No 096270080-14. [2014] Tarrant County District Court, 96th Judicial District, State of Texas. 17 PP v Health Service Executive [2014] IEHC 622.18 C Hurley, 'PP v Health Service Executive' (2015) 18 Trinity CL Rev 205 at 209.19 RD Truog ‘Defining Death: Lessons from the Case of Jahi McMath’. Pediatrics 2020; 146(s1): S75–S80 at S77.20 MG Dodaro, A. Seiderari, IR Marina, V Bergella and F Bellussi. ‘Brain death in pregnancy: A systematicreview focusing on perinatal outcomes’. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2021 245(2) 445-469.21 Ibid n18. Apgar scores for 24 week+ babies was in the normal range.22 Ibid n1823 See Tables 2 and 3 at n18.3                                                                                                                                 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Pamela M. White No Right to Death with Dignitysignificant deterioration of the maternal body disturbing, with reports of nurses experiencing not insignificant levels of emotional distress.24 When families contest state-ordered maternal life-support, success has been patchy. In 2019, the Petrie family received an apology and a financial settlement from Ireland for the lack of consent for their daughter’s medical treatment. The victory in Muñoz was achieved on thecourt’s acceptance of Mrs Muñoz being declared legally dead and that foetal death had occurred in utero. In April 2021, four pregnant women25 successfully contested Idaho’soverride of their advance directives (Almerico et al. v. State of Idaho et al)26 though it restson constitutional rights found in the First, Fourteen and Fifteen Amendments and case law27 subsequently challenged and struck down by Dodds.With the reversal of Roe v Wade,28 the constitutionality of Almerico et al. v. State of Idaho etal. enabling pregnant women to make healthcare decisions stands in jeopardy.  Moreover, theability of US states to dictate medical treatment now extends to all persons with a uterus, regardless of their pregnancy status. Dodds is broadly drafted such that in many US states, women with autoimmune diseases or cancer risk being refused medications and treatmentsdesigned to address their illnesses as the prescribed drugs and chemotherapy might damage adeveloping foetus or result in a miscarriage.29 Not only does Dodds remove autonomous medical decision-making from over half of the USpopulation, uterus-containing bodies are simultaneously transformed into non-autonomouspregnant and potentially pregnant beings. For pregnant US women, the prospect of cadavericgestation has become a reality regardless of potential for foetal viability and irrespective of advance directives, family wishes, or surrogacy contracts that may have been completed.  24 L Staff, M Nash, ‘Brain death during pregnancy and prolonged corporeal support of the body: A criticaldiscussion’ Women and Birth. 30 (2017) 354–360. L Winborg, ‘Sheila’s Death Created Many’ Nursing. 1993: 45-49.25 Almerico et al. v. State of Idaho et al Case No.1:18-cl-00239 BLW.26 Case No.1:18-cl-00239 BLW.27 Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey (91-744), 505 U.S. 833 (1992); Cruzan v. Director, MissouriDepartment of Health, (88-1503), 497 U.S. 261 (1990)28410 US 113 (1973)29 M Whyte, "ViablyFertile" Patients AreDeniedEssentialMedicineBecauseofRoev.Wade’LATimes18.07.2022;https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/post-roe-abortions-aren-t-only-healthcare-being-denied-women-n12969284                            ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________feminists@law Vol 11, No 2 (2022)The implications of past legislative initiatives now affirmed by Dodds will lead to significantchallenges to the definition of death for women, girls, and persons with uteruses. Foetuseshave a ‘right-to-life’, but their gestating mother who has no corresponding ‘right-to-death’ or ‘end-of-life care with dignity’ is called upon to make the ultimate sacrifice. Un-wanted cadaveric pregnancies will be a reality, not an exception. Nations not recognising foetal legal personhood need to be mindful of attempts taken to weaken autonomous decision-making and of utilitarian arguments advocating for foetalpreservation based on a limited number of successful maternal life-support studies.  The factthat a braindead, PVS or comatose pregnant woman has no conscious awareness does notgive clinicians, or anyone else, licence to perform unwanted medical procedures irrespectiveof supposed treatment benefits accruing to a foetus. To do so undermines the very foundation of ethical health care.  5

https://journals.kent.ac.uk/index.php/feministsatlaw/article/download/1114/2065

Right to Life Means No Right to Death with Dignity

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Kent Academic Repository

University of Kent Open Access Journals