Bookman: Sponsor of Georgia abortion ban spared trauma of watching brain dead loved one carry fetus
By most common measures, the life of Adriana Smith ended three months ago, when a tragic series of undiagnosed blood clots left her brain dead, with no hope of recovery. Yet today, in a hospital room in Midtown Atlanta, Adriana's body is still being kept alive by machines, without regard to her family's wishes.
As someone who has been there, I know how difficult and extremely personal that decision can be, but I can only imagine what it must be like to have that choice stripped away, as it has been stripped away from Adriana's loved ones by people who don't know them, who know little of their circumstances and deal with none of its consequences.
In Adriana's case, she was nine weeks pregnant at the time the blood clots hit, which under some readings of Georgia law has meant that what remains of Adriana's body is now under government control under the fetus can be safely extracted.
'She's been breathing through machines for more than 90 days,' April Newkirk, Adriana's mother, told 11Alive News. 'It's torture for me. I see my daughter breathing, but she's not there.'
Doctors and lawyers at Emory Healthcare – but mainly the lawyers, I suspect – say that under Georgia's anti-abortion law, they are required to keep Adriana's body functioning as the fetus inside her develops. They are erring on the side of caution – not medical caution, but legal caution.
The law in question is the 'Living Infants Fairness and Equality Act.' or the LIFE Act.
The main sponsor of that law, state Sen. Ed Setzler, R-Acworth, says it's working as intended in this case.
'I'm proud that the hospital recognizes the full value of the small human life living inside of this regrettably dying young mother,' Setzler told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. 'Mindful of the agony of this young mother's family, the wisdom of modern medical science to be able to save the life of a healthy unborn child is something that I trust in future years will lead to great joy, with this child having a chance to grow into vibrant adulthood.'
Proud as he might be, Setzler isn't the one who has to watch what's left of his daughter lay lifeless in that hospital room, not alive exactly, with machines performing basic life functions, week after week. He isn't the one who has to explain what's happening to his seven-year-old grandson, Adriana's son. If the fetus survives, he also isn't the one who will have to raise the child. Doctors have warned Adriana's family that the fetus has fluid on its brain, with unknown consequences.
'She's pregnant with my grandson,' Newkirk said. 'But he may be blind, may not be able to walk, may not survive once he's born,' she said. 'This decision should've been left to us.'
According to Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr, however, Emory Healthcare and Setzler are misreading the legislation.
'There is nothing in the LIFE Act that requires medical professionals to keep a woman on life support after brain death,' his office said in a statement. 'Removing life support is not an action 'with the purpose to terminate a pregnancy'.'
Carr's reading of the law seems to be correct. As his statement indicates, the law defines abortion as 'the act of using, prescribing, or administering any instrument, substance, device, or other means with the purpose to terminate a pregnancy,' and the withdrawal of extraordinary life-maintenance measures on a brain-dead woman would not fall within its restrictions.
But this is the problem when you try to write a law into black and white, when you try to legislate what is right and what is wrong when dealing with decisions that are so personal, so intimate. Moral certainty sounds good, it may feel good, it may play well in a political campaign, but it cannot possibly make such hard choices from a distance. The law cannot act more wisely or with more love than would those who know the situation best.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
3 days ago
- Forbes
How AI Is Giving Doctors Back Their Time (and Their Patients)
When Alistair Erskine, Chief Information and Digital Officer for Emory Healthcare and the Vice President for Digital Health at Emory University, sought to address issues plaguing the healthcare industry, he knew he had to consider two major factors: the workforce shortage brought on by the Covid pandemic and America's aging population. By implementing AI solutions such as ambient listening and AI cameras, hospital staff gained ways of optimizing operations and ensuring patients were receiving the care and attention they required to get better on a shorter timeline than ever before. Subscribe to FORBES: Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more: Stay Connected Forbes newsletters: Forbes on Facebook: Forbes Video on Twitter: Forbes Video on Instagram: More From Forbes: Forbes covers the intersection of entrepreneurship, wealth, technology, business and lifestyle with a focus on people and success.
Yahoo
01-07-2025
- Yahoo
Keeping brain-dead pregnant women on life support raises ethical issues that go beyond abortion politics
Adriana Smith, a 30-year-old woman from Georgia who had been declared brain-dead in February 2025, spent 16 weeks on life support while doctors worked to keep her body functioning well enough to support her developing fetus. On June 13, 2025, her premature baby, named Chance, was born via cesarean section at 25 weeks. Smith was nine weeks pregnant when she suffered multiple blood clots in her brain. Her story gained public attention when her mother criticized doctors' decision to keep her on a ventilator without the family's consent. Smith's mother has said that doctors told the family the decision was made to align with Georgia's LIFE Act, which bans abortion after six weeks of pregnancy and bolsters the legal standing of fetal personhood. A statement released by the hospital also cites Georgia's abortion law. 'I'm not saying we would have chosen to terminate her pregnancy,' Smith's mother told a local television station. 'But I'm saying we should have had a choice.' The LIFE Act is one of several state laws that have passed across the U.S. since the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson decision invalidated constitutional protections for abortion. Although Georgia's attorney general denied that the LIFE Act applied to Smith, there's little doubt that it invites ethical and legal uncertainty when a woman dies while pregnant. Smith's case has swiftly become the focus of a reproductive rights political firestorm characterized by two opposing viewpoints. For some, it reflects demeaning governmental overreach that quashes women's bodily autonomy. For others it illustrates the righteous sacrifice of motherhood. In my work as a gender and technology studies scholar, I have cataloged and studied postmortem pregnancies like Smith's since 2016. In my view, Smith's story doesn't fit straightforwardly into abortion politics. Instead, it points to the need for a more nuanced ethical approach that does not frame a mother and child as adversaries in a medical, legal or political context. For centuries, Catholic dogma and Western legal precedent have mandated immediate cesarean section when a pregnant woman died after quickening, the point when fetal movement becomes discernible. But technological advances now make it possible sometimes for a fetus to continue gestating in place when the mother is brain-dead, or 'dead by neurological criteria'– a widely accepted definition of death that first emerged in the 1950s. The first brain death during pregnancy in which the fetus was delivered after time on life support, more accurately called organ support, occurred in 1981. The process is extraordinarily intensive and invasive, because the loss of brain function impedes many physiological processes. Health teams, sometimes numbering in the hundreds, must stabilize the bodies of 'functionally decapitated' pregnant women to buy more time for fetal development. This requires vital organ support, ventilation, nutritional supplements, antibiotics and constant monitoring. Outcomes are highly uncertain. Smith's 112-day stint on organ support ranks third in length for a postmortem pregnancy, with the longest being 123 days. Hers is also the earliest ever gestational age from which the procedure has been attempted. Because time on organ support can vary widely, and because there is no established minimum fetal age considered too early to intervene, a fetus could theoretically be deemed viable at any point in pregnancy. Over the past 50 years, critics of postmortem pregnancy have argued that it constitutes gender-based violence and violates bodily integrity in ways that organ donation does not. Some have compared it with Nazi pronatalist policies. Others have attributed the practice to systemic sexism and racism in medicine. Postmortem pregnancy can also compound intimate partner violence by giving brain-dead women's murderers decision-making authority when they are the fetus's next of kin. Fetal personhood laws complicate end-of-life decision-making in ways that many consider violent too. As I have seen in my own research, when the fetus is considered a legal person, women's wishes may be assumed, debated in court or committee, or set aside entirely, nearly always in favor of the fetus. From the perspective of reproductive rights advocates, postmortem pregnancy is the bottom of a slippery slope down which anti-abortion sentiment has led America. It obliterates women's autonomy, pitting living and dead women against doctors, legislators and sometimes their own families, and weaponizing their own fetuses against them. Viewed through a medical lens, however, postmortem pregnancy is not violent or violating, but an act of repair. Although care teams have responsibilities to both mother and fetus, a pregnant woman's brain death means she cannot be physically harmed and her rights cannot be violated to the same degree as a fetus with the potential for life. Medical practitioners are conditioned to prioritize life over death, motivating a commitment to salvage something from a tragedy and try to partially restore a family. The high-stakes world of emergency medicine makes protecting life reflexive and medical interventions automatic. Once fetal life is detected, as one hospital spokesperson put it in a 1976 news article in The Boston Globe, 'What else could you do?' This response does not necessarily stem from conscious sexism or anti-abortion sentiment, but from reverence for vulnerable patients. If physicians declare a pregnant woman brain-dead, patienthood often automatically transfers to the fetus needing rescue. No matter its age and despite its survival being dependent on machines, just like its mother, the fetus is entirely animate. Who or what counts as a legal person with privileges and protections might be a political or philosophical determination, but life is a matter of biological fact and within the doctors' purview. Both of the above perspectives have validity, but neither accounts for postmortem pregnancy's ethical and biological complexity. First, setting mother against fetus, with the rights of one endangering the rights of the other, does not match pregnancy's lived reality of 'two bodies, sutured,' as the cultural scholar Lauren Berlant put it. Even the Supreme Court recognized this entangled duality in their 1973 ruling on Roe v. Wade, which established both constitutional protections for abortion and a governmental obligation to protect fetal life. Whether a fetus is considered a legal person or not, they wrote, pregnant women and fetuses 'cannot be isolated in their privacy' – meaning that reproductive rights issues must strike a balance, however tenuous, between maternal and fetal interests. To declare postmortem pregnancy unequivocally violent or a loss of the 'right to choose' fails to recognize the complexity of choice in a highly politicized medical landscape. Second, maternal-fetal competition muddles the right course of action. In the U.S., competent patients are not compelled to engage in medical care they would rather avoid, even if it kills them, or to stay on life support to preserve organs for donation. But when a fetus is treated as an independent patient, exceptions could be made to those medical standards if the fetus's interests override the mother's. For example, pregnancy disrupts standard determination of death. To protect the fetus, care teams increasingly skip a necessary diagnostic for brain death called apnea testing, which involves momentarily removing the ventilator to test the respiratory centers of the brain stem. In these cases, maternal brain death cannot be confirmed until after delivery. Multiple instances of vaginal deliveries after brain death also remain unexplained, given that the brain coordinates mechanisms of vaginal labor. All in all, it's not always clear women in these cases are entirely dead. Ultimately, women like Adriana Smith and their fetuses are inseparable and persist in a technologically defined state of in-betweenness. I'd argue that postmortem pregnancies, therefore, need new bioethical standards that center women's beliefs about their bodies and a dignified death. This might involve recognizing pregnancy's unique ambiguities in advance directives, questioning default treatment pathways that may require harm be done to one in order to save another, or considering multiple definitions of clinical and legal death. In my view, it is possible to adapt our ethical standards in a way that honors all beings in these exceptional circumstances, without privileging either 'choice' or 'life,' mother or fetus. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Lindsey Breitwieser, Hollins University Read more: Fetal personhood rulings could nullify a pregnant patient's wishes for end-of-life care American womanhood is not what it used to be − understanding the backlash to Dobbs v. Jackson 'A revolutionary ruling – and not just for abortion': A Supreme Court scholar explains the impact of Dobbs This research was supported by a grant from The Institute for Citizens and Scholars.
Yahoo
28-06-2025
- Yahoo
Medtronic (MDT) Appoints Dr. Joon Sup Lee to Board of Directors
Medtronic plc (NYSE:MDT) is one of the 11 best European stocks to invest in. On June 23, the company announced the appointment of Dr. Joon Sup Lee as an independent director to its Board of Directors. The appointment went into effect on June 18, 2025. A healthcare specialist in the laboratory testing an Oncology-related product. Dr. Lee's appointment was a result of Medtronic increasing the size of its Board. The new director will serve on the Board's Science and Technology Committee and the Compensation and Talent Committee. Dr. Lee is currently the CEO of Emory Healthcare, Inc., overseeing Georgia's most comprehensive academic health system. Before joining Emory Healthcare, Dr. Lee was the executive director of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center's (UPMC) Heart and Vascular Institute from 2018 to 2020. He was also a professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. He held various leadership roles at UPMC, including Director of Interventional Cardiology and Director of the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory. Medtronic plc (NYSE:MDT) is an Irish-domiciled healthcare technology company. It develops and sells medical devices and therapies for chronic conditions across four main segments: Cardiovascular, Neuroscience, Medical Surgical, and Diabetes. Its top products include heart devices, spinal implants, surgical tools, insulin pumps, and neuromodulation systems. Medtronic serves over 79 million patients annually in more than 150 countries. While we acknowledge the potential of MDT as an investment, we believe certain AI stocks offer greater upside potential and carry less downside risk. If you're looking for an extremely undervalued AI stock that also stands to benefit significantly from Trump-era tariffs and the onshoring trend, see our free report on the best short-term AI stock. READ NEXT: and . Disclosure: None. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
