Latest news with #brainDeath
Daily Mail
26-05-2025
- Health
- Daily Mail
Woman, 30, medically declared brain-dead is pregnant while on life support
A 30-year-old woman on life support in the intensive care unit of a hospital in Atlanta, Georgia, is expecting a baby. a local nurse, was nine weeks pregnant when she went to a hospital in February seeking treatment for intense headaches. Doctors sent her home with some medication but they didn't conduct a CT scan. The next morning she woke up struggling to breathe. The hospital discovered the mother-of-one had blood clots in her brain and, after an unsuccessful surgery to relieve the pressure, she was declared brain-dead. Critics argue the situation has turned from tragedy into 'an absolute horror show' after Emory University Hospital – where the nurse previously worked – informed Adriana's family that, although she was legally dead, she was not allowed to die. The apparent reason, according to the hospital's spokesman, is that it's acting 'in compliance with Georgia's abortion laws'. As such, the hospital has reportedly demanded Adriana be kept alive on breathing and feeding tubes until specialists have determined the male foetus is sufficiently developed to be delivered – by caesarean section – as a baby boy. That is scheduled to occur in early August. Removing her from life-support until that time, health officials reportedly believe, would violate Georgia's strict anti-abortion laws – which prohibit termination once a foetal heartbeat is detected, typically at around six weeks. The state's controversial law, the Living Infants Fairness And Equality (LIFE) Act, which was dubbed the 'Heartbeat Bill' does contain an exception to save the life of the mother. But that doesn't apply to Adriana, as her life is beyond saving. Her family say they haven't made up their minds whether to switch off her life-support systems but, at this moment, are deeply upset that the decision has been taken out of their hands by faceless bureaucrats. 'This is torture for me,' her distraught mother April Newkirk told local TV station 11Alive. 'I see my daughter breathing by the ventilator but she's not there.' She revealed that the baby - who the family have named 'Chance' – has hydrocephalus, or fluid on the brain. Even if he survives the pregnancy (which is increasingly uncertain), he could be born with severe disabilities. Newkirk added: 'He may be blind, may not be able to walk, may not survive once he's born. Right now, the journey is for baby "Chance" to survive. Whatever condition God allows him to come here in, we're going to love him just the same.' While Georgia's 'Heartbeat Law' was narrowly passed in 2019, it did not come into effect until three years later after the Supreme Court overturned Roe V Wade, the 1973 case that established a woman's constitutional right to an abortion. Three other states have similar abortion bans that come into force around the six-week mark and 12 states bar abortion at all stages of pregnancy. Legal experts are in little doubt what is worrying Adriana's healthcare provider – a part of the Georgia law that gives foetuses legal rights. If Adriana and the foetus are two patients with separate legal rights, even if the mother dies, the hospital might have a legal obligation to keep the foetus alive. But doctors anticipate there will be more problems for the child, pointing out life-support systems are not designed for long-term treatment of brain-dead patients. With blood no longer running to the mother's brain, the organ is starting to decompose. 'The chance of there being a healthy newborn at the end of this is very, very small,' said Steven Ralston, the director of the maternal foetal medicine division at George Washington University in Washington DC. The medical situation and apparent helplessness of Adriana's family has sparked the ire of the 'pro-choice', pro-abortion lobby, with critics saying the case demonstrates a 'pro-life' philosophy that ends up being anything but humane. Predictably, some opponents have likened Georgia to Gilead, the fictional U.S. in Margaret Atwood's chilling novel The Handmaid's Tale. In this dystopian world, much of the U.S. is ruled by a brutal Christian fundamentalist government which – to tackle a severe infertility crisis – forces the few women who can conceive to devote their lives to producing offspring for ruling men. While drawing an analogy with the book is once again a fairly extreme view, critics are correct in saying the state's leaders should have seen this coming. Legal experts say the vague way anti-abortion laws are written will naturally make doctors and hospitals worried about facing criminal charges. And they should have foreseen, too, how the movement to establish so-called 'foetal personhood' – whereby a foetus should have legal rights, including the right to life – would inevitably end up pitting the rights of the mother against those of their unborn child. Now, keen to avert a public relations crisis that could lose them votes in a key swing state, even some of Georgia's conservatives are fighting back by claiming that the state's LIFE law is being misinterpreted. The state's Republican attorney general, Chris Carr, declared last week that the law does not require doctors to keep brain-dead patients alive because turning off the life support 'is not an action with the purpose to terminate a pregnancy'. Others disagree, however, and say the hospital has taken the correct – and humane – course. 'While Adriana can no longer speak for herself, her son's life still matters. Her doctors are doing the right thing by treating him as a unique patient,' said Students For Life Of America, a national anti-abortion group which has even launched a campaign to raise money to help Adriana's family. Georgia state Senator Ed Setzler, who sponsored the state's abortion crackdown, has agreed, saying: 'I think there's a valuable human life that we have an opportunity to save, and I think it's the right thing to save it. To suggest otherwise is to declare the child as being other than human. 'This is an unusual circumstance, but I think it highlights the value of innocent human life.'
Daily Mail
26-05-2025
- Health
- Daily Mail
The 'corpse' expecting a baby: Pregnant Adriana's braindead and decomposing but doctors won't turn off life-support. Now her family say it's 'torture' in case that's divided the world
In the intensive care unit of a hospital in Atlanta, Georgia, lies a patient whose fate has set millions of her fellow Americans at each other's throats. They're not fighting, however, over 30-year-old Adriana Smith's right to live – but her right to die. Adriana, a local nurse, was nine weeks pregnant when she went to a hospital back in February seeking treatment for intense headaches. Doctors sent her home with some medication but they didn't conduct a CT scan. The next morning she woke up struggling to breathe and making terrifying gargling sounds. The hospital discovered she had blood clots in her brain and, after an unsuccessful surgery to relieve the pressure, she was declared brain-dead. Given she already has a seven-year-old son who will now be left without a mother, the situation for Adriana and her loved ones was already terrible. However, critics say the situation has turned from tragedy into 'an absolute horror show' after Emory University Hospital – where the nurse previously worked – informed Adriana's family that, although she was legally dead, she was not allowed to die. The apparent reason, according to the hospital's spokesman, is that it's acting 'in compliance with Georgia's abortion laws'. As such, the hospital has reportedly demanded Adriana be kept alive on breathing and feeding tubes until specialists have determined the male foetus is sufficiently developed to be delivered – by caesarean section – as a baby boy. That is scheduled to occur in early August. Removing her from life support until that time, health officials reportedly believe, would violate Georgia's strict anti-abortion laws – which prohibit termination once a foetal heartbeat is detected, typically at around six weeks. The state's controversial law, the Living Infants Fairness and Equality (LIFE) Act, which was dubbed the 'heartbeat Bill' does contain an exception to save the life of the mother. But that doesn't apply to Adriana Smith, as her life is beyond saving. Her family say they hadn't made up their minds whether to switch off her life support systems but, at this nightmarish moment, are deeply upset that the decision has been taken out of their hands by faceless bureaucrats. 'This is torture for me,' her distraught mother April Newkirk told local TV station 11Alive. 'I see my daughter breathing by the ventilator but she's not there.' What's more, she revealed that the baby – who the family have named 'Chance' – has hydrocephalus, or fluid on the brain. Even if he survives the pregnancy (which is increasingly uncertain), he could be born with severe disabilities. 'He may be blind, may not be able to walk, may not survive once he's born,' Ms Newkirk said. 'Right now, the journey is for baby Chance to survive. Whatever condition God allows him to come here in, we're going to love him just the same.' While Georgia's heartbeat law was narrowly passed in 2019, it did not come into effect until three years later after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case that established a woman's constitutional right to an abortion. Three other states have similar abortion bans that come into force around the six-week mark and 12 states bar abortion at all stages of pregnancy. Legal experts are in little doubt what is worrying Adriana's healthcare provider – a part of the Georgia law that gives foetuses legal rights as 'members of the species Homo sapiens'. If Adriana and the foetus are two patients with separate legal rights, even if the mother dies, the hospital might have a legal obligation to keep the foetus alive. But doctors anticipate there will be more problems for the child, pointing out life-support systems are not designed for long-term treatment of brain-dead patients. With blood no longer running to the mother's brain, the organ is starting to decompose. 'The chance of there being a healthy newborn at the end of this is very, very small,' said Steven Ralston, the director of the maternal foetal medicine division at George Washington University in Washington DC. The gruesome medical situation and apparent helplessness of Adriana's family has sparked the ire of the 'pro-choice', pro-abortion lobby, with critics saying the case demonstrates a 'pro-life' philosophy that ends up being anything but humane. Predictably, some opponents have likened Georgia to Gilead, the fictional America in Margaret Atwood's chilling novel The Handmaid's Tale. In this dystopian world, much of the US is ruled by a brutal Christian fundamentalist government which – to tackle a severe infertility crisis – forces the few women who can conceive to devote their lives to producing offspring for ruling men. While drawing an analogy with the book – a popular Democrat pastime in MAGA America – is once again a fairly extreme view, critics are correct in saying the state's leaders should have seen this coming. Legal experts say the vague way anti-abortion laws are written will naturally make doctors and hospitals worried about facing criminal charges. And they should have foreseen, too, how the movement (currently gaining ground in the US) to establish so-called 'foetal personhood' – whereby a foetus should have legal rights, including the right to life – would inevitably end up pitting the rights of the mother against those of their unborn child. Now, keen to avert a public relations crisis that could lose them votes in a key swing state, even some of Georgia's conservatives are fighting back by claiming that Georgia's LIFE law is being misinterpreted. The state's Republican attorney general, Chris Carr, last week released a statement declaring the law does not require doctors to keep brain-dead patients alive, because turning off the life support 'is not an action with the purpose to terminate a pregnancy'. Others disagree, however, and say the hospital has taken the correct – and humane – course. 'While Adriana can no longer speak for herself, her son's life still matters. Her doctors are doing the right thing by treating him as a unique patient,' said Students for Life of America, a national anti-abortion group which has even launched a campaign to raise money to help Adriana's family. Georgia state Senator Ed Setzler, who sponsored the state's abortion crackdown, has agreed, saying: 'I think there's a valuable human life that we have an opportunity to save, and I think it's the right thing to save it. To suggest otherwise is to declare the child as being other than human. 'This is an unusual circumstance, but I think it highlights the value of innocent human life.' It's certainly an 'unusual circumstance' but it's actually not the first time an American woman has been kept on life support because of a pregnancy. In 2014, Texan Marlise Munoz collapsed on her kitchen floor when she was 14 weeks pregnant. The hospital informed her husband and parents that she was brain-dead because of a pulmonary embolism. However, medical staff refused to honour Marlise's previously stated wish not to be kept alive by machines, citing a state law that stopped hospitals from withdrawing or withholding 'life-sustaining treatment from a pregnant patient'. Marlise's husband launched a legal battle to get her taken off life support, during which the family revealed the foetus was severely deformed due to oxygen deprivation and the fact it was developing in a brain-dead body. A judge ruled in the husband's favour and Marlise was removed from organ support before the baby was born. But 2014 was a very different America – less riven by culture wars and a triumphalist Donald Trump who was voted in as President on a wave of anti-abortion sentiment driven by supporters in the so-called 'Bible Belt' states of the South and Midwest. There's no indication Adriana Smith's ghastly limbo state – neither alive nor entirely dead – is due to end any time soon.
The Guardian
24-05-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Dear America: women's bodies are not state property
A Black pregnant woman who was declared brain dead back in February is still being kept alive on a ventilator, because of a Georgia law that prohibits abortions beyond six weeks. If this sounds like the stuff of speculative fiction, it's because there's literally a Handmaid's Tale episode about this. And while the TV show based on Margaret Atwood's 1985 book may have gotten many things right about the soul of authoritarianism and a violently patriarchal society, living that reality is even more sickening. Anyone who thinks this is about the life of Adriana Smith's child is fooling themselves. This is the state, boundary testing to see how far they can take their efforts to have full reproductive control over American women, and gauging how much the American public is willing to tolerate. It is unclear whether Smith's baby will survive, and according to the family, Emory University Hospital is keeping her on life support because the hospital is afraid of contravening Georgia law. Meanwhile, state lawmakers and abortion rights opponents have put their hands up and don't want to be associated with the optics of this tragic mess. In a mid-May press release, the Georgia attorney general's office clarified that the state's anti-abortion law does not require Smith be kept alive. 'There is nothing in the Life Act that requires medical professionals to keep a woman on life support after brain death,' the statement reads. 'Removing life support is not an action 'with the purpose to terminate a pregnancy'.' So who is responsible for this? And are we to believe that Georgia lawmakers are powerless to stop this hospital's apparent misreading of the state's own rules? Even if the latter were the case, the damage from conservatives' anti-abortion crusades and the ensuing legislative crackdown has already been done. Hospitals such as Emory have no incentive to weigh the ethical implications of their actions because they have the spirit of the law to consider, regardless of how lawmakers try to play semantic tricks to get around their own culpability. When it comes to public opinion, some have argued in favor of this nightmare based on the fact that Smith is brain dead, and so keeping her alive doesn't actually 'harm' her. What's next? Women in comas being impregnated because … why not? Vulnerable women being lobotomized and used as incubators? Should the state be able to forcefully impregnate every woman whose body is capable of carrying a baby? Where does it stop? Meanwhile, all the conservative posturing over the sanctity of human life is easily dismantled when you consider the fact that banning abortions effectively issues a death sentence to any pregnant person who is at risk. And what about the issues that took Smith to the hospital to begin with? Her family says she went to see doctors at around eight weeks pregnant with intense headaches, and received medication the same day. The next day, she woke up gasping for air, and was rushed back to the hospital where doctors discovered blood clots in her brain. Smith was declared brain dead shortly after. Black women are the most likely to die during childbirth, are most likely to experience pregnancy-related complications and regularly see their issues dismissed and minimized when they seek help. Was Smith's life not valuable when she was here? Why is the body of a brain dead woman receiving more care than she did when she was alive? Stories like Smith's are also a grim reminder of how desperate society is right now to reduce women to their reproductive capacity. From draconian laws that force women to endure life threatening pregnancies, to the trad-wife and pronatalism renaissance, it's clear that women's ability or willingness to carry babies is the political and ethical lightning rod of our time, and the 'life' of a foetus has become a convenient tool to wield in the efforts to control women's bodies. But Black women have always known this. And Smith's story is deeply triggering for a demographic who has not only seen the worst of what childbearing in the US medical system is like, but also has a history of being used as test dummies for gynaecological experimentation. 'We didn't have a choice or a say about it,' Smith's mother, April Newkirk, said. 'We want the baby. That's a part of my daughter. But the decision should have been left to us – not the state.' It should go without saying that a person's agency should be respected whether they're conscious or not, but we've gotten so used to seeing women's bodies as a means to a political or economic end that ideas like this no longer register as what they are – utterly unconscionable. Tayo Bero is a Guardian US columnist
New York Times
24-05-2025
- Health
- New York Times
A Brain-Dead Woman Is Being Kept on Machines to Gestate a Fetus. It Was Inevitable.
Right now in an Atlanta hospital room lies a 30-year-old nurse and mother, Adriana Smith. Ms. Smith, who is brain-dead, has been connected to life support machines for more than 90 days. Ms. Smith is pregnant. 'We didn't have a choice or a say about it,' Ms. Smith's mother told a local news outlet. 'We want the baby. That's a part of my daughter. But the decision should have been left to us — not the state.' After the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, Georgia banned almost all abortions in cases where a fetus has a 'detectable human heartbeat.' Legislators did not seem to have considered a situation in which a pregnant woman is legally dead. In this case there is much we do not know: What exactly did the hospital tell Ms. Smith's family? What did they feel they could do in the case where a fetus continued to grow in the body of a woman who was brain-dead? Would they have counseled this family differently about their options before the fall of Roe? Reproductive justice advocates have long been clear that abortion law is never only about abortion. It is about the exercise of control over all pregnant women, regardless of whether they plan to carry their pregnancies to term. That's why the anti-abortion movement has pursued a broad agenda of legal personhood for embryos and fetuses. Though not all who cheered the fall of Roe might have understood the full ramifications of the decision, this kind of catastrophic event was inevitable, given the expansive and imprecise laws written by legislators who generally lack medical expertise, and the inability of politicians to fully predict every emergency situation. The few facts of the case, as far as the public knows, are this: Ms. Smith was about nine weeks pregnant when she sought medical assistance for severe headaches, her mother told local news. She was sent home with medication. The next morning Ms. Smith was in distress and was rushed to the hospital. A CT scan discovered multiple blood clots in her brain. She was declared brain-dead, but her fetus's heart continued to beat. When faced with the deleterious effect of restrictive abortion laws on women, legislators and anti-abortion advocates have often blamed doctors or lawyers for misinterpreting those laws. Already, Georgia officials are divided over whether Ms. Smith's barbarous condition is insisted upon by the law. Emory University Hospital, once Ms. Smith's place of employment, would not be legally allowed to remove organs from a brain-dead person without family consent if this person hadn't previously registered her wish to be a donor, even if doing so could save or improve dozens of lives. However, according to Ms. Smith's mother, the hospital informed her that, because of the fetus her daughter was carrying, it could not legally withdraw the artificial means of keeping her body functioning. Ms. Smith is now approximately 22 weeks pregnant. Her mother told the press she understood this state of limbo could continue for another 10 weeks. But she has also said it is possible that the fetus will have complications in survival, and gestation does not necessarily mean a live or healthy birth. The hospital has told the press that it cannot comment on Ms. Smith's case but that it acts 'in compliance with Georgia's abortion laws and all other applicable laws.' Dystopian as her situation appears, Ms. Smith is not the first woman kept on life support to gestate a fetus. In 2013, Marlise Muñoz experienced brain death 14 weeks into her pregnancy. It took her husband two months to secure a court order to remove her from life support. Both cases represent an experiment in allowing a fetus to gestate in a brain-dead woman's body. Knowing the tremendous work that the body of a pregnant woman must do to sustain and nourish a pregnancy, the harm to the fetus from being trapped inside a body without a functioning brain cannot be known with certainty. Last week, months after this saga began and in the wake of public outcry over the story, a spokeswoman for the Georgia attorney general's office issued a terse statement: 'There is nothing' in the state abortion legislation 'that requires medical professionals to keep a woman on life support after brain death. Removing life support is not an action with the purpose to terminate a pregnancy,' she said. While the family has said they will embrace a baby should one be born alive, it is easy to see how physicians and the lawyers who advise them, hamstrung between attempting to follow the letter of the law while adhering to medical standards of care, could become confused and scared about what to say. That can lead to a bias for maintaining the status quo. The consequences of taking any action that could be construed as an abortion could mean prison time or the loss of a medical license. If Georgia legislators care about life, they should be spending more time and money trying to decrease their state's maternal and infant mortality rates, which are among the worst in the country, especially among Black women and their children. They should consider what financial resources will be made available to cover the cost of the extraordinary care currently being provided to Ms. Smith's body, and the costs that may come if the fetus that remains inside her is eventually born alive in a state where health care access can be patchy. While the circumstances of Ms. Smith's reported dismissal from the hospital at the outset of her symptoms are still unclear, she would not have been the first Black woman to suffer catastrophically at the hands of health care providers who dismiss Black pain. And unethical experimentation on the bodies of Black women is not a new phenomenon in the United States. In its attempt to control the outcomes of women's pregnancies, the Georgia legislature has inserted chaos into a situation where families and medical experts must make heart-wrenching decisions about patients. Ms. Smith's mother, her son and all of those who love her deserve the deepest sympathy for their loss and torment, but what is happening to Ms. Smith is not a celebration of life or a miracle. It is a co-optation of a woman's death to engage in a frightening medical experiment with a deeply uncertain outcome for any child who may result. The tragedy of Ms. Smith's death has only been compounded by the complications of a legal context that treats pregnant women as secondary to their fetuses, even in death.
