Yes, generally if a mother was pregnant and now she’s braindead, it makes sense to keep her alive until her child is born, but if you read the article, the fetus suffered complications and is likely braindead as well, so it might be a stillbirth or just suffer and not live for very long, so it’s a bit more complicated
I guess I misunderstood what you meant. I stand by my words though: If a mother, who wanted the child, is now all of a sudden braindead, it makes a lot of sense to try to save the baby. This is of course not the case in the article, because the fetus is not in good conditions and probably dead already, so I agree in this case it makes no sense.
Yes, generally if a mother was pregnant and now she’s braindead, it makes sense to keep her alive until her child is born, but if you read the article, the fetus suffered complications and is likely braindead as well, so it might be a stillbirth or just suffer and not live for very long, so it’s a bit more complicated
no, its not. In no case should a woman in this condition be forced to carry to full term. I am not trying to be antagonistic, I just really disagree.
I guess I misunderstood what you meant. I stand by my words though: If a mother, who wanted the child, is now all of a sudden braindead, it makes a lot of sense to try to save the baby. This is of course not the case in the article, because the fetus is not in good conditions and probably dead already, so I agree in this case it makes no sense.