Question

Twenty-nine year old Janet and her husband Jack were driving home from her ob-gyn

appointment when tragedy struck. Another driver, elderly and distracted by an incoming text

message, ran a red light and T-boned Janet and Jack’s Mini-Cooper. Both young people

sustained severe injuries.

Jack died enroute to the hospital. Janet survives, having escaped injury except to her head; but

that was unfortunately massive. Her physicians now say, a month after the accident, that the

prognosis is grim. The best one could hope for—or perhaps the worst—is continuation for some

time in a persistent vegetative state.

Just before leaving the doctor’s office, Janet had sent a jubilant text message to her parents.

“Guess what?! We’re pregnant!!! ”

So Janet was pregnant—and prescient. Unlike most young adults, Janet had thought about

mortality in advance of this accident. She is, or was, a nurse. She had gone to continuing

education workshops about end of life care and advance care planning. Janet then had completed

her own advance directives some months ago, naming Jack as her primary agent and durable

power of attorney for healthcare decisions. She named her parents as secondary agents.

Janet also had completed, with notarized signature, a healthcare treatment directive. Among her

directives was a clear, handwritten statement about life prolongation if she were, somehow, “to

end up in anything like PVS, from which I am not apt to recover.” Janet had written that, in such

a condition, “I do NOT want my life to be extended by means of medically assisted nutrition and

hydration, ventilator, or other life support.”

And then it happened.

With Jack gone, treatment decisions are left up to Janet’s parents. They both are thoughtful

people, healthcare professionals also, who take very seriously their difficult responsibility of

acting as surrogates on Janet’s behalf. After consulting her physicians, other family members,

and even their priest, a decision is made to stop everything except palliative care. Janet’s parents

had received a copy of their daughter’s advance directives, and they have determined that this is

what she would have wanted, what in fact she had conveyed with such tragic prescience. Plans

are made to transfer Janet to a hospice unit in another part of the hospital. It would take place the

following day.

That evening, a resident physician notices in the patient’s chart that Janet is pregnant. Probably about nine weeks, it appears. He wonders if this matters, legally or ethically or religiously, for

his patient’s transfer to hospice, especially when Janet is not imminently dying otherwise. The

resident does a bit of online research and learns that in the State of Kansas, a woman’s healthcare

directives about “withholding or withdrawal of life-sustaining procedures in a terminal

condition” may not legally be in effect while pregnant.

“The declaration of a qualified patient diagnosed as pregnant by the attending physician shall

have no effect during the course of the qualified patient’s pregnancy” (KSA 65-28, 103, (4)B).

A note in the patient’s medical record the next morning references this statute, with a question

about how it potentially impacts the impending transfer to hospice care. When the attending

physician reads the note, she calls Janet’s parents and says hesitatingly, “We have a bit of a

problem here. It appears we may need some legal assistance, perhaps an ethics consultation, and

must postpone Janet’s transfer of care.” The doctor explains further what her young resident

colleague had discovered, and questioned.

The parents had spent a sleepless night anticipating today. It would be the hardest thing they’ve

ever done, and yet the right thing in keeping with their daughter’s wishes. Now they can’t

believe what they’re hearing.

Postpone? Ineffective advance directives? Continued life support? Did the doctor really say that?

That there may even need to be surgery for a feeding tube and a tracheostomy while this legal

glitch is being discussed and gets clarified?

Almost in unison, Janet’s mother and father protest, “But, Doctor, our daughter didn’t want

this!”

Questions for discussion - be sure to consider all aspects,

including the law and prinicplism.

1. What should be done now for Janet and her parents, and on what grounds?

2. What values underlie the statute making a pregnant woman’s healthcare treatment declarations

of “no effect” while pregnant (meaning, what do you think is the reasoning behind the law)? Do

you agree or disagree with this statute, and on what grounds?

3. What decision would you be making as Janet’s parental advocate, and why? Consider the legal limitations in your answer.

4. Ought someone to be an advocate for Janet’s fetus, or not? And why or why not?

Answer 1

1. It's a difficult situation to make decision between their daughter 's wish and life of the baby. As it is a legal issue now , the parents should take consultation from the court about what to do in such conditions whether they should go with her daughter's wishes or save the child .

2. It's the matter of life . Nothing is big enough than life or giving birth to a new life . I agree with this statute making a pregnant woman's healthcare treatment declaration of "no effect "while pregnant because the baby is had doesn't done anything then why should we harm it , it is innocent .

3. As Janet's parental advocate , i would advice them to continue life support ,by this they would be saving the life of the baby and going against the wishes of their daughter will not be a big issue when on the other side you are saving a life .

4. Yes , someone will be posted to act as advocate for Janet's fetus ,who will take decision for the baby on behalf of their parents .