Navigating the legal vacuum: An ethical analysis of brain death, fetal personhood, and maternal autonomy in the post-roe era: Lessons from Smith v. Georgia

Q3 Medicine
C. Kooli
{"title":"Navigating the legal vacuum: An ethical analysis of brain death, fetal personhood, and maternal autonomy in the post-roe era: Lessons from Smith v. Georgia","authors":"C. Kooli","doi":"10.1016/j.jemep.2025.101187","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>The <em>Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization</em> decision has fragmented U.S. abortion law, leading to stringent state-level fetal personhood statutes. This creates acute ethical and medical dilemmas, particularly when a pregnant individual is declared brain dead, a legally recognized state of death. The tension between continuing pregnancy for fetal viability and respecting the deceased's autonomy presents an unresolved conflict.</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>This paper conducts an ethical analysis of the <em>Smith v. Georgia</em> case, wherein Adriana Smith, a brain-dead pregnant woman, was reportedly maintained on life support due to concerns over Georgia's fetal personhood law.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We review publicly available case details, legal interpretations, and apply core bioethical principles (autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, justice) to dissect the inherent ethical and practical conflicts.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Ms. Smith's case exposed a critical legal vacuum: despite being brain dead, her body was reportedly sustained due to perceived legal mandates, conflicting with her family's wishes. The Georgia Attorney General's subsequent clarification that removing life support from a brain-dead individual is not an abortion highlighted this overreach. This situation violates the deceased's autonomy, places undue psychological burdens on families, creates moral distress for healthcare providers, and raises significant public health concerns regarding resource allocation and the long-term well-being of children born into such unique circumstances.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>The <em>Smith v. Georgia</em> case underscores the urgent need for clear legal and ethical guidance at the nexus of brain death, pregnancy, and fetal personhood. We advocate for legislative amendments to clarify non-applicability of fetal personhood in brain death, reaffirming post-mortem autonomy, and establishing comprehensive social and psychological support systems for families and children involved in such tragic scenarios.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":37707,"journal":{"name":"Ethics, Medicine and Public Health","volume":"33 ","pages":"Article 101187"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethics, Medicine and Public Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S235255252500146X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

The Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision has fragmented U.S. abortion law, leading to stringent state-level fetal personhood statutes. This creates acute ethical and medical dilemmas, particularly when a pregnant individual is declared brain dead, a legally recognized state of death. The tension between continuing pregnancy for fetal viability and respecting the deceased's autonomy presents an unresolved conflict.

Objective

This paper conducts an ethical analysis of the Smith v. Georgia case, wherein Adriana Smith, a brain-dead pregnant woman, was reportedly maintained on life support due to concerns over Georgia's fetal personhood law.

Methods

We review publicly available case details, legal interpretations, and apply core bioethical principles (autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, justice) to dissect the inherent ethical and practical conflicts.

Results

Ms. Smith's case exposed a critical legal vacuum: despite being brain dead, her body was reportedly sustained due to perceived legal mandates, conflicting with her family's wishes. The Georgia Attorney General's subsequent clarification that removing life support from a brain-dead individual is not an abortion highlighted this overreach. This situation violates the deceased's autonomy, places undue psychological burdens on families, creates moral distress for healthcare providers, and raises significant public health concerns regarding resource allocation and the long-term well-being of children born into such unique circumstances.

Conclusion

The Smith v. Georgia case underscores the urgent need for clear legal and ethical guidance at the nexus of brain death, pregnancy, and fetal personhood. We advocate for legislative amendments to clarify non-applicability of fetal personhood in brain death, reaffirming post-mortem autonomy, and establishing comprehensive social and psychological support systems for families and children involved in such tragic scenarios.
在法律真空中导航:后roe时代对脑死亡、胎儿人格和母亲自主权的伦理分析:史密斯诉乔治亚案的教训
多布斯诉杰克逊妇女健康组织案的判决使美国堕胎法支离破碎,导致了严格的州一级胎儿人格法规。这造成了严重的伦理和医学困境,特别是当一个怀孕的人被宣布脑死亡时,这是一种法律承认的死亡状态。为了胎儿生存能力而继续怀孕和尊重死者的自主权之间的紧张关系是一个未解决的冲突。本文对Smith诉Georgia一案进行了伦理分析,该案件中,脑死亡孕妇Adriana Smith由于对Georgia的胎儿人格法的担忧而被维持生命支持。方法我们回顾了公开的案例细节、法律解释,并运用核心的生命伦理原则(自主、有益、无害、正义)来剖析内在的伦理和实践冲突。史密斯的案件暴露了一个关键的法律真空:尽管她已经脑死亡,但据报道,她的尸体是根据法律规定保存的,这与她家人的意愿相冲突。乔治亚州司法部长随后澄清说,从脑死亡的人身上撤掉生命维持设备不是堕胎,这凸显了这种越权行为。这种情况侵犯了死者的自主权,给家庭带来了不必要的心理负担,给医疗保健提供者造成了道德上的困扰,并引起了对资源分配和在这种特殊情况下出生的儿童长期福祉的重大公共卫生关切。Smith诉Georgia案强调了对脑死亡、怀孕和胎儿人格关系的明确的法律和伦理指导的迫切需要。我们主张修改立法,明确胎儿人格在脑死亡中的不适用性,重申死后自主权,并为涉及此类悲剧情景的家庭和儿童建立全面的社会和心理支持系统。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Ethics, Medicine and Public Health
Ethics, Medicine and Public Health Medicine-Health Policy
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
107
审稿时长
42 days
期刊介绍: This review aims to compare approaches to medical ethics and bioethics in two forms, Anglo-Saxon (Ethics, Medicine and Public Health) and French (Ethique, Médecine et Politiques Publiques). Thus, in their native languages, the authors will present research on the legitimacy of the practice and appreciation of the consequences of acts towards patients as compared to the limits acceptable by the community, as illustrated by the democratic debate.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信