{"title":"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","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":"{\"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}","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}
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
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.
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.