Get Premium
Dark mode theme is available exclusively for premium users. Learn more about the benefits of subscribing.
No fees, cancel anytime.
Dark Mode 
No fees, cancel anytime 
then open in external browser
and click "Open in External Browser" 
The ordeal of a Brazilian family has the country immersed in a heated debate as a brain-dead21-year-old mother is being kept alive by machines so that her unborn 6-month-old child has a chance to survive.
“This is disgusting,” a local netizen said. “She’s being forced to have her body violated just so that she can give birth to someone who will never remember her.”
Highlights
- 21-year-old Joyce Araújo is being kept alive to save her unborn 6-month baby.
- Joyce collapsed from a severe headache due to a brain aneurysm.
- Brazil's law prohibits abortion after three months.
- The cause sparked heated debate among locals online.
Joyce Sousa Araújo, collapsed after suffering “very strong headaches,” being hospitalized at a Rondonópolis hospital for surgery. Doctors were able to detect an aneurysm but it was already too late, as her brain had swollen to the point she couldn’t be saved.
“I’m sure that, if the mother was alive, this is exactly what she would’ve wanted!” another replied.
RELATED:
A brain-dead 21-year-old mother is being kept alive by machines to give her unborn 6-month-old child a chance to survive
Image credits: g1
Her husband, 23-year-old João Matheus Silva, recounted the suddenness of the tragedy, which left their two daughters, aged 3 and 7, without a mother and with their brother’s life at risk.
“She started feeling very strong headaches after getting pregnant, but nothing that indicated an aneurysm. We never imagined this would happen,” he said, remembering how his wife’s condition suddenly worsened on December 20 while at their home in Jaciara.
Image credits: sousa_joy9890
As her brain expanded, doctors desperately tried to remove part of her skull to alleviate the swelling, but their efforts failed. Joyce was declared brain dead a few days later.
Despite the mother’s condition, doctors decided to continue artificial life support due to her advanced pregnancy.
The hospital has been monitoring both Joyce and her unborn child closely, aiming to deliver the baby boy as soon as it reaches 7 months of gestational age.
Experts have long debated the ethical considerations of cases such as Joyce’s, as well as the legal ramifications of the procedure
Image credits: sousa_joy9890
The story of Joyce has parallels to other cases around the world where pregnant women declared brain dead have been kept alive to support their unborn children.
A notable example is the case of Catarina Sequeira, a Portuguese woman who was maintained on life support until her baby could be delivered at 31 weeks.
Her case was thoroughly examined by a 2020 University of Cambridge study which delved into the complex legal and ethical implications of keeping a mother alive to save an unborn child’s life.
Image credits: estreitonline
For Alex Warren, one of the paper’s authors, one that one of the most contentious aspects of delicate situations like this is hospitals acting against the express wishes of the mother’s family.
Image credits: matheus__.borges
“In a number of highly publicised cases, continuation of maternal physiological support after brain death has been attempted against the express wishes of the patient’s family,” he wrote.
The study also put forward a concerning figure, citing a German study of 30 cases of brain-dead mothers, of which only 63% were able to successfully deliver their babies.
Brazil’s legal system forbids abortions beyond the third month, which means doctors must do all they can to keep Joyce’s baby alive
Image credits: viralagora
Aside from the complex ethical considerations of surrounding the subject matter, legal concerns also need to be taken into account.
Brazil is a signatory of the American Human Rights Convention, which grants the right to life to human embryos, including intrauterine ones. In 2016, the Supreme Court in Brazil ruled that abortion was not considered a crime in the first three months of pregnancy.
Image credits: estreitonline
Beyond that specific timeframe, the procedure is only allowed if the mother was raped, to save the mother’s life, and in the case of an anencephalic fetus.
Joyce’s baby being a 6-month-old, means that doctors are under the obligation to preserve its life to the best of their ability. The mother’s family have also expressed willingness to receive the baby.
Image credits: sousa_joy9890
View this post on Instagram
“The worst part is knowing that the children will grow up without a mother,” the father explained.
The family is now looking for a way to raise money to send Joyce’s body to the state of Tocantins, in the center of Brazil, after the baby is born, with the father putting up a video on Instagram explaining their situation.
“Any strong woman would do this,” one reader wrote, believing Joyce would’ve been happy with the decision the doctors made
Image credits: dan2006y
Image credits: poraodocaos
Image credits: naoironicamentw
Image credits: caracavic
Image credits: sunshineMiny
Image credits: Maxnogueirat
Image credits: sandroewillian
Image credits: 2d_ryuzuuki
Image credits: akutagawazinho
Image credits: bebelaleao
Image credits: IzzieDash
Image credits: vct_fl
Image credits: bibi_pitica
Poll Question
Total votes ·
Thanks! Check out the results:
Total votes ·
Newsletter
Subscribe to Access
Exclusive Polls
By entering your email and clicking Subscribe, you're agreeing to let us send you customized marketing messages about us and our advertising partners. You are also agreeing to our Privacy Policy.
Thank you! You've successfully subscribed to newsletters!
Explore more of these tags
What do you think ?
JB 10 months ago (edited)
Hold up. Where’s the comments that at 21 she already had a 7-year old? This woman was pregnant at 13 /14 but that fact is lost underneath the facts she is pregnant now. She was a child the first time she got pregnant. She was still a child with her second pregnancy. She was barely an adult with her third yet she’s still being treated as an incubator. Maybe she would have wanted her child to survive no matter what, but I have to question would she make that choice if she wasn’t already convinced that her sole purpose in life is to produce babies.
MaryHadaLittleLamb 10 months ago
I had the same thoughts after doing the math.
Load More Replies...
Libstak 10 months ago
There doesnt seem to be any disparity between what her family wants and what the doctors are doing...where is the issue? 6 months is an undeveloped but functioning heart, lungs, kidneys, brain etc its on the cusp of survivability with medical assistance. In 4 more weeks the baby can be born and incubated safely.
st4x2gt974 10 months ago
Thank you. I kept looking for the controversy. There isn’t one. Such a pointless article. It’s not our business, so why is it something I should opine on???
Load More Replies...
Reginald 10 months ago (edited)
I’m pro-choice and this a tough one. You wonder what the mother would want in this situation. But ultimately it should be up to the husband, not the government.
Joe Reaves 10 months ago
If a woman is 6 months pregnant then I would say it's a fairly safe assumption that she would want the child to survive, especially if she's in a long term relationship and already has children. It's not like they're keeping the baby alive at her expense. The outcome is the same for her whatever. I'm way more concerned about the ages and anyone who is focussing on them keeping her on life support as a feminist issue and NOT the fact she was 21 with a 7 year old child has the wrong priorities.
Load More Replies... JB 10 months ago (edited)
Hold up. Where’s the comments that at 21 she already had a 7-year old? This woman was pregnant at 13 /14 but that fact is lost underneath the facts she is pregnant now. She was a child the first time she got pregnant. She was still a child with her second pregnancy. She was barely an adult with her third yet she’s still being treated as an incubator. Maybe she would have wanted her child to survive no matter what, but I have to question would she make that choice if she wasn’t already convinced that her sole purpose in life is to produce babies.
MaryHadaLittleLamb 10 months ago
I had the same thoughts after doing the math.
Load More Replies... Libstak 10 months ago
There doesnt seem to be any disparity between what her family wants and what the doctors are doing...where is the issue? 6 months is an undeveloped but functioning heart, lungs, kidneys, brain etc its on the cusp of survivability with medical assistance. In 4 more weeks the baby can be born and incubated safely.
st4x2gt974 10 months ago
Thank you. I kept looking for the controversy. There isn’t one. Such a pointless article. It’s not our business, so why is it something I should opine on???
Load More Replies... Reginald 10 months ago (edited)
I’m pro-choice and this a tough one. You wonder what the mother would want in this situation. But ultimately it should be up to the husband, not the government.
Joe Reaves 10 months ago
If a woman is 6 months pregnant then I would say it's a fairly safe assumption that she would want the child to survive, especially if she's in a long term relationship and already has children. It's not like they're keeping the baby alive at her expense. The outcome is the same for her whatever. I'm way more concerned about the ages and anyone who is focussing on them keeping her on life support as a feminist issue and NOT the fact she was 21 with a 7 year old child has the wrong priorities.
Load More Replies... You May Like
Related on Bored Panda
20
142