Livestream Recap: Adriana Smith case discussion
Last week, Herb Geraghty and I had a detailed discussion of the case of Adriana Smith, a mother declared brain dead when she was 9 weeks pregnant. A Georgia hospital has been keeping her on life support in the hopes of getting her son to 32 weeks gestation. We wrote about the case in detail here.
A lot of people are upset and confused about this story, and the complexity is a bit much for a Tiktok. So Herb and I walked through the laws and ethical questions in a long-form discussion. You can listen to or watch the replay here:
Or, if you prefer, here is a summary of our conversation.
Key Takeaways
- Smith’s case was not governed by Georgia’s abortion law. A 2007 statute about advanced directives governs situations when a pregnant woman is incapacitated and on life support. These kinds of laws exist across both pro-life and pro-choice states.
- Both sides often assume the mother’s wishes. Generally pro-lifers assume she would want to stay on life support to keep her child alive, and pro-choicers assume she would want to be taken off life support to save her family trauma.
- Public dialogue about this case has been polarized and dehumanizing, regarding both Smith herself and her son, Chance.
[Read our Washington Examiner op-ed: In Adriana Smith case, a clear moral resolution]
Summary
The Adriana Smith case has seen a lot of media oversimplification and political weaponization. In this livestream, Herb and I wanted to bring more light than heat. We clarified that Georgia’s heartbeat law isn’t responsible for Smith remaining on life support. Instead there is a 2007 law that prevents withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment from pregnant patients unless the woman has explicitly directed otherwise through an advanced directive. Many states have laws like these, including pro-choice states such as Alaska, Colorado, Illinois, Nevada, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania. We discuss these laws and the legal precedent that established them, as well as common problems of communication breakdowns between doctors and patient families.
We also explore questions about whose wishes should prevail in these ambiguous situations. Maternal autonomy, family decision-making, and fetal rights are all at play. The ethics of this case are complex. We can’t claim to know with certainty what Adriana would have wanted, but Herb and I discuss how frustrating it is when abortion advocates assume she certainly wouldn’t have wanted to continue life support. We also note how pro-choice commentary often ignores entirely the existence of Smith’s son, Chance, who is still living and growing as the public debates his life.
When the discourse does acknowledge Chance, pro-life and pro-choice people frame the potential outcomes and the value of life with disabilities in strikingly different ways. Herb and I go over several real examples, noting the very different life-changing experiences that can lead people to their perspectives.
Finally, we review the studies on pregnancy after brain death and discuss viability, survival rates, and fetal development in such cases. We discuss how each side can use or misuse these data to support different framings.
If you appreciate our work and would like to help, one of the most effective ways to do so is to become a monthly donor. You can also give a one time donation here or volunteer with us here.
