Demand filed against Kansas’ law by annulment of end -of -life options for pregnant women

Three women and two doctors ask to block a Kansas law that invalidates the advanced medical directive of a pregnant woman on the end of life treatment.

The plaintiffs, one of whom are currently pregnant, challenge the constitutionality of a clause in the State Natural Death Act that denies pregnant women the option of making anticipated directives to accept or reject healthcare if they are incapacitated or abandoned.

Patient plaintiffs Emma Vernon, Abigail Ottaway and Laura Stratton and the plaintiffs of Doctors Michele Bennett and Lynley Holman filed the lawsuit on Thursday. It argues that the clause violates the right to personal autonomy, privacy, equal treatment and freedom of expression ignoring the end of life decisions of pregnant women.

CDC eliminates the recommendation of Covid vaccine for healthy children, pregnant mothers

Vernon, the pregnant claimant, wrote an early health directive who stated that, if he was pregnant and diagnosed with a terminal condition, he would only like to receive a treatment that maintains life if “there is a reasonable medical certainty” that his son would reach a term and that he was born “with a significant perspective of sustained life and without significant conditions that substantially affect their quality of life”.

Demand says that its directive has not been “given the same deference as the law offers to others who complete directives due to the exclusion of pregnancy and, therefore, does not benefit from the same level of certainty that the Directive provides in another way.”

All states have laws that allow people to write anticipated medical care directives they would like to receive if their own health decisions cannot be made. Nine states have clauses to invalidate the early directive of a pregnant woman.

The plaintiffs argue that the law violates the right to personal autonomy, privacy, equality of treatment and freedom of expression. (Istock)

Doctors who joined the lawsuit said that the law demands that they provide pregnant patients with a lower level of care than other patients and open to civil and criminal demands, as well as professional penalties.

Demand says doctors “are deeply committed to the founding medical principle that patients have a fundamental right to determine what treatment they receive and to provide treatment without the informed consent of the patient violates both medical ethics and law.”

Furious new mother to the husband to choose friends and barbecue about her and her newborn

The demands of the demand are the Attorney General of Kansas, Kris Kobach (in the photo), the President of Kansas State of Healing Arts, President Richard Bradbury and the District District prosecutor, Dakota Loomis. (AP Photo/John Hanna)

Click here to get the Fox News app

“However, Kansas’ law forces them to ignore the clearly expressed end-of-life decisions of their patients, forcing them to provide their pregnant patients with a lower care level than the other patients receive,” he continues. “It demands this decrease in attention without any clarity about the end-of-life treatment that is required of them, leaving them guessing in what the law expects while exposing them for civil, criminal and professional consequences to make mistakes.”

The demands of the demand are the Attorney General of Kansas, Kris Kobach, the President of Kansas State of Healing Arts, Richard Bradbury and the District District prosecutor of Douglas, Dakota Loomis.