17 yr old girl not allowed an abortion

Orion

SetantaL wrote:

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2007/0501/breaking8.htm

Latest update. State does not have authority to prevent her from going. It seems like someone got their facts mixed up and said she could only go if she was suicidal. This confuses the stance after the X case with the stance after teh Referendum where the right to travel was not to be restricted.

That was the argument used by the AG - not the finding of the court. It was only up for mention today. The full hearing is on Thursday.

seamus

Edit: Clearly I'm out of date on this one

Orion

nesf wrote:

A small point but the HSE should do what is in the interest of the population not necessarily what is in the interests of an individual patient should those two interests conflict.

No it shouldn't. If a minor is placed in the care of the HSE then their primary responsibility is to that minor - not he population at large. The branch of the HSE responsible for hospitals etc is concerned with the national picture but this is the social services section and their only responsibility is the individual child.

Orion

seamus wrote:

When was this decided?
The people decided that someone under 18 could be granted the right to travel and obtain an abortion in the case where the mother was suicidal.

1992.

The people decided that nothing in the right to life clause of the constitution could be construed as denying the right to travel.

"3° The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.

This subsection shall not limit freedom to travel between the State and another state. "

The only time the people spoke on suicide was to reject a referendum removing it as an excuse. It was the Supreme Court who decided that suicide presented a danger to the life of the mother and could be used as a reason for abortion - technically abortion in this country is legal in these circumstances although no government has legislated either way since.

nesf

Macros42 wrote:

No it shouldn't. If a minor is placed in the care of the HSE then their primary responsibility is to that minor - not he population at large. The branch of the HSE responsible for hospitals etc is concerned with the national picture but this is the social services section and their only responsibility is the individual child.

In this specific case I completely agree but my point was that the HSE cannot only act in the best interest of individuals. In this case I see no conflict between the girl's interests and society's so there's no issue but making general points that the HSE should always act in the best interest of individuals is simply untrue, it's impossible to do that.

Orion

nesf wrote:

In this specific case I completely agree but my point was that the HSE cannot only act in the best interest of individuals. In this case I see no conflict between the girl's interests and society's so there's no issue but making general points that the HSE should always act in the best interest of individuals is simply untrue, it's impossible to do that.

The social services are obliged by law to act in the best interests of the individual placed in their care. Don't forget the HSE is huge - there are many components. What you're saying is true for a lot of the sections but not for this one. Regardless of the specific case they have to act in the interests of the individual in this area.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

calsatron

Unfortunately the HSE has to make decisions based on current legislation and it has also has to make those decisions based upon clearly defined and transparent guidelines that apply across all members of irish society that use it services.

If it changed to being able to make a call based solely upon what seemed right or fair at the time to the person making the decision then the system would be far more open to abusive practices than it is at the moment.

For example the person making the decision may have been able to give the minor the right to travel, however the next case on the person's desk may be whether or not to recommend carrying out an expensive elective process on a patient to improve their quality of life. They do not recommend that process, why, because the patient happens to be gay.

Obviously that's a gross example but that's what would happen if you move away from a recommended practice environment.

bushy...

calsatron wrote:

But what happens when the next 17yr old under the HSE's care wants an abortian because the child has x% chance of y condition that may impact the child's life in z way?

I'm fairly sure y condition will have a fairly severe impact this time , and it even to me it looks clear in scans so the" x% chance that it'll be ok" thing that some like to harp on about doesn't really apply. Link to show how clear it is : ( graphic by the nature of it )
http://www.gfmer.ch/genetic_diseases_v2/gendis_detail_list.php?offset=0&cat3=25

panda100

For those of you who are intrested and feel strongly about this case there will be a rally Saturday at noon in front of the GPO. http://indymedia.ie/article/82268
As a pro-lifer I would attend this rally (If I didnt have exams(. I dont think a 17 year old deserves to give birth to a dead baby and carry It for 9 months. I wish her and her boyfriend the best of luck on Thursday.

Nevyn

Will the HSE still have a duty of care if she is out of the country and thier juridictions ?

do they even have the poplicy in place to allow them to sign the forums as her legal guardians for a medical proceedure which is happening out of the state ?

Would thier legal gaurdianship and the signing of the required documents be
legal in the UK and under their law for the permissions for a medical proceedure ?

coffee_cake

nesf wrote:

That wasn't the point of what calsatron was making. It is that this case will set precendent and even though this case is fairly clear cut in that it's a fatal condition the implications from this case on cases where it's not necessarily fatal (i.e. x% chance of it being fatal) that is also highly important since this involves a very specific public body.

I know, I just wanted to clear up that bit because of the "impact on child's life" part of their post.

calsatron

I'd imagine the methodology at least is in place as it wouldn't be unheard of for children in state car to travel overseas for specialist medical attention.

Personally though I think there's very little the HSE can do, even if they had the will, with regard to either taking or funding a trip to the UK.

This is clearly an emotive issue and I'd agree that the current decision, in this specific case, is incorrect. However I don't really see what other decision the HSE could reach and I think any protest against them will be entirely ineffective.

If anything it's cases like this that should drive legislative reform.

Nevyn

Which should have happened after the right to travel referenda but surprise surprise that was put on the long finger with so many other issues.

Orion

Thaedydal wrote:

Will the HSE still have a duty of care if she is out of the country and thier juridictions ?

do they even have the poplicy in place to allow them to sign the forums as her legal guardians for a medical proceedure which is happening out of the state ?

Would thier legal gaurdianship and the signing of the required documents be
legal in the UK and under their law for the permissions for a medical proceedure ?

Q1 - Yes. They have a duty of care no matter where she is.
Q2 - Very good question. It's doubtful they have any policy in place.
Q3 - Yes. The legal guardian can give permission and the state is recognised as legal guardian in England.

Nevyn

Back to Q1 they do but will another country recgonise it ?

Orion

Yes. The legal guardian is the legal guardian. Whether that person is the parent, uncle, aunt, brother or a state appointed guardian. Being a mother gives you legal guardianship automatically. Being a father married to that mother also gives you legal guardianship. My case - unmarried father - I have to sign a declaration to be recognised as guardian. A court can nominate a third party as guardian. And the state can take over guardianship in certain cases - like this one.

[edit]Meant to add - A parent is a social distinction. It is the guardian that counts legally.

Time Magazine

kizzyr wrote:

for example Catholics, who believe in ensoulment at the moment of conception

I'm not getting back into this thread (although yay for it not going totally awful), but you will not find an "official" Catholic document stating ensoulment occurs at conception. That is not dogma.

kizzyr

Ibid wrote:

I'm not getting back into this thread (although yay for it not going totally awful), but you will not find an "official" Catholic document stating ensoulment occurs at conception. That is not dogma.

It may not be an "official" stand the Church takes (and I think this is because they don't know how to deal with the issue of twinning when an embryo splits cause really how do you decide if the soul is split in two and halved or if the slightly older twin has a soul and the younger one doesn't) but many Catholics believe that from the moment of conception that a living breathing human being with a soul exists and so are anti abortion because they believe they are killing a human being.
Like many people I am in the middle when it comes to abortion. There are many people who find themselves pregnant when they really and truly are not in any way ready to be parents and genuinely believe that they will not be able to give any kind of good life to the child and so opt for abortion over bringing an unwanted child into the world. This situation can occur in many ways, not just after someone has been raped and I don't think it is right to force not only parenthood but the endurance of an unwanted pregnancy, labour and childbirth on such a person. Again this can be the case if someone finds out that the foetus is incompatible with life or will be severely handicapped and disabled as was the case with the child in Seattle. I'm just hoping that people don't come out with the slippery slope / eugenics argument here.
Ultimately I firmly believe in the freedom of choice and bodily integrity. Currently in under Irish law once a woman becomes pregnant her life, her body and her interests almost cease to matter and that is wrong, no unborn being with the potential for human life and person hood should trump the rights of its "mother".
I just hope that some day we have a group of politicians with enough courage and determination to deal with this problem effectively and have a proper decision made and that we as as nation are clear on where the law stands on this issue. At the moment we deal reactively to situations like this one and a patchwork quilt of law exists. When laws are made in a hurry they generally tend to be bad ones.

BeatNikDub

kizzyr wrote:

It may not be an "official" stand the Church takes (and I think this is because they don't know how to deal with the issue of twinning when an embryo splits cause really how do you decide if the soul is split in two and halved or if the slightly older twin has a soul and the younger one doesn't) but many Catholics believe that from the moment of conception that a living breathing human being with a soul exists and so are anti abortion because they believe they are killing a human being.
Like many people I am in the middle when it comes to abortion. There are many people who find themselves pregnant when they really and truly are not in any way ready to be parents and genuinely believe that they will not be able to give any kind of good life to the child and so opt for abortion over bringing an unwanted child into the world. This situation can occur in many ways, not just after someone has been raped and I don't think it is right to force not only parenthood but the endurance of an unwanted pregnancy, labour and childbirth on such a person. Again this can be the case if someone finds out that the foetus is incompatible with life or will be severely handicapped and disabled as was the case with the child in Seattle. I'm just hoping that people don't come out with the slippery slope / eugenics argument here.
Ultimately I firmly believe in the freedom of choice and bodily integrity. Currently in under Irish law once a woman becomes pregnant her life, her body and her interests almost cease to matter and that is wrong, no unborn being with the potential for human life and person hood should trump the rights of its "mother".
I just hope that some day we have a group of politicians with enough courage and determination to deal with this problem effectively and have a proper decision made and that we as as nation are clear on where the law stands on this issue. At the moment we deal reactively to situations like this one and a patchwork quilt of law exists. When laws are made in a hurry they generally tend to be bad ones.

Absolutely wonderfully said.
I agree with every bit of it.

InFront

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I'm making the point that there is no legitimate life here to support, saying there is a pro life argument is ridiculous. The baby will be basically dead with simple spinal reflexes, and most of his brain missing. There is no possibility of consciousness or sensation. There is no life there to support.

My only concern is killing foetuses who do have the potential to be functional, even severely disabled, humans. If you don't like that because it doesn't suit the inaccuracy of your post from earlier, that's your problem.
I said in another thread a few months ago that anencephaly is one of the very few conditions where abortion should be sanctioned, this is still my belief.

Am I to assume since this baby is going to die in 5 days after birth that the 'pro-life'-ers on this thread are in favour of euthanasia too

Personally, no. Not the death of a functioning human, even a dying one. This anencephaly case is more like brain death (or literally, brain absence).

Twinkle-star15

Kernel wrote:

Because, Faith, only God should decide who should live and die. Tough legislation from the goverrnment under the moral guidelines of the Catholic Church are necessary to prevent willy nilly killing of unborn children.

Baby killers need to be kept in check.

I'm aware that such an opinion is unlikely to garner support from boards users, but it is my belief, and the strong belief of millions of other Catholics. At least try to understand that... although I already know you all wont.

But God's already decided that this baby's going to die- doctors have given 5 days at most to live after birth, so shouldn't the mother be able to spare herself the agony of watching her baby die?

Kernel

Jumpy wrote:

Anyone with a reasonable level of intelligence has by now questioned the idea of religion, and dismissed it as rubbish.

Nonsense - I find your statement that people who have a religious belief are somehow lower in intelligence to be ignorant and insulting (as well as factually incorrect).

Kernel

ellenmelon wrote:

all cases. im not going to be half arsed about it aye. its their decision. of course it would be far more positive if they used contraception but whatever..i cant talk!

Very selfish attitute. And no doubt, you also don't believe the father should have any say in what happens to the child either?

JC 2K3

Kernel wrote:

Nonsense - I find your statement that people who have a religious belief are somehow lower in intelligence to be ignorant and insulting (as well as factually incorrect).

Not unless the stats are lying....

But meh, stats can prove anything. Leave religion out of this. Laws should not be influenced by religion. If someone doesn't care about the child they're/their wife is carrying then let them have an abortion I say. I for one acknowledge that it is killing, but since killing it has no effect on the world I believe it is an acceptable killing and that the period of time spent in utero is a convenient timeframe in which to allow killing a child.

I might sound cold and heartless, but IMO I'd say many people have the same type of opinions but never state them as directly. I could easily say that I simply don't believe the child has rights before it is born or life doesn't begin until birth, but it all means the same thing really.

In this case I don't see why the girl is being forced to stay in the country tbh. I expect they'll let her go eventually though.

Bob the Builder

Okay, so they have a rule against abortion, but can they not lift it for a girl who's child is gonna die after birth anyway... stupid...

biko wrote:

This is the loophole they tried to close a while ago isn't it?

Tried & Failed(Shot down)

Fighting Irish

Hagar wrote:

I'm not a lawyer but if abortion is illegal in Ireland, to protect the right of the unborn, and if the young girl has stated her intent publically in Ireland then the HSE are bound to try to prevent the abortion by whatever means are at their disposal.

Not really,

weed is illegal here, if i tell a guard i'm going to amsterdam to smoke weed he can't stop me

Ruen

Fighting Irish wrote:

Not really,

weed is illegal here, if i tell a guard i'm going to amsterdam to smoke weed he can't stop me

Well she's a child and the HSE is responsible for her, it's not a fact of her doing something thats illegal. A guard isnt responsible for you.

Fighting Irish

Ruen wrote:

Well she's a child and the HSE is responsible for her, it's not a fact of her doing something thats illegal. A guard isnt responsible for you.

her parents are responsible for her, if they agree, she should be allowed do what she wants

embee

I know that if I were in that situation, I would probably have the abortion. Anencephaly is a condition that is "incompatible with life". The child will have little or no brain matter, very few if any skull bones. In a lot of cases, the infant will die within seconds or minutes of the umbilical cord being cut.

From Wikipedia :

Infants born with anencephaly are usually blind, deaf, unconscious, and unable to feel pain.

There is no cure or standard treatment for anencephaly and the prognosis for affected individuals is poor. Most anencephalic babies do not survive birth, accounting for 55% of non-aborted cases. If the infant is not stillborn, then he or she will usually die within a few hours or days after birth from cardiorespiratory arrest.


In almost all cases anencephalic infants are not aggressively resuscitated since there is no chance of the infant ever achieving a conscious existence. Instead, the usual clinical practice is to offer hydration, nutrition and comfort measures and to "let nature take its course". Artificial ventilation, surgery (to fix any co-existing congenital defects), and drug therapy (such as antibiotics) are usually regarded as being pointless. Some clinicians see no point in even providing nutrition and hydration, arguing that euthanasia is morally and clinically appropriate in such cases.

Why anyone in this world thinks that its better for this poor 17 year old girl to go through the ordeal of giving birth to a child with a prognosis like the above than to have a termination is beyond me.

Christ, I couldn't do it, and I'm 26 years of age.

Just on another note - this girl, in some years to come, may decide that she wants to have more children. With every labour and delivery there is a risk (albeit very small) of placental rupture and massive haemmorhage. These can result in hysterectomy, stroke, or, in some cases, death of the mother. If I were that girl I wouldn't put my own health at risk. It might be a small risk, but really, whats the point when the child you are going to carry for 9 months is without question going to die?

Perhaps that is selfish, but at the end of the day, she will never get to be "mother" to this child, in the true sense of the word.