Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

Kiwi in IE

How are you reaching the conclusion that because two doctors signatures are needed, the reasons for abortion are 'fabricated'.

Kiwi in IE

I am basing this purely on supposition from my own experience in the medical field, but I am guessing the two signature requirement is there for the professional protection of the doctor.

Peregrinus

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I am basing this purely on supposition from my own experience in the medical field, but I am guessing the two signature requirement is there for the professional protection of the doctor.

No, it was put in with a view to ensuring that the “ethical” test that must be satisfied before an abortion can proceed - that continuing the pregnancy would be more dangerous to the woman than terminating it - would not be easily circumvented. You had to find two doctors of this view, so you couldn’t just find a complaisant doctor who would sign off on any abortion at all in return for twenty quid and a bottle of gin, so to speak. The two-doctor rule was motivated by precisely the concern that we see being expressed now in the Irish context; that attempts will be made to circumvent whatever conditions the law imposes for getting an abortion.

Put it this way; if he considers it medically indicated, a doctor can amputate both your legs without any legal requirement to get a second opinion before doing so, even though the consequences for him (and for you!) should he be mistaken are pretty drastic. If there’s no legal need to protect doctors from their own negligent or rash judgments in that situation by requiring a second opinion, why would there be a need to protect doctors from their own errors in making the diagnosis needed for an abortion?

Kiwi in IE

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, it was put in with a view to ensuring that the “ethical” test that must be satisfied before an abortion can proceed - that continuing the pregnancy would be more dangerous to the woman than terminating it - would not be easily circumvented. You had to find two doctors of this view, so you couldn’t just find a complaisant doctor who would sign off on any abortion at all in return for twenty quid and a bottle of gin, so to speak. The two-doctor rule was motivated by precisely the concern that we see being expressed now in the Irish context; that attempts will be made to circumvent whatever conditions the law imposes for getting an abortion.

Put it this way; if he considers it medically indicated, a doctor can amputate both your legs without any legal requirement to get a second opinion before doing so, even though the consequences for him (and for you!) should he be mistaken are pretty drastic. If there’s no legal need to protect doctors from their own negligent or rash judgments in that situation by requiring a second opinion, why would there be a need to protect doctors from their own errors in making the diagnosis needed for an abortion?

It is certainly not their own negligence that I imagine doctors would need professional protection from. If I were a doctor in this field I would want a colleagues back up to prevent situations in difficult cases. For example a young woman with pro life parents comes in for an abortion. She is unsupported by her family and bullied afterward into saying it was the doctors idea that she abort. Two medical reports to the contrary shuts that down before it can begin. Despite what the original context for the 2 signatures was when the legislation was created, I am sure there wouldn't be many doctors wanting to do away with it now for the above reasons.

Peregrinus

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

It is certainly not their own negligence that I imagine doctors would need professional protection from. If I were a doctor in this field I would want a colleagues back up to prevent situations in difficult cases. For example a young woman with pro life parents comes in for an abortion. She is unsupported by her family and bullied afterward into saying it was the doctors idea that she abort. Two medical reports to the contrary shuts that down before it can begin. Despite what the original context for the 2 signatures was when the legislation was created, I am sure there wouldn't be many doctors wanting to do away with it now for the above reasons.

Oh, I completely accept that a doctor might want a second opinion. But even more would he want a second opinion before amputating a leg. That wouldn't be a reason for legally requiring him to obtain a second opinion; if it's in his interests to obtain a second opinion he'll do that without any legal requirement.

Besides, in reality it doesn't seem that doctors are actuated by the concern you mention. There are reports (linked earlier in this thread) of widespread practices of doctors signing certificates for patients they have not examined, doctors signing stacks of blank certificates where patients' names will be filled in later by someone else, and doctors with entirely irrelevant specialisms (e.g. anaesthesia) signing certificates. Plainly, certificates signed in these circumstances would provide little protection in a subsequent malpractice suit - the reverse, really.

There seems to be a well-established culture that the second certificate is signed merely to comply with a tedious statutory requirement to which the doctors involved attach no substantial signficance.

Kiwi in IE

Peregrinus wrote: »

Oh, I completely accept that a doctor might want a second opinion. But even more would he want a second opinion before amputating a leg. That wouldn't be a reason for legally requiring him to obtain a second opinion; if it's in his interests to obtain a second opinion he'll do that without any legal requirement.

Besides, in reality it doesn't seem that doctors are actuated by the concern you mention. There are reports (linked earlier in this thread) of widespread practices of doctors signing certificates for patients they have not examined, doctors signing stacks of blank certificates where patients' names will be filled in later by someone else, and doctors with entirely irrelevant specialisms (e.g. anaesthesia) signing certificates. Plainly, certificates signed in these circumstances would provide little protection in a subsequent malpractice suit - the reverse, really.

There seems to be a well-established culture that the second certificate is signed merely to comply with a tedious statutory requirement to which the doctors involved attach no substantial signficance.

Orthopaedic surgeons are unlikely to have their professionalism targeted by 'lobby groups', unlike those who preform abortions. And some probably do see it as a tedious statutory requirement with no substantial significance, because unless it is for their professional protection, that is precisely what it is.

Peregrinus

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Orthopaedic surgeons are unlikely to have their professionalism targeted by 'lobby groups', unlike those who preform abortions.

Statistically, though, they are much more likely to be sued for malpractice (because the consequences of an unnecessary amputation are so extreme).

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

And some probably do see it as a tedious statutory requirement with no substantial significance, because unless it is for their professional protection, that is precisely what it is.

Kiwi, you can argue that it’s a tedious statutory irrelevance, or that it’s necessary for the protection of doctors from victimisation by lobby groups, but I don’t think you can expect to be taken seriously if you argue that it’s both of those things.

And both arguments overlook the reality – that it was inserted in the Act out of precisely the same fear that is being voiced in the current debate in Ireland; that doctors who disagree with legal restrictions on abortion will seek to evade them. As it happens, it hasn’t really served that function, which is why it has largely become a tedious statutory irrelevance, but that doesn’t change the truth about what it was included in the first place.

It serves no real function in protecting doctors from lawsuits. We know this firstly from the slapdash way it is regularly handled; a certificate signed in blank by a second doctor who has never examined the patient and who has an inappropriate specialism is no help at all if the doctor who actually carried out the abortion is sued for malpractice. But we also know it because, even if the certification is carried out to the highest professional standards, it will be irrelevant in the scenario you describe. If the statutory “termination-is-safer-than-pregnancy” test is satisfied a doctor is permitted to carry out an abortion, but he is still not entitled to do so without the patient’s consent. A woman for whom a termination would be safer is perfectly within her rights to decline a termination, and showing that another doctor agreed that termination was safer does nothing at all to show that she freely consented to an abortion, which would be the point at issue in the malpractice suit.

If doctors have the concern that you outline, they wouldn’t be seeking a second opinion as to the risk of termination versus the risk of pregnancy; they would be referring women to independent non-directive counselling, because that is the protection they would need.

(And, for all I know, some doctors may refer women for independent counselling. But I don’t think it’s routine.)

Morag

I was at a meeting in Lenister house on Tuesday, Patrick Nulty had invited in constituents who had emailed in supporting X Case Ruling legislation. Niall Behan head of the IFPA also addressed the meeting.

One thing which came out clearly was that there will be legislation but that TDs have to be encouraged to vote
in favour of it and to be encouraged to not allow it to be as restrictive as possible.

So if you have time today, email your TDs or ring them or send them a note, telling them you want them to support X Case legislation and that you are pro choice.
They need to hear from us as all too often they get flooded with messages from the other side.

oceanclub

The Twitter account @AliveGPN was mentioned earlier in the thread; Geoff has gone and blogged on them:

http://geoffsshorts.blogspot.ie/2013/01/alive-gay-pro-life-and-minority-report.html

P.

Flier

As I understand it, the two doctor signature rule in the UK was included to ensure that the statutory (requirement that an abortion would be safer than letting the pregnancy continue) was met. However, as has been pointed out, the wording of the legislation in the UK is such that it allows abortion in almost every case, as it is almost always safer to terminate the pregnancy than let it proceed, with the exception probably of later stage abortions. While this may not have been the 'spirit' of the law, that is how the law stands, and so the 'two doctor' rule has become a box ticking exercise.

That is not the same issue as is happening here. Our constitution does not allow the health of the mother to be taken into account. Therefore it is not going to happen that almost every pregnancy will meet the requirement of the law, provided the law that is drafted reflects the constitution.

Just a slightly off topic point - most amputations in this country are done by vascular surgeons (due to peripheral vascular disease), obstetritians are more likely to be sued than orthopaedic surgeons - or at least for bigger amounts, and orthopaedic surgeons are not very likely to be sued after amputations, for lots of reasons, mostly because the patient has consented to the amputation (often is the one to ask for it).

The Black Oil

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0131/365504-abortion/ The 1,000-page, two-volume report contains the written and oral submissions made to the committee. It does not make any recommendations.

Was that always the plan?

Elsewhere, http://www.pledgeprolife.com

This came up on facebook (I don't have a personal account).

DB21

The Black Oil wrote: »

Was that always the plan?

Elsewhere, http://www.pledgeprolife.com

This came up on facebook (I don't have a personal account).

If you're getting those ads, report them as hate speech/offensive/misinformation. That's what I do

lazygal

Sure the baby in that ad isn't old enough to vote, how can it promise to never vote for Enda again? Does it even live in Enda's constituency?

Gbear

lazygal wrote: »

Sure the baby in that ad isn't old enough to vote, how can it promise to never vote for Enda again? Does it even live in Enda's constituency?

Maybe they're suggesting that Enda won't get any votes off of the people that won't exist because they're aborted?

Of course, neither will anyone else. And in all likelihood Enda will be retired by the time any zygotes currently swanning around are 18.

Galvasean

"the pro-life majority"????????????????????????????????????

Sarky

That means "most of the prolife group, who are in the minority".

Right?

Hotblack Desiato

Galvasean wrote: »

"the pro-life majority"????????????????????????????????????

I would really love to have a referendum to repeal the 8th amendment and put these people back in their box good and proper...

Silvio.Dante

ninja900 wrote: »

I would really love to have a referendum to repeal the 8th amendment and put these people back in their box good and proper...

I'd love a referendum aswell...:)

krankykitty

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

I'd love a referendum aswell...:)

Be careful what you wish for, you might find it doesn't go to your liking!!

Hotblack Desiato

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

I'd love a referendum aswell...:)

I sincerely doubt that.

The 8th didn't pass with the overwhelming majority that might have been expected 30 years ago. In Dublin it only passed 51-49%.

Many of the Yes voters of 30 years ago are now dead, and many others will have changed their mind.

Silvio.Dante

Bring it on...:)

Hotblack Desiato

Have you actually got anything at all to say?

krankykitty

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Bring it on...:)

Oh, so you want a referendum, yet you don't want the government to respect and legislate for the ones that have already been held? Remember your American cronies won't have a vote, you're likely to be disappointed and end up whinging again, and not wanting the government to carry out their legal duty.

krankykitty

You only want a referendum in which you get the answer you want. If this is not the case, would you be accept the answer? Or would you campaign against it just like you're campaigning now against legislating for a referendum that passed already? It's all a bit fascist don't you think...

Silvio.Dante

krankykitty wrote: »

You only want a referendum in which you get the answer you want.

Thats kind of obvious.

A referendum that enshrines the protection of life, born and unborn, from intentionally being killed...:)

Bannasidhe

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Thats kind of obvious.

A referendum that enshrines the protection of life, born and unborn, from intentionally being killed...:)

So you will accept the results of a referendum that supports what you want but are actively engaging in a campaign to coerce the government into ignoring the results of a referendum whose results you don't like.

Talk about wanting to have your cake and eat it....:rolleyes:

Galvasean

And if/when said referendum, as opinion polls indicate, gives you the answer you don't want... will you allow the government to legislate for the people's choice or will you continue to campaign against said legislation?

pauldla

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Bring it on...:)

What will happen, I think, is this.

Legislation will go through. That is inevitable. There will be speeches and marches and Letters to the Editor, but it will go through. Pro-Life groups will set up shop outside the Dail and protest, but as the years go by and more legislation goes through, they will decline in numbers until it’s just two old ladies carrying an oversized crucifix up and down Kildare Street.

-What’s up with those two aul wans?
-Dunno.

In the meantime, due to better access to information and services, I wouldn’t be surprised if the number of Irish women having abortions actually goes into decline.

Silvio.Dante

Bannasidhe wrote: »

So you will accept the results of a referendum that supports what you want but are actively engaging in a campaign to coerce the government into ignoring the results of a referendum whose results you don't like.

Talk about wanting to have your cake and eat it....:rolleyes:

It is what it is...

Protecting life is important to me...:)

Silvio.Dante

Galvasean wrote: »

will you continue to campaign against said legislation?

Of course we will.

Advocating for life isn't a switch you turn off...