Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

Turtwig

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

? Why is the response always so extreme? It's like "I don't want to acknowledge the rationality of your position, so I'll drag in some irrelevance and attack the point that I wish you had made."

A young woman dying while admitted to a significant acute hospital is such a rare event that no individual factor or cause can be eliminated. It should be approached with an open mind; the problem is it's been thrown on an abortion bandwagon. Nothing I've said suggests, in any way, that the outcome of the report can be assumed to be one thing or another, or to exclude any possible explanation. Others have done that, and I've simply pointed out what they've done.Well, no, because the Constitutional position is that abortion is only permitted where there's a substantial risk to the life of the mother. Hence, its not the absence of legislation that's particularly the problem (assuming that, by legislation, we mean legislating for the X Case). If we legislated for the X Case, if you'd a pregnant woman admitted to hospital who complained of profound pain and discomfort, and requested an abortion as a means of relief, the doctor would still be obliged to say no - even if a risk to the mother's health, as distinct from life, was identified.

With or without X Case legislation, a doctor will be legally liable if s/he performs an act that is deemed to be an abortion carried out where there was no substantial risk to the life of the mother.

And just to be clear, I'm not saying that's how I'd frame the Constitutional provision. I'm simply pointing out that this is what it is.

I apologise, but I meant the procrastination of new abortion legislation.

I really don't see what we're disagreeing with here to be honest. If you can point out where our disagreement is, then by all means do so. But I actually think we're on the same page, just maybe reading the same sentence a different way.

_rebelkid

Praveen Halappanavar not happy with HSE report into wifes death.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0401/379306-savita-halappanavar/

StudentDad

_rebelkid wrote: »

Praveen Halappanavar not happy with HSE report into wifes death.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0401/379306-savita-halappanavar/

I have to say I have a huge amount of respect for Mr. Halappanavar. He's not going to 'shut up and go away' as I'm sure plenty of people in the Irish Establishment would love him to do.

Hopefully his determination to get answers and redress will drag this Banana Republic into the 21st century.

SD

Nodin

Depressing, but expected.

The Health Service Executive report on the death last year at Galway University Hospital of Savita Halappanavar has found there was an overemphasis by hospital staff on the welfare of Ms Halappanavar’s unviable foetus and an underemphasis on her deteriorating health.

The final draft report says: “The investigating team considers there was an apparent overemphasis on the need not to intervene until the foetal heart stopped, together with an underemphasis on the need to focus an appropriate attention on monitoring for and managing the risk of infection and sepsis in the mother.”

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/savita-halappanavar-death-report-finds-foetus-not-mother-was-main-focus-1.1345890

Galvasean

Apparently that 'pro-life promise' we keep hearing about was never actually made...
http://www.conorfarrell.com/wordpress/social-issues/the-pro-life-promise-never-made?fb_action_ids=4666254062052&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=timeline_og&action_object_map=%7B%224666254062052%22%3A430851317002203%7D&action_type_map=%7B%224666254062052%22%3A%22og.likes%22%7D&action_ref_map=%5B%5D

UDP

RTE News says this:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0402/379370-savita-halappanavar/ wrote:

The Health Service Executive's draft report into the death of Savita Halappanavar says that difficulty in interpreting the law on abortion by the medical personnel at Galway University Hospital was a factor in the case, RTÉ News has learned.

But it notes that this was one of several factors in relation to her care.

I can hear that <snip> Caroline Simons saying how clear the law is and how no doctor has any problem knowing when a termination to save the life of the mother is legal or not.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

UDP wrote: »

RTE News says this:
I can hear that <snip> Caroline Simons saying how clear the law is and how no doctor has any problem knowing when a termination to save the life of the mother is legal or not.

I haven't read the report yet, but media coverage seems to suggest it's similar to what was leaked. In other words, the legal position was a complicating factor. But not the pivotal issue in this case.

It's necessary to distinguish between the statements "there's no reason for a doctor to be particularly unclear" and "no doctor is particularly unclear". If monitoring was inadequate, such that the progression of infection was unnoticed, then that's the issue.

That's if we strip it of the political agenda, of course.

Morag

Should women who are unavoidably miscarrying an non viable fetus be expected to wait until the end of the fetal heart beat or until their life is at risk to have the pregnancy ended?

Kiwi in IE

Morag wrote: »

Should women who are unavoidably miscarrying an non viable fetus be expected to wait until the end of the fetal heart beat or until their life is at risk to have the pregnancy ended?

Of course they should! This is a 'Catholic Country'!

Kiwi in IE

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I haven't read the report yet, but media coverage seems to suggest it's similar to what was leaked. In other words, the legal position was a complicating factor. But not the pivotal issue in this case.

It's necessary to distinguish between the statements "there's no reason for a doctor to be particularly unclear" and "no doctor is particularly unclear". If monitoring was inadequate, such that the progression of infection was unnoticed, then that's the issue.

That's if we strip it of the political agenda, of course.

Apparently there was 'inadequate monitoring' of the vital signs of the mother. However that was clearly not the case with the already unviable foetus! They were well aware of it's vital signs until the last minute.

Lingua Franca

Speaking of media coverage, the BBC didn't hold back. Savita Halappanavar death: Report finds over-emphasis on foetus

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Morag wrote: »

Should women who are unavoidably miscarrying an non viable fetus be expected to wait until the end of the fetal heart beat or until their life is at risk to have the pregnancy ended?

Do you mean under current Constitutional provisions, or in some other sense? Because that's probably much what legislation for the X Case will require. Unless someone can satisfy some yet-to-be-determine process that will establish a risk of suicide, in which case the viability of the fetus will suddenly become irrelevant.

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Apparently there was 'inadequate monitoring' of the vital signs of the mother. However that was clearly not the case with the already unviable foetus! They were well aware of it's vital signs until the last minute.

Grand. So you're saying the medical team weren't on top of the situation? I don't know yet - I still haven't read the report.

Morag

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Do you mean under current Constitutional provisions, or in some other sense? Because that's probably much what legislation for the X Case will require. Unless someone can satisfy some yet-to-be-determine process that will establish a risk of suicide, in which case the viability of the fetus will suddenly become irrelevant.

I mean should women be left to suffer a miscarriage under those circumstances?


The X case legislation will only deal with the risk to the life of the woman not the risk to health, and so won't change the current situation or policies or practices as a result.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Morag wrote: »

I mean sure women be left to suffer a miscarriage under those circumstances?

Oh, I can't see any reason that would stop a non-viable fetus being aborted. I actually can't see why anyone's ethics could be violated on that score. But, as you've said yourself below, the Constitutional would seem to envisage an abortion only where there's a risk to the woman's life.

Morag wrote: »

The X case legislation will only deal with the risk to the life of the woman not the risk to health, and so won't change the current situation or policies or practices as a result.

Yup, that's the point I'm making there. Some posters seemed confused on the point, thinking that a lack of clarity in the law was the issue in this particular case. I was simply pointing out (as you have) that clarity would not really change the practical situation.

Galvasean

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Speaking of media coverage, the BBC didn't hold back. Savita Halappanavar death: Report finds over-emphasis on foetus

I've noticed the Irish media, by n' large, don't seem to place much emphasis on that at all, despite it being a hugely important factor in the case. They must be trying to pay appeasement games with the pro-life lobby.

lazygal

Galvasean wrote: »

I've noticed the Irish media, by n' large, don't seem to place much emphasis on that at all, despite it being a hugely important factor in the case. They must be trying to pay appeasement games with the pro-life lobby.

I don't think so. I think with the inquest imminent and the fact it was a draft, rather than a final report, are more important factors. I think cross examination of the medical professionals as to their MO for the patient will be very well covered.

Flier

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Oh, I can't see any reason that would stop a non-viable fetus being aborted. I actually can't see why anyone's ethics could be violated on that score. But, as you've said yourself below, the Constitutional would seem to envisage an abortion only where there's a risk to the woman's life.Yup, that's the point I'm making there. Some posters seemed confused on the point, thinking that a lack of clarity in the law was the issue in this particular case. I was simply pointing out (as you have) that clarity would not really change the practical situation.

I have to disagree with you here. There is a lack of clarity in the law. In fact, there is no law to reflect amendment 40.3.3. As most of the doctors who gave evidence to the committee agreed that they were working in a grey area. What exactly constitutes a 'real and substantial' risk. Is it 2%, 10%, 50%, more?? If doctors were sure that a 2% risk was enough to be substantial, then they could act much earlier in situations such as this case, and not wait until the patient was literally at death's door. That said, I think it is ridiculous that an unviable foetus is deemed to have an equal right to life as a mother. That needs to change, and if that means a referendum, then so be it.

aloyisious

Maybe it's time that the original judgement was re-visited and the words "life - Health" are stated to be indivisible from each other when it comes to medical situations where the state of health can slip rapidly to terminal point.

As for the why-for etc in the report, until it's finalized for full public publication, comments on it's contents are really guesswork.

With fatal hindsight, the Judgement's wordsmith work can be seen as leaving much to be desired, if medical practitioners are left with the notion that they cannot ( even in good faith) carry out life-saving operations for fear of being arrested, charged with murder or manslaughter, tried, convicted and imprisoned.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Flier wrote: »

I have to disagree with you here. There is a lack of clarity in the law. In fact, there is no law to reflect amendment 40.3.3. As most of the doctors who gave evidence to the committee agreed that they were working in a grey area.

Grand so far as it goes, but the point is that clarifying the present legal position with the context of the Constitution as it stands would not enable the Oireachtas to frame a law that enables a woman to choose an abortion because she is in profound discomfort.

Flier wrote: »

That said, I think it is ridiculous that an unviable foetus is deemed to have an equal right to life as a mother. That needs to change, and if that means a referendum, then so be it.

Fine, but you'll appreciate that this position makes the clarity (or lack thereof) of the present legal position an irrelevance. If what people want is a law that makes the life of the woman superior to the life of the fetus, then that's what the discussion should be about. All clarification of the present law can do is confirm that such an approach, at present, is unconstitutional.

Flier

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Grand so far as it goes, but the point is that clarifying the present legal position with the context of the Constitution as it stands would not enable the Oireachtas to frame a law that enables a woman to choose an abortion because she is in profound discomfort. Fine, but you'll appreciate that this position makes the clarity (or lack thereof) of the present legal position an irrelevance. If what people want is a law that makes the life of the woman superior to the life of the fetus, then that's what the discussion should be about. All clarification of the present law can do is confirm that such an approach, at present, is unconstitutional.

I am not asking the Oireachtas to 'frame a law that enables a woman to choose an abortion because she is in profound discomfort'. Neither did you refer to such in your post that I quoted. However, I believe the Oireachtas are obliged to clarify the situation that we have at present so that those charged with looking after women in pregnancy can make the right choices. Having clarity is certainly not irrelevant. Especially not for those who are working in areas where the lack of law impacts their decision making, and for those women they are treating.

Personally, I feel that a new referendum is what is needed, but given that it has taken over 20 years to act on the last one that was passed in this area, I'll not hold my breath. In the meantime, our law makers need to do what is required of them and act on the constitution that we have at the moment.

PopePalpatine

Flier wrote: »

Personally, I feel that a new referendum is what is needed, but given that it has taken over 20 years to act on the last one that was passed in this area, I'll not hold my breath.

I'd agree if it was an amendment to allow abortion when there's a threat to a woman's mental/physical health, in the case of rape/incest and in the case of fatal foetal defects. Sadly, I fear that if legislation for X isn't passed by this government, if we end up with a Fianna Gael coalition after the next GE we're probably going to get a new referendum...to overrule the X Case.

lazygal

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I'd agree if it was an amendment to allow abortion when there's a threat to a woman's mental/physical health, in the case of rape/incest and in the case of fatal foetal defects. Sadly, I fear that if legislation for X isn't passed by this government, if we end up with a Fianna Gael coalition after the next GE we're probably going to get a new referendum...to overrule the X Case.

Haven't we had two of those already?

PopePalpatine

lazygal wrote: »

Haven't we had two of those already?

Yeah, but my fear is that a FF/FG coalition would go for a third.

lazygal

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Yeah, but my fear is that a FF/FG coalition would go for a third.

I suspect they'd get the same response as the last two, which might then lead to calls to act. And maybe in 20 years' time, when my daughter might be pregnant and need a termination, they might do something.

aloyisious

It seem's that the IMO are to discuss some of the issues raised within this debate. However the IMO conference got a farcical angle today. The Pat Kenny show had an interviewer ready with a Doctor and it was pulled by some PR person coming up to the doctor, waving some papers about it and telling said doctor that he wasn't happy with the interview. According to the interviewer, the PR person physically pulled the doctor from the room, said doctor with a started look on his face. End of interviewer. It remains to be seen how the conference feel's about the tail wagging the dog.

Loafing Oaf

Flier wrote: »

I am not asking the Oireachtas to 'frame a law that enables a woman to choose an abortion because she is in profound discomfort'. Neither did you refer to such in your post that I quoted. However, I believe the Oireachtas are obliged to clarify the situation that we have at present so that those charged with looking after women in pregnancy can make the right choices. Having clarity is certainly not irrelevant. Especially not for those who are working in areas where the lack of law impacts their decision making, and for those women they are treating.

But the point GCU is making is that such clarification would not have made a difference in the Savita case and IMO could actually reinforce the chances of a similar case in future having the same tragic outcome. Seemingly, the UCHG consultant was doing his damnedest to comply with Article 40.3.3 and the X Case ruling, so legislation that spelled out precisely how the article and ruling should be implemented in practice may actually tie practitioners' hands further in such cases, depending on how they interpret 'real and substantial risk' to the pregnant woman.

aloyisious

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

But the point GCU is making is that such clarification would not have made a difference in the Savita case and IMO could actually reinforce the chances of a similar case in future having the same tragic outcome. Seemingly, the UCHG consultant was doing his damnedest to comply with Article 40.3.3 and the X Case ruling, so legislation that spelled out precisely how the article and ruling should be implemented in practice may actually tie practitioners' hands further in such cases, depending on how they interpret 'real and substantial risk' to the pregnant woman.

Maybe the present SC judges, in the case of a re-evaluation and re-wording of the X-case ruling, should call in a GP to tell them what a "real and substantial" risk is, given that's it's apparent the Galway Hospital doctors couldn't actually get their heads past the judgement's wording and concentrated their attention on the patient.

Morag

IMO conference to discuss motions on abortion

Dr Mary Favier, Doctors for Choice, and Dr Jacqueline Montwill, consultant psychiatrist, debate ahead of a discussion of abortion motions at the IMO annual conference


http://www.rte.ie/news/morningireland/player.html?20130405%2C20183245%2C20183245%2Cflash%2C232

Flier

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

But the point GCU is making is that such clarification would not have made a difference in the Savita case and IMO could actually reinforce the chances of a similar case in future having the same tragic outcome. Seemingly, the UCHG consultant was doing his damnedest to comply with Article 40.3.3 and the X Case ruling, so legislation that spelled out precisely how the article and ruling should be implemented in practice may actually tie practitioners' hands further in such cases, depending on how they interpret 'real and substantial risk' to the pregnant woman.

It's impossible to say that a clarification would have made no difference in the Savita case, as we don't know what the new legislation will say exactly. The idea that any consultant, highly trained in obstetrics, but not in constitutional law, should have to wrestle to comply with a constitutional amendment and a supreme court judgement (as their only guidance) that even lawyers and judges have differences in opinion over, is clearly ridiculous.
If a clarification further tied their hands, and I honestly doubt it would, then at least we would have an honest situation where the likes of Iona and Youth Defense wouldn't be able to continue with their 'abortion is never necessary' rhetoric.

PopePalpatine

I'm just wondering...where is this alleged research that says that "abortion does psychological harm to women"? My bet is that someone's (probably willfully) misinterpreted a research paper on abortion.