Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

Morag

That is the Post Abortion Syndome notion which has been debunked.

http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2010/12/20/study-debunks-theory-abortion-trauma/


http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2010/12/13/

Steinberg and Finer’s analysis, just published online in Social Science & Medicine, examined the same dataset as Coleman et al. (the National Comorbidity Survey) and found that in every case, the proportions of women experiencing mental health problems reported by Coleman were much larger, sometimes more than five times as large, as Steinberg and Finer’s results. The Coleman findings were also inconsistent with several other published studies using the same dataset and sample.

“We were unable to reproduce the most basic tabulations of Coleman and colleagues,” says Steinberg, postdoctoral fellow at UCSF. “Moreover, their findings were logically inconsistent with other published research—for example, they found higher rates of depression in the last month than other studies found during respondents’ entire lifetimes. This suggests that their results are substantially inflated.”

“Antiabortion activists have relied on questionable science in their efforts to push inclusion of the concept of ‘postabortion syndrome’ in both clinical practice and law,” says Finer, director of domestic research at the Guttmacher Institute. “Our inability to replicate the findings of the Coleman study makes it clear that research claiming to find relationships between abortion and poor mental health indicators should be subjected to close scrutiny.”

Steinberg and Finer also examined other well-established risk factors for post pregnancy mental health problems, such as preexisting mental health disorders and sexual or physical violence before the abortion, and found that women who had had multiple abortions were more likely to have experienced these risk factors prior to the abortion than women who had had one or no abortions. Once they controlled for these factors, they found no significant relationship between abortion history and subsequent mood or anxiety disorders. These findings support the view that previous mental health status, and not abortion experience per se, is the strongest predictor of postabortion mental health.

Same dodgy science which as them trying to claim abortion causes breast cancer.

eviltwin

Morag wrote: »

That is the Post Abortion Syndome notion which has been debunked.

http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2010/12/20/study-debunks-theory-abortion-trauma/


http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2010/12/13/

Morag I agree with pretty much everything you say but I have to disagree on this. I don't think PAS is as common as we are led to believe but I do think it exists. I had it myself for about a year. Its often hijacked by the pro life side as a sign that abortion is a bad thing and is a sign of regret or guilt. I certainly didn't regret what I did or feel guilty but I did have a hard time coming to terms with it and the way I was treated by people around me compounded it, lack of support here doesn't help neither does isolation.

I don't want to derail the thead but it does come up sometimes and it kinda bothers me when people say its a myth because my feelings were very real and I know I am not alone in feeling that way.

Morag

Crises pregnancy can be stressful and it does impact on a woman's mental health, I don't deny that, but it's the crises pregnancy which impacts and that can be made worse by lack of choice and access to services, that does happen but and yes the taboo nature and the stigma which surrounds abortion here can add to that impact on a woman's mental health.

But abortion itself does not cause those things and in countries were it is not taboo were there are services and support women generally don't suffer the same stress or have it impact on their mental health.

It did take me a time to come to terms with my abortion I think it was only when I had my eldest kid that the rest of the emotional healing happened for me, and any other stress has been more directly related to the stigma and taboo which surrounds abortion here rather then the fact I had an abortion.

aloyisious

I possibly got this wrong, but it sounded like the 3PM RTE news update on the IMO conference said a motion to follow the wording of the X Case ruling on abortion was rejected. I haven't got a clue what the actual motion was worded like.

Edit: here it is.... Doctors reject regulation of abortion in cases where mother's life at risk. Doctors have rejected a call to support the regulation of abortion services, where there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother.

The motion at the Irish Medical Organisation annual conference in Co Kerry was defeated by 42 votes to 32 this afternoon.

There was a divisive and heated exchange of views from delegates during the debate in Killarney.

The IMO is currently discussing a motion calling on the Government to legislate for abortions, if a woman becomes pregnant as a result of a criminal act.

Sarky

Saw a few quotes from the debate on Twitter. Hard to believe that so many people who are supposed to look out for their patients are able to treat them with such contempt. One old lady Godwinned the sh*t out of proceedings by saying we might as well kill all the disabled babbies like Hitler.

Mind well and truly boggled.

ironingbored

RTE News: "Doctors also rejected a call for legislation for abortion in the case of a woman with a non-viable foetal abnormality."

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0405/379917-imo-abortion/

Lingua Franca

Sarky wrote: »

Saw a few quotes from the debate on Twitter. Hard to believe that so many people who are supposed to look out for their patients are able to treat them with such contempt. One old lady Godwinned the sh*t out of proceedings by saying we might as well kill all the disabled babbies like Hitler.

Mind well and truly boggled.

Dublin GP Dr Cyril Daly said he was reminded of German doctors during the war, who conducted tests and carried out abortion, and he asked the IMO to resist the pressure to import abortion into Ireland.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0405/379917-imo-abortion/

Definitely Godwinned.

I suppose that means that every country that allows for abortion is a fascist state and every abortion provider is another Mengele. That'll be news to them.

Morag

The IMO has 5,000 members but only 75 took the time to vote on the issue.

Flier

I assume the vote is not a postal ballot and is only available to those who are attending the conference, which is a small minority. Also, the IMO have bigger problems at the moment, and have recently seen a lot of resignations, particularly amongst their younger NCHD members. So this vote and it's result are hardly representative of doctors in Ireland in general. Not to say I know what the true feelings of the majority are.

Delirium

Morag wrote: »

The IMO has 5,000 members but only 75 took the time to vote on the issue.

And yet on twitter you have some pro-lifers claiming the "majority" has spoken :rolleyes:

PopePalpatine

koth wrote: »

And yet on twitter you have some pro-lifers claiming the "majority" has spoken :rolleyes:

I'm dreading the moment one of the extremists from t'udder forum comes in here.

aloyisious

ironingbored wrote: »

RTE News: "Doctors also rejected a call for legislation for abortion in the case of a woman with a non-viable foetal abnormality."

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0405/379917-imo-abortion/

If my memory serves me right, I recall that Savita knew days before her death that the foetus in her womb was not viable and that was why she had asked for a termination (or abortion - if one prefer's) along with the knowledge that the continuation of her pregnancy could end with her life and health being put at risk. Am I to take it from the above that the rejectors prefer another woman, or women, to follow in Savita's footsteps, as the wording of the court ruling suit's the doctors fine?

Obliq

Morag wrote: »

But abortion itself does not cause those things and in countries were it is not taboo were there are services and support women generally don't suffer the same stress or have it impact on their mental health.

Not to deny your own experience Morag, but what I'm getting from eviltwin's post is that she had negative feelings from the experience of a crisis abortion. Clearly, an abortion is as a result of a crisis pregnancy in so many cases, but lets not say that an abortion has no negative emotional effects for some women. Anyone can have negative emotions arising from a decision that they've taken, even if they know it's in their own (plus other's) best interests. A certain therapist did very well out of my (very good) decision to leave my ex husband :pac:

lazygal

You can have negative feelings about a much wanted pregnancy and delivery too. I had a lot more hangups and felt a lot more mixed emotions about having an elective c section and much like women who've had abortions, the attitude of people around it exacerbated my own thoughts. Comments, even jokes about being 'too posh to push', wanting a baby 'on schedule' and my husband being pleased there was no damage down below from a natural birth were very difficult to deal with, on top of feeling like I'd failed with something every women is designed to do. Now I'm expecting number two the comments have already started and I'm getting quite tired of batting them away.

PopePalpatine

aloyisious wrote: »

If my memory serves me right, I recall that Savita knew days before her death that the foetus in her womb was not viable and that was why she had asked for a termination (or abortion - if one prefer's) along with the knowledge that the continuation of her pregnancy could end with her life and health being put at risk. Am I to take it from the above that the rejectors prefer another woman, or women, to follow in Savita's footsteps, as the wording of the court ruling suit's the doctors fine?

My hypothesis is that this was the IMO's higher-ups who voted. As a result, they may be in their 50s, and more susceptible to pro-life bollocks.

Hotblack Desiato

aloyisious wrote: »

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.

Very strange. But giving a chief executive a contract potentially worth 25 million euro is very strange too...

Flier wrote: »

Also, the IMO have bigger problems at the moment, and have recently seen a lot of resignations, particularly amongst their younger NCHD members.

Hardly surprising given where their subs are going http://www.irishtimes.com/news/imo-to-review-how-organisation-was-run-1.1336830

Irish Times wrote:

The IMO has been in turmoil since it emerged before Christmas that Mr McNeice had left the organisation with an overall package worth around €9.7 million.

Under the terms of his contract Mr McNeice could have received an overall package of close to €25 million on his departure but this figure was reduced following negotiations.

PopePalpatine wrote: »

My hypothesis is that this was the IMO's higher-ups who voted. As a result, they may be in their 50s, and more susceptible to pro-life bollocks.

50s? :eek: I don't think it's the ones in their 50s you need to be worrying about. GPs and private consultants have no retirement age, and could well be able to stay members for life if they want to keep paying their sub. It wouldn't surprise me if some in attendance at the IMO conference are well into their 80s.

Flier

Well given that it's a weekday, any 'ordinary' doctors (ie those that are actually running the health service) are at work, then yes, its the ones that are surplus to requirements that are at the conference ('conveniently held in Killarney) that are there and voting. Big headlines in the paper, but I doubt thats the feeling here in 'real life'.

aloyisious

The vote may be a cause of further disorder within the IMO unless those who voted against the motion (which was proposed by a female doctor) were actually instructed to vote that way by specific groups or constituencies. If the votes were merely following the personal views of the voters, then they'd (hopefully) be torpedoing their own boat.

Lingua Franca

France makes abortion free to all and contraception free to girls aged between 15-18.

Since increasing access to birth control has consistently shown to reduce abortion rates, French authorities are expecting to see a drop the amount of women requiring abortions now that the law is effective.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Flier wrote: »

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.

We don't definitively know yet what legislation will provide. But we know the limits within which it can be framed. Hence, we know when expectations of what "clarification" can achieve are unrealistic. You accept yourself that a referendum might be needed to create the situation you want to see. Hence, your posts at this point are just political or rhetorical - you're avoiding issues which, at some level, you actually know exist.

Flier wrote: »

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.

But, sure, we can see from the lack of interest shown by doctors at the IMO conference that, fundamentally, they don't give a rat's ass about this. I'm not saying the issue shouldn't be deliberated on. But critical analysis is needed, as so many loose statements are in evidence. Incidentaly, knowing about legal ambiguities is part and parcel of medical practice. You'll find acres of material about the concept of informed consent, as every time a surgeon takes a knife to you s/he has to have some reasonable basis for claiming it's not an assault. And you'll find that there's few absolute certainties there, either, as these are complex issues.

aloyisious

It seem's to me that, unless you "sandbag" into silence those who oppose any introduction of abortion or termination outside the X case definition of medical necessity, that the legal eagles will make a fudge of the legislation as they'll probably think they should NOT hang a millstone of an exceptional decision around their necks for perpetuity and make a hard and fast law. It could be that the IMO are trying to force either legislative action by the Govt, or another referendum, to hopefully sort out the legal mess.

It may be better to go for a referendum with a simple wording tying the surgeons and doctors hands on the issue, that the woman patient is the only person to make the decision. However, the Irish people have rejected two attempts to amend the 1983 amendment itself, with the 12th amendment in 1992 & 25th amendment in 2002. All the Irish Govt's since 1992 have failed to bring forward legislation to covet the issue.

This is why in December 2010: The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights unanimously rules that Ireland’s failure to implement the existing constitutional right to a lawful abortion in Ireland when a woman’s life is at risk is a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights.


Maybe I'm wrong but I understand the X case decision was that the Judge hearing a constitution case brought by the AG, Harry Whelehan (in regard to a pregnant girl and the foetus within her womb) was judged by the Supreme Court to be wrong in his judgement on the case that each had equal rights under the constitution. In effect that meant that the state's senior legal agent was also wrong in his understanding and action in blocking the girl's right to travel abroad. In effect it meant the 1983 amendment was itself flawed in that it's wording could be misunderstood. The judge made his injunction decision on the basis that there was less chance of the girl committing suicide (and thereby incidentally terminating her pregnancy) than the risk to life of the foetus caused by an abortion, said life-right guaranteed under the 1983 amendment that put both woman/girl and the foetus on an equal footing life-right wise.


One of the peculiarities of the case was that the injunction was issued to stop the girl travelling abroad and to stop the arranging of the abortion/termination. The girl had already travelled to England at the time of the injunction being issued and the arrangements had already been made for the operation. If the girl had proceeded with the operation, she and her family would probably not have been in breach of the injunction as the horse had bolted before the door was closed, so to speak.

aloyisious

@flier: re your post-quote "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" the IMC has guidelines for Irish Doctors on the issue.

Doctors currently work under a combination of the law and guidelines set by the Irish Medical Council (IMC). The IMC direction states that where rare complications arise during the care of a pregnant woman, a termination may be required at a stage where there is little or no hope of a baby surviving. In such circumstances, doctors are allowed to intervene to terminate the pregnancy in a bid to save the mother's life, while still making every effort to save the baby.

There-in lies the crux. The guidelines do not have the power of statute law, and it's wording is as woolly as the 1983 amendment. The 1992 Supreme Court judgement gives clear judgement, one over the other, in favour of the pregnant female. The primacy is to save the pregnant female's life.

Obliq

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/doctors-refuse-to-back-x-case-motion-227551.html

"A retired Kerry GP, Maurice Fahy, said a referendum had decided that children be protected at all stages of life. Doctors would be vilified by the public, and rightly so, if they passed the motion, he claimed.

Ken Egan, a Mayo GP with 40 years of experience, warned against giving a “toe in the door” to abortion and said the floodgates would open if any concessions were made.

Eleanor Corcoran, a psychiatrist who worked in the UK in the 1970s, said there was no evidence that abortion worked as a treatment for suicide and argued that having a baby protected a mother against suicide. "

I'd say age may be quite a contributing factor alright. I must pop along to the local medical center and see if the doctors there have any notion of representing me and others like me at the next IMO conference.

And as for this genius ("Dr Peter O'Sullivan, a GP from Dublin, said he could not remember a case where a patient wanted an abortion following a criminal act." http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/imo-rejects-motions-on-abortion-1.1350484), does it EVER cross their minds that a girl/woman who wants an abortion having become pregnant through rape wouldn't go anywhere near a doctor, considering the way the law is?

Does it ever occur to doctors (aside from well known pro-choice ones) that they may be among the least likely people to actually be contacted in a case of unwanted pregnancy/seeking abortion, unless the poor woman has complications from the abortion after getting back home? TBH, I'd rather go to a priest for advice than some of these doctors.

aloyisious

There is also the alkward point that the IMO in it's constitution, Para 3 Principal Objects (sub para 3.5) read's: to promote or oppose legislation to the practice of medicine or related disciplines and to co-operate with other bodies where necessary or expedient to do so.

The Council of the IMO is empowered under it's Constitution and Rules, Para 4.4b, To monitor the implementation of motions passed at the Annual General Meeting.

Now if a member of the IMO goes against the IMO stance on abortion implied by the rejection of the abortion motion at it's conference, would the IMO Council have the stupidity to take disciplinary action against a member who fulfill's all the requirements of the Supreme Court ruling on the X Case and abort's or terminates a pregnancy to save a woman/girl's life, knowing full well that it could end up facing a counter action in the same court, with the judge/s facing them down for defying it's prior (X Case) ruling?

Google - IMO Constitution & Rules - Irish Medical Organisation - for info.

Edit: I know that rejection of a motion does not automatically or directly make it incumbent on the IMO, or it's Council, to pursue any course or action directly in opposition to the defeated motion.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Obliq wrote: »

I must pop along to the local medical center and see if the doctors there have any notion of representing me and others like me at the next IMO conference.

Oh, please do. The mutual incomprehension as they asked you for fifty yoyos at the end of the consultation would be priceless.

Can't help noticing the IMO didn't have the same problem getting agreement to a motion opposing Croke Park 2.

Obliq

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Oh, please do. The mutual incomprehension as they asked you for fifty yoyos at the end of the consultation would be priceless.

Can't help noticing the IMO didn't have the same problem getting agreement to a motion opposing Croke Park 2.

Are you mad? I was going to ask either of the receptionists (who I know personally) to pass on a quick note requesting information from the practice about their stance on women's health regarding the 3 motions that were brought before the IMO the other day and defeated. Or indeed, I could ask my own GP at my next appointment in 2 weeks time.

Why, would you have made a special appointment GCU? That's kind of sweet, if stupid.

More badger-baiting tomorrow honey - I'm off to watch kick-ass with my son now. Night, kisses.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Obliq wrote: »

I was going to ask either of the receptionists (who I know personally) to pass on a quick note requesting information from the practice about their stance on women's health regarding the 3 motions that were brought before the IMO the other day and defeated.

Ah, that makes much more sense. Who wouldn't welcome being the intermediary for a "quick note" asking their empolyer to stop seeing patients for a moment and write down the position they'd like to take on a politically charged question?

You've really got this whole business down.

Flier

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

We don't definitively know yet what legislation will provide. But we know the limits within which it can be framed. Hence, we know when expectations of what "clarification" can achieve are unrealistic. You accept yourself that a referendum might be needed to create the situation you want to see. Hence, your posts at this point are just political or rhetorical - you're avoiding issues which, at some level, you actually know exist.

Well I am glad to hear with the benefit of your, I'm sure, extensive legal training and experience, that legislation will be unable to clarify the position. However, despite you knowing better, the government are obliged to reflect in law our constitution, and I for one will be encouraging them to do so. My attitude to the need for a referendum is entirely separate to my feelings on abortion. I am unhappy with Article 40.3.3 as it stands as I believe that the life of a woman, weather she is pregnant or not, should always be above the life of a foetus, weather it is viable or not. I feel it is abhorent that our constitution gives equal protection to both. No where else is this sentiment reflected in our constitution or statute. If, for example, a pregnancy is lost as a direct result of an assault, the life of that foetus or embryo is not valued in the same way as the life of a born person - there will be no charge relating to the homicde of the unborn child.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

But, sure, we can see from the lack of interest shown by doctors at the IMO conference that, fundamentally, they don't give a rat's ass about this. I'm not saying the issue shouldn't be deliberated on. But critical analysis is needed, as so many loose statements are in evidence. Incidentaly, knowing about legal ambiguities is part and parcel of medical practice. You'll find acres of material about the concept of informed consent, as every time a surgeon takes a knife to you s/he has to have some reasonable basis for claiming it's not an assault. And you'll find that there's few absolute certainties there, either, as these are complex issues.

The reports from the IMO conference were of 'heated debate' etc, so I certainly think that those who were at the conference certainly did give a 'rat's ass'. As do, I believe most other practicing doctors, especially those who are directly involved in making difficult decisions in complicated pregnancies. But sure, it's probably not number one on the list of priorities for most NCHD's who are busy working illegal rosters a decade after the European Working Time Directive was introduced, and figuring out if the IMO truly is their representative body after it's former CEO left will pretty much all of the organisations financial reserves.
While Medical Students do study Medical Law at college (one fairly small module in 5th Med if memory serves me correctly) and they would be very au fait with such common concepts as informed and implied consent, doctors are absolutely not supposed to be interpreting ambiguous constitutional amendments. Hospitals employ or retain actual qualified lawyers to deal with ambiguous situations, for example consent in the case of minors where the guardian is unwilling to give consent for a medically necessary procedure. These cases often end up in the courts exactly for the reason that it is not up to doctors to be burdened with making these decisions

aloyisious wrote: »

@flier: re your post-quote "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" the IMC has guidelines for Irish Doctors on the issue.

Doctors currently work under a combination of the law and guidelines set by the Irish Medical Council (IMC). The IMC direction states that where rare complications arise during the care of a pregnant woman, a termination may be required at a stage where there is little or no hope of a baby surviving. In such circumstances, doctors are allowed to intervene to terminate the pregnancy in a bid to save the mother's life, while still making every effort to save the baby.

There-in lies the crux. The guidelines do not have the power of statute law, and it's wording is as woolly as the 1983 amendment. The 1992 Supreme Court judgement gives clear judgement, one over the other, in favour of the pregnant female. The primacy is to save the pregnant female's life.

Yes, I am well aware of the Medical Council Guidelines, but as you alluded to and I have pointed out previously, they are just that - guidelines, an opinion, and they have no protection in law. So they are not a useful substitute for legislation in this area.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Flier wrote: »

Well I am glad to hear with the benefit of your, I'm sure, extensive legal training and experience, that legislation will be unable to clarify the position.

While I find I'm simply a little sad that, once again, you seem unable to comprehend what I've actually said. I'll try again, despite my feeling that you are deliberately avoiding points that you don't want to deal with. The issue is not that legislation can't clarify a particular point. It's that clarification can't mean substantially wider availability of abortion, as that's prohibited by the Constitution.

Flier wrote: »

<...> My attitude to the need for a referendum is entirely separate to my feelings on abortion. <...>

This sounds like an unnecessarily confused position.

Flier wrote: »

<...> I believe that the life of a woman, weather she is pregnant or not, should always be above the life of a foetus<...>

Grand, so far as it goes. But what you're saying is that abortion should be more widely available than is allowed at present, as that's all that this means. As I said, you're just asserting an unnecessarily confused position by pretending there's some other issue at stake.

Flier wrote: »

<...> reports from the IMO conference were of 'heated debate' etc, so I certainly think that those who were at the conference certainly did give a 'rat's ass'

You may not be giving sufficient attention to the flow of discussion. Other posters (not me) introduced the extremely low number of IMO members who actually cast a vote.

Flier wrote: »

<...> While Medical Students do study Medical Law at college (one fairly small module in 5th Med if memory serves me correctly) and they would be very au fait with such common concepts as informed and implied consent, doctors are absolutely not supposed to be interpreting ambiguous constitutional amendments. Hospitals employ or retain actual qualified lawyers to deal with ambiguous situations, for example consent in the case of minors where the guardian is unwilling to give consent for a medically necessary procedure. These cases often end up in the courts exactly for the reason that it is not up to doctors to be burdened with making these decisions<...>

Another unnecessarily confused position on your part. As you indicate, legal issues are embedded in medical practice. In particular, as doctors will recognise (as you say in an oblique way) that they don't have the right to make certain decisions without reference to the Courts.

Flier

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

While I find I'm simply a little sad that, once again, you seem unable to comprehend what I've actually said. I'll try again, despite my feeling that you are deliberately avoiding points that you don't want to deal with. The issue is not that legislation can't clarify a particular point. It's that clarification can't mean substantially wider availability of abortion, as that's prohibited by the Constitution. This sounds like an unnecessarily confused position. Grand, so far as it goes. But what you're saying is that abortion should be more widely available than is allowed at present, as that's all that this means. As I said, you're just asserting an unnecessarily confused position by pretending there's some other issue at stake.You may not be giving sufficient attention to the flow of discussion. Other posters (not me) introduced the extremely low number of IMO members who actually cast a vote.Another unnecessarily confused position on your part. As you indicate, legal issues are embedded in medical practice. In particular, as doctors will recognise (as you say in an oblique way) that they don't have the right to make certain decisions without reference to the Courts.

As it's late and way past my bed time, I'll try and make this quick.

My position is certainly not confused. I completely understand that the constitution limits what circumstances abortion may be available under. That does not change the fact that clarification is needed, so that doctors working in the area are clear as to when they can and cannot act. Which by the way is why I think the whole "opening the floodgates to abortion' is just sensationalist nonsense.

My position on wishing to see article 40.3.3 removed from the constitution is one of principal. Weather or not it's removal would lead to an increase, a decrease or no change in the number of abortions is immaterial to me. It undermines a pregnant woman's right to life (by inferring a competing protection to a foetus that might endanger her life).

Re the IMO conference, I think maybe it is you who has lost the flow of the conversation. I have already pointed out several reasons for the low turn out to the IMO conference. A lack of interest in abortion is not one of the prime reasons.

I'm not sure why you think my opinion on dealing with medico-legal issues is confused. I am sure that if a doctor decided to take it upon himself to interpret a Supreme Court ruling (especially one as ambiguous as the one we are discussing), he would quickly find himself in very hot water indeed.

You seem to be sure that I am 'avoiding issues' and 'pretending' there are other issues - please enlighten me.