Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

TheChizler

The Black Oil wrote: »

I don't think abortion is a treatment for suicidal feelings in itself, but I just can't take the pro life false sincerity screaming about the 'no evidence' on this particular part of the debate.

That's the thing, I just had to stop myself screaming at that anti-choice "psychologist" on Primeline there that NOBODY is suggesting that it's a good treatment, or even A treatment, for suicidality. It's the very definition of a straw man.

Nodin

Sarky wrote: »

Jesus, how do people manage to watch these shows? Surely nobody could handle that much Ronan Mullen without becoming suicidal?.

Truth be told, they make me a different kind of '..idal' altogether.

Galvesean wrote:

Indeed. Since it's going to be far easier for women to go to England than jump
through the hoops (and almost certainly fail) here, the powers that be can turn
around and say, "Abortion legislation is there and no one avails of it. Ergo,
Ireland doesn't want abortion".
You have to congratulate them in a way.
Against all the odds, they've managed to maintain the status quo of political
cowardice.

..a vile and nasty bunch who'd rather inflict suffering than grow a pair.

Turtwig

The Black Oil wrote: »

The suicide aspect is so tricky. I know someone who had an abortion after she was raped. She went on to develop an eating disorder, suicidal feelings and started self-harming. I could be wrong, but I never got the sense any of her mental health issues were linked to the fact that she had an abortion. They all came back to the trauma of having been raped - so much self-blame, self-hatred, a lack of confidence came from that. Thankfully she is doing a lot better now. I don't think abortion is a treatment for suicidal feelings in itself, but I just can't take the pro life false sincerity screaming about the 'no evidence' on this particular part of the debate. If only said people were as passionate about suicide in other parts of our community.

Suicide is presently the leading cause of maternal death in Ireland. There is of course no evidence that abortion is treatment for suicidal ideation but it's also never really being tried as a treatment so you can't explicitly say abortion isn't the solution either. Considering that suicide is also one the leading causes of maternal death world wide you would have wonder what impact, if any, abortion would have on those figures? The doctors at the Oireachtas committee hearding weren't against using abortion as part of a general treatment plan either. There is also no evidence to suggest abortions in general have a negative impact on a persons mental health. That said, another aspect that cannot be overlooked is how one makes statistical inferences from maternal data. In the case of maternal deaths the figures are so low in many countries that it's very difficult to draw reliable predictions and conclusions. This is more Dmw07's territory but suffice to say in this debate people draw conclusions based on little more than intuition and little data. One thing we are more confident of is that maternal suicide and infanticide rates are significantly higher in those countries that don't allow access to legal abortions. Ireland also had an infanticide epidemic for almost a full century. The lack of access to contraception and other socio-economic factors probably play a role there too.

One thing I don't like about this whole suicide thing is people who are suicidal are often very reluctant to seek help. My worry is that the legislation will actually serve to hinder women with mental problems. We know there's a huge disparity between those estimated to be struggling from mental health and those who actively seek treatment. For Depression, 1 in 4 suffer from it but, iirc, only 1 in 5 of those who suffer will actually seek treatment. A truly awful statistic. Which is why I found it strange that only 15% of women who are pregnant register with mental health difficulties.

Now, I understand, we need to have safeguards in place against women who will fake suicidal tendencies. But, I think that current precedent is very dangerous and heavily biased on the assumption that women seeking abortions are dishonest. If they are, then they'll likely seek other ways to get the abortion anyway. Whereas in the middle you have the women who have genuine mental health problems possibly being more reluctant to seek help because they'll fear folks will automatically think their lying just to seek an abortion. If they get that perception from society then it could be pretty harmful. Although truth be toll irrespective of pregnancy that perception exists in society for mental health anyway. Thankfully it is diminishing though.

Flier

Dreamertime wrote: »

No time limits?

Does that mean if a pregnancy is viable will the baby be killed prior to delivery or be delivered and cared for?

If the foetus is at or past the stage of viability it would be delivered.

The Black Oil

Jernal - indeed. I was at a talk a while back where a speaker (a counsellor/therapist) gave a very moving account of two suicides (women who had just given birth, iirc) in her locality, so no, I guess I shouldn't rule out abortion as a possible course of action...it's just some of the ugliness with how the debate gets framed re suicide, etc. I do think, though, that once you start to trample on women's rights you are messing with risk factors around their emotional health - the more you deny things, access to services, contraception, etc, of course people are going to feel backed into a corner.

If we can come back to the X case for a moment, where would this proposed legislation sit with that, if at all?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Nodin wrote: »

Mathews on the rampage, not for the faint of heart, or those holding something delicate.
http://www.broadsheet.ie/2013/04/30/it-wrote-itself/

It's moments like this that I love this fúcking country. Retching and turning, like a baby learning how to live.

I'd never have had Peter Mathews down as a Blade Runner fan. It's too bad she won't live. But then again, who does?

Morag

The bill has been released

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B954SdlrGC2lZ0pPQ19zdWpvenc/edit

It includes this

Head 19 Offence
Provide that
(1) It shall be an offence for a person to do any act with the intent to destroy unborn human
life.
(2) A person who is guilty of an offence under this head is liable on conviction on indictment
to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years or both.

So anybody who orders and takes the abortion pill if found out and prosecuted may face 14 years of a prison sentence.

Sarky

Well that's totally not a completely transparent attempt at passing the buck to some other government like a bunch of ethically deficient cowards.

Turtwig

Oh right so rape sentences are typically only about 5 years but possibly taking an abortion pill (or maybe even some forms of contraceptives?) is 14 years. That just makes perfect sense.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Morag wrote: »

The bill has been released

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B954SdlrGC2lZ0pPQ19zdWpvenc/edit

It includes this



So anybody who orders and takes the abortion pill if found out and prosecuted may face 14 years of a prison sentence.

I suspect this may be more controversial than the folderol about the six doctors. It's quite a surprise that this aspect hasn't been leaked up to this.

Morag

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I suspect this may be more controversial than the folderol about the six doctors. It's quite a surprise that this aspect hasn't been leaked up to this.

I think it is to put off drs who are advocating for the right to choice for women.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Morag wrote: »

I think it is to put off drs who are advocating for the right to choice for women.

You could be right, but the scope seems so wide and the penalty so high that I can't see middle-ground opinion going for it. I don't think folk would have thought about any particular penalty for the woman - if they thought about it at all, they'd have thought about a prohibition on doctors offering a service. Even at that, I doubt that people would have envisaged a jail sentence for the doctor. I mean (and I'm not advocating this) the penalty for a doctor would be the risk of being struck off if they were found to be offering unlawful services.

This must be very surprising. If this is the agreed text, Labour Ministers have some explaining to do.

Morag

And we finally have a defination of unborn

“unborn” as it relates to human life means following implantation until such time as it has
completely proceeded in a living state from the body of the woman.

Turtwig

In light of this approach, the general scheme is silent on how the certification may come about. Clinical scenarios where the X case criteria might apply are bound to be complex. Due to the unpredictability and complexity of these rare medical cases it was felt not desirable to provide in legislation for a specific referral pathway. Rather, it is deemed that standard medical practice will provide an appropriate mechanism for the process through
which an assessment would be accessed.

Is that a potential exploit?

joseph brand

I watched Prime Time and Vincent Browne tonight, and I have to say that Caroline Simons really grinds my gears. Is 'hate' too strong a word?

So I looked for a video she did in America and found this small clip [below]. It's a little gem, in that it features our beloved Waters along with David Quinn and some other dogmatic 'pro-lifers'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uW_snRqT5pA

Yesterday, Caroline Simons stated in the Seanad that she was unaware of the American Christian TV channel, EWTN despite her appearance in a fund-raising Irish pro-life video made for the station.

Now it has emerged she appeared on an hour-long edition of ‘Sunday Night Prime’ on EWTN at the end of April 2012.

In it, Caroline talks about the Late Late Show of April 20th last.

She questioned the timing of the appearance of four women who went to England for terminations and who later visited the Oireachtas to share their stories with TDs and senators.

She told EWTN viewers:

“This extraordinary situation where four people came out at the same time, you know, who had been told in very unusual circumstances that their babies were not going to live for long. One of them had been to England six weeks beforehand only, to have a termination.

The fact that they came out was unusual and the timing of their coming out when a bill was before the Government was unusual. And partly, it came from the fact our leading newspaper of record had had two articles over the previous month of women telling their abortion stories and these four women had contacted this journalist and had told their stories and then decided to make it public. They got huge publicity, huge publicity. Our most watched prime time television program last Friday night is called the Late Late Show. Those four women, I think maybe three of them were on last week, there was nobody on to counter what they had to say.”

There were two women in the audience who told their terribly sad personal stories of having to travel to the UK for abortions. Each of them were carrying a fetus which would not survive, but since we're all good christians here, they were told they would have to go full term. What type of human can't empathise with a person in this situation? Only a fool brainwashed by an ancient set of beliefs. These people infuriate me, and none more so than Caroline Simons. :mad:


It may well be a 'blessing in disguise' that she's the spokesperson for the NO Choice lobby, as she regularly gets called out on her lies, as happened tonight on Vincent Browne.

TheChizler

joseph brand wrote: »

I watched Prime Time and Vincent Browne tonight, and I have to say that Caroline Simons really grinds my gears. Is 'hate' too strong a word?

THAT's the woman I spent my night struggling to not throw the remote through the tv because of! She at one point suggested that pregnant women who expressed suicidality be sectioned! And had the audacity to state that no psychiatrist had ever recommended legislation to the government, in the same panel as a psychiatrist who HAD recommended legislation to the government. I'm surprised Pat Kenny didn't dwell on what was pointed out was a blatant lie.

Edit: The person was actually Jaquiline Montwill, I can't tell these people apart at this stage. She's a consultant psychiatrist but was arguing that it was impossible to be suicidal without having a psychiatric illness, therefore you could section any suicidal pregnant woman, at complete odds with the other consultant psychiatrist on the panel. At least she said the wouldn't serve on any panel assessing any abortion cases.

TheChizler

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I suspect this may be more controversial than the folderol about the six doctors. It's quite a surprise that this aspect hasn't been leaked up to this.

It's almost a complete negative of what I was expecting. It's as if the expert panel handed them a document saying exactly what they DIDN'T want, and at some point they mixed up the documents.

Sarky

TheChizler wrote: »

Edit: The person was actually Jaquiline Montwill,

Was that her name? I just resorted to calling her "That Stupid Gobsh*te" while I was watching.

wonderfulname

The Black Oil wrote: »

Heard a rattle on the letterbox half an hour ago. A leaflet from Dublin For Life. No pics of dead babies, etc. This is very much aimed at FG - James Reilly and Alan Farrell in my neck of the woods. The front is Obama poster art style colours, (of the two FG TDs) back is "Will FG be known as the 'Abortion Party'?", then some info about the UK, stats, contact info for the two TDs.

"But Enda Kenny and the Government want to legalise abortion in Ireland on suicide grounds - through all 9 months of pregnancy"...er, OK. (Bold is their doing, btw).

Anyone else get something like this? I'd have a lot of concerns if there was another referendum. The pro life camp would win the ground game for delivering propaganda due to how well funded they are.

Anyway, what can I do? Keep the pressure up via email, or something? I'd scan the leaflet, but my shredder will happily take it.

I've come across posters for 'Wicklow pro life' and 'Munster pro life', in Bray and Waterford respectively, both campaigns aimed squarely at FG, both posters almost identical barring background colour and politicians faces. They definitely came from the same source, I suspect someone is pumping money into astroturfing and I would love to know who, I couldn't find anything myself except references to both on one of the many pro life sites that popped up this year.

I have a picture of one of them somewhere, unfortunately not both, if we could pull a few examples together, should they exist, and point out that someone's being an underhanded creep that would make me very happy. It would probably explain some of the FG issues if there's been a coordinated 'local' effort to get in their ears.

EDIT: Found it, did your flyer have anything in common with this; http://i.imgur.com/sMh2p9V.jpg

aloyisious

I'm "amazed" that Rónán Mullen and some of the psychologists haven't woken up to the fact that if a woman commit's suicide, following on from a rejection of a request for an abortion, that the foetus in her womb will (in all likelihood) die as well. They must think suicidal women will present themselves at Hospital/medical facilities and announce their intents, before following through with "destructive" action, (so that any foetus in her womb may be saved through emergency caesarean section) instead of taking their lives in private secluded areas.

The notion that any woman going through a pregnancy is probably under stress doesn't seem to have entered the minds of those on the Anti_Choice side. They must "think" that it's all a bluff on the part of pregnant women, or that they are extreme bluffers themselves playing Russian Roulette with the lives of women. I assume there's a chance that all of those women who've taken their own lives while pregnant are NOT all first-timers, that some of them would have been through one or more previous pregnancies and births.

I'm hoping that any review board speaking to such a woman will take that point into consideration, and that we don't end up with them shrugging "ah well, we got it wrong again" and inquest juries returning "death while of unsound mind" verdicts.

UDP

joseph brand wrote: »

I watched Prime Time and Vincent Browne tonight, and I have to say that Caroline Simons really grinds my gears. Is 'hate' too strong a word?

She is some horrible person. Doesn't care what lies are spouted as long as they get to their goal.

I cringe reading the word "practicable" in the bill as that is a word she constantly uses over and over again.

jank

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

RTE news has announced there will be a 'panel' of three consultants, two psychiatrists and an obstetrician, in the case of suicide threat. I wonder will the woman be able to request a panel of three non catholic consultants, given the stance of that religion on abortion? What will be done to protect these women from irrational religious bias? The FG backbenchers seem to have their way, England still a far easier option!

Would it be OK if they were Muslim or just Catholic?

Hotblack Desiato

aloyisious wrote: »

They must think suicidal women will present themselves at Hospital/medical facilities and announce their intents, before following through with "destructive" action, (so that any foetus in her womb may be saved through emergency caesarean section) being shackled to a bed in a psychiatric ward for the next few months.

FYP...

Something that I haven't heard any anti-choicer address is that some women who are trying to conceive have to stop taking their anti-depressants. I'd imagine the range of medication which could be used on a pregnant woman admitted to a psychiatric ward would be quite limited, too.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

aloyisious wrote: »

I'm "amazed" that Rónán Mullen and some of the psychologists haven't woken up to the fact that if a woman commit's suicide, following on from a rejection of a request for an abortion, that the foetus in her womb will (in all likelihood) die as well.

I think we're concentrating too much on the suicide ground. We're saying things like "suicide is a leading cause of maternal death", as if that means it is very significant. All it actually means is maternal death is so rare, and the medical risks are so low, that the few cases that occur are disproportionately due to self-harm.

What I think is more of a bother is that the legislation seems to fail to address the problem that it was meant to solve. As I understand it, this legislation is meant to make the situation clear(er) in cases where there is risk to the life of the mother that is not certain or immediate. We'll remember, the ECHR complaint was that the law did not clearly say when a woman could reasonably expect a termination to be provided for medical reasons. I don't see where this does that. Grand, a doctor can intervene alone in the case of emergency. I don't think that was particularly in doubt. What was in doubt was cases in the grey area, where a doctor might say "this woman's position is not immediately life threatening. She may even recover and have a normal delivery. But her position, at the same time, requires intervention to guarantee her safety, which will require a termination".


I don't see where doctors have additional legal protection in such cases. What I do see is the legislation provides that anyone procuring an abortion could be jailed for 14 years.

UDP

I was debating starting a new thread for this but I think it is very much related to the abortion debate.

With some obstetricians coming out as pro-life (as can be seen in today's Irish Independent) is it reasonable to ask an obstetrician what their views are before selecting them?

My wife has a chronic condition that leaves her open to infections on a daily basis and a whole range of issues that can be seriously exacerbated by something going wrong pregnancy. She is not from Ireland but from a country where abortion is legal. It worries her greatly that if she were to get pregnant and give birth in Ireland that she would be putting herself at risk should something go wrong due to the possibility of hesitation by a pro-life obstetrician to terminate a pregnancy. I have to somewhat agree with her and it does worry me too despite it being said over and over again that there is nothing to worry about when giving birth in Ireland - that it is a safe place to give birth.

She wants those that will be her primary care suppliers during the pregnancy to sign something that says that they will not hesitate to perform an abortion should one be required early or where one would improve her chances of surviving a pregnancy that has gone wrong due to risk of things spiraling out of control very quickly. I have told her that there is no way they would sign such a thing due to insurance/liability reasons more than anything but it means that we cannot play it safe throughout a possible pregnancy as a result thus the doctor's views on the matter are very important. This is why the current laws (including the new law) are very dangerous to pregnant women due to the issue of lack of protection when it comes to the threat to the health of the pregnant woman as distinct from the threat to the life of the pregnant woman as for some women e.g. my wife, once the threat goes to threat to the life of a woman it might be too late to intervene successfully.

So is it reasonable to ask for an obstetrician's views on abortion before selecting them and how free are people to decide not to go with an obstetrician because of their views? i.e. can you just pick and choose like this? (we have private health insurance if that helps).

robindch

UDP wrote: »

[...] is it reasonable to ask an obstetrician what their views are before selecting them?

Good point.

It was certainly a concern for some of my family who made the decision to go to one maternity hospital over another one based on nothing more than their understanding of the religious views that prevailed there - and whether the doctors might therefore jump one way or the other if things got messy.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

UDP wrote: »

So is it reasonable to ask for an obstetrician's views on abortion before selecting them and how free are people to decide not to go with an obstetrician because of their views? i.e. can you just pick and choose like this? (we have private health insurance if that helps).

I'd say it is right and reasonable for your wife to discuss any concern, including this one, with her doctor. If you've PHI, you absolutely can choose who you want to go to. Certainly, herself knew exactly what hospital and obstetrician she wanted to go to. I think you've half anticipated the likely replies, though. I'd expect all doctors will state that they will provide whatever lawful services apply - they might put a better spin on it, but that's what it will boil down to.

Pragmatically, I think the subtext from the Savita case is that you'll find no practical issue if attending any of the three main Dublin maternity hospitals. Outside of there, I simply don't know. I don't know if it helps, but you might like to be aware of the Medical Council's guidelines on ethics

http://www.medicalcouncil.ie/Public-Information/Professional-Conduct-Ethics/The-Guide-to-Professional-Conduct-and-Ethics-for-Registered-Medical-Practitioners.pdf

10 Conscientious objection
10.1 [FONT=Frutiger 45 Light,Frutiger 45 Light][FONT=Frutiger 45 Light,Frutiger 45 Light]As a doctor, you must not allow your personal moral standards to influence your treatment of patients.[/FONT][/FONT]

10.2 [FONT=Frutiger 45 Light,Frutiger 45 Light][FONT=Frutiger 45 Light,Frutiger 45 Light]If you have a conscientious objection to a course of action, you should explain this to the patient and make the names of other doctors available to them.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Frutiger 45 Light,Frutiger 45 Light][FONT=Frutiger 45 Light,Frutiger 45 Light]
[/FONT][/FONT]10.3 [FONT=Frutiger 45 Light,Frutiger 45 Light][FONT=Frutiger 45 Light,Frutiger 45 Light]Conscientious objection does not absolve you from responsibility to a patient in emergency circumstances.[/FONT][/FONT]

Turtwig

As far as I'm aware, completely open to correction here, you should be more concerned first about the Hospital's ethos. Even if the consultant is a pro-infanticide and pro-abortion and pro-sex-with-slimy-sails they still have to adhere to the ethos of the hospital their in. And many hospitals e.g Galway Clinic, aren't exactly forthcoming about their ethos until they slam you in the face with it.

Turtwig

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I think we're concentrating too much on the suicide ground. We're saying things like "suicide is a leading cause of maternal death", as if that means it is very significant. All it actually means is maternal death is so rare, and the medical risks are so low, that the few cases that occur are disproportionately due to self-harm.

Agree, but I think with a rigid analysis it would be still be possible to make inferences.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

What I think is more of a bother is that the legislation seems to fail to address the problem that it was meant to solve. As I understand it, this legislation is meant to make the situation clear(er) in cases where there is risk to the life of the mother that is not certain or immediate. We'll remember, the ECHR complaint was that the law did not clearly say when a woman could reasonably expect a termination to be provided for medical reasons. I don't see where this does that. Grand, a doctor can intervene alone in the case of emergency. I don't think that was particularly in doubt. What was in doubt was cases in the grey area, where a doctor might say "this woman's position is not immediately life threatening. She may even recover and have a normal delivery. But her position, at the same time, requires intervention to guarantee her safety, which will require a termination".


I don't see where doctors have additional legal protection in such cases. What I do see is the legislation provides that anyone procuring an abortion could be jailed for 14 years.

I hope you're wrong but, bleh, I don't think you are.

Kiwi in IE

jank wrote: »

Would it be OK if they were Muslim or just Catholic?

No! It wouldn't be alright if they had any strong religious or non religious 'pro life' views that were likely to influence their practice. And don't tell me that it dosnt happen because doctors take an oath. Watch last nights frontline if you think it dosn't happen!

I think there should be a list of 'conscientious objectors' to any issue to do with the provision of healthcare so people can avoid them.

I certainly wouldn't want to go near an obstetrician that had any strong religious views.

Suicidal women who have to go through this ridiculously lengthy and stressful interview process should have a right to know they are not going to be vetoed before they even start.