Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

Richard Bingham

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I am sorry if it looked like an attack - just commenting on your interesting choice of user name as it is the name of an actual child murderer - the Lucan's were descended from George Bingham, Richard's brother.

No problem. I didn't know that. It really was a random choice, just thought with him being missing so long and all that, might be funny if he turned up on boards.

I didn't get any responses on the other forum so I thought I'd try again. I was prompted to post it in the first place by another poster who posted up a link to the report on the case in the Indo.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I do think discussion of who would be 'entitled' to an abortion under the proposed legislation is one for the legal eagles over in Legal Discussion or given the case you have cited perhaps ask those who have knowledge of assessing sucidiality how they would interpret the proposed legislation in this case. There is probably a forum where psychiatrists hang out...

I don't think they like any discussion on moral issues in the legal forum and I'm not focussing on the law but how it will be applied in practice. I really think its a discussion worth having as the practicalities of enforcing legislation have to be considered when it is being drafted.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

But, in my opinion, the situation is that whether or not this poor woman would have been deemed eligible under the proposed legislation would have been determined by the panel of experts as outlined in the proposed legislation and not made public.

I too, have huge sympathy for this woman and any others who find themselves in a crisis pregnancy.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Essentially, its is none of our business really...one either believes she should have had that entitlement should she have wished to avail of it - or she shouldn't have.

I will try not to bring that particular case up again but if I had used a 'what if' scenario, people might rubbish it as being unlikely to occur. That is the only reason I used a specific case. I agree with you - I have often felt sorry for the Halappanavar's who have had, what should be a personal matter, splashed all over the media.

I have sisters, nieces and a wife. Many people who marched for Savita stated openly that they were concerned for women and children - so am I. The politicians we elected are in the process of passing a landmark bill. It's only natural that if we elect someone to high office we are entitled to examine what they do and base our vote in the next election on whether we agree with it. And maybe they have figured this all out but I haven't heard anyone saying they have.

Bannasidhe

Richard Bingham wrote: »

No problem. I didn't know that. It really was a random choice, just thought with him being missing so long and all that, might be funny if he turned up on boards.

I didn't get any responses on the other forum so I thought I'd try again. I was prompted to post it in the first place by another poster who posted up a link to the report on the case in the Indo.



I don't think they like any discussion on moral issues in the legal forum and I'm not focussing on the law but how it will be applied in practice. I really think its a discussion worth having as the practicalities of enforcing legislation have to be considered when it is being drafted.



I too, have huge sympathy for this woman and any others who find themselves in a crisis pregnancy.



I will try not to bring that particular case up again but if I had used a 'what if' scenario, people might rubbish it as being unlikely to occur. That is the only reason I used a specific case. I agree with you - I have often felt sorry for the Halappanavar's who have had, what should be a personal matter, splashed all over the media.

I have sisters, nieces and a wife. Many people who marched for Savita stated openly that they were concerned for women and children - so am I. The politicians we elected are in the process of passing a landmark bill. It's only natural that if we elect someone to high office we are entitled to examine what they do and base our vote in the next election on whether we agree with it. And maybe they have figured this all out but I haven't heard anyone saying they have.

I don't think they have figured it out - I think they are doing what they were required to by the electorate- nothing more, nothing less.

Why would this particular issue be the one to decide how you will vote?

The fact is, they really have no choice as a government. Failure to legislate for X was a can kicked down the road by successive governments and it really was just a matter of time before a tragic death would re-ignite the situation and result in a groundswell of protests at the lack of clarity. It just so happened that tragedy occurred on Edna's watch leaving him only two choices. Either legislate or be seen to be anti-democratic. He choose to stick to letter of what was required.

Of all the many, many reasons I can think of not to vote for FG - being seen to abide by democratic principles in the face of condemnation from the RCC, personal abuse of deputies and lobby groups with serious money behind them is not one of them. Indeed, it's the only reason to vote for them that I can come up with...


Would issues like did they keep their election promises not be a greater determinant?


Edit to add: I apologise if I have misinterpreted your intention but having seen many brand new posters suddenly appear in here with an agenda all I can say in my defense is experience has made me wary.

MrPudding

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Edit to add: I apologise if I have misinterpreted your intention but having seen many brand new posters suddenly appear in here with an agenda all I can say in my defense is experience has made me wary.

It might just be perception, but there does seem to have been a large number of brand new posters, with new accounts popping in and saying remarkably similar things to posters we have known and loved in the past, or is that just me...?

MrP

Bannasidhe

MrPudding wrote: »

It might just be perception, but there does seem to have been a large number of brand new posters, with new accounts popping in and saying remarkably similar things to posters we have known and loved in the past, or is that just me...?

MrP

Obviously not...

Richard Bingham

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I don't think they have figured it out

That's worrying. This is far too important to be messed up by lack of forethought.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I think they are doing what they were required to by the electorate

Do you mean by the Supreme Court i.e. they are legislating for the X case which was a Supreme Court decision?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Why would this particular issue be the one to decide how you will vote?

I didn't say this was the only issue I would consider their performance on - I would of course look at their performance on all issues which I think are important enough. Mind you if a person decided who they would vote for based on just one issue, because it was of huge importance to them, that is their choice, its their vote.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The fact is, they really have no choice as a government. Failure to legislate for X was a can kicked down the road by successive governments and it really was just a matter of time before a tragic death would re-ignite the situation

Yes but the X case didn't hear medical evidence and the Supreme Court isn't infallible.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Either legislate or be seen to be anti-democratic.

I don't think our politicians have a problem being undemocratic. Fianna Fail bailed out the bondholders with the tax dollars of people who had nothing to do with their bad investments and Fine Gael took over the wheel and continued the wrongful acts of their predecessors and have now admitted that "mistakes were made".

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Edit to add: I apologise if I have misinterpreted your intention but having seen many brand new posters suddenly appear in here with an agenda all I can say in my defense is experience has made me wary.

Does everyone who creates a profile here not post their opinions or is there a waiting period when you should only post questions. Actually now that I think of it I have posted mainly questions so I don't know what is wrong with that. I am not a member of any political party, pressure group or lobby group. Anything I say is my own opinion and I have no conflict of interest. Why shouldn't I post here? I am most definitely not a troll if that is what you are getting at and I don't have another profile on here. There's nothing surreptitious about my posting here.

I can think of several periods in history when people should have put up their hands and asked questions - our recent so called boom (read ponzi scheme) is a good example.

Richard Bingham

MrPudding wrote: »

It might just be perception, but there does seem to have been a large number of brand new posters, with new accounts popping in and saying remarkably similar things to posters we have known and loved in the past, or is that just me...?

MrP

Its obvious your insinuating that I have another account. I don't. Why don't you play the ball not the man?

MrPudding

Richard Bingham wrote: »

Its obvious your insinuating that I have another account. I don't. Why don't you play the ball not the man?

I am insinuating nothing. I am merely pointing out that there has been an influx of new accounts posting recently and they tend to be saying stuff we have heard before, simply a follow on form Bann's observation.

MrP

aloyisious

Richard Bingham wrote: »

I recently saw a comment about the suicide of a pregnant woman last year which put me thinking about how the new legislation will work. There is an account of some of the evidence given at the Coroners inquest here http://www.independent.ie/irish-news...-28903436.html

Six days before her death, Mrs Byrne and her husband attended an appointment with consultant psychiatrist at the Rotunda, Dr John Sheehan. She told him that she felt "part of her life was missing" because she had no daughter.

"She said that she planned the current pregnancy hoping for a baby daughter but found out at 20 weeks she was having twins and that they were both boys. She said that she was devastated," he said.

Her mood was low, particularly in the evening, and she described a loss of interest and not feeling "maternal".

She told him she felt overwhelmed by the prospect of having four boys but did not express any intention to take her own life, he said.

If this legislation had been passed before the death of Anna Byrne and if she had looked for an abortion due to her suicidality, which according to the evidence was because of the sex of her unborn babies, would it have been granted?

I've just been reading back after seeing the responses you got and I think Mrs Byrne would NOT have been given an abortion as her apparent affected state of mind and grounds for wanting one were based on both of the foetus in her womb being male; not the choice of sex she wanted for her next child/ren. EDIT, it was not because she did not want a baby, it was supposedly because she wanted a female baby.

So as to avoid being asked to respond further on Mrs Byrne's case , I don't have the required standing or qualification to make a judgement in Mrs Byrne's case, and as I further don't know what her full state of mind was at the time of her passing, I won't make any judgement on her case.

28064212

Richard Bingham wrote: »

Yes but the X case didn't hear medical evidence and the Supreme Court isn't infallible.

Infallible? No. The absolute last arbiter? Yes. The only other option is a referendum to remove or change the article, which was offered and the people chose not to do so (twice). There is no other option. They have to legislate.

It's nonsense that it wasn't done in 1992. If it was, like it was supposed to, we could have progressed as a country and had an actual discussion about abortion and its place in society, instead of being forced to rehash the same points about a tiny, miniscule subsection of cases

Hotblack Desiato

Richard Bingham wrote: »

Yes but the X case didn't hear medical evidence and the Supreme Court isn't infallible.

That in bold is one of the anti-choicers' favourite canards, and it's utter bunkum.

The purpose of the X case wasn't to second guess the doctors involved - it was to establish whether a particular legal right existed. It is a legal judgement not a medical one.

And, in the Irish legal system, the Supreme Court is infallible. If you disagree with one of its decisions your only recourse is a constitutional amendment. Good luck with that, as they say, as it's already been tried and failed twice in relation to the X case decision.

Richard Bingham

ninja900 wrote: »

That in bold is one of the anti-choicers' favourite canards, and it's utter bunkum.

The purpose of the X case wasn't to second guess the doctors involved - it was to establish whether a particular legal right existed. It is a legal judgement not a medical one.

And, in the Irish legal system, the Supreme Court is infallible. If you disagree with one of its decisions your only recourse is a constitutional amendment. Good luck with that, as they say, as it's already been tried and failed twice in relation to the X case decision.

You're right, they do use that a lot don't they. I never said I was pro life. I am just teasing out how this will work. It seems that nobody knows as usually you would have 101 opinions on boards but so far I think we have had three or so.

What I am asking is; if a woman seeks an abortion because she is suicidal, will the psychiatrist who is interviewing her ask her why she is suicidal and will he have to deem it a valid reason?

Don't attack me for asking this - as far as I am concerned, if a person is suicidal, they are suicidal, regardless of what another person thinks and I am not inferring that the psychiatrist should have to validate her reason, I am just asking the question.

The alternative would seem to be that she would tell him "I am suicidal" and he would just rubber stamp the form but if that was all he had to do it would seem a waste to pay for a psychiatrist as a civil servant could do it?

Bobby42

Psychiatrists are trained and experienced enough to tell when someone is genuinely suicidal and when someone is not.

During the hearings psychiatrists said that they often encounter this. For example, psychiatrists working with people with drug addictions are often presented with people saying that they are going to kill themselves if they don't get x or y drug.

Saying "I'm suicidal" to a psychiatrist isn't going to be met with "ok, fair enough".

There's a whole series of questions they go through and they dig deep and gauge the persons reactions, and draw on their experience to reach a conclusion.

I think it is quite a sexist position to think that once the legislation passes there will be queues of women all pretending to be suicidal so they can get an abortion.

Why would anyone go through all that when Liverpool is so close?

Richard Bingham

Bobby42 wrote: »

Psychiatrists are trained and experienced enough to tell when someone is genuinely suicidal and when someone is not.

During the hearings psychiatrists said that they often encounter this. For example, psychiatrists working with people with drug addictions are often presented with people saying that they are going to kill themselves if they don't get x or y drug.

Saying "I'm suicidal" to a psychiatrist isn't going to be met with "ok, fair enough".

There's a whole series of questions they go through and they dig deep and gauge the persons reactions, and draw on their experience to reach a conclusion.

I think it is quite a sexist position to think that once the legislation passes there will be queues of women all pretending to be suicidal so they can get an abortion.

Why would anyone go through all that when Liverpool is so close?

I wouldn't agree that their training allows them to tell when someone is going to commit or not commit suicide.

From the Oireachtas hearings;

Dr Sheehan to Bacik on her questions about X: “Prediction is very difficult, I use the word impossible.”

“I don’t think any doctor can say a certain person will never commit suicide…Equally impossible to say, that person will commit suicide.”

I think your right though that they will ask a series of questions to delve further into the issue, and I suppose whether we like it or not they will form an opinion on whether the person is genuine or saying it to achieve an end (this was considered in the hearings too so its a valid consideration).

28064212

Richard Bingham wrote: »

I wouldn't agree that their training allows them to tell when someone is going to commit or not commit suicide.

Psychiatrists already determine the likelihood of someone committing suicide. For example, you can be committed if you are a danger to yourself.

Richard Bingham wrote: »

What I am asking is; if a woman seeks an abortion because she is suicidal, will the psychiatrist who is interviewing her ask her why she is suicidal and will he have to deem it a valid reason?

No, why would they? You can be suicidal because you think martians are going to invade tomorrow. Is that a valid reason? No. Can you be genuinely suicidal because of that reason? Of course.

You seem to think the validity of the reason and the validity of the suicidal feelings are inextricably linked, when nothing could be further from the truth.

Loafing Oaf

Richard Bingham wrote: »

I wouldn't agree that their training allows them to tell when someone is going to commit or not commit suicide.

Yeah you need these guys for that:

Richard Bingham

28064212 wrote: »

You seem to think the validity of the reason and the validity of the suicidal feelings are inextricably linked, when nothing could be further from the truth.

No. I have already stated the opposite.

Richard Bingham wrote: »

as far as I am concerned, if a person is suicidal, they are suicidal, regardless of what another person thinks

Richard Bingham

28064212 wrote: »

Psychiatrists already determine the likelihood of someone committing suicide. For example, you can be committed if you are a danger to yourself.

I honestly don't know the law on that but I don't think anyone is ever committed for being a danger to themselves. I think you have to commit an act of violence against an other to be committed.

That guy Felix Baumgartner who did the highest ever freefall jump 3 or 4 months ago is undoubtedly a danger to himself but I don't believe he could be committed.

Anyway, I digress.

MrPudding

Richard Bingham wrote: »

I honestly don't know the law on that but I don't think anyone is ever committed for being a danger to themselves. I think you have to commit an act of violence against an other to be committed.

That guy Felix Baumgartner who did the highest ever freefall jump 3 or 4 months ago is undoubtedly a danger to himself but I don't believe he could be committed.

Anyway, I digress.

There is a difference between engaging in a particular activity, knowing that there are risks to you life and having a mental incapacity or ailment that causes you to be a danger to yourself.

The former is accepted as a right we are entitled to the latter is something which can, most certainly result in your commitment.

When a person of sound mind decides to carry out a dangerous activity they are considered to have accepted the risks. A person who is not of sound mind is not considered able to accept the risks and therefore in need of protection from themselves.

So being a danger to oneself is most certainly a ground for commitment, it is not enough on its own, there needs to be something additional, like clinical depression for example.

People get committed every day for being a danger to themselves.

MrP

28064212

Richard Bingham wrote: »

No. I have already stated the opposite.

Then what's the confusion?

Richard Bingham wrote: »

I honestly don't know the law on that but I don't think anyone is ever committed for being a danger to themselves. I think you have to commit an act of violence against an other to be committed.

You are incorrect.

A person may be involuntarily admitted to an approved centre pursuant to an application under section 9 or 12 and detained there on the grounds that he or she is suffering from a mental disorder.
Mental disorder: In this Act “mental disorder” means mental illness, severe dementia or significant intellectual disability where—
(a) because of the illness, disability or dementia, there is a serious likelihood of the person concerned causing immediate and serious harm to himself or herself or to other persons

Richard Bingham wrote: »

That guy Felix Baumgartner who did the highest ever freefall jump 3 or 4 months ago is undoubtedly a danger to himself but I don't believe he could be committed.

That's a nonsensical comparison.

kylith

The chairman of the team reviewing Savita Halappanavar's death has said that the law should permit termination of a pregnancy when the health of the mother, not just her life, is at risk
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/chairman-says-health-of-mother-and-not-just-life-needs-protection-1.1428146#.Ub0EaTLAI5I.facebook

Sabaratnam Arulkumaran wrote:

If you have infection, by the time it comes to sepsis and severe sepsis the fallopian tubes might be injured, she can become sub-fertile, she might have [later] an ectopic pregnancy. Life-long she might have pelvic inflammatory disease. I mean, how much are you prepared to take before considering termination of pregnancy?
“At what point is this going to give permanent injury to the woman, or what point might it escalate to death.

ETA: would it be worth our while to start going to Pro-Life rallies with truthful banners like:
We don't care about crippling women, as long as they can have babies after
Babies first, women second
Abortions for the rich only
A bunch of pederasts and their enablers know what's best for us all
Suicidal? Good! Let the sluts die
A lifetime of heartache is worth it to see your anencephalic child die in agony shortly after birth

aloyisious

After listening to Mattie in the Dail the other day, I concluded that he (and others that speak like him on this issue) view human females solely as breeders (like livestock) with no regard for their health or life, and of no intrinsic value otherwise.

Richard Bingham

28064212 wrote: »

Then what's the confusion?

I don't know - it was you that was confused not me. You stated

You seem to think the validity of the reason and the validity of the suicidal feelings are inextricably linked, when nothing could be further from the truth

after I had said

as far as I am concerned, if a person is suicidal, they are suicidal, regardless of what another person thinks

28064212 wrote: »

Then what's the confusion?

You are incorrect.

That's a nonsensical comparison.

I accept that if you have a mental disorder and are a danger to yourself you can be committed but that was not the original statement. The original statement was

28064212 wrote: »

Psychiatrists already determine the likelihood of someone committing suicide. For example, you can be committed if you are a danger to yourself.

robindch

aloyisious wrote: »

[...] I concluded that he (and others that speak like him on this issue) view human females solely as breeders (like livestock) with no regard for their health or life, and of no intrinsic value otherwise.

Well, in all fairness, that does seem to be the biblical view:

1 Timothy 2:15 wrote:

But women will be saved through childbearing--if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

Richard Bingham

28064212 wrote: »

You can be suicidal because you think martians are going to invade tomorrow. Is that a valid reason? No. Can you be genuinely suicidal because of that reason? Of course.

I agree totally. I knew a guy who tried to commit suicide because Millwall lost the cup final. Madness.

28064212

Richard Bingham wrote: »

I don't know - it was you that was confused not me. You stated

You seem to think the validity of the reason and the validity of the suicidal feelings are inextricably linked, when nothing could be further from the truth

after I had said

as far as I am concerned, if a person is suicidal, they are suicidal, regardless of what another person thinks

Except you also said:

Richard Bingham wrote: »

The alternative would seem to be that she would tell him "I am suicidal" and he would just rubber stamp the form but if that was all he had to do it would seem a waste to pay for a psychiatrist as a civil servant could do it?

Those are not the only two alternatives. The only way they would be the sole options are if the validity of the reason and the validity of the suicidal feelings are linked. Which they are not

Richard Bingham wrote: »

I accept that if you have a mental disorder and are a danger to yourself you can be committed but that was not the original statement. The original statement was

You'll have to explain the difference between those two statements

aloyisious

robindch wrote: »

Well, in all fairness, that does seem to be the biblical view:

Mattie - the biblical scholar

Richard Bingham

28064212 wrote: »

Except you also said:

Those are not the only two alternatives. The only way they would be the sole options are if the validity of the reason and the validity of the suicidal feelings are linked. Which they are not


You'll have to explain the difference between those two statements

They are both valid because one of them was not a statement of my belief it was me exploring how this legislation will operate in practice;

The first was a statement by me of what I believe;

"...if a person is suicidal, they are suicidal, regardless of what another person thinks."

And the second was me exploring how this will operate in practice;

"The alternative would seem to be that she would tell him "I am suicidal" and he would just rubber stamp the form but if that was all he had to do it would seem a waste to pay for a psychiatrist as a civil servant could do it?"

The two cannot contradict each other because the legislation may not work the way I think it will or should, and then again maybe it will.

You seem very angry towards me. If you think these questions aren't valid then why are people disagreeing on them? If the answers aren't clear, they must be valid questions. Whether you realise it or not, it is not fully clear yet how this legislation will operate.

There is the question over whether the psychiatrist should certify an abortion where he believes the woman is suicidal, but her suidality is as a result of depression (which he is trained to treat and which will likely pass) or some other temporary factor (which he knows will pass)?

aloyisious

Richard Bingham wrote: »

I agree totally. I knew a guy who tried to commit suicide because Millwall lost the cup final. Madness.

Pardon me asking but..... is it not going offtrack to be comparing a Millwall Supporter committing suicide or a bungee-jumper with joy as his/her intent to a woman driven to distraction and suicide-intent due to some other person deciding on personally-held ethical grounds that the requestee did not have any right on health or life-preservation grounds to terminate her pregnancy?

IMO, given that one of the prime desires of humans, if not the topmost desire, is to stay alive (preservation of personal life), your analogies seem slightly skewed.

28064212

Richard Bingham wrote: »

They are both valid because one of them was not a statement of my belief it was me exploring how this legislation will operate in practice;

The first was a statement by me of what I believe;

"...if a person is suicidal, they are suicidal, regardless of what another person thinks."

And the second was me exploring how this will operate in practice;

"The alternative would seem to be that she would tell him "I am suicidal" and he would just rubber stamp the form but if that was all he had to do it would seem a waste to pay for a psychiatrist as a civil servant could do it?"

The two cannot contradict each other because the legislation may not work the way I think it will or should, and then again maybe it will.

Ehhh... Not the statements I referred to.

Richard Bingham wrote: »

You seem very angry towards me. If you think these questions aren't valid then why are people disagreeing on them? If the answers aren't clear, they must be valid questions. Whether you realise it or not, it is not fully clear yet how this legislation will operate.

No idea where you're picking up anger from No-one on this thread has stated the opposing argument. You asked a question, demanded a discussion, received an answer which you supposedly agreed with, then tried to carry on the discussion ad nauseum.

Richard Bingham wrote: »

There is the question over whether the psychiatrist should certify an abortion where he believes the woman is suicidal, but her suidality is as a result of depression (which he is trained to treat and which will likely pass) or some other temporary factor (which he knows will pass)?

Is this a new question? Depression can also be a temporary factor. And they are trained to treat any suicidal feelings, not just depression. Is there a real and substantial threat to her life from the risk of suicide? Then yes, she is entitled to an abortion

Nodin

Richard Bingham wrote: »

I accept that if you have a mental disorder and are a danger to yourself you can be committed but that was not the original statement. The original statement was

I've no idea what the point of such silly semantics is supposed to be.