Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

aloyisious

From today's Irish Times.

State feigns ignorance on abortions in its hospitals

The Republic declines to collect statistics and uses its information technology to ensure no one else can either, writes FINTAN O'TOOLE

HOW DO you make a problem go away? The Irish answer, of course, is to pretend it doesn’t exist. But in the age of statistics, there is a special refinement to this strategy – make sure it doesn’t show up in the numbers.

If you count something, it becomes real and if it becomes real you might have to do something about it. Thus, for example, the system didn’t count the number of children who died in the care of the State until it was forced to do so.

Here’s something else the system absolutely refuses to count: the number of abortions carried out within the State. It’s not a big number (based on Northern Ireland figures, a rough estimate would be about 120 a year) but it matters because it encapsulates the need to legislate on the basis of the X case.

And it’s a bloody awkward number. It adds up to a fact that is not supposed to be a fact: abortions are legal in the Republic in certain (very restrictive) circumstances and they are being performed, probably more than twice a week.

This is a tricky business – if we acknowledge this fact, we have to do something about it, like, for instance, clarifying for women and their doctors the precise circumstances in which these abortions can, and cannot, take place. And once we do that, Holy Ireland vanishes in a puff of incense – we are no longer that special place where abortion is unthinkable.

So how do you hide these numbers in a health system where everything is supposed to be recorded?

Here we encounter an old friend, the Irish variation on Donald Rumsfeld’s famous distinctions – the unknown known. You have to positively decide not to know the awkward fact. And, as we shall see, the Irish system has taken this determination very far – it has programmed its computers so that they literally cannot count abortions in Irish hospitals.

That such abortions take place is not seriously in dispute. Anti-abortion groups, for their own reasons, insist that they not be called abortions. But this insistence has no legal or medical standing. Before the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), the Government argued that, in fact, there is no problem with obtaining a “lawful abortion” in Ireland: “the procedure for obtaining a lawful abortion in Ireland was clear. The decision was made, like any other major medical matter, by a patient in consultation with her doctor.”

So the official position is that abortion is clearly lawful in Ireland when it is necessary to save a woman’s life.

Given that these abortions are lawful, there should be no hesitation about recording them. The ECHR asked the Government a simple question: how many of these lawful abortions are carried out every year?

The Government, in response, referred to a “database of the Economic and Social Research Institute on discharges and deaths from all public acute hospitals”. But, as the court put it: “The Government’s statistical material provided in response to the Court’s question concerned public acute hospitals and ectopic pregnancies only and thereby revealed a lack of knowledge on the part of the State as to, inter alia, who carries out lawful abortions in Ireland and where.”

This poses a puzzle: the Health Service Executive collects figures on everything that happens in hospitals, so how come the State has a “lack of knowledge” about abortions? In fact there’s not really a lack of knowledge – there’s a deliberate unknowing.

This is revealed in the State’s unpublished draft response to the United Nations human rights committee on its concerns about the implementation of a range of obligations.

In it, the Government reveals the method by which it ensures that it does not know how many lawful abortions are performed here: “No statistics are maintained in relation to the number of abortions taking place in Ireland each year. Information in relation to the in-patient treatment of women with ectopic pregnancies is coded as management of ectopic pregnancies on HIPE (Hospital In-Patient Inquiry Scheme) system. This system does not differentiate between procedures to terminate an ectopic pregnancy and procedures following a spontaneous miscarriage as a result of an ectopic pregnancy or procedures to treat a ruptured ectopic pregnancy.”

So this is how it’s done. The State flatly declines to collect abortion statistics.

But even more interestingly, it uses its information technology systems to make it impossible for anyone to tell how many abortions are due to the most common cause – ectopic pregnancies. There’s a computer code that’s used to record treatments. Someone has gone to the trouble of making sure that abortions, miscarriages and other procedures are jumbled up together.

This takes a certain kind of mind: the point of computerising statistics is that you can see information precisely and use it clearly. (It’s called information technology, after all.) Our (in this case inaptly named) HIPE system has been programmed to obscure information and make it unusable.

This engineered ignorance has its purpose: it confines lawful abortions to the netherland of mystery and shame.

It ensures that the women who have them are not even faceless statistics. They literally don’t count.

Obliq

christmas2012 wrote: »

Any invasive procedure does have pain involved why deny it completely,I think it is irresponsible to say it has no pain whatsoever..

Anyway thats all i have to say on it for today,anytime i go on i seem to get everybodys back up..

The reason why i come on and have this stance is because of what i witnessed with a close friend of mine,she was in a lot of pain after the abortion,and was crying..Its something i dont think given the trauma i would go through after what i witnessed,she only got one pill for pain medication afterwards,and infection set in she got no antibiotics afterwards,and had to wait until an irish chemist had the antibiotic stocked which took a couple of days..

I dont think abortion is an easy thing to go through,it doesnt scratch out all your problems,you can be left with very terrible memories.

I think the part where you describe how your friend got only one pill afterwards (then had to travel back to Ireland in distress and with little support), got an infection and had to WAIT till the antibiotics were available, is one of the better arguments I've seen for women here to have the choice to undergo abortion at home in Ireland.

I will be marching on the 29th for choice. I don't think we'll GET choice, but hopefully the numbers will be there to demonstrate that the legislation we are legally entitled to can no longer be swept under the carpet and we pro-choicer's dismissed as a minority, as per usual.

Hoping giving a link to the march poster won't annoy anyone? Only new here - not sure if that's cool or not......but here ye are: https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/402856_493437097333290_1511016722_n.jpg

Obliq

Ha! Mucked it up anyway. Try again.......https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/402856_493437097333290_1511016722_n.jpg Thanks:-)

Zombrex

Not defending the HSE in anyway (quite the opposite in fact), but some of what O'Toole views as willful refusal to collect statistics is probably just the same old ineptitude that the HSE is famous for. (as they say, don't rush to confuse malice with stupidity)

As someone who has had the unfortunate displeasure of having to work with HSE data the mind would boggle at what they do and don't collect and the internal politics behind why they do and don't. The health boards are gone but the realpolitik remains. You might ask a perfectly normal request for data only to find out that some particular middle manager "controls" that data and is very reluctant to give out, probably because being the person you have to talk to to get that data is the only justification left for his/her job.

robindch

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-19621675

BBC wrote:

Sarah Catt jailed for full-term abortion of baby

A woman who aborted her own baby in the final phase of her pregnancy has been jailed for eight years. Sarah Louise Catt, 35, of North Yorkshire, took a drug when she was full term, 39 weeks pregnant, to cause an early delivery.

She claimed the boy was stillborn and that she buried his body, but no evidence of the child was ever found. Catt made a "deliberate and calculated decision" to end her pregnancy, a Leeds Crown Court judge said.

Catt, who already had two children with her husband, had a scan at 30 weeks confirming her pregnancy at a hospital in Leeds, the court heard. Suspicions were raised when she failed to register the birth weeks later.

Catt had been having an affair with a work colleague for seven years, the judge was told. The court heard her husband was unaware of the pregnancy and was not consulted about her decision to have an abortion.

She maintained she had a legitimate abortion at a clinic in Manchester, but analysis of her computer revealed she had purchased a drug over the internet called Misoprostol from a company in Mumbai, India. The drug can induce labour.

The defendant pleaded guilty in July to administering a poison with intent to procure a miscarriage. She told a psychiatrist she had taken the drug while her husband was away and delivered the baby boy by herself at home.

Catt said the child was not breathing or moving and that she had buried his body but did not reveal the location. The defendant gave a child up for adoption in 1999, the court was told.

She later had a termination with the agreement of her husband, tried to terminate another pregnancy but missed the legal limit and concealed another pregnancy from her husband before the child's birth.

Mr Justice Cooke said Catt had robbed the baby of the life it was about to have and said the seriousness of the crime lay between manslaughter and murder. Sentencing, the judge told Catt she clearly thought the man with whom she was having an affair was the father and she had shown no remorse.

doctoremma

robindch wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-19621675

Utter bafflement here. Presumably, her sanity was examined and found present and correct? It's almost too bizarre to understand.

doctoremma

doctoremma wrote: »

Utter bafflement here. Presumably, her sanity was examined and found present and correct? It's almost too bizarre to understand.

Some thoughts:
1. She elected to go through the entire pregnancy and delivery. Had she waited a couple of weeks, the only difference is that the child would have been born alive and she would have received better medical care for herself. Is this a very strong indication that, for some women, adoption simply isn't the answer?
2. If her husband had discovered the drug and had reasonable suspicion of her intent, could he have reported the potential crime? Would she have been detained and forced to give birth to the baby? At what stage in pregnancy would it be plausible to detain someone from, if you thought they were going to do this?

Neewbie_noob

This country really isn't as pro-life as people make them out to be. If they really were, then the government could (and should) open up a bi-lateral agreement with the UK in which a woman would have to have a legal waiver signed by the biological father (regardless or marital status, unless the father is completely absentee or unfit) in order or for the abortion to be carried out. They could also go one step further and criminalise leaving the country for abortions. The latter could be very hard to police, but basically any woman who leaves Ireland pregnant and returns back to Ireland otherwise, should be treated as a criminal, unless she can prove the baby died via miscarriage. I know what I am saying sounds draconian, but it's the only way to maintain our pro-life country.

MagicMarker

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

This country really isn't as pro-life as people make them out to be. If they really were, then the government could (and should) open up a bi-lateral agreement with the UK in which a woman would have to have a legal waiver signed by the biological father (regardless or marital status, unless the father is completely absentee or unfit) in order or for the abortion to be carried out. They could also go one step further and criminalise leaving the country for abortions. The latter could be very hard to police, but basically any woman who leaves Ireland pregnant and returns back to Ireland otherwise, should be treated as a criminal, unless she can prove the baby died via miscarriage. I know what I am saying sounds draconian, but it's the only way to maintain our pro-life country.

Whose pro-life country are you talking about there?

Neewbie_noob

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

This country really isn't as pro-life as people make them out to be. If they really were, then the government could (and should) open up a bi-lateral agreement with the UK in which a woman would have to have a legal waiver signed by the biological father (regardless or marital status, unless the father is completely absentee or unfit) in order or for the abortion to be carried out. They could also go one step further and criminalise leaving the country for abortions. The latter could be very hard to police, but basically any woman who leaves Ireland pregnant and returns back to Ireland otherwise, should be treated as a criminal, unless she can prove the baby died via miscarriage. I know what I am saying sounds draconian, but it's the only way to maintain our pro-life country.

MagicMarker wrote: »

Whose pro-life country are you talking about there?

Ireland, of course. It annoys me that according to the pro-choice people the man has responsibilities when it comes to maintenance if she decides to keep the baby but no rights if she decides to abort it. Rights and responsibilities go hand-in-hand.

MagicMarker

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

Ireland, of course. It annoys me that according to the pro-choice "people" the man has responsibilities when it comes to maintenance if she decides to keep the baby but no rights if she decides to abort it. Rights and responsibilities go hand-in-hand.

What do you mean by "people"?

Neewbie_noob

MagicMarker wrote: »

What do you mean by "people"?

There's no need to pick at what I'm writing, I'm just contributing to this debate with my tuppence worth.

MagicMarker

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

There's no need to pick at what I'm writing, I'm just contributing to this debate with my tuppence worth.

If you don't want people to pick at what you write then you shouldn't write anything at all.

Surely you have a reason for writing "people", I'm just curious as to what that reason is...

Neewbie_noob

MagicMarker wrote: »

If you don't want people to pick at what you write then you shouldn't write anything at all.

Surely you have a reason for writing "people", I'm just curious as to what that reason is...

You haven't address my issue that I raised, do you or do you not agree with my proposal of the bilateral agreement which I put forward.

MagicMarker

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

You haven't address my issue that I raised, do you or do you not agree with my proposal of the bilateral agreement which I put forward.

No.

Now can you answer my question?

Rev Hellfire

MagicMarker wrote: »

If you don't want people to pick at what you write then you shouldn't write anything at all.

Surely you have a reason for writing "people", I'm just curious as to what that reason is...

I think it's the people vs the man.

eviltwin

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

You haven't address my issue that I raised, do you or do you not agree with my proposal of the bilateral agreement which I put forward.

How would you ever enforce it? Do you propose to give a pregnancy test to every single woman/girl of childbearing age leaving the country?

What if both the man and woman are in agreement about ending the pregnancy, would that make a difference?

All you will do is push it underground, women will take matters into their own hands, buy abortion pills online or do a diy job. Sure probably many babies who might have been aborted will ultimately be born but at what cost? That is not the kind of society I want to live in.

Nodin

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

There's no need to pick at what I'm writing, I'm just contributing to this debate with my tuppence worth.

Yep, and part of that contribution was

according to the pro-choice "people"

Why is "people" in quotes?

Neewbie_noob

MagicMarker wrote: »

No.

Now can you answer my question?

I was a simple typo. Sheesh.

My logic in my idea is that if a man is responsible financially etc. when the baby is born [based on the fact that he took part in creating it] then he should have a legal entitlement to stop the abortion too [based on the fact that he took part in creating it]. What if the man wanted to be a parent and the woman didn't ?? What's wrong with the man being a single parent and he takes the kid after birth??

fatmammycat

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

I was a simple typo. Sheesh.

My logic in my idea is that if a man is responsible financially etc. when the baby is born [based on the fact that he took part in creating it] then he should have a legal entitlement to stop the abortion too [based on the fact that he took part in creating it]. What if the man wanted to be a parent and the woman didn't ?? What's wrong with the man being a single parent and he takes the kid after birth??

Ladies and gentlemen, the broodmare argument!

Neewbie, which part of unwanted pregnancy do you not understand?

Ickle Magoo

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

I was a simple typo. Sheesh.

My logic in my idea is that if a man is responsible financially etc. when the baby is born [based on the fact that he took part in creating it] then he should have a legal entitlement to stop the abortion too [based on the fact that he took part in creating it]. What if the man wanted to be a parent and the woman didn't ?? What's wrong with the man being a single parent and he takes the kid after birth??

While it's a good compromise in theory, if the woman didn't want to be pregnant then in reality it would still mean forcing her to be pregnant against her will and wishes. It would also be giving someone else autonomy over her body, something which we don't do or allow under any other circumstances. In theory it would also mean rapists can force their victims to carry pregnancies to term...which is an awful prospect.

Would it not be better that men can waive their financial responsibilities to a pregnancy they don't want to go to term? Rather than forcing either party to participate in parenthood...

Neewbie_noob

fatmammycat wrote: »

Ladies and gentlemen, the broodmare argument!

What's that ??

fatmammycat wrote: »

Neewbie, which part of unwanted pregnancy do you not understand?

What if it's only the female who wants the abortion but not the gentleman. Why can't the man raise the child on his own if he is willing like a lot of fine ladies do after the man fecks off. Double standards as usual. If a woman doesn't want her child she's pro choice, if a man doesn't, he's a deadbeat.

Malari

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

If a woman doesn't want her child she's pro choice, if a man doesn't, he's a deadbeat.

Not everyone who is pro-choice agrees with forced maintenance payments. I think that's your error.

Neewbie_noob

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Would it not be better that men can waive their financial responsibilities to a pregnancy they don't want to go to term? Rather than forcing either party to participate in parenthood...

Perfect solution if abortion does come into play here (hopefully it doesn't). It makes me sick that if a woman wants rid of her kid she's pro-choice, you go girl woman power yadda yadda yadda, whereas if a man doesn't want to see his son/daughter, then he's a deadbeat

eviltwin

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

What's that ??



What if it's only the female who wants the abortion but not the gentleman. Why can't the man raise the child on his own if he is willing like a lot of fine ladies do after the man fecks off. Double standards as usual. If a woman doesn't want her child she's pro choice, if a man doesn't, he's a deadbeat.

It would be interesting to see out of the thousands of abortions that happen each year just how many fall into this category. I would imagine that its very few.

fatmammycat

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

What's that ??



What if it's only the female who wants the abortion but not the gentleman. Why can't the man raise the child on his own if he is willing like a lot of fine ladies do after the man fecks off. Double standards as usual. If a woman doesn't want her child she's pro choice, if a man doesn't, he's a deadbeat.

Basic biology of course. You can't force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term as if she's come kind of broodmare. It's hardly a double standard. If a man doesn't want to become a father he has plenty of choices, celibacy, vascetomy. Plenty of men do walk away from their offspring too once born, but that has nothing to do with abortion.

Bannasidhe

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

What's that ??



What if it's only the female who wants the abortion but not the gentleman. Why can't the man raise the child on his own if he is willing like a lot of fine ladies do after the man fecks off. Double standards as usual. If a woman doesn't want her child she's pro choice, if a man doesn't, he's a deadbeat.

A valid argument if the person who wants the child is also willing and able to carry a child to term within their own body. However, since the hypothetical "gentleman" cannot do this he would be obliged to force the "female" to carry a child she does not want for him. In other words - she would be nothing but his broodmare.

pauldla

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

My logic in my idea is that if a man is responsible financially etc. when the baby is born [based on the fact that he took part in creating it] then he should have a legal entitlement to stop the abortion too [based on the fact that he took part in creating it]. What if the man wanted to be a parent and the woman didn't ?? What's wrong with the man being a single parent and he takes the kid after birth??

Having a baby isn't like having a tooth removed, dude. He played his part in the reproductive process and, should they agree to have the child, he will sqaure up to his responsibilities like a man should, but if she decides no, then the final choice is hers. Carrying and then giving birth to a child can be an indiscribably harrowing and traumatic experience under the best of circumstances; what you are suggesting means a woman would have to carry a child she didn't want, and that's something I wouldn't sentence my worst enemy to.

The final say has to rest with the woman. Of course the man will contribute to the decision, but it's up to her.

Neewbie_noob

fatmammycat wrote: »

Basic biology of course. You can't force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term as if she's come kind of broodmare. It's hardly a double standard. If a man doesn't want to become a father he has plenty of choices, celibacy, vascetomy. Plenty of men do walk away from their offspring too once born, but that has nothing to do with abortion.

But there's legal obligations in Ireland to pay maintenance and the female can drag the gentleman kicking and screaming through the courts to extort money from him for his flesh and blood, yet at a whim she could snuff away the life of this innocent child growing inside of her without even the prior knowledge of the man.

Turtwig

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

What's that ??



What if it's only the female who wants the abortion but not the gentleman. Why can't the man raise the child on his own if he is willing like a lot of fine ladies do after the man fecks off. Double standards as usual. If a woman doesn't want her child she's pro choice, if a man doesn't, he's a deadbeat.

In that case I think it would be only fair for a man that forces his woman through the pregnancy to surgically attach another living entity to his body for nine months. Support it, nourish it, and deal with all the side effects that bearing entity will cause him.

It's sh*tty but the reality is for abortion the rights debate is solely between the right of the foetus and the rights of the mother to be. The father's say is minimal. Unfair maybe, but it's the woman's body and potential life. To put it another way, if we'd the technology to make males pregnant, do you think a male should be forced to carry a baby to term against his wishes because the mother wills it so? Bear in mind too that pregnancy can often be a very unpleasant experience.