Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

fitz0

It only took 9 minutes.

robp, you're nothing if not predictable.

pauldla

fitz0 wrote: »

It only took 9 minutes.

robp, you're nothing if not predictable.

Fitzy, I was just thinking the same thing myself.

Morag

http://www.guh.hse.ie/Wards_Units_/

St. Angela's Maternity - Ground Fl. (091) 544551/544553
St. Catherine's Maternity - Ground Fl. (091) 544619/544219
St. Monica's Maternity - 1st Floor (091) 544224/544624
St. Clare's (Neonatal/Premature Baby Unit)

All of the wards are named after saints....

Sin City

It truely was a horrific , what happened to that poor woman. I heard a report saying that one of the doctors says this was a catholic country so would not give permission for an abortion,

Now as you may have noticed I am anti abortion , pro life or what ever you want to call this side of the camp. but that response alone was wrong.

Religion should play no part , in law, social policy , or anything to do with the state, especailly when it comes to non catholics. otherwise , your in danger of loosing your secularism, and you might as well declare Sharia law here.

robp

Obliq wrote: »

And I repeat......"To answer your question though - I don't think that "deserve" comes into it at all." So, no. Clearly.

And to quote myself again...."We humans, being the most powerful minded animals on the planet, have given ourselves the right to use our planet as we see fit." This is where I tell you how deserve doesn't come into it.

When you say my comment is all very interesting, that means sweet F.A. if you haven't actually understood the first two lines. Trying to have a two way discussion with you is as irrational as trying to herd cats. Completely pointless.

I was giving you second chance to express your opinion because I was quite taken aback by it.You are saying we are undeserving of our legal preeminence and thus our human rights. You are implying you are against them but do you mean this? Are they really a bad idea? I am trying to figure out where that leaves us.

fitz0 wrote: »

It only took 9 minutes.

robp, you're nothing if not predictable.

What took 9 mins?

Penn

robp wrote: »

I was giving you second chance to express your opinion because I was quite taken aback by it.You are saying we are undeserving of our legal preeminence and thus our human rights. You are implying you are against them but do you mean this? Are they really a bad idea? I am trying to figure out where that leaves us.

And what about this woman's right to life? The baby was being miscarried but couldn't be aborted because it still had a heartbeat. As a result of this, the woman later died. What about her human rights?

Your "right for women in this country to not have an abortion" is not comparable to that woman's right to life.

Lingua Franca

robp wrote: »

What took 9 mins?

Have a look at fitz0's post previous to yours.

robp wrote: »

What also struck me about this story what how differently it was reported in the Indo compared to the Irish Times. The Irish Times gave a more superior report that showed its not a black & white issue.

That's what struck you? Really? And what on earth was so striking and relevant about the difference between the two reports that was more striking than a woman dying due to being denied a life saving, medically necessary *ahem* termination of pregnancy? Did you really read that story and go "Huh, these reporting styles are different"? Well, let me help you out here. In one paper (Indo) the story was simply reported and in another (the Times) the husband spoke directly to the paper.


By the way, you must have read a different Irish Times article to the one everyone else did, because it's pretty damning and horrific in it's detail and blatant that it was indeed a black and white issue.

Obliq

robp wrote: »

I was giving you second chance to express your opinion because I was quite taken aback by it.You are saying we are undeserving of our legal preeminence and thus our human rights. You are implying you are against them but do you mean this? Are they really a bad idea? I am trying to figure out where that leaves us.

Well think on then. Figure it out yourself. What I would like to say to you at the moment cannot be said here, or I would be banned.

robp

Penn wrote: »

And what about this woman's right to life? The baby was being miscarried but couldn't be aborted because it still had a heartbeat. As a result of this, the woman later died. What about her human rights?

Your "right for women in this country to not have an abortion" is not comparable to that woman's right to life.

I really feel uncomfortable making calls about case which so little details are available. When a women's life is in danger doctors are fully entitled to intervene and end the pregnancy and infact it is a regular event. Ectopic pregnancy is quite common in Ireland. Its not considered to break the Offences Against the Person Act of 1861. I suspect there could be either malpractice or something else but no one here is in a position to make that judgment.

Penn

robp wrote: »

I really feel uncomfortable making calls about case which so little details are available.

Okay then; based solely off the testimony given by the woman's husband, what would your opinion be? You'd be welcome to change your position afterwards if new information comes out, but going by what the husband said, what's your opinion? Should she have been given an abortion?

28064212

robp wrote: »

I really feel uncomfortable making calls about case which so little details are available. When a women's life is in danger doctors are fully entitled to intervene and end the pregnancy and infact it is a regular event. Ectopic pregnancy is quite common in Ireland. Its not considered to break the Offences Against the Person Act of 1861. I suspect there could be either malpractice or something else but no one here is in a position to make that judgment.

You were happy to make the judgement before when you said abortion was never medically necessary.

Here's the relevant text of the 1861 act:

whosoever, with intent to procure the miscarriage of any woman, whether she be or be not with child, shall unlawfully administer to her or cause to be taken by her any poison or other noxious thing, or shall unlawfully use any instrument or other means whatsoever with the like intent, shall be guilty of felony

How could a doctor have saved the mother's life without violating it?

LittleBook

Sin City wrote: »

It truely was a horrific , what happened to that poor woman. I heard a report saying that one of the doctors says this was a catholic country so would not give permission for an abortion.

Irish Times interview with Mr Halappanavar

[Mr Halappanavar] (34) says that, having been told she was miscarrying, and after one day in severe pain, Ms Halappanavar asked for a medical termination.

This was refused, he says, because the foetal heartbeat was still present and they were told, “this is a Catholic country”.

She spent a further 2½ days “in agony” until the foetal heartbeat stopped.

“Savita was really in agony. She was very upset, but she accepted she was losing the baby. When the consultant came on the ward rounds on Monday morning Savita asked if they could not save the baby could they induce to end the pregnancy. The consultant said, ‘As long as there is a foetal heartbeat we can’t do anything’.

“Again on Tuesday morning, the ward rounds and the same discussion. The consultant said it was the law, that this is a Catholic country. Savita [a Hindu] said: ‘I am neither Irish nor Catholic’ but they said there was nothing they could do.

I know there is a lack of legislation on abortion after the referendum of 1992, but don't the Irish medical council guidelines acknowledge that it is permissible where "there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother"?

I don't think it's fair to blame the medical profession completely when seven successive governments have been so craven in dealing with this issue, but the thoughts of that consultant saying that to this woman and her husband while she was in that state sends chills down my spine.

DB21

robp wrote: »

I really feel uncomfortable making calls about case which so little details are available. When a women's life is in danger doctors are fully entitled to intervene and end the pregnancy and infact it is a regular event. Ectopic pregnancy is quite common in Ireland. Its not considered to break the Offences Against the Person Act of 1861. I suspect there could be either malpractice or something else but no one here is in a position to make that judgment.

I'm sorry to deviate from the topic a bit, but; WHAT THE FUCK?!?! Are we as a country seriously using laws over 150 years old??????? Mother of ****ing God.

KazDub

robp wrote: »

Ectopic pregnancy is quite common in Ireland. Its not considered to break the Offences Against the Person Act of 1861.

I usually don't post on these threads but comparing an ectopic pregnancy to a miscarriage and the medical treatment of both is completely incorrect and misleading.
For an ectopic pregnancy there is no other safe option but for the pregnancy to be terminated as quickly as possible. There is no chance at all that the woman's body can deal with it all by itself. Left to its own devices and ectopic pregnancy can kill a woman.
A miscarriage however, depending on the stage of the pregnancy can often be left to take its own course. Having had two I think I'm qualified enough to know what's involved.
Early stage pregnancies usually resolve themselves with no or minimal intervention by doctors. Later stage miscarriages can have to involve doctors who need to physically remove the 'material' left over from the failed pregnancy.
There was no way that any doctor worth his salt could have any reason to believe that a fully dilated cervix with leaking amniotic fluid could be left to 'see what happens'. This pregnancy was not viable, the mother and father were told this. At 17 weeks gestation this was always going to need intervention by the doctors to remove the foetus. This stinks to high heaven of medical staff covering their asses because of one factor; a faint heartbeat.
I'm so, so angry that this has happened and (at six months pregnant myself) heartbroken for Savita's family.

Dades

robp wrote: »

I really feel uncomfortable making calls about case which so little details are available.

It seems you feel uncomfortable admitting that this case highlights both the ingrained attitudes and what need to be addressed by law so this never happens again.

There's more than enough facts to condemn what has happened here AND point fingers, and the fact that you hide behind some notion of "uncertainty" is just nailing your colours to the mast.

robp

Penn wrote: »

Okay then; based solely off the testimony given by the woman's husband, what would your opinion be? You'd be welcome to change your position afterwards if new information comes out, but going by what the husband said, what's your opinion? Should she have been given an abortion?

The important details are the procedures taken by her doctors and why they took this action and what does the literature say. Its not appropriate for a doctor to fog someone off by saying 'this is a Catholic country'. It is stupid for a number of reasons not least for the fact that Irish medicine isn't based on religion and as it happens Hinduism isn't even pro-choice. So the only thing I can say at this stage is that the doc shouldn't have said that.

MagicMarker

We know the basic facts.

The woman in question was miscarrying a child, as a result her cervix was dialated for an extended period of time. Because of this she developed septicemia, even at this stage she still had to wait a day until the foetal heartbeat had stopped before the fetus was removed.

It's absolutely clear from these basic facts that had the doctors acted sooner, the chances of infection would have been reducded SIGNIFICANTLY!!

Not only this but the husband has confirmed that the doctors refused to perform an abortion because "this is a Catholic country".

So tell me robp, wtf kind of details are you waiting for?

Absolutely fúcking disgusting.

Turtwig

It's at time like this I wish I was pro-life. It'd be far easier to console to my mind thinking that at least the doctors allowed this poor woman to suffer because they were doing their best to save the life of another human as well. It's really hard do that when you think the foetus is less alive and aware than a living puppy. This poor woman suffered and died for nothing. Sickening!:mad:

robp

DB21 wrote: »

I'm sorry to deviate from the topic a bit, but; WHAT THE FUCK?!?! Are we as a country seriously using laws over 150 years old??????? Mother of ****ing God.

150 isn't so old. There is a huge amount of weird medieval laws that have lingered on for hundreds of years. There is a special commission formed to remove them but its rather slow. Up to 2005 there was a law that having a longbow ready for war was legally compulsory.
http://www.faduda.net/eccentric/madlaw.html

pauldla

robp wrote: »

There is a huge amount of weird medieval laws that have lingered on for hundreds of years. There is a special commission formed to remove them but its rather slow. Up to 2005 there was a law that having a longbow ready for war was legally compulsory.

I'd be ready to use my longbow today, actually. :mad:

Lingua Franca

Dades wrote: »

It seems you feel uncomfortable admitting that this case highlights both the ingrained attitudes and what need to be addressed by law so this never happens again.

There's more than enough facts to condemn what has happened here AND point fingers, and the fact that you hide behind some notion of "uncertainty" is just nailing your colours to the mast.

I doubt it's even a pro life position so much as a total refusal to admit that he was wrong.


Oh, and here's something striking about the Indo's report.

This incident comes a month after two mothers died in childbirth in the Coombe women’s hospital in Dublin within 48 hours of each other.

In both cases, the deaths occurred shortly after the women had their children delivered by caesarean section.

Maternal death is extremely rare in Ireland and other developed countries.

Before the incident, the Coombe had recorded five maternal deaths in the previous 11 years.

I wonder what next year's UN report is going to say about maternal mortality in Ireland?

robp

Lingua Franca wrote: »

I doubt it's even a pro life position so much as a total refusal to admit that he was wrong.

How can you make such a rash dramatic judgment with no expert medical advice?

Bannasidhe

robp wrote: »

There is a huge amount of weird medieval laws that have lingered on for hundreds of years. There is a special commission formed to remove them but its rather slow. Up to 2005 there was a law that having a longbow ready for war was legally compulsory.

In 1992 a referendum was passed which would have allowed doctors to act to save Savita Halappanavar's life.

20 years later we are still waiting for the required legislation to be enacted so doctors could have legally preformed the procedure but all we have had in that time is is people such as yourself bleat on about abortions are never medically necessary and how pro-life you are.

Savita Halappanavar died because of this.
An abortion would have saved her life.

You and your ilk are not 'pro-life' - you are pro-birth and your shared ideology killed this innocent woman.

Delirium

robp wrote: »

How can you make such a rash dramatic judgment with no expert medical advice?

How can you be so indifferent to the death of a woman that could have in all likelihood been avoided?

Lingua Franca

robp wrote: »

How can you make such a rash dramatic judgment with no expert medical advice?

By observing your posting style and history. I didn't know there was medical experts on robp's posts I could refer to. Could you please point me in the direction of some?

Penn

Youth Defence on Facebook responding to someone who posted on their page:

Dara, out of respect for this woman and her family, please stop using her death to further your cause. It's reprehensible. Do you know anything at all about the case? Have you talked to the consultants involved? Doctors in Ireland are obliged to intervene to save mothers' lives, or they will be struck off. This seems to be a case of medical negligence.

"...please stop using her death to further your cause. It's reprehensible..."

:mad:

keane2097

Bannasidhe wrote: »

In 1992 a referendum was passed which would have allowed doctors to act to save Savita Halappanavar's life.

20 years later we are still waiting for the required legislation to be enacted so doctors could have legally preformed the procedure but all we have had in that time is is people such as yourself bleat on about abortions are never medically necessary and how pro-life you are.

Savita Halappanavar died because of this.
An abortion would have saved her life.

You and your ilk are not 'pro-life' - you are pro-birth and your shared ideology killed this innocent woman.

Checkmate tbh.

pauldla

Penn wrote: »

Youth Defence on Facebook responding to someone who posted on their page:



"...please stop using her death to further your cause. It's reprehensible..."

:mad:

Comments over on AH of a similiar vein. Also dismissing 'sob stories', false tears, etc. :mad:

Lingua Franca

And that from the guys who were gleefully using the death of a woman at the hands of a rogue doctor in the UK to further their cause in the last month or so? It's only reprehensible when others do it, of course. When they do it, it's for da babbies.

Someone at YD is gonna have their work cut out deleting facebook posts today. Wouldn't want the American sponsors to see that a woman died for want of an abortion and that Ireland is angry about it, would we?

Morag

heJournal.ie @thejournal_ie
Taoiseach confirms that Minister for Health received the expert group report on abortion last night. #dail

Such timing....

Makes you wonder what civil servant had it filed away.