Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

Bannasidhe

Article by Fiona de Londras (Law professor at Durham University, ex law lecturer at UCD and internationally recognised expert on Human Rights)

The media in Ireland and around the world is reacting today to the news that Savita Halappanavar died in a Galway hospital having reportedly been denied a termination she requested as she went through three days of irretrievable miscarriage. When she was admitted to hospital, it is reported, she was fully dilated and although there was a foetal heartbeat there was no way to save her child. In spite of her pain, and the infection-related risks attendant to having someone fully dilated and bleeding for three days, doctors in the hospital refused her a termination. She subsequently died from septicaemia and E.coli ESBL. This comes in the wake of more than twenty years of frustration at the failure on the part of the Irish political system to put in place a clear process by which people can access abortion in the slim category of cases where it is constitutionally permitted.

The constitutional right to access an abortion arises only in situations where “it is established as a matter of probability that there is a real and substantial risk to the life, as distinct from the health, of the mother, which can only be avoided by the termination of her pregnancy”. This is the test laid down by the Supreme Court in the infamous X Case, concerning whether or not a 14 year old girl who was pregnant as a result of rape and suicidal as a result had a right to access abortion. The Supreme Court could not have expressed the test more clearly in this case. Neither could it have done in numerous subsequent cases since then when it has reiterated the existing constitutional right and openly criticised the failure to give effect to it by means of clear guidance to medical professionals about how the test can be operationalised. On two separate occasions the Irish people have been asked in constitutional referenda to restrict the X test by removing the risk of suicide from the life threatening conditions giving rise to the constitutional right. On both occasions the Irish electorate has refused. We do not know for sure whether people want wider access to abortion (the X test is, of course, very narrow) but we do know that people are not willing endorse a narrowing of the right.

In 2010 the European Court of Human Rights in A, B & C v Ireland accepted that Ireland has the sovereign right to decide on the availability of abortion per se, but that if there is a right to access abortion there must be a system for that right to be exercised. In the absence thereof there was a breach of the Convention.

And so, following domestic and European litigation, it is clear that successive Irish governments have both resolutely refused to give practical effect to women’s constitutional rights and allowed Ireland to become non-compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights. The choice after A, B & C v Ireland was clear: either put in place a system where medics had clear guidelines about applying the X test or hold (yet another) constitutional referendum to either narrow or broaden the test. What we could not do was nothing.

And yet, the reaction of the government—made up here of an awkward coalition of Fine Gael which promised not to legislate for the X Case and the Labour Party whose election manifesto committed itself to broadening access to abortion—was to appoint an expert committee to recommend steps to implement A, B & C v Ireland. According to the Taoiseach in parliament this morning, that Committee reported to the Minister for Health, Dr James Reilly (left), last night.

Ireland is not unique in being a country that is sharply divided on abortion, but at the same time the constitutional position is—and has long been—entirely clear. Women whose lives are endangered by their pregnancy are entitled to elect for an abortion and to be provided with that abortion in Ireland. Anyone else who wants an abortion is free to travel in order to access it, but providing an abortion outside of the strict limits of the constitutional right in Ireland itself is a serious criminal offence.

The right to access abortion in Ireland could hardly be described as a wide one, but neither is it one that never arises in practice. There has been over twenty years of successive governmental failure to give effect to women’s right to choose abortion in these extremely limited circumstances. This situation is entirely intolerable: this is a constitutional right. The law is not a matter of debate here and constitutional compliance is not a matter of choice. To treat it as if it were is to show a blatant disregard for the rule of law, not to mention for the sovereign will of the people expressed in the Constitution. Whether someone wants the law to say something different to what it does say is a different question altogether. The law is as it is. The people have refused to change it. Women deserve better than this. I cannot imagine another situation in which a representative of the state would go, as the then Attorney General did in A, B & C, to an international court and say that a High Court order can always be secured if needed in order to exercise the right in particular cases and as a result that the right is accessible and can be exercised. I cannot imagine another constitutional right in relation to which politicians would so clearly abandon their political and democratic obligation to uphold people’s constitutional rights. I cannot imagine that we can continue to tolerate this in our state.

I am sure that there are those who will say that this case reflects a failure to implement the Medical Council guidance on abortion (see McGarr Solicitors extracts from the Guide to Professional Conduct and ethics here); a failure in medicine rather than in law. But law can and does work to shape medical practice in order to minimise the potential for such failures to arise, if indeed this is what happened here (and it may not be; we do not yet know). Law tells medics exactly what the test is, what they are required and prohibited from doing in the exercise of their clinical judgement. It is about time that we put in place law–either legislation or ministerial regulations–to guide medics clearly in their professional duties. Anything less in unacceptable both for doctors and, fundamentally, for women.

http://www.humanrights.ie/index.php/2012/11/14/abortion-in-ireland-how-much-more-of-this-can-we-tolerate/

Zillah

Arguing that it was not the lack of an abortion that killed her but antibiotics not given in time is a bit like arguing that it is ok for a doctor to not wash his hands because the infection he caused could have been treated earlier or better with antibiotics.

There is a root cause for both of these things.

Gbear

Penn wrote: »

In fairness, it may have been a "This is a Catholic country" response as in "Because this is a catholic country, abortion isn't allowed which means legally there's nothing I can do".

This is annoying me.

I understand and agree that this is a failure of government to legislate on the matter but where I differ is that I don't think it's a failure to facilitate necessary abortions, but rather it's a failure to protect doctors who perform them.

Why is basic human decency being left at the door and allowing this doctor to hide behind legislation?

If he was a nutter and believed that morally he couldn't perform it because of religious beliefs ("this is a catholic country"), then that's infuriating but I understand. If the law was functioning properly he would be struck off.

However, if he was worried about the legal ramifications and what performing this operation would do to his career, then what the actual ****? How could someone so clearly put a patient's life at risk because of bureaucracy?
Unless he was physically restrained from doing the operation then illegal or no, he acted despicably.
He isn't an automaton. He's capable of making his own decisions. It's like it isn't even occurring to people that he could've just not obeyed the law.

Or am I missing something?

Sarky

I see the first response to it in the other forum is an unscrupulous and dishonest attempt to turn the foetus into a political football, shoddily disguised as an assertion that anyone outraged by this death will use unscrupulous and dishonest methods to shove abortions down everyone's throat.

Stay classy, god-botherers!

Morag

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I guess this creates an interesting dilemma for medical staff, if they do abort are they opening themselves up for disciplinary action and/or being sued?

They open them selves up to possible criminal prosecution up to 6 years in prison and black listing from medical insurance and their liecnce to practice being revoked.

And being the next abortionist prosecuted after the infamous Mamie Cadden.

keane2097

Gbear wrote: »

This is annoying me.

I understand and agree that this is a failure of government to legislate on the matter but where I differ is that I don't think it's a failure to facilitate necessary abortions, but rather it's a failure to protect doctors who perform them.

Why is basic human decency being left at the door and allowing this doctor to hide behind legislation?

If he was a nutter and believed that morally he couldn't perform it because of religious beliefs ("this is a catholic country"), then that's infuriating but I understand. If the law was functioning properly he would be struck off.

However, if he was worried about the legal ramifications and what performing this operation would do to his career, then what the actual ****? How could someone so clearly put a patient's life at risk because of bureaucracy?
Unless he was physically restrained from doing the operation then illegal or no, he acted despicably.
He isn't an automaton. He's capable of making his own decisions. It's like it isn't even occurring to people that he could've just not obeyed the law.

Or am I missing something?

It's easy to say you'd take years in jail and the end of a career you've worked your whole life for from the sidelines after the fact knowing the woman ends up dead, but I wouldn't have much blame for that doctor who was put in an awful position. I doubt anyone expected the poor woman to die.

robp

Sharrow wrote: »

They open them selves up to possible criminal prosecution up to 6 years in prison and black listing from medical insurance and their liecnce to practice being revoked.

And being the next abortionist prosecuted after the infamous Mamie Cadden.

That is entirely unprecedented. It wouldn't stand in the courts. I am sure it would be thrown out as they would be only following the medical council guidelines. Furthermore they would be protected by the X case ruling which takes complete eminence over the laws like the 1861 act.

ShooterSF

First time I've emailed my local TD in some time and I had to hold back a bit so it didn't come across as the ranting of a complete madman. I feel bad though, it shouldn't have taken death to get me riled up enough to pester my representative for not doing their job.

This crap about an expert group is annoying me to. I wonder could FG list the names of the group so we could look to elect them instead. I'd rather a group of experts running the show than a group of pen pushers that has to constantly consult them.

28064212

robp wrote: »

That is entirely unprecedented. It wouldn't stand in the courts. I am sure it would be thrown out.

Of course it would. When it finally got around to an appeal to the High Court, they would strike down the legislation. In the meantime, the doctor would have to endure: years of courts; massive expenses; time in prison; the effective end of his career

Gbear

keane2097 wrote: »

It's easy to say you'd take years in jail and the end of a career you've worked your whole life for from the sidelines after the fact knowing the woman ends up dead, but I wouldn't have much blame for that doctor who was put in an awful position. I doubt anyone expected the poor woman to die.

He wasn't some eejit medical student he was a consultant. Surely he must've known the risk involved in essentially leaving a giant gaping wound open? That sounds like medicine 101 to me.

keane2097

Gbear wrote: »

He wasn't some eejit medical student he was a consultant. Surely he must've known the risk involved in essentially leaving a giant gaping wound open? That sounds like medicine 101 to me.

Obviously he knew there was a risk, that doesn't make his decision a no-brainer.

Like I said, it's easy for you to pontificate about what you would have done, but the law of the land told this man that if you do this thing you face losing your career and going to jail. I hope your moral courage never fails you under such duress.

keane2097

Obviously the time has come for us all to take a stand against the nauseating misnomer used by one side of this debate.

Can I suggest we no longer oblige by calling the Anti-Choice movement "Pro-Life", the thought makes me feel sick this afternoon.

Morag

robp wrote: »

That is entirely unprecedented. It wouldn't stand in the courts. I am sure it would be thrown out as they would be only following the medical council guidelines. Furthermore they would be protected by the X case ruling which takes complete eminence over the laws like the 1861 act.

Until the X case is legislated for the 1861 act is still enforce.

ShooterSF

keane2097 wrote: »

Obviously the time has come for us all to take a stand against the nauseating misnomer used by one side of this debate.

Can I suggest we no longer oblige by calling the Anti-Choice movement "Pro-Life", the thought makes me feel sick this afternoon.

Indeed. Bannasidhe's (well, where I heard it first) term "pro-birth" seems more fitting.

Zombrex

ShooterSF wrote: »

Indeed. Bannasidhe's (well, where I heard it first) term "pro-birth" seems more fitting.

Anti-abortion seems the most fitting. They aren't really "pro" anything.

mehfesto

They said on NewsTalk there that procedures have been carried out which terminate the baby but save the mother, in Ireland once every year (didn't say for how long, though).

Could it not be that it was a lack of clarity, or perhaps even malpractice that caused her death, given that (according to the Pro-Life crowd anyway), there are controls in place to save the mother first and foremost if there has been complications in the pregnancy?

I'm just spit-balling here, I don't know the full facts on the case, so don't tear me a new one.

Mark Hamill

keane2097 wrote: »

Obviously he knew there was a risk, that doesn't make his decision a no-brainer.

Like I said, it's easy for you to pontificate about what you would have done, but the law of the land told this man that if you do this thing you face losing your career and going to jail. I hope your moral courage never fails you under such duress.

He could have just said that he couldn't find a foetal heart beat (it was said to be very weak anyway) so he had the abortion removal of a foreign body performed.

Sin City

Mark Hamill wrote: »

He could have just said that he couldn't find a foetal heart beat (it was said to be very weak anyway) so he had the abortion removal of a foreign body performed.

The doctor could have been struck off for lying about the condition of the fetus.

kylith

mehfesto wrote: »

They said on NewsTalk there that procedures have been carried out which terminate the baby but save the mother, in Ireland once every year (didn't say for how long, though).

Could it not be that it was a lack of clarity, or perhaps even malpractice that caused her death, given that (according to the Pro-Life crowd anyway), there are controls in place to save the mother first and foremost if there has been complications in the pregnancy?

I'm just spit-balling here, I don't know the full facts on the case, so don't tear me a new one.

In the case of something like an ectopic pregnancy they can remove the affected fallopian tube, which has the side effect of killing the foetus, but since killing the foetus isn't the main object of the surgery that's ok. Of course, no-one talks about how unnecessarily removing part of a woman's reproductive system because they can't just terminate the pregnancy isn't ok.

I don't know why he didn't say he couldn't hear a heartbeat. Maybe he didn't want to say that, maybe he was worried that someone would rat him out, maybe the instrumentation would have revealed him.

Rev Hellfire

Sharrow wrote: »

They open them selves up to possible criminal prosecution up to 6 years in prison and black listing from medical insurance and their liecnce to practice being revoked.

If we go by the linked IT article, that's not the case if the woman's life was in danger.
Though if there is uncertainty about where they stand you can see why a doctor may take a more cautious approach to protect themselves.
Which is one reason to have this mess sorted out once and for all.

doctoremma

Mark Hamill wrote: »

He could have just said that he couldn't find a foetal heart beat (it was said to be very weak anyway) so he had the abortion removal of a foreign body performed.

I am bemused at the premise that this procedure would have been labelled an "abortion". If the existence of a heart-beat is all that's required to define "life", then there are many other biological entities that we routinely dispose of in "abortions".

Bannasidhe

doctoremma wrote: »

I am bemused at the premise that this procedure would have been labelled an "abortion". If the existence of a heart-beat is all that's required to define "life", then there are many other biological entities that we routinely dispose of in "abortions".

I was discussing this with OH the other day while watching Grey's Anatomy (don't judge me) where a character's life support was turned off. Yet, he could have been kept 'alive'. Why is it acceptable for a person's life to be ended when that life is no longer tenable but not that of a fetus when it's continued existence could, and in Savita Halappanavar's case, did pose a very real threat to the life of the mother?

What a barbaric little country we live in.

Bannasidhe

These are 'our' public representatives who voted against Clare Daly's X Case Bill - a Bill that if enacted would mean Savita Halappanavar would be alive today.

Name and Shame

Níl
Bannon, James. Barry, Tom.
Broughan, Thomas P. Browne, John.
Burton, Joan. Butler, Ray.
Buttimer, Jerry. Byrne, Catherine.
Byrne, Eric. Calleary, Dara.
Carey, Joe. Coffey, Paudie.
Collins, Áine. Conaghan, Michael.
Conlan, Seán. Connaughton, Paul J.
Coonan, Noel. Corcoran Kennedy, Marcella.
Costello, Joe. Creed, Michael.
Daly, Jim. Deasy, John.
Deering, Pat. Doherty, Regina.
Donohoe, Paschal. Dooley, Timmy.
Dowds, Robert. Doyle, Andrew.
Durkan, Bernard J. Farrell, Alan.
Ferris, Anne. Fitzgerald, Frances.
Fitzpatrick, Peter. Flanagan, Charles.
Flanagan, Terence. Fleming, Sean.
Gilmore, Eamon. Grealish, Noel.
Griffin, Brendan. Hannigan, Dominic.
Harrington, Noel. Harris, Simon.
Hayes, Tom. Healy-Rae, Michael.
Heydon, Martin. Howlin, Brendan.
Humphreys, Heather. Humphreys, Kevin.
Keating, Derek. Keaveney, Colm.
Kehoe, Paul. Kelleher, Billy.
Kelly, Alan. Kenny, Seán.
Kirk, Seamus. Kyne, Seán.
Lawlor, Anthony. Lynch, Ciarán.
Lynch, Kathleen. Lyons, John.
McCarthy, Michael. McConalogue, Charlie.
McEntee, Shane. McGrath, Mattie.
McGrath, Michael. McGuinness, John.
McHugh, Joe. McLoughlin, Tony.
McNamara, Michael. Maloney, Eamonn.
Martin, Micheál. Mathews, Peter.
Mitchell, Olivia. Mitchell O’Connor, Mary.
Moynihan, Michael. Mulherin, Michelle.
Murphy, Dara. Murphy, Eoghan.
Naughten, Denis. Neville, Dan.
Nolan, Derek. Ó Cuív, Éamon.
Ó Fearghaíl, Seán. Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán.
O’Dea, Willie. O’Donnell, Kieran.
O’Donovan, Patrick. O’Mahony, John.
O’Sullivan, Jan. Penrose, Willie.
Perry, John. Phelan, Ann.
Phelan, John Paul. Quinn, Ruairí.
Rabbitte, Pat. Reilly, James.
Ring, Michael. Ryan, Brendan.
Shatter, Alan. Sherlock, Sean.
Shortall, Róisín. Smith, Brendan.
Spring, Arthur. Stanton, David.
Timmins, Billy. Troy, Robert.
Tuffy, Joanna. Twomey, Liam.
Wall, Jack. Walsh, Brian.
White, Alex.

Mark Hamill

Sin City wrote: »

The doctor could have been struck off for lying about the condition of the fetus.

It was a weak heartbeat from a dying foetus. He could have claimed he couldn't find it (at the time of his examination).

Weren't they were just waiting for the foetus' heartbeat to stop so they could do the removal anyway? Did they really expect it to recover?

Sin City

Mark Hamill wrote: »

It was a weak heartbeat from a dying foetus. He could have claimed he couldn't find it (at the time of his examination).

Weren't they were just waiting for the foetus' heartbeat to stop so they could do the removal anyway? Did they really expect it to recover?

I dont know the ins and outs of the procedure or the facts, however I am quit aware of human nature and if he was found out to be decitful and falsify any medical documents then he could be ratted out by someone and struck off , possibly prosecuted.

Its a slippery slope if we allow doctors to pick and choose when to tell the truth on medical treatments.

ShooterSF

Unbelievable to think James Reilly voted against the bill. Dr. James Reilly. Uck, we can't even elect decent members of the medical community.

eyescreamcone

Hopefully, this is the end of this issue, and the government will start acting like adults.

Up until now I have been a keyboard warrior (and a half baked one at that)
Now, I'm angry!!!

To any anti-abortion group - I will not quietly walk past your dispicable pesentations anymore.
To the government - legislate for abortion immediately (as per the people, 92) or I will vote for someone who will.

We have been too quiet with these anti-abortion/RCC nutters for too long.
It's time to man-up and give it to them with both barrels.

No more Mr. Nice Guy from now on!!!

I'm so sad for that girl, and her family.
So unnecessary!!!

doctoremma

Sin City wrote: »

I dont know the ins and outs of the procedure or the facts, however I am quit aware of human nature and if he was found out to be decitful and falsify any medical documents then he could be ratted out by someone and struck off , possibly prosecuted.

Its a slippery slope if we allow doctors to pick and choose when to tell the truth on medical treatments.

Not that I'm encouraging medics to falsify if the opportunity arises but the consultant leading her care wouldn't have been the only, indeed not even the primary, person measuring things like the fetal heartbeat and so on. You'd have needed a fair few people to be complicit.

Zillah

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I was discussing this with OH the other day while watching Grey's Anatomy (don't judge me) where a character's life support was turned off. Yet, he could have been kept 'alive'. Why is it acceptable for a person's life to be ended when that life is no longer tenable but not that of a fetus when it's continued existence could, and in Savita Halappanavar's case, did pose a very real threat to the life of the mother?

What a barbaric little country we live in.

A lot of conservatives are stridently against allowing someone on life support to die. Look at Terri Schiavo. Most of her brain had atrophied and the family still fought legal battles to keep her on life support. There have been cases where women in the US refuse to get an abortion after it has been confirmed that the fetus has failed to grow a brain. Never underestimate how unwilling some people can be to accept pragmatism and reality.

Sin City

doctoremma wrote: »

Not that I'm encouraging medics to falsify if the opportunity arises but the consultant leading her care wouldn't have been the only, indeed not even the primary, person measuring things like the fetal heartbeat and so on. You'd have needed a fair few people to be complicit.

Indeed, even nurses would probably (could be wrong) be able to check fetal hearbeat (think night shift etc) if the doc declared it deceased and the nurse was just checking for whatever reason and found a heartbeat the the doc would surely be in trouble.

Remember recently there was a case where the medical professionals wrongly declared fetuses as both non viable and dead, and demanded that the mothers terminate, where it was found by a second opinion that the equipment used in the decesions were faulty, not to mention the Martin Corbally case, so the doctors etc would have gurad up against being liable for malpractice or what have you