Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

Lon Dubh

Re: "Catholic Ethos" in hospitals

I remember a few years ago there was a dispute involving a gynaecologist who worked at the Galway Clinic (this is the private clinic in East Galway, so not the one which is in the news at the moment). I cannot remember the specifics of what had led to the case being so public (I think there was a court case over something else) but it came out that this gynaecologist had been in trouble with the people running the clinic for inserting a copper coil in a woman. She was told the Galway Clinic was a Catholic Hospital (and basically against what she had done).

I don't know whether she the woman she inserted the coil for was using it as emergency contraception, or was it that they didn't like this aspect of how the coil can work "they affect your womb lining – making it less likely to 'accept' an egg." (Source: http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/sex_relationships/facts/contraceptivecoil.htm ), or both.

But I thought it was interesting that there was this "Catholic ethos" in a private clinic, trying to interfere in patient treatment, but this would not be clear to potential customers of the clinic. It is not mentioned in the title of the clinic that it is a Catholic Hospital (with a rather conservative approach, even by Catholic standards). It is just called the Galway Clinic, not the Galway Catholic Clinic. I live in Galway but did not know about this "Catholic ethos" until after this issue came to light publicly, almost by accident.

I subsequently heard that they also had prayer meetings at the beginning of each morning for staff (not sure if non-staff were involved or not). I don't know whether there was pressure on staff to attend these, or whether they are still ongoing. But again it pointed to the Clinic being very much a Catholic Clinic.

If they want to have it as a Catholic Clinic it is private so they can do what they want, but at least be upfront and honest about it so that people can be aware of it.

ShooterSF

Plastic sympathies roll out from the usual corners of society but I haven't seen any "pro-life" group calling for legislation for the x-case today either. The same people who oppose it's legislation continue to point to the supreme court's ruling on it in this case as argument for why it should have been fine to abort (or whatever their chosen term is). Mind boggling.

Also my representative Mr. Damien English has yet to email me back after 24 hours.

seamus

Lon Dubh wrote: »

I remember a few years ago there was a dispute involving a gynaecologist who worked at the Galway Clinic (this is the private clinic in East Galway, so not the one which is in the news at the moment). I cannot remember the specifics of what had led to the case being so public (I think there was a court case over something else) but it came out that this gynaecologist had been in trouble with the people running the clinic for inserting a copper coil in a woman. She was told the Galway Clinic was a Catholic Hospital (and basically against what she had done).

Hadn't heard of this, but it's a bit unbelievable that in this day and age a medical facility would allow a religious order to have any kind of dictation over what is and isn't practiced there.
http://www.independent.ie/health/ideology-reason-why-doctor-was-suspended-from-private-clinic-119745.html

In the interests of full clarity, I'm not sure whether that gyno's specific case was religion related. The claim by the clinic was that she was suspended because of complications following two operations, not because of religion. That same doctor later had a €580,000 judgement against her for "medical misadventure" and in 2010 was suspended for 12 months by the medical council for "medical misconduct". So the clinic may have been right in that case.

Ignoring that doctor however, the below piece seems to have been uncontested:

A memo issued by Dr McWeeney to consultants at the clinic on November 29, 2004, stated: "No procedures offensive to the Catholic Church can be undertaken at the Galway Clinic."

Which to me, is quite stunning. If someone attempted to open a medical facility which directed its staff to not perform any procedure which would be offensive to Jehovahs Witnesses, they would be shut down fairly sharpish. Medical practice should require all doctors to act in the patients best interests. All other interests and priorities should be recinded, and any doctor who fails to do so should be permanently struck off. That trust is the very basis of the patient-doctor relationship.

JimiTime

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Vatican position on abortion:

http://www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/pcfintheserviceoflife.htm

Statement by Praveen Halappanavar
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/1114/1224326575203.html?via=mr

No- no connection between religion and refusal to terminate pregnancies. Nothing to see here people - move on and stop being nasty about the religious fundamentalists who have blocked the introduction of legislation mandated by the Irish electorate 20 years ago. It's just a coincidence....

Ok, leaving your nonsense red herring sarcasm aside, ask yourself this: Can an atheist be against abortion? If your answer is Yes, then ask yourself, 'is being against abortion a religious belief?

The answer to these questions SHOULD clear up your confusion.

Turtwig

JimiTime wrote: »

Ok, leaving your nonsense red herring sarcasm aside, ask yourself this: Can an atheist be against abortion? If your answer is Yes, then ask yourself, 'is being against abortion a religious belief?

The answer to these questions SHOULD clear up your confusion.

Now I'm confused. Being against abortion can be a religious belief and in the case of many people I know it is. It all depends on how a person views life. If their view of life is dictated by their religious doctrine then of course being against abortion is going to a religious belief.

So ask yourself this:
Do you actually understand the distinctions between atheism, theism and religion?

ShooterSF

JimiTime wrote: »

Ok, leaving your nonsense red herring sarcasm aside, ask yourself this: Can an atheist be against abortion? If your answer is Yes, then ask yourself, 'is being against abortion a religious belief?

The answer to these questions SHOULD clear up your confusion.

The answer to the two questions are yes and yes (if we're discussing christian religion anyways)

If your question was "is being against abortion solely a religious belief" then the answer would be no. It is still a belief of your religion and therefore a religious belief.

Dades

JimiTime wrote: »

What I take exception to, is that in the midst of the ignorance on this case, certain groups just saw an opportunity to exploit and pretended it was an emotional outpouring for this poor woman. They rushed to judgement, as it suited their ends.

Let me get this straight...

Certain groups, whose stated aim is to fight for the rights of women to specifically avoid situations like this, are *exploiting* the death of a woman who died as a result of a situation they are fighting to prevent?

I mean, wtf?

JimiTime

Dades wrote: »

Let me get this straight...

Certain groups, whose stated aim is to fight for the rights of women to specifically avoid situations like this, are *exploiting* the death of a woman who died as a result of a situation they are fighting to prevent?

I mean, wtf?

No. Certain groups whose aim is to fight for abortion to be legal rushed in to exploit this case without actually knowing the facts. 'Full abortion rights now' is just one of the placards I've seen.

robp

Dades wrote: »

Let me get this straight...

Certain groups, whose stated aim is to fight for the rights of women to specifically avoid situations like this, are *exploiting* the death of a woman who died as a result of a situation they are fighting to prevent?

I mean, wtf?

What if she only supported life saving medical intervention and not elective abortion, would she be happy that her photo was being used as a profile pic of groups fiercely fighting for elective abortion on demand (Choice Ireland). There is no sensitivity. The journalist who launched the story only spoke to her husband twice! I wonder what he and rest of her family think feel about the politicization of the issue.

Dades

In their defence, pro-choice groups have always been fighting for the right of women like that poor lady to choose. A choice she wasn't given.

JimiTime

Jernal wrote: »

Now I'm confused. Being against abortion can be a religious belief and in the case of many people I know it is. It all depends on how a person views life. If their view of life is dictated by their religious doctrine then of course being against abortion is going to a religious belief.

Look at the context of the objection.

keane2097

JimiTime wrote: »

No. Certain groups whose aim is to fight for abortion to be legal rushed in to exploit this case without actually knowing the facts. 'Full abortion rights now' is just one of the placards I've seen.

Funny choice of words considering we've been waiting since 1992.

Obliq

This: I am ashamed that Ireland's medieval abortion law still stands | Emer O'Toole https://apps.facebook.com/theguardian/commentisfree/2012/nov/15/ireland-medieval-abortion-law-savita

"I am no longer a Catholic, so I need to look for earthly explanations as to what happened to Halappanavar. The medical technology to prevent this painful, senseless death was at hand. Yet doctors did not use it. Why? One could argue that they had to obey Irish law. In The Origins of Totalitarianism, speaking of defences mounted by the perpetrators of atrocities during the Holocaust, Hannah Arendt says that adult citizens cannot obey. Children and animals can obey, but adults have the capacity to morally assess the actions that their sociopolitical systems demand of them.

Adults do not obey, they consent. And yes, the system might punish you for failing to carry out its evil will – for choosing to remove a dying, insensate foetus from the womb of a woman in agony who is begging you to do so – but fear of consequence does not absolve you. To those doctors who continued to check for a heartbeat as Halappanavar deteriorated, this is also your fault.

I know what it's like to try to speak out against anti-choice hegemony in Ireland. I know how hard it is to even form pro-choice opinions at all. Like 95% of people schooled in Ireland, I had a Catholic education and was heavily propagandised against abortion. More, I had to navigate the biased information offered by the Irish press. RTÉ, our national broadcaster, did not even report on a 2,000-strong pro-choice march in Dublin earlier this year, while it continues to cover anti-abortion movements in the provinces. Teachers and journalists, this is your fault too.

Of course, this is made difficult in a country in which the entire political system, against the will of the electorate, enforces medieval attitudes to abortion. In 1992 the supreme court ruled that a suicidal teenage rape victim had the right to an abortion. In the referendum that followed, Irish people voted to uphold this judgment. Yet, 20 years later, no government has been brave enough to legislate. In 2010 the European court of human rights ruled against the Irish state in favour of a woman who had to travel to the UK to terminate a pregnancy while undergoing chemotherapy. Still Enda Kenny, our devoutly Catholic taoiseach, has said that abortion is "not of priority" for his government. Kenny, James Reilly, the health minister, and every other Dáil member – this is your fault too. You are responsible for the pain Halappanavar's loved ones are going through.

To her family, I want to say: I am ashamed, I am culpable, and I am sorry. For every letter to my local politician I didn't write, for every protest I didn't join, for keeping quiet about abortion rights in the company of conservative relations and friends, for becoming complacent, for thinking that Ireland was changing, for not working hard enough to secure that change, for failing to create a society in which your wife, your daughter, your sister was able to access the care that she needed: I am sorry. You must think that we are barbarians.

Let your friends know your opinion"

UDP

Dades wrote: »

In their defence, pro-choice groups have always been fighting for the right of women like that poor lady to choose. A choice she wasn't given.

That point was made strongly and importantly at the leinster house protest by one of the speakers.

As Dades said, pro-choice groups are about letting the person themselves choose i.e. not forcing any option or removing any option for the person who is pregnant.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

seamus wrote: »

If the mother dies, the foetus dies. If the foetus is aborted, the mother lives.

Either way, the only outcome for the "child" is death. So the latest constitutional amendment does not come into it.

The constitution also does not define a foetus as a "child". The constitution defines rights on the "unborn" specificially, which implies that they are not yet a "person". Irish law specifically does not recognise a foetus as a "child" until 24 weeks/500g. Nice try at derailing the debate, but you're missing a good few facts.

In fairness, what I'm saying anticipates that. The concept of natural and impresciptible rights introduces the idea that a child has inherent rights, installed by a Creator. The point of insertion as a theological point is long before birth (recalling that our Constitution specifically invokes the Holy Trinity as a source of authority so, ironically, considering theology while attempting a interpretation of what it means isn't a ludicrous as it looks). No reason to assume (despite the reference to the unborn elsewhere in the text) that these natural and imprescriptable rights only commence at birth.

And if the best interests of the child are over-riding, which is what many said they should be in the course of the recent campaign, it means that whatever faint hope the foetus has of surviving has to be protected, regardless of the impact on the health (as distinct from life) of the mother, and is only limited by situations where there is a direct and immediate threat to the life of the mother.

I'm not saying this is right. I am saying that, as a political community, we've displayed a misplaced set of priorities by passing this feel-good Amendment when more important work needed attention.

seamus

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

In fairness, what I'm saying anticipates that. The concept of natural and impresciptible rights introduces the idea that a child has inherent rights, installed by a Creator. The point of insertion as a theological point is long before birth (recalling that our Constitution specifically invokes the Holy Trinity as a source of authority so, ironically, considering theology while attempting a interpretation of what it means isn't a ludicrous as it looks). No reason to assume (despite the reference to the unborn elsewhere in the text) that these natural and imprescriptable rights only commence at birth.

That would imply that the morning after pill is illegal according to the constitution. In any case, even if the above were true, the amendment did not confer any additional rights on children above those which already apply to a citizen of the state. You're sore about the outcome of the referendum, we get it, but it's not relevant to the abortion debate since it doesn't change the constitution's definition of the unborn or of a person.

robindch

And in the news:

The Indian government expresses ‘concern’ over Savita’s death: http://www.thejournal.ie/indian-government-savita-concern-675628-Nov2012/

John Whelan, a Labour Senator from Tullamore, complained about -- where have we heard this before -- “the attempts by people to exploit tragedies like this for their own political purposes, and their own political agenda”. A Dublin-based councillor has called for an internal party investigation into the comments which, to say the least, don't align very well with Labour's stance on the issue: http://www.thejournal.ie/labour-councillor-demands-internal-investigation-into-senators-savita-comments-675833-Nov2012/

Eamonn Gilmore says that "legal clarity" needs to be brought to the situation, and that this government won't be the seventh to ignore it:

http://www.thejournal.ie/savita-abortion-legislation-x-case-675286-Nov2012/

ShooterSF

robindch wrote: »

Eamonn Gilmore says that "legal clarity" needs to be brought to the situation, and that this government won't be the seventh to ignore it:

http://www.thejournal.ie/savita-abortion-legislation-x-case-675286-Nov2012/

Hmm that's odd. Why just the past two days strangers on the internet have been telling me that the issue was clear and yet now a member of our own government and leader of one of it's two parties has said the opposite. How odd.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

seamus wrote: »

That would imply that the morning after pill is illegal according to the constitution.

It's possible that it is.

At one stage, there were concerns around IUDs as they prevented implantation, rather than conception and could be deemed "abortifacients". You can't ban the morning after pill specifically, because its basically just a very high dose of the ordinary contraceptive pill.

But I think the key point is none of that has actually been tested in the Courts. Possibly, it's unlawful for a doctor to prescribe or dispense a morning after pill.

Lelantos

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

It's possible that it is.

At one stage, there were concerns around IUDs as they prevented implantation, rather than conception and could be deemed "abortifacients". You can't ban the morning after pill specifically, because its basically just a very high dose of the ordinary contraceptive pill.

But I think the key point is none of that has actually been tested in the Courts. Possibly, it's unlawful for a doctor to prescribe or dispense a morning after pill.

Morning after pill can be bought over the counter, completly within the law. It's not an abortifacient, it delays ovulation.

Morag

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

It's possible that it is.

At one stage, there were concerns around IUDs as they prevented implantation, rather than conception and could be deemed "abortifacients". You can't ban the morning after pill specifically, because its basically just a very high dose of the ordinary contraceptive pill.

But I think the key point is none of that has actually been tested in the Courts. Possibly, it's unlawful for a doctor to prescribe or dispense a morning after pill.

Not when pregnancy is defined legally and medically as being when an embryo implants, other wise the contraceptive pull it's self would be unlawful.

Morag

http://www.medicalindependent.ie/page.aspx?title=maternal_death_%E2%80%93_into_the_great_unknown

There are some interesting articles coming out about the lack of proper documentation re procedures and deaths relating to maternity.

The 2005 WHO report acknowledges the difficulties surrounding data collection in some countries. According to the report, "even in developed countries where routine registration of deaths is in place, maternal deaths may be underreported, and identification of the true numbers of maternal deaths may require additional special investigations into the causes of deaths".

"We are not saying that Ireland is the only country that has problems with data collection but we are absolutely sure that Ireland has problems in that respect," Dr O'Hare said.

Genghiz Cohen

Sharrow wrote: »

Not when pregnancy is defined legally and medically as being when an embryo implants, other wise the contraceptive pull it's self would be unlawful.

I had thought that the morning after pill was to prevent implantation or the fertilised egg.

Morag

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

I had thought that the morning after pill was to prevent implantation or the fertilised egg.

That is one of the actions it preforms, by preventing implantation of a newly formed embryo it prevents pregnancy and so it does not cause an abortion.

Some pro lifers try to say pregnancy begins at conception.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Lelantos wrote: »

Morning after pill can be bought over the counter, completly within the law.

Again, I think the issue is around the substance and how it's used. Coat hangers can be purchased completely within the law, too.

Sharrow wrote: »

Not when pregnancy is defined legally and medically as being when an embryo implants, other wise the contraceptive pull it's self would be unlawful.

Has pregnancy a clear legal definition, in this context?

http://www.constitution.ie/reports/crg.pdf

‘Unborn’ seems to imply ‘on the way to being born’ or ‘capable of being born’. Whether this condition obtains as from fertilisation of the ovum, implantation of the fertilised ovum in the womb, or some other point, has not been defined. In the context of abortion law, which deals with the termination of pregnancy, a definition is essential as to when pregnancy is considered to begin; the law should also specify in what circumstances a pregnancy may legitimately be terminated and by whom.

If the definition of ‘pregnancy’ did not fully cover what is envisaged by ‘unborn’, the deficiency would need to be remedied by separate legal provisions which could deal also with other complex issues, such as those associated with the treatment of infertility and in vitro fertilisation.

At present, all these difficulties are left to the Supreme Court to resolve without explicit guidance.

Mark Hamill

JimiTime wrote: »

Ok, leaving your nonsense red herring sarcasm aside, ask yourself this: Can an atheist be against abortion? If your answer is Yes, then ask yourself, 'is being against abortion a religious belief?

The answer to these questions SHOULD clear up your confusion.

To clear up your confusion, the answer is yes and yes. Just like the answers to the questions "Can an atheist be against killing?" and "is being against killing a religious belief?" is yes and yes. The thing is said atheists are not just mindlessly subject to that belief. Many atheist, while against killing, will be pro euthanasia because they dont want people to needlessly suffer and its the lesser of two evils (that your god created - how nice of him). Meanwhile, theists seem to think (if they think at all) that other peoples suffering is fine as it makes themselves better theists for inflicting it (even if they break their own fundamental rules, like not bearing false witness, to inflict it).

PopePalpatine

I am dreading tomorrow's IT:

Morag

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Again, I think the issue is around the substance and how it's used. Coat hangers can be purchased completely within the law, too.Has pregnancy a clear legal definition, in this context?

A reference to coat hangers, really?



You seem confused about when pregnancy begins, here this may help.
http://www.youtube.com/v/8ZKuuUPjk1Q

Dades

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I am dreading tomorrow's IT:

Tomorrow's Friday. I refuse to ruin it dammit.

Sarky

Oh. Oh wow. Pro-lifers are trying to turn it into a media conspiracy. Just f*cking wow.

You can find links on Twitter if you're really interested. I'm not sullying my keyboard by linking to that filth.