Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

Options
16869717374330

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Eramen wrote: »
    I believe the latest news is that she did not need an abortion at all, because her situation did not demand it. Rather because of the miscarriage and subsequent infection she need to be artificially induced into early labour
    Induction before 24 weeks is an abortion. There's no medical difference.
    You're correct. In the scenario (open cervix, draining amniotic fluid), the medical standard is to induce and terminate because there's no way of saving the child. This was not done in this case because the legal clarity did not exist to allow the doctor safely make the call.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    ShooterSF wrote: »
    Oh ok. Continue. I'll read you future points with your jumping to conclusionness in mind!
    And you should. It's just you should apply the same scepticism to, shall we say, some of the more visible responses to the issue.
    ShooterSF wrote: »
    We don't need all the details to know that there is a problem. Doctors waiting on a heartbeat to stop to do an operation that has no benefit to that operation and opens up potential risks means we have a problem. Either our legislation is the problem or it's clarity. Both the government can and should address. We don't need to know whether the doctors could have done the operation legally.
    The absence of legislation has, indeed, been acknowledged as a problem. This particular case may or may not have anything to do with it. Bear in mind that health professionals have commented to the effect both that there is a lack of legal guidance, but equally that there isn't some absolute requirement to wait for a heartbeat to stop.

    And there is a legal void. Despite Sharrow's contention (which I note s/he's not attempting to pursue), there isn't even a legal definition that tells doctors what an "unborn" is, and whether its the same as a "pregnancy".
    Now, if we've learnt anything out of our history, it should be to have a willingness to entertain complaints that seem hard to credit and to give them a fair hearing. That's what should be happening here. But the need to bring forward legislation exists independently of this case.

    Or, if I've a problem with some of the extravagant reactions, it's because I doubt such fickle displays can do more than offer fickle answers to issues that require a bit more.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    Eramen wrote: »
    I never said that, but it is their right to act in whatever way they wish.

    I'm merely saying that all demographic groups are represented in opposing unneeded abortions through the ideal itself. That there are plenty of non-religious, ethical, humanitarian, scientific reasons to be against unneeded abortions.

    Learn to handle these facts.

    Highlight a post where someone claimed only the catholic church opposes abortions.

    You won't though.

    Because there are none.

    Learn to handle these factoids.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,417 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Can you outline what facts are know at the minute? For instance, are you disputing that this woman was denied an abortion?
    From Jank's commendably independent tone, I imagine he/she will hold off making any judgments at all on anything at all, until one of the reports indicates that, at the very least, there were humans involved.

    This story could, after all, be a case of an animal hospital being mistaken for a human one, a vet being mistaken for a doctor, and a dead women being mistaken for a cat.


  • Registered Users Posts: 308 ✭✭Sycopat


    jank wrote: »
    The facts are that a woman died in Galway from infection after a miscarriage. Its been reported that she requested and was subsequently denied an abortion.

    There is too much filling in the blanks here to get a clear picture at this time. As rationalists should you not think we should get all the facts before one proportions blame? Of course making an emotional choice now is a hell of a lot easier.


    So basically your hope is that it comes out she contracted septicemia for reasons unrelated to the miscarriage?

    That a woman suffered for three days in massive pain, with a compromised immune system (inspecifically, the physical barrier component of the immune system.) then died of an infection doesn't bother you because it's too much of a leap for you to link an unnecessarily extended immune deficiency with an infection.

    RRRRRRRrrriiiiiiggggghhhhhhhhhhhttttttttt............


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 776 ✭✭✭Eramen


    ShooterSF wrote: »
    Highlight a post where someone claimed only the catholic church opposes abortions.

    You won't though.

    Because there are none.

    Learn to handle these factoids.

    It's the constant inference to the RCC that would have one believe that anyone who opposes unneeded abortions is 'under the yoke of the church' or making religious arguments to support their positions.

    We know very well this underhandedness that pervades the pro-abortion on demand lobby. Anyone with a rational thought would not need to do this.

    Atheists stand against casual abortion too! Stop talking about the RCC and debate the real questions!


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    Eramen wrote: »
    It's the constant inference to the RCC that would have one believe that anyone who opposes unneeded abortions is 'under the yoke of the church' or making religious arguments to support their positions.

    Constant is it? This is a huge thread. Care to show me a post that infers that ALL people who oppose abortion are followers of the RCC. It is "constant" after all, right? So there should be 100's of posts to pick between.

    By the way you are on a forum that likes to have claims backed up ;)


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,537 ✭✭✭joseph brand


    Eramen wrote: »

    It's the constant inference to the RCC that would have one believe that anyone who opposes unneeded abortions is 'under the yoke of the church' or making religious arguments to support their positions.

    We know very well this underhandedness that pervades the pro-abortion on demand lobby. Anyone with a rational thought would not need to do this.

    Atheists stand against casual abortion too! Stop talking about the RCC and debate the real questions!

    Youth Defence.


  • Registered Users Posts: 776 ✭✭✭Eramen


    Youth Defence.


    Exactly what I'm talking about. This forum is unable to debate.


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,991 ✭✭✭✭Stark


    What exactly is a "casual abortion" when it's at home?


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    So you are disputing that this woman was denied an abortion then? Are you sure the woman even died? Have you seen the body?

    I am not disputing anything. don't put words in my mouth as per usual just to get your own point across.
    The facts are in, had this woman's pregnancy been terminated once it was known the foetus was not viable then she would likely be alive. This is not filling in the blanks, this is reality.

    Are they? So the internal HSE report is done and dusted as well as the GUH own report never mind the possibility of an independent investigation. All 3 of them are finalised, written up and you have read them all? Wow, true to your alias MagicMarker


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    What exactly is a "casual abortion" when it's at home?
    That's one of those abortions where the girl goes in like she's getting her hair done, takes five minutes and she skips out delighted, making another appointment for her next abortion in 6 weeks time.

    Happens all the time in countries where abortion is legal. Apparently.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,800 ✭✭✭Lingua Franca


    Stark wrote: »
    What exactly is a "casual abortion" when it's at home?


    It's an abortion you can turn up to in your pajamas.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    robindch wrote: »
    From Jank's commendably independent tone, I imagine he/she will hold off making any judgments at all on anything at all, until one of the reports indicates that, at the very least, there were humans involved.

    This story could, after all, be a case of an animal hospital being mistaken for a human one, a vet being mistaken for a doctor, and a dead women being mistaken for a cat.

    Unbelievable. Here we have an Atheist who apparently lives by reason and logic doesnt want to wait for a report which would have a medical and scientific basis, backed by medical professionals to garner ALL possible facts into what occurred wishes instead to have a trial by media? Really????

    Do you think there should even be a report as clearly we you know everything about this case?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Sycopat wrote: »
    So basically your hope is that it comes out she contracted septicemia for reasons unrelated to the miscarriage?

    I am not hoping for any particular outcome. I have no ax to grind about the particular outcome of any report free from prejudice. My ax is with people who jump on a bandwagon, make a snap emotional decision to blame [insert lobby group here] when the facts are not even known!
    Sycopat wrote: »
    That a woman suffered for three days in massive pain, with a compromised immune system (inspecifically, the physical barrier component of the immune system.) then died of an infection doesn't bother you because it's too much of a leap for you to link an unnecessarily extended immune deficiency with an infection.
    .

    It does bother me of course but I am not going to leap to a judgement because it suits us from an emotional point of view. Rationality is what we need, something here of all places should be present.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    Eramen wrote: »
    I believe the latest news is that she did not need an abortion at all, because her situation did not demand it. Rather because of the miscarriage and subsequent infection she need to be artificially induced into early labour, but because of medical incompetence this was not done.
    I'd love to hear how, at 17 weeks, an induced early labour is different to an abortion.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    jank wrote: »
    Unbelievable. Here we have an Atheist who apparently lives by reason and logic doesntwant to wait for a report which would have a medical and scientific basis, backed by medical professionals to garner ALL possible facts into what occurred wishes instead to have a trial by media? Really????

    Do you think there should even be a report as clearly we you know everything about this case?

    But cats have four legs!


  • Registered Users Posts: 776 ✭✭✭Eramen


    It's an abortion you can turn up to in your pajamas.
    Youth Defence.


    Unfortunately the type of atheists most of you seem to be are ones that seek a 'consensus reality' where all atheists think alike, and subscribe to the same views of moral and physical interpretation - much like religion does.

    Is this popular atheism we are seeing which is so manifest today? The mainstream whom Hitchens and Dawkins are the godfathers? (my respect to the latter btw) The Popular atheist who is so incapable of individual morality they fall under the sway of group-think and ideology. For shame, should we not be better? In the end this 'popular group atheism' turns the atheist value on its head. We are simply not theists.. we shouldn't follow lifestyle trends or seek to make them.

    I am 'not a real atheist' to you guys it seems - not part of the 'In-Group' (or church?); I am accused of being part of 'your accursed enemies' when I come to question your opinion on Catholics and their non-support of unneeded abortions, merely stating that all groups oppose it in large numbers for non-religious reasons.

    Atheists and Catholics are the same type of folk in the main, and that's why I believe that the debate should be squarely on the issue, not the messenger.

    One could easily blame the 'pro-choicers' of being under the sway of one or two groups as well, but one would be incorrect to say that if relying on the facts only. So why do you 'men of reason?' think you can get away with it?! Blind ideology might be the place to start.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,934 ✭✭✭robp


    ShooterSF wrote: »
    So could you hypothesise some alternate reasons why this woman was refused a termination of a doomed foetus because it still had a heart beat that doesn't involve catholic morality? Whether the termination would have been lawful or not I can see no ambiguity without the church's views on the subject. Ambiguity that ended a life.

    As has been stated by medics publicly very often the safest course of treatment is leaving the unborn to deliver by itself. Her husband may have asked for abortion but perhaps the medic felt it was completely unnecessary in good faith and based on the signs. Regarding pain, that would be inevitable with both courses of action.

    A second possibility is that the doctor overlooked key signs such as the sepsis and made a genuine mistake by not inducing birth. In this case malpractice may indeed have occurred. As the doctor in question could have legally induced labour had he/she judged it necessary.
    an article by a religious guy joe humphrys does not mean much, the hospital has religious and catholic statues and symbols all around it im told by a galway resident. it is a former workhouse and not owned by an order but that state shares the same history of spiteful treatment of women as the church did, and church inflluence went everywhere. "its not like it was 15 years ago" he said well the same consultant could be working there who's ideas were outdated 15 years ago. she could well have been in the infection control ward irionically called st enda's.

    the husband description was quite clear.

    You heard from a guy ..right I see. Doctor training is a life-long process which is compulsory. One could not be 15 years out of date.

    As has being pointed out by a friend the media coverage has emphasised the 'Catholic country' comment in a manner to present Ireland as a virtual theocracy, when in fact the constitutional protection given to the unborn child has been democratically established by the Irish people, not ecclesiastically imposed. These details do nothing to lessen the scandal of Savita's death, but at least they put it in its proper context.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,364 ✭✭✭golden lane


    seamus wrote: »
    That's one of those abortions where the girl goes in like she's getting her hair done, takes five minutes and she skips out delighted, making another appointment for her next abortion in 6 weeks time.

    Happens all the time in countries where abortion is legal. Apparently.

    yes, it does seem like that.....

    there are many cases where abortion should happen...religion should not influence that decision.......

    having an abortion as a lifestyle choice......should not happen...it is wrong and always will be wrong......


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,188 ✭✭✭UDP


    jank wrote: »
    Unbelievable. Here we have an Atheist who apparently lives by reason and logic doesnt want to wait for a report which would have a medical and scientific basis, backed by medical professionals to garner ALL possible facts into what occurred wishes instead to have a trial by media? Really????

    Do you think there should even be a report as clearly we you know everything about this case?
    Whether an abortion would have save this woman or not still doesn't change the fact that there is a legal grey area whereby doctors do not know for sure when they can abort a fetus or when not. The government have to legislate for the X case no matter what the outcome of any investigation are into this death.

    Nobody is asking for anyone to be punished without a complete investigation. People are calling for the government to do their job and legislate.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    robp wrote: »
    As has been stated by medics publicly very often the safest course of treatment is leaving the unborn to deliver by itself. Her husband may have asked for abortion but perhaps the medic felt it was completely unnecessary in good faith and based on the signs. Regarding pain, that would be inevitable with both courses of action.

    A second possibility is that the doctor overlooked key signs such as the sepsis and made a genuine mistake by not inducing birth. In this case malpractice may indeed have occurred. As the doctor in question could have legally induced labour had he/she judged it necessary.

    None of that lines up very well with what we know. 1) That she was told she couldn't abort because of the law of the land (even if it turns out the law is actually different) rather than that it was not the optimal choice and 2) that the doctors were waiting for a foetal heartbeat to stop, I can see no medical reason for waiting for a heartbeat to stop to induce labour. I stand to be corrected there by the way.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    UDP wrote: »
    Whether an abortion would have save this woman or not still doesn't change the fact that there is a legal grey area whereby doctors do not know for sure when they can abort a fetus or when not. The government have to legislate for the X case no matter what the outcome of any investigation are into this death.

    Nobody is asking for anyone to be punished without a complete investigation. People are calling for the government to do their job and legislate.

    Yes, I have called for that numerous times on this very thread. Many have their minds made up already on who is to blame. To make up ones minds without knowing all the facts is preempting judgment, surely people can see the problem with that. You would not accept that position in a court of law, why not hold that standard when it comes to this case?


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,417 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    ShooterSF wrote: »
    But cats have four legs!
    I'm going to wait for a government report before passing any judgement on this little fella:

    228896.jpg


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    jank wrote: »
    The facts are in, had this woman's pregnancy been terminated once it was known the foetus was not viable then she would likely be alive. This is not filling in the blanks, this is reality.

    Are they? So the internal HSE report is done and dusted as well as the GUH own report never mind the possibility of an independent investigation. All 3 of them are finalised, written up and you have read them all? Wow, true to your alias MagicMarker

    Had you read past the bolded part you would have seen the fact that I was referring to, which is indisputable.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Here's an good article by OB/GYN, Dr. Jen Gunter.

    http://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2012/11/14/did-irish-catholic-law-or-malpractice-kill-savita-halappanavar/
    Did Irish Catholic law or malpractice kill Savita Halappanavar?

    This is what is known. Savita Halappanavar was 31 years old and happy to be pregnant with her first child. Then, at 17 weeks, tragedy struck and she was “found to be miscarrying.” Her husband reports that she was in “severe pain” for three days at the hospital and a termination was requested. He says this request was denied because Ireland is “a Catholic country.” He and his late wife were led to believe that the law would only allow her to be delivered when there was no fetal heartbeat.

    What does the standard of medical care say about this treatment? Without access to the chart, “miscarrying” at 17 weeks can only mean one of three things”

    A) Ruptured membranes

    B) Advanced cervical dilation

    C) Labor (this is unlikely, although it is possible that she had preterm labor that arrested and left her with scenario B, advanced cervical dilation).

    All three of these scenarios have a dismal prognosis, none of which should involve the death of the mother.

    The standard of care with ruptured membranes (scenario A) is to offer termination or, if there is no evidence of infection and the pregnancy is desired, the option of observing for a few days to see if the leak seals over and more fluid accumulates. If no fluid accumulates and by some chance the pregnancy manages to go beyond 24 weeks (the vast majority of pregnancies with ruptured membranes delivery within a week), survival is unlikely given the lungs require amniotic fluid to develop. I have seen the rare case where a woman with no infection (and no fluid) elects conservative management in the hopes that might make it to at least 24 weeks in the pregnancy, however, I have never heard of a baby surviving in this scenario. Regardless, if at any point infection is suspected the treatment is antibiotics and delivery not antibiotics alone.

    The standard of care with scenario B involves offering delivery or possibly a rescue cerclage (a stitch around the cervix to try to prevent further dilation and thus delivery) depending on the situation. Inducing delivery (or a D and E) is offered because a cervix that has dilated significantly often leads to labor or an infection as the membranes are now exposed to the vaginal flora. Many women do not want wait for infection. A rescue cerclage is not without risks and is contraindicated with ruptured membranes or any sign of infection. Rescue cerclage is a very case by case intervention and well beyond the scope of this post. These decisions are difficult and the mark of good medical care is that all scenarios are discussed, all interventions that are technically possible offered, and then the patient makes an informed decision. All with the understanding that if infection develops, delivery is indicated.

    Not only do I know these scenarios backwards and forwards as an OB/GYN, I had ruptured membranes in my own pregnancy at 22 weeks, a rescue cerclage, and then sepsis. I know how bad it can be.

    As Ms. Halappanavar died of an infection, one that would have been brewing for several days if not longer, the fact that a termination was delayed for any reason is malpractice. Infection must always be suspected whenever, preterm labor, premature rupture of the membranes, or advanced premature cervical dilation occurs (one of the scenarios that would have brought Ms. Halappanavar to the hospital).

    As there is no medically acceptable scenario at 17 weeks where a woman is miscarrying AND is denied a termination, there can only be three plausible explanations for Ms. Hapappanavar’s “medical care” :

    1) Irish law does indeed treat pregnant women as second class citizens and denies them appropriate medical care. The medical team was following the law to avoid criminal prosecution.

    2) Irish law does not deny women the care they need; however, a zealous individual doctor or hospital administrator interpreted Catholic doctrine in such a way that a pregnant woman’s medical care was somehow irrelevant and superceded by heart tones of a 17 weeks fetus that could never be viable.

    3) Irish law allows abortions for women when medically necessary, but the doctors involved were negligent in that they could not diagnose infection when it was so obviously present, did not know the treatment, or were not competent enough to carry out the treatment.

    What we do know is that a young, pregnant, woman who presented to the hospital in a first world country died for want of appropriate medical care. Whether it’s Irish Catholic law or malpractice, only time will tell; however, no answer could possibly ease the pain and suffering of Ms. Halappanavar’s loved ones.

    ****

    Since posting this piece I learned that Ms. Halappanavar’s widower reported that she was leaking amniotic fluid and was fully dilated when first evaluated. There is no medically defensible position for doing anything other than optimal pain control and hastening delivery by the safest means possible.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,800 ✭✭✭Lingua Franca


    Eramen wrote: »
    Unfortunately the type of atheists most of you seem to be are ones that seek a 'consensus reality' where all atheists think alike, and subscribe to the same views of moral and physical interpretation - much like religion does.

    Is this popular atheism we are seeing which is so manifest today? The mainstream whom Hitchens and Dawkins are the godfathers? (my respect to the latter btw) The Popular atheist who is so incapable of individual morality they fall under the sway of group-think and ideology. For shame, should we not be better? In the end this 'popular group atheism' turns the atheist value on its head. We are simply not theists.. we shouldn't follow lifestyle trends or seek to make them.

    I am 'not a real atheist' to you guys it seems - not part of the 'In-Group' (or church?); I am accused of being part of 'your accursed enemies' when I come to question your opinion on Catholics and their non-support of unneeded abortions, merely stating that all groups oppose it in large numbers for non-religious reasons.

    Atheists and Catholics are the same type of folk in the main, and that's why I believe that the debate should be squarely on the issue, not the messenger.

    One could easily blame the 'pro-choicers' of being under the sway of one or two groups as well, but one would be incorrect to say that if relying on the facts only. So why do you 'men of reason?' think you can get away with it?! Blind ideology might be the place to start.


    lol wut?

    I was mocking you for using the truly ridiculous term "casual abortion", as if it's ever a casual affair!, and you come back with babble about Hitchens and Dawkins and what I think of your atheism?

    Extrapolate much?

    Who mentioned this in-group, real atheists and accursed enemies that you're quoting, by the way? I can't see anything in this thread using any of those terms.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,800 ✭✭✭Lingua Franca


    robp wrote: »
    As has being pointed out by a friend the media coverage has emphasised the 'Catholic country' comment in a manner to present Ireland as a virtual theocracy, when in fact the constitutional protection given to the unborn child has been democratically established by the Irish people, not ecclesiastically imposed. These details do nothing to lessen the scandal of Savita's death, but at least they put it in its proper context.

    In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred,
    We, the people of Éire,
    Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial,
    Gratefully remembering their heroic and unremitting struggle to regain the rightful independence of our Nation,
    And seeking to promote the common good, with due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity, so that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured, true social order attained, the unity of our country restored, and concord established with other nations,
    Do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this Constitution.



    You can't call yourself a secular country with that nonsense crudding up your constitution.

    Prayers before Dail sittings too. No, not theocratic at all. :rolleyes:

    Of course Ireland appears as a theocracy to secular countries.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,417 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Savita's husband has said he'll take the fight to Ireland:

    http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/i-will-fight-till-ireland-changes-its-abortion-law/article4099135.ece
    The Hindu wrote:
    The Halappanavar and Yalgi families are heartbroken after Savita, wife of Praveen Halappanavar, died at the University Hospital Galway in Ireland on October 28 because abortion is illegal in Ireland, a Catholic country.

    They are not contemplating legal action against the hospital or its staff but want to make common cause with all the social activists and organisations that have launched a massive campaign demanding justice and modification of the Irish laws on abortion.

    “I am returning to Galway and will continue to keep the pressure on the Irish government with the support of social groups there to modify the law so that no other woman dies because of a religious law,” Praveen Halappanavar said here on Thursday. The Government of India will also be pressured to prevail upon the Irish government to amend the law to legitimise termination of pregnancy if the life of the mother is at risk, he said. The Prime Minister of Ireland, Enda Kenny, has already assured Parliament that he will look into the matter.

    Doctors at the University Hospital had refused to terminate the pregnancy even though Savita was miscarrying and the foetus could not be saved, stating that “this is a Catholic country.” The doctors had maintained that the foetus still had a heartbeat and they could not abort it.

    Savita (31), a dentist, and the daughter of Akkamahadevi and Andenappa S. Yalgi, a retired Executive Engineer who worked for the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd., married Praveen, an engineer from Haveri in north Karnataka, on April 19, 2008.

    After about two months, she moved to Galway to join her husband, who works at a company named Boston Scientific. Rejoicing on learning that she was pregnant, Savita and Praveen prayed for a baby girl. However, on October 21, 17 weeks into her pregnancy, Savita was admitted at the University Hospital with severe backache. She was not straightaway informed by the doctors that she was miscarrying.

    Mr. Halappanavar said his in-laws were with them in Galway on a three-month holiday and were to return to India as their visa was to expire on October 23. The Yalgis returned to Belgaum on October 23. “I repeatedly requested the doctors to terminate the pregnancy and save my wife as she was miscarrying and there was no chance of saving the foetus, in vain. The doctors, till the last moment, maintained that everything was fine and her condition was normal till she was taken back to the ICU. The doctors said that the foetus had been removed and she was critically ill. Thereafter things never improved,” Praveen said.

    He said that though the hospital had ordered an investigation in addition to the one by an external agency, no law should come in the way of saving a life. The attitude of officials at the Indian Embassy in Ireland also baffled him, since they did not to come to his help after Savita’s death, saying that Monday was a government holiday.

    The Yalgis, who lost their only daughter, the youngest of their three children, said they were wronged by the unjust laws of Ireland. “Injustice has been done to us, but it should not happen to any other woman hereafter.” Savita’s body was brought to her hometown Belgaum on November 3 and buried the same day at the Sadashivnagar graveyard here.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,800 ✭✭✭Lingua Franca


    Well, that answers this question.
    robp wrote: »
    Choice Ireland have put up a picture of Savita Halappanavar as their profile picture. I wonder what her mourning family feels about it.


    I'm glad they're aware that we empathise with them and are angry at her tragic loss..


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement