Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

UDP

Galvasean wrote: »

I have no doubt in my mind that such a bill would pass. It seems the 'pro-life' lobby is on a mission to convince everyone that it wouldn't in a hope that it will never come to pass. It's why governments have been afraid to set a referendum in motion: They know it will pass. They just don't want it to.

I thought the pro-lifers are calling for a referendum on the issue of abortion again? That annoying solicitor of theirs (edit: Caroline Simons) that is on all the shows discussing the matter has, from what I remember, called for it on a number of occasions.
I was under the impression they think they can scare the people of Ireland into voting that it should be banned under all circumstances or something to that effect. If it were to go before the people in the next 6 months I think abortion would be opened up to include the health of the mother. I don't think abortion would be completely opened up though as there are still too many people that would be swayed by religion.

Sarky

Apparently pro-choice people are pagans looking to sacrifice the unborn to Satan:

http://i.imgur.com/8Lxrn.png

What is this I don't even

robp

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Yes. But I am working.

Does anyone dispute that the RCC officially disapproved of dissecting human cadavers for at least 1000 years on the grounds that they believed the body needs to be intact in order to be resurrected during which time it also controlled European universities?

The fact that Classical Greece and Rome had similar views on dissection is irrelevant.

Would someone like to explain why it is not a necessary, indeed vital, part of surgical training for medics to be able to get inside a human body and see how it works therefore such a stricture had no impact on medical knowledge?

If so - please provide proof.

You might also tell me if you would be willing to have surgery performed on you by a doctor who had anatomized pigs, barbary apes etc but never a human. I certainly wouldn't...

Otherwise, please stop trying to waste my time by quoting wikipedia at me. I have history students waiting to have marks deducted from their assignments for doing precisely the same thing.

I really have no expertise in the area but I noticed this article from Harvard arguing that dissection was indeed part of medieval scholarly life and I thought it would be worth mentioning. What are your feelings on Katherine Parks work?

Again I am an outsider but I always have suspected people give the (especially the late) Medieval period an unnecessarily hard time out of ignorance.

Here is an extract

Debunking a myth- In medieval Christianity, dissection was often practiced
According to her research, Katharine Park said, "The female body really lay at the heart of the development of autopsy and dissection as medical practices.” And with that, she is overturning a long-held myth that human dissection was prohibited by the church.

Galvasean

Sarky wrote: »

Apparently pro-choice people are pagans looking to sacrifice the unborn to Satan:

http://i.imgur.com/8Lxrn.png

What is this I don't even

At first I thought they were using the term 'Pagan' in the ncorrect way that you often here, ie: "Everyone who doesn't believe in our God is a Pagan".
But nope, they seem to completely understand what it means. Who are they? Some sort of lunatic fringe group?

pauldla

Galvasean wrote: »

At first I thought they were using the term 'Pagan' in the ncorrect way that you often here, ie: "Everyone who doesn't believe in our God is a Pagan".
But nope, they seem to completely understand what it means. Who are they? Some sort of lunatic fringe group?

Very lunat fringe.

Bleedin' pagans, said the heathen.

Obliq

Mervyn Crawford wrote: »

Could I ask you Obliq, and anyone who treats seriously the issue of abortion and democratic rights, to please listen to Ellis on the link above. And as the phrase goes - don't leave your critical faculties at the door.

This struggle is too important for vagueness. The issues touch on the struggle for equality and justice. The struggle for socialism.

Ok Mervyn, may have left my critical faculties next to the kettle awaiting return to owner via 2nd cup of morning coffee.

Robindch - I didn't know that.

Ps. If I ever again say "one to watch", know that does not equate in my book with "one to trust", but point taken, ta 2 ye both.

robp

fisgon wrote: »

A small point, and one that may seem petty, but which is actually relevant.

Please stop using the term "pro-life". This is what the anti-abortion lobby refer to themselves as, in an attempt to portray themselves as morally superior, in an attempt to skew and twist language so that they appear as if they have already won the debate (with the implication that their opponents are "anti-life") They are not "pro" anything, they are almost the definition of "anti".

Language, as always, is important in this debate. They are "anti-abortion", nothing more. Please do not buy in to their own twisted definition of who they are.

Well I would ask how exactly is the term pro choice logical? How could anyone content on ending young lives through abortion support a universal concept of choice. The reality is it is contingent on a number of factors which vary from person to person. What about about the choice of the unborn. At least 'pro-life' is logical in that it implies a support of a principal of the specialness of life which is very much manifest in the pro life movement. Pro abortion is much more upfront. Pro-choice is a platitude, nothing more.

The most blatant contradiction occurs with people don't agree with abortion but are 'pro choice'. Some say that they don't personally agree to the procedure but they won't stop others doing it. Well if you don't stop others doing it you agree to the legitimacy of it. I dread the prospect of water charges but I know personally they are essential for a number of reasons. By the logic of the anti-abortion pro choicers I am anti-water charges. That is not at all rational as I am pro water charges. It is more honest to simply admit 'Personally I don't like abortion but I fully support it'.

Bannasidhe

robp wrote: »

I really have no expertise in the area but I noticed this article from Harvard arguing that dissection was indeed part of medieval scholarly life and I thought it would be worth mentioning. What are your feelings on Katherine Parks work?

Again I am an outsider but I always have suspected people give the (especially the late) Medieval period an unnecessarily hard time out of ignorance.

Here is an extract

I am not familiar with Park's work so I will have to get back to you.

But one thing that struck me from the brief section you quoted was her observation that female bodies were the norm...this makes me ask why female bodies?

LittleBook

fisgon wrote: »

A small point, and one that may seem petty, but which is actually relevant.

Please stop using the term "pro-life". This is what the anti-abortion lobby refer to themselves as, in an attempt to portray themselves as morally superior, in an attempt to skew and twist language so that they appear as if they have already won the debate (with the implication that their opponents are "anti-life") They are not "pro" anything, they are almost the definition of "anti".

Language, as always, is important in this debate. They are "anti-abortion", nothing more. Please do not buy in to their own twisted definition of who they are.

You're right, I'm still stuck in the terminology of the 90s, I should know better by now.

fisgon

robp wrote: »

Well I would ask how exactly is the term pro choice logical? .

I have no opinion on the term "pro-choice", and that was not what I posted about.

My post was about the term "pro-life", which is, of course, a lie. The anti-abortion lobby are not "pro" anything. They are interested in stopping things, opposing things, being against things. They give themselves the term "pro life" so as to appear holier-than-thou, morally superior. After all, who could be "anti life"?

The term "life" in this case is meaningless, given that it could, in fact mean a million different things. The term "pro-life" is indicative of the anti abortion side's self image, as pure, above reproach, morally unblemished, with motives that are higher than their opponents could ever imagine. None of which is true, of course. It is indicative of the abuse and twisting of language that the anti abortion campaigners regularly engage in. North Korea is officially termed "The Democratic People's Republic of Korea". That does not mean it is any of those things.

Lingua Franca

robp wrote: »

Your problem is you keep putting words in my mouth and jumping to conclusions on what I am referring too. When I did talk about conspiracy? The manner how some respected parts of the media presented how this poor lady died was as bad as a red-top can get. Why the story circulated in the way it did is of great interest. The abortion lobby did and is rallying around this story with little certainty of what happened.
The case of Jessica Maye Barlow is an interesting reference point here as she died just a month prior to Savita in England with a remarkably similar pathology except in her case she died from an abortion yet her death did not become viral at all.

No, my problem is your own words and your lack of ownership of them, your obfuscation when put on the spot, your constant demands for evidence, summary refutation of any evidence as "unequivocally and demonstrable false, fail to show how you came to this conclusion or demonstrate how they are false. You then murmur your own vague statements of "fact" that you can never back up. We've been over this several times robp! You deny there's any such thing as a need for a medical termination because Eamon O'Dwyer said so and have refuted any evidence, including Savita's death as described by her husband, as insufficent. Despite all of your demands for stellar, rare and impeccable evidence, you've been proven wrong repeatedly and have yet once to acknowledge that you have been mistaken, instead shifting the goalposts or segueing into completely new aspect of the debate, and now you have the barefaced cheek to be demanding apologies!

You've admitted to being a "pro life absolutist" already so you'd be as well to admit you're not interested in debate or learning anything or considering other points of view, just in hammering us all over the head with "abortion is never medically necessary!".

Galway pro choice have now made a detailed statement of everything that did happen regarding them hearing of Savita's story and why it took so long to come out.

Why the story circulated in the way it did is of great interest. The abortion lobby did and is rallying around this story with little certainty of what happened.
Why the story circulated the way it did is ONLY of interest to the pro life groups. Everyone else in the country is more concerned with the particulars of the story rather than how it broke. And why is it of interest to them? Because they're angry that they didn't get their hands on it to put their spin on it? Because they wish they'd had 3 weeks to prepare a counter campaign?

Is there any reason that isn't "we're jealous we didn't get it first"? If they had stumbled on a botched abortion death, do you think they'd have shared it with pro choice groups?



By the way, the abortion lobby has made plenty of statements of certainty about what happened. Go take a look at the YD facebook page.

And re: Jessica Maye Barlow, she didn't "go viral" because she's become just another abortion pill victim that Youth Defence can point to. They raised quite a stink about the death of Manon Jones and made her their "viral" anti-abortion pill poster girl, hence the other two deaths weren't quite as shocking.

And if you're comparing the stories of Savita and Jessica, they both retained products of conception and tragically died from an antibiotic resistant infection. Therein the similarity ends. Jessica made her own choices about her health care and her bodily integrity and was treated with respect for her opinion. Savita wasn't allowed to make her own choices or treated with respect for her bodily integrity and was denied treatment she'd have had as standard practice anywhere else in the world. I find this frightening and shameful. What do you find so relevant about the two cases?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Came across this article, while googling around.

Interesting, and puts a little depth into thoughts on the topic.

https://www.mja.com.au/system/files/issues/191_04_170809/dec11164_fm.pdf

… Bourne’s 1975 obituary in the British Medical Journal described him as “a man of great compassion and understanding”. In May 1938, he was asked to see a girl of 14 years who had been raped by five officers of the Royal Horse Guards at their London barracks. They had enticed her there promising to show her a horse with a green tail — she was clearly an inexperienced child. Following the rape, the girl and her parents had first sought treatment at St Thomas’s Hospital. It soon became evident that the girl was pregnant, and abortion was requested. The response of the consultant at St Thomas’s was that, as the rapists were officers and therefore apparently gentlemen, “she might be carrying a future Prime Minister of England”, and anyway, “girls always lead men on”. He refused the request.

At St Mary’s, Bourne had no such class illusions. He carefully considered the case, noting that the girl was “not mentally defective and not of the prostitute type”. Bourne concluded that, although a plea of danger to her life could not be substantiated, termination of the pregnancy was justified because of the risks to her physical and mental health. He could not, he later told the Court, “draw a line between danger to life and danger to health; if one waited for danger to life the woman would be past assistance”. He performed a surgical curettage, then deliberately informed the police.

…Interestingly, Bourne himself did not support the introduction of the 1967 Act. He had written in 1938 that: “I would not have it believed that I have worked for a loose interpretation of the law”, and after 1967 he campaigned for the Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child, believing the new legislation to be too liberal. As noted in his obituary, “he never lacked the courage to express in public views which he held with great conviction and sincerity”. …

MrPudding

robp wrote: »

Well I would ask how exactly is the term pro choice logical? How could anyone content on ending young lives through abortion support a universal concept of choice. The reality is it is contingent on a number of factors which vary from person to person. What about about the choice of the unborn. At least 'pro-life' is logical in that it implies a support of a principal of the specialness of life which is very much manifest in the pro life movement. Pro abortion is much more upfront. Pro-choice is a platitude, nothing more.

The most blatant contradiction occurs with people don't agree with abortion but are 'pro choice'. Some say that they don't personally agree to the procedure but they won't stop others doing it. Well if you don't stop others doing it you agree to the legitimacy of it. I dread the prospect of water charges but I know personally they are essential for a number of reasons. By the logic of the anti-abortion pro choicers I am anti-water charges. That is not at all rational as I am pro water charges. It is more honest to simply admit 'Personally I don't like abortion but I fully support it'.

What you seem to be failing to understand is that by being pro-choice we are not, necessarily, pro-choice for everyone or everything in the universe.

For me the accurate description would be "pro-the belief that, when it comes to a conflict of rights between a born person, the pregnant woman, and a foetus, the rights of the pregnant woman should be held to be superior to any rights the foetus may or may not have, and, as a result, the woman should be able to decide what she does with her body, with respect to the pregnancy, even if that is to destroy the foetus, and whatever she decides to do should be her choice" but that is a bit of a mouthful, so I shorten it to pro-choice.

MrP

recedite

UDP wrote: »

completely disagree. The law should change as medical technology advances. Cannot see how that is not the clearest method. The way you suggest seems completely unworkable. What possible increments of rights could be used for a fetus?

It seems a bit arbitrary for human rights to be allocated on the basis of what medical machinery happens to be available. Increments could be in terms of days or weeks, the measurement is already used to restrict late term abortions in other countries beyond x weeks. More increments would allow a better balance of both sets of rights, eg a foetus at one day old could be aborted if the pregnancy was inconvenient for the mother. Moving up the scale, justification might involve a threat to health, then in late term abortions a threat to life.

UDP wrote: »

Also a baby is not dependant on its "owner" after it is born. It is dependant on another human which could be even a child.

A baby is still dependent on its owner after it is born, and the ownership or guardianship can be transferred. But this is not an argument for giving or taking away human rights. In the days of slavery, ownership of a slave could be transferred, and the owner was allowed to decide what level of human rights were given to the slave.
Nowadays we recognise that the slave deserved rights independent of the owners thinking, whether those rights were given or not at the time.
So, you still did not answer my hypothetical question; if the foetus was grown entirely in vitro and incubator, at what stage would you respect its rights?

Obliq

Would quite like to thank Michael Nugent for appearing on this interesting production.

Obliq

recedite wrote: »

So, you still did not answer my hypothetical question; if the foetus was grown entirely in vitro and incubator, at what stage would you respect its rights?

I'll chip in here with an answer: BREATHING.

recedite

drkpower wrote: »

This distinction is irrelevant based on the law as it stands. The protection to the unborn is not dependant on its likelihood of survival.

You missed my point; it was that in the x case the DPP felt obliged to represent the interests of the foetus which was thought at the time to have the full potential of human life, whereas in the case of a doomed foetus, the DPP would be much less concerned with stepping in to represent its interests. Also, see medical council guideline 21.4 below, which I know is not "the law", but could certainly be used as a defence in law.

drkpower wrote: »

This, for instance, is simply incorrect; the entire area of medical law is based on third party doctors examining factual evidence (of which they have no first hand knowledge) and coming to a view that the doctors who actually provided treatment did so in a substandard way. It happens every day; and judges often take the word of the third party doctor over the word of the doctor 'on the scene'.

Obviously, doctors differ and patients die. But the burden of proof is on the doctor alleging malpractice. I am saying that if Savita's doctor had performed an abortion in those circumstances, there was no realistic risk of prosecution for illegal abortion. It was reported that there was a miscarriage late in the pregnancy, an infection, antibiotics were administered, the patient collapsed... no hotshot lawyer, not even your good self, could prove this was not a life threatening situation.

drkpower wrote: »

Third, if this was as simple as asking a medical lawyer to draft guidelines, why do you think that hasnt been done in the last 20 years.....?!

Here's the medical council guidelines on abortions in Ireland;

21 Abortion
21.1 Abortion is illegal in Ireland except where there is a real and substantial risk to the life (as distinct from the health) of the mother. Under current legal precedent, this exception includes where there is a clear and substantial risk to the life of the mother arising from a threat of suicide.You should undertake a full assessment
of any such risk in light of the clinical research on this issue.
21.2 It is lawful to provide information in Ireland about abortions abroad, subject to strict conditions.4 It is not lawful to encourage or advocate an abortion in individual cases.
21.3 You have a duty to provide care, support and follow-up services for women who have an abortion abroad.
21.4 In current obstetrical practice, rare complications can arise where therapeutic intervention (including termination of a pregnancy) is required at a stage when, due to extreme immaturity of the baby, there may be little or no hope of the baby surviving. In these exceptional circumstances, it may be necessary to intervene to terminate the pregnancy to protect the life of the mother, while making every effort to preserve the life of the baby.

Now obviously, each individual patient is a different case, and you cannot legislate to describe what constitutes "a life threatening situation" for every situation. The doctor makes that call, just as he/she does when administering dangerous drugs or treatments. Its a balancing act, but they are used to making life or death decisions, and they are well trained, well paid, and well insured. And they are innocent until proven guilty.

But if the doctor refuses to take such actions, even when they are available under any reasonable interpretation of the law and the guidelines, it can only be for reasons of incompetence or ethos. The important point is that such a doctor is even more exposed to a malpractice action than one who carries out an abortion in good faith to save the primary patient. I think this is a very important legal principle that must be seen to be upheld. That is why I would like to see a successful malpractice prosecution in this case. In the doctor's favour is the presumption of innocence. Going against them, is the fact that the patient died.

drkpower wrote: »

As a medical lawyer (and former doctor), if I were consulted to draft those guidelines you speak of, I would leave those grey areas blank and say 'sorry, the legal answer to this is unknown; if such an issue arises, proceed immediately to the High Court for a declaration; if there is no time to do so, here are the risks of either approach; now, you are on your own'.

This is the second post containing your <appeal to authority> Don't bother in future.

recedite

Obliq wrote: »

I'll chip in here with an answer: BREATHING.

And somebody on a ventilator...no right to live?

Obliq

recedite wrote: »

And somebody on a ventilator...no right to live?

It comes down to compassion, doesn't it? In the end. Whether compassion for a mother's life or compassion for an unborn, unknowing fetus. I was being stupidly abrupt, but really.....what's the point in arguing at what stage does "right to life" occur? The only pertinent question will always be "Will a pregnant woman be allowed a right to choose (life or death for her unborn baby)?"

drkpower

recedite wrote: »

You missed my point; it was that in the x case the DPP felt obliged to represent the interests of the foetus which was thought at the time to have the full potential of human life, whereas in the case of a doomed foetus, the DPP would be much less concerned with stepping in to represent its interests. Also, see medical council guideline 21.4 below, which I know is not "the law", but could certainly be used as a defence in law..

Once a criminal allegation is made, the Gardai are obliged to conduct an investigation ,and the DPP is obliged to bring a case where there is a prime facie case (in addition to some other guidelines the DPP is obliged to follow which i dont think are especially relevant here).

recedite wrote: »

Obviously, doctors differ and patients die. But the burden of proof is on the doctor alleging malpractice. I am saying that if Savita's doctor had performed an abortion in those circumstances, there was no realistic risk of prosecution for illegal abortion.

You have not provided any support for this assertion. I have: If the risk was short of substantial, there is a prime facie case for a prosecution.

recedite wrote: »

It was reported that there was a miscarriage late in the pregnancy, an infection, antibiotics were administered, the patient collapsed... no hotshot lawyer, not even your good self, could prove this was not a life threatening situation.

And yet still, you cant even state the law accurately. A life threatening situation is not sufficient. There must be a substantial threat to life.

recedite wrote: »

Here's the medical council guidelines on abortions in Ireland;
Now obviously, each individual patient is a different case, and you cannot legislate to describe what constitutes "a life threatening situation" for every situation. The doctor makes that call, just as he/she does when administering dangerous drugs or treatments. Its a balancing act, but they are used to making life or death decisions, and they are well trained, well paid, and well insured. And they are innocent until proven guilty.

You may have stumbled (to a degree) on at least one reasonable point. there is an onus to ensure that legislating to clarify the precise circumstances in which a termination is legal does not unduly fetter the exercise of individual medical judgment. That is true. However, what we have now is almost no guidance. There is a balance to be struck. And the medical profession does that frequently by drafting detailed guidelines that manage not to fetter individual discretion. There is no reason to assert that we cant do so in this case.

recedite wrote: »

This is the second post containing your <appeal to authority> Don't bother in future.

You were the one who suggested that doctors could ask their lawyers to draft guidelines for them to assist them in these cases. You seemed to be ok with that form of appeal to authority....

And I notice that you didnt address the single most important reason we need legislative clarity:

If those who provide care to pregnant women are not, in some circumstances, clear as to what treatment they can provide under the law, there is a problem. And that problem needs fixing.

robindch

Obliq wrote: »

I'll chip in here with an answer: BREATHING.

So, would you be happy with abortion permissible right up until the point of birth at nine months?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

drkpower wrote: »

there is an onus to ensure that legislating to clarify the precise circumstances in which a termination is legal does not unduly fetter the exercise of individual medical judgment.

A somewhat related point comes to mind. Does the ambiguity, at present, potentially enable a wider scope of action than will be possible post legislation?

And if I can just clarify that question - I don't mean that detailed legislation might fetter individual judgment, by telling a doctor "you must do A if the case is XYZ, and you must do B if the case is ZYX". What I mean is that doctors might be able to intervene in fewer cases, if legislation gave more guidance on what it means for the "unborn" to have equal rights. Legislation might mean a doctor saying "we can't do B anymore, no matter what the situation is."

Just to be even more clear, where I'm coming from is I've a suspicion that we'll find we actually need another referendum (groan) to be able to implement a robust solution.

Nodin

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Just to be even more clear, where I'm coming from is I've a suspicion that we'll find we actually need another referendum (groan) to be able to implement a robust solution.

Operation Sufferin Jaysus No, as its called.

drkpower

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

A somewhat related point comes to mind. Does the ambiguity, at present, potentially enable a wider scope of action than will be possible post legislation?

And if I can just clarify that question - I don't mean that detailed legislation might fetter individual judgment, by telling a doctor "you must do A if the case is XYZ, and you must do B if the case is ZYX". What I mean is that doctors might be able to intervene in fewer cases, if legislation gave more guidance on what it means for the "unborn" to have equal rights. Legislation might mean a doctor saying "we can't do B anymore, no matter what the situation is."

It certainly is a danger. But as I said befire, it is not beyond the combined talents of medical and legal professionals to draft (legislative) guidelines that serve to better define the scope of what 'substantial risk to life' means, without unduly restricting individual discretion.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Just to be even more clear, where I'm coming from is I've a suspicion that we'll find we actually need another referendum (groan) to be able to implement a robust solution.

Well i think we can draft guidelines that work to flesh out the meaning of 'substantial risk to life'. However that will do nothing to permit termination in other cases where i suspect the majority of the population would like to see legislation:
- risk to health
- minor risk to life
- non-viable foetus' (ie. those that will never see independent life, or will only do so for hours/days)
- rape/incest (and other 'hard cases')

All of the above would need a referendum.

magicbastarder

are there other countries who have working laws akin to the ones we would expect to require?

drkpower

magicbastarder wrote: »

are there other countries who have working laws akin to the ones we would expect to require?

I dont think any have the precise constitutional position we have, no.

recedite

drkpower wrote: »

You may have stumbled (to a degree) on at least one reasonable point.

Why thank you, good sir :pac:

drkpower wrote: »

A life threatening situation is not sufficient. There must be a substantial threat to life............. You have not provided any support for this assertion. I have: If the risk was short of substantial, there is prime facie, a case for a prosecution.

An independent investigation would reveal any support for the assertion that her condition was life threatening. I listed some of the reported serious symptoms. Add to that the fact that she died soon afterwards.

On the other hand, if it was shown that there was a substantial threat to her life, as opposed to just her general health, would you agree that there is prime facie a case for prosecuting the doctor/hospital for neglecting to act?

In this case the doctors who were originally at the scene will be trying to show that the threat was only to her health, and it will be very difficult to prove otherwise. But if they had acted to save her, they would be trying to show there was a real and substantial threat to her life, and again the burden of proof still falls on the prosecution.

drkpower wrote: »

And I notice that you didnt address the single most important reason we need legislative clarity:If those who provide care to pregnant women are not, in some circumstances, clear as to what treatment they can provide under the law, there is a problem

I suggest that, for some, there is confusion because they attempt to reconcile their personal or workplace ethos with secular law. Essentially there are two conflicting sets of laws operating; Canon Law and State Law.
They need to feel the wrath of State Law.
There may be others who just take the lazy option. When faced with a difficult decision, its always easier to say "I don't know, ask someone else, my hands are tied" and just do nothing. Again, the same remedy applies to them.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Just to know, there seems to be a programme on tonight that could be worth catching

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1121/howlin-halappanavar.html

Watch the interview with Praveen Halappanavar in full on Prime Time, RTÉ One at 9.35pm

Following all the messing over the members of the inquiry, I'd like to hear Mr Halappanavar what has transpired from his perspective.

drkpower

recedite wrote: »

An independent investigation would reveal any support for the assertion that her condition was life threatening. I listed some of the reported serious symptoms. Add to that the fact that she died soon afterwards.

Yes, hopefully the investigation will reveal the facts. Although the points i am making (re: clarity in the law being required) are of wider application that this case.

recedite wrote: »

On the other hand, if it was shown that there was a substantial threat to her life, as opposed to just her general health, would you agree that there is prime facie a case for prosecuting the doctor/hospital for neglecting to act?

A criminal prosecution? The standard is quite high (gross negligence) but it is possible.
A civil action? Yes, if the risk was truly substantial; and no doubt, there are circumstances that, despite the lack of clarity in the law, that assessment will be straightforward to make.

recedite wrote: »

In this case the doctors who were originally at the scene will be trying to show that the threat was only to her health, and it will be very difficult to prove otherwise. But if they had acted to save her, they would be trying to show there was a real and substantial threat to her life, and again the burden of proof still falls on the prosecution.

It may be difficult to prove otherwise; it may not be. But where the potential ramifications for a doctor of being proved to have acted illegally, even a relatively low risk of prosecution is a very serious matter, and any assistance in clarifiying their obigations is necessary.

recedite wrote: »

I suggest that, for some, there is confusion because they attempt to reconcile their personal or workplace ethos with secular law. Essentially there are two conflicting sets of laws operating; Canon Law and State Law.
They need to feel the wrath of State Law.
There may be others who just take the lazy option. When faced with a difficult decision, its always easier to say "I don't know, ask someone else, my hands are tied" and just do nothing. Again, the same remedy applies to them.

So you suggest that obstetricians who reach the level of MAster of one of our major maternity hospitals are the type that 'take the easy way out'? Your arguments are not, em, especially convincing.

fisgon

Obliq wrote: »

Would quite like to thank Michael Nugent for appearing on this interesting production.

Interesting, and certainly not very friendly to the lone anti abortion voice there. There was a definite pro-choice slant to the proceedings. And even more interesting, this was Al-Jazeera!