Abortion debate thread

PDN

MrPudding wrote: »

What was the medical error?

MrP

'
The medical error was failure to protect the mother's life by removing a foetus that was already miscarrying. Current medical guidelines, and the law, support such an action.

PDN

28064212 wrote: »

But the law does not. Abortion is illegal under the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861. The law is unconstitutional under the Supreme Court ruling, but as it has never been challenged in court, it has never been struck down

The X Case ruling stated it was permissible if there was a real and substantial risk to her life, including (but not exclusive to) the risk of suicide. It is very relevant

Again - from the Irish Times article linked to in Morbert's pot-stirring post:

Under the Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in 1992, it is lawful to terminate a pregnancy if it is established “as a matter of probability” that there is a real and substantial risk to the life, as opposed to the health, of the mother.

Obliq

Thank you Benny for the chance to repost this message. Apologies for the cursing earlier, I was extremely angry (and remain so), but I should not have used a bad word on this forum.

Stirring the pot? Well I'm more inclined to beat the contents of said pot with a stick today.
I am ashamed to be Irish. I am ashamed of the so called "pro-life" Irish in particular. Pro-life? Are they?

RIP Savita Halappanavar.

28064212

PDN wrote: »

Again - from the pot-stirring Irish Times article -

The important part being "Under the Constitution". Because the Government never legislated for the ruling, it is still illegal. It would be struck down by the High Court, but it has to be challenged in court for that to happen

PDN

Obliq wrote: »

Thank you Benny for the chance to repost this message. Apologies for the cursing earlier, I was extremely angry (and remain so), but I should not have used a bad word on this forum.

Stirring the pot? Well I'm more inclined to beat the contents of said pot with a stick today.
I am ashamed to be Irish. I am ashamed of the so called "pro-life" Irish in particular. Pro-life? Are they?

RIP Savita Halappanavar.

I am pro-life. I oppose any attempt to introduce abortion on demand. And I also believe the doctors should have saved Mrs Halappanavar's life by whatever means neccesary as provided by Irish law - which would include removing the foetus.

If I was a dishonest troll I would now post photographs of women who have died through complications resulting from abortions and use them to imply falsehoods against pro-abortion posters.

PDN

28064212 wrote: »

The important part being "Under the Constitution". Because the Government never legislated for the ruling, it is still illegal. It would be struck down by the High Court, but it has to be challenged in court for that to happen

Supreme Court trumps High Court - no?

28064212

PDN wrote: »

Supreme Court trumps High Court - no?

The High Court is the minimum level that can strike down a law. So a case would have to go through the criminal courts first, then be appealed to the High Court.

Benny_Cake

I would think that everyone but the most rabid pro-life extremist would support intervention or termination in cases such as this. Even Sen Ronan Mullen, a man not known for his liberal views, was on the radio a short while ago arguing the same point. This shouldn't be about abortion on demand, it should be about getting to the bottom of what happened, and ensuring that the risk of something such as this happening again is at an absolute minimum. It may be that new legislation is needed (I suspect it it), or it may be misconduct / incompetence on the part of the hospital. Let's wait and see, but I would hope they move quickly on an inquiry.

doctoremma

So, just so I am clear. The Irish Constitution says abortion is legal if the life of the mother is at risk. Irish law has not assimilated this and, as it stands, abortion is illegal under any circumstance?

So, no woman in Ireland ever gets an abortion if she is highly like to die during pregnancy (excluding the ectopic cases mentioned earlier)?

Are you saying that a doctor, when confronted with making the decision, could "choose" to follow constitutional law and have that action upheld on appeal against any criminal charges brought against him/her?

Lingua Franca

Yes, unsure, yes.

Despite what the anti choice camp are insisting even in this very thread, the consititution has not been legislated for and so the current (1861) law stands, that it is a felony offence to ever perform an abortion.

Hence the whole "legislate for X now!" campaign and the ECHR ruling. And this woman's death.

Tea 1000

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Yes, unsure, yes.

Despite what the anti choice camp are insisting even in this very thread, the consititution has not been legislated for and so the current (1861) law stands, that it is a felony offence to ever perform an abortion.

Hence the whole "legislate for X now!" campaign and the ECHR ruling. And this woman's death.

The anti-life camp might do well to re-read post 53.

28064212

Tea 1000 wrote: »

The anti-life camp might do well to re-read post 53.

You might do well to read post 55

PDN

doctoremma wrote: »

So, just so I am clear. The Irish Constitution says abortion is legal if the life of the mother is at risk. Irish law has not assimilated this and, as it stands, abortion is illegal under any circumstance?

So, no woman in Ireland ever gets an abortion if she is highly like to die during pregnancy (excluding the ectopic cases mentioned earlier)?

Are you saying that a doctor, when confronted with making the decision, could "choose" to follow constitutional law and have that action upheld on appeal against any criminal charges brought against him/her?

I heard a doctor discussing this today on the radio. He said that if a placenta detaches from the uterus, even if the foetus still has a heartbeat, that it would be standard practice in Irish hospitals to remove the foetus to save the mother's life. This case would fall under the same category.

Doctors are not prosecuted for this, nor is there any risk that they might be.

28064212

doctoremma wrote: »

So, just so I am clear. The Irish Constitution says abortion is legal if the life of the mother is at risk. Irish law has not assimilated this and, as it stands, abortion is illegal under any circumstance?

So, no woman in Ireland ever gets an abortion if she is highly like to die during pregnancy (excluding the ectopic cases mentioned earlier)?

Are you saying that a doctor, when confronted with making the decision, could "choose" to follow constitutional law and have that action upheld on appeal against any criminal charges brought against him/her?

The current law is the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 Section 58

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

In 1983, an amendment was made to the constitution which said "The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right".

In 1992, the Supreme Court ruled that this amendment meant "a woman had a right to an abortion if there was a real and substantial risk to her life, including the risk of suicide". However they did not strike down the 1861 law (whether that was within their power at that particular juncture, or they just assumed legislation would be enacted, I'm not sure).

The government held referendums to change the constitution to remove the right to an abortion in the case of suicide, once in 1992, and once in 2002. In both cases the electorate voted to keep the right. Legislation should have been enacted after the 1992 referendum, never mind 2002.

PDN

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Yes, unsure, yes.

Despite what the anti choice camp are insisting even in this very thread, the consititution has not been legislated for and so the current (1861) law stands, that it is a felony offence to ever perform an abortion.

Hence the whole "legislate for X now!" campaign and the ECHR ruling. And this woman's death.

No, it does not appear that this woman's death was caused by any defect in the law. But that will not stop those who want to change the law from exploiting her death.

28064212

PDN wrote: »

I heard a doctor discussing this today on the radio. He said that if a placenta detaches from the uterus, even if the foetus still has a heartbeat, that it would be standard practice in Irish hospitals to remove the foetus to save the mother's life. This case would fall under the same category.

Doctors are not prosecuted for this, nor is there any risk that they might be.

Where in the law does it say it's ok to end a foetus' life when the mother's life is in danger? If a Garda arrests a doctor under the 1861 act, how are they acting incorrectly? If the DPP prosecutes on the basis of the 1861 act, how are they acting incorrectly? If a criminal court judge (who has no authority to strike down laws) finds the doctor guilty under the 1861 act, how are they acting incorrectly?

Tea 1000

28064212 wrote: »

You might do well to read post 55

Read, noted, yet the subsequent post to yours explains the regular practice.

Lingua Franca

Tea 1000 wrote: »

The anti-life camp might do well to re-read post 53.

The "anti life" camp are actually pro-life. If the "anti-life" camp had their way, Savita would still be alive. As it is, the so called pro-life camp won out and she's now dead. Stick that in your cup and drink from it.

28064212

Tea 1000 wrote: »

Read, noted, yet the subsequent post to yours explains the regular practice.

...no, it doesn't

Tea 1000

Lingua Franca wrote: »

The "anti life" camp are actually pro-life. If the "anti-life" camp had their way, Savita would still be alive. As it is, the so called pro-life camp won out and she's now dead. Stick that in your cup and drink from it.

You don't tend to read threads properly, do you?

Tea 1000

28064212 wrote: »

...no, it doesn't

Why not? He says that a doctor commented on what would be regular practice. I assume a doctor would know what normally goes on in his experience. Whether or not this is lawful as per your post is another matter, but regular practice none the less.

Lingua Franca

Tea 1000 wrote: »

You don't tend to read threads properly, do you?

How do you figure that one out? Why, what did I miss?

I saw this:

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Despite what the anti choice camp are insisting even in this very thread, the consititution has not been legislated for and so the current (1861) law stands, that it is a felony offence to ever perform an abortion.

Because I posted it, and you are proving my point. You will keep insisting "but the consitution says... but the supreme courts says..." and yet you cannot point to a law which says that a woman is entitled to life saving abortion and that a doctor will not be prosecuted for performing one. We can point to a law which states clearly

Article 58: Every woman being with child, who with intent to procure her own miscarriage shall unlawfully administer to herself any poison or other noxious thing or shall unlawfully use any instrument or other means whatsoever with the like intent, and whomsoever, with intent to procure the miscarriage of any woman, whether she be or be not with child, shall unlawfully administer to her or cause to be taken by her any poison or other noxious thing, or shall unlawfully use any instrument or other means whatsoever with the like intent, shall be guilty of felony, and being convicted thereof shall be liable. . . to be kept in penal servitude for life.

Article 59: Whomsoever shall unlawfully supply or procure any poison or other noxious thing, or any instrument or thing whatsoever, knowing that the same is intended to be unlawfully used or employed with intent to procure the miscarriage of any woman, whether she be or be not with child, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable. . . to be kept in penal servitude.


Point us to the law that says that a doctor can perform an abortion and I'll retract.

28064212

Tea 1000 wrote: »

Why not? He says that a doctor commented on what would be regular practice. I assume a doctor would know what normally goes on in his experience. Whether or not this is lawful as per your post is another matter, but regular practice none the less.

I believe its lawfulness was the subject?

Morbert

PDN wrote: »

No, it does not appear that this woman's death was caused by any defect in the law. But that will not stop those who want to change the law from exploiting her death.

Do you believe this was equally likely to happen in a similarly developed country that didn't have anti-abortion laws? The U.S. or England for example?

Oscorp

The continued use of the term "Pro-Life" is so desperately ironic in this case.

MrPudding

The bit that irritates me the most about this is that even though a medical termination would have been unlawful, though constitutional, there was still a way for it to be allowed.

When the AG of Ireland was speaking before the EU, trying to explain why there was still no legislation after the x, a, b & c cases he said that, whilst there was no legislation in place to allow an abortion in circumstances where the mother's life was at risk, there was the option to go to the High Court to secure a court order allowing it.

Now, this poor woman and her family appear to be foreign and perhaps were not fully aware of the legal aspects of abortion in Ireland. I do, however, find it very difficult to believe that neither the consultant nor anyone else in the hospital was aware of this.

The hospitals have gone to court frequently to gain permission for a particular course of action. It is almost unimaginable that there was no one in this hospital that might have considered getting a court order to allow the termination to proceed. This would have protected the doctor and likely save the woman's life.

That is the bit that annoys me, the thought that, perhaps, people stood by and let this woman die when there was a treatment option available to them, but they chose not to pursue it.

MrP

JimiTime

Morbert wrote: »

Do you believe this was equally likely to happen in a similarly developed country that didn't have anti-abortion laws? The U.S. or England for example?

Is that relevant? If what PDN says is true, then this has nothing to do with abortion, and everything to do with medical procedure.

I certainly wont condemn pro-abortion folk for trying to exploit this woman's case, as I've seen similar things from the other side. I can't stand the feigned outrage though. Most of the people screaming outrage couldn't give a toss about the woman, she is merely a great way to further their political goals.

MrPudding

JimiTime wrote: »

Is that relevant? If what PDN says is true, then this has nothing to do with abortion, and everything to do with medical procedure.

But the medical procedure in question is an abortion.

MrP

Morbert

JimiTime wrote: »

Is that relevant? If what PDN says is true, then this has nothing to do with abortion, and everything to do with medical procedure.

It is absolutely relevant. If medical procedure is the only relevant factor, then this would have been equally likely to happen in other countries. I don't believe this is the case, especially if the "catholic country" comment is to be believed.

I certainly wont condemn pro-abortion folk for trying to exploit this woman's case, as I've seen similar things from the other side. I can't stand the feigned outrage though. Most of the people screaming outrage couldn't give a toss about the woman, she is merely a great way to further their political goals.

It is not feigned outrage. It genuinely makes people furious. The event, on its own, is an act of violent cruelty. In the context of the abortion debate, is is symptomatic of a state controlling what a woman does with her own reproductive system.

Obliq

PDN wrote: »

If I was a dishonest troll I would now post photographs of women who have died through complications resulting from abortions and use them to imply falsehoods against pro-abortion posters.

As this is your response to my posting of a picture of Savita Halappanavar (which is SO topical to this thread "A pro-life thread...for Christians" that it didn't even need words- and admittedly, as it was pointed out to me, didn't need the specific words that I first used), your pro-life response is to liken me to a dishonest troll.

If, in your book, a dishonest troll is someone who posts pictures pertaining to their views on abortion, then I take it that you agree that the likes of Youth Defence are dishonest trolls too.

Their constant barrage of images of aborted fetuses; their pandering to people's sentimentality by using pictures of heavily pregnant women, when the vast majority of abortions occur before 11 weeks; their pulling-at-the-heartstrings images of cutesy babies to illustrate their point ARE CLEARLY dishonest. At least by posting the photo of Savita, I am not being dishonest. She died, against her wishes that her tragically dying fetus should be aborted, in the hope that although this baby was dying, she could go on to have another.

By these standards that you claim, then the Catholic Church is a dishonest trolling organisation too. Their "Choose Life" campaign was accompanied by the extremely dubious tactics of rolling out a woman from Rachel's vineyard who regretted her abortion and told that IN DETAIL to a Mass for children.

If I was to actually be following the tactics of the various anti-abortion organisations in Ireland (including the Catholic Church), I would have been permanently barred from this forum long ago.

doctoremma

Sorry to keep labouring a point which may be very clear to you all. I'm still unsure about whether terminations on the grounds of maternal health happen in Ireland? I think I get the legal division between constitution/legislation. I don't want a formal list of conditions or anything, just a general feel of whether these types of termination ever really go ahead or whether it's lip service.

Again, sorry to appear so confused but I'm reading two sides here and not sure what the reality is.

Lingua Franca

Well, we now have one very public case which shows that they don't happen and none to show that they do. Nor have any figures ever been released to show that they do happen.

Savita's husband just spoke to the BBC to say that he was told "We can't, it's a Catholic country and it's the law".

Obliq

JimiTime wrote: »

I can't stand the feigned outrage though. Most of the people screaming outrage couldn't give a toss about the woman, she is merely a great way to further their political goals.

Feigned outrage? I have been in tears about this since last night's Vincent Brown on RTE. This is the culmination (and the last straw) of YEARS of me being outraged at the unfairness of one section of Irish Society dictating to me, and generations after me, as to how I can live my life and what choices I can make regarding my reproductive choices.

I have been marching for Choice in this country since I was a teenager. How dare you call that feigned outrage. I am not pretending here, I AM ACTUALLY OUTRAGED, and so should you be on behalf of that poor misfortunate family (that the death of Savita Halappanavar serves as an illustration of the level of health care injustice here in Ireland only goes to show that this is an untenable situation, not that we are callously furthering a political goal). RIP Savita.

Tipsygypsy

doctoremma wrote: »

So, just so I am clear. The Irish Constitution says abortion is legal if the life of the mother is at risk. Irish law has not assimilated this and, as it stands, abortion is illegal under any circumstance?

So, no woman in Ireland ever gets an abortion if she is highly like to die during pregnancy (excluding the ectopic cases mentioned earlier)?

Are you saying that a doctor, when confronted with making the decision, could "choose" to follow constitutional law and have that action upheld on appeal against any criminal charges brought against him/her?

That is my understanding of it. It would appear though that Doctors are afraid to test the case (understandably - they risk being prosecuted under the offences against person ACT of 150 years ago).

Obliq

doctoremma wrote: »

Sorry to keep labouring a point which may be very clear to you all. I'm still unsure about whether terminations on the grounds of maternal health happen in Ireland? I think I get the legal division between constitution/legislation. I don't want a formal list of conditions or anything, just a general feel of whether these types of termination ever really go ahead or whether it's lip service.

Again, sorry to appear so confused but I'm reading two sides here and not sure what the reality is.

Here's my general take on it. As per the constitution, "The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right"

Sorry for the list of conditions, but it's the only way of demonstrating how the health care of this mother was so outrageously ignored. From http://www.michaelnugent.com/2012/11/14/tragedy-shame-and-outrage-as-pregnant-savita-dies-in-irish-hospital-because-of-catholic-dogma-and-political-cowardice/

"Amidst public outrage, the Supreme Court quickly overturned the injunction. It found that a woman had a right to an abortion under Article 40.3.3 if there was “a real and substantial risk” to her life. This right did not exist if there was a risk to her health but not her life; but it did exist if the risk was the possibility of suicide."

As the septicaemia that Savida eventually died from was not particularly predictable and was only a risk to her health initially, not imminent risk of death, Doctors were within their rights to make the call not to save her "health" by removing the fetus.

PDN

Morbert wrote: »

Do you believe this was equally likely to happen in a similarly developed country that didn't have anti-abortion laws? The U.S. or England for example?

Obviously, until a full investigation is done, my belief won't count for very much. However, I appreciate that everyone wants to rush to snap judgments now as it is much easier to exploit this poor woman's death for political purposes.

The health minister said today in the Dail that it was common medical practice to let miscarriages run their course, rather than run the risks of a surgical intervention. I personally know a woman in England who went through a similar experience (without the septicemia, obviously) and she found it very emotionally upsetting, but was told that it was the safest medical course of action.

So, yes, I am inclined to believe, on the information available so far, that in England or the US that a similar situation could happen. And, sadly, doctors in England and the US sometimes get decisions wrong too - and patients die as a result.

Morbert

PDN wrote: »

Obviously, until a full investigation is done, my belief won't count for very much. However, I appreciate that everyone wants to rush to snap judgments now as it is much easier to exploit this poor woman's death for political purposes.

The health minister said today in the Dail that it was common medical practice to let miscarriages run their course, rather than run the risks of a surgical intervention. I personally know a woman in England who went through a similar experience (without the septicemia, obviously) and she found it very emotionally upsetting, but was told that it was the safest medical course of action.

So, yes, I am inclined to believe, on the information available so far, that in England or the US that a similar situation could happen. And, sadly, doctors in England and the US sometimes get decisions wrong too - and patients die as a result.

I am happy to let the investigation take it's course. And while I consider my judgement more than a snap judgement, I am happy to be corrected.

The only thing I will say is even if the judgements are snap judgements, they are not cynical attempt to exploit the death of a woman. There is genuine emotion that is, at worst, misguided.

But if it is true that the husband was told this is "a Catholic country", then God help the pro-life movement here. They will need all the help they can get.

martinnew

Before I post, I want to give me condolences to the poor husband.

I add to the above response from Moderator.. The media has conveniently overlooking the 2 deaths over the past few years in the UK from septicaemia as a direct result of elective abortion....

There will be an investigation. But I feel the Media are having a trial here without us knowing the full facts.

If the pregnancy was a risk to the Mothers life, then the doctors should have acted under current Irish law and saved the Mother, even with a Fetal heartbeat. You don't for example ignore a women with ectopic pregnancy.

So.. until we get all the facts I don't see where Abortion enters here. You can get septicaemia from an abortion, its not unheard of.

JimiTime

Obliq wrote: »

Feigned outrage? I have been in tears about this since last night's Vincent Brown on RTE. This is the culmination (and the last straw) of YEARS of me being outraged at the unfairness of one section of Irish Society dictating to me, and generations after me, as to how I can live my life and what choices I can make regarding my reproductive choices.

I have been marching for Choice in this country since I was a teenager. How dare you call that feigned outrage. I am not pretending here, I AM ACTUALLY OUTRAGED, and so should you be on behalf of that poor misfortunate family (that the death of Savita Halappanavar serves as an illustration of the level of health care injustice here in Ireland only goes to show that this is an untenable situation, not that we are callously furthering a political goal). RIP Savita.

You see, if we truly were concerned for this woman, and indeed the future care of similar women, we wouldn't just be hopping on a pro-'choice' bandwagon. Of course, because you are for abortion, you take it as an opportunity to further your political goal. How about we call for a look into how the medical profession deal with this sort of thing, and how it can deal with it better. Lets have the good taste to not use this woman as some kind of poster for pro-'choice'.

I suspect your outrage would not be so, if this was a woman who died as a result of complications with an abortion, so lets cut the cr@p. I certainly want the medical profession to be able to save women from death in these circumstances, and I hope any anti-abortion person would too even it meant that, like in the case of ectopic pregnancies, that the unborn childs life had to be brought to an end. If that means giving the medical profession more leeway, then that is something that must be addressed. I can't abide however, on the insidious opportunism of pro abortion groups and people using this as a means to further their goals of having abortion legalised in this country. This is little to do with the medical concerns of women with such groups, and everything to do with their belief that a mother to be has the right to decide, if she so wishes, to kill her unborn.

We should do everything we can to prevent tragedies like this happening, but we should also put down our 'rights' differences to do it. Lets for once look at a pragmatic solution to such medical things, without seeing opportunity to further political agenda's.

JimiTime

Morbert wrote: »

But if it is true that the husband was told this is "a Catholic country", then God help the pro-life movement here. They will need all the help they can get.

Why? Surely the reasonable response would be to question, who, why and of what relevance did such a thing have on the womans condition? If it was a case where a doctor said, 'Your wife is going to die unless we abort the child', and then was subsequently told, 'But I cant, because this is a catholic country', then that doctor needs to be brought before a relevant authority.

All in all, its early days, and I really hope that the right courses of action were taken by medical staff. If it was a case that they knew that aborting the baby would have saved the mother, then we need to do something about it. Be it untie their hands, if thats the issue, or make sure they're better informed of what they can do, if thats the issue. Or maybe it was incompetence on behalf of the doctors, if so that needs to be dealt with.

Benny_Cake

Morbert wrote: »

But if it is true that the husband was told this is "a Catholic country", then God help the pro-life movement here. They will need all the help they can get.

Context is everything on that one. He may have said that in an exasperated manner, his frustration with the law as it stands, or he may have been explaining the reason for the stricter approach taken in Ireland. If, however, he meant that he could act, but wasn't going to because of his personal beliefs, then that would be very grave indeed. Unfortunately, we'll probably never know the context in which he said that, so people will draw whichever conclusion suits them.

PDN

Morbert wrote: »

But if it is true that the husband was told this is "a Catholic country", then God help the pro-life movement here. They will need all the help they can get.

Context is everything. We are hearing an account from a grieving husband, whose first language does not appear to be English, over a crackly phone line from India.

I can think of several possible scenarios.

a) It could have been a bit of semi-racist Catholic triumphalism against a non-national. While I think this highly unlikely, if it were true I would sincerely hope that the person concerned would be fired and banned from ever working in medicine again in this country.

b) The comment could have been made by a bitter anti-Catholic (the kind of people who post regularly on A&A) airing their usual gripes against the culture and Church - "Ah, what do you expect in this priest-ridden Catholic backwater?"

c) The most plausible way I could see this happening (based on working for the last ten years with many non-nationals and visiting them in hospital) would be a simple conversation broadly along the lines of the following:
Consultant: We think the safest course of treatment is to let the miscarriage run it's course."
Patient: No, I want rid of the foetus now.
Consultant: I'm afraid that's not your call to make. You can't get that on demand.
Patient: Why not?
Consultant: Well, historically Ireland is a Catholic country and doesn't have abortion on demand.

Hopefully the investigation will reveal whether the Catholic comment was as bad as it initially sounds.

I might add that over the last few months I have had many conversations with many doctors and consultants due to my wife's continuing ill health. It has been immensely frustrating. Some have been rude, some have been bullies, and some haven't appeared to have a clue what they are doing. With the notable exception of one consultant who has explained things very well (possibly because I am also his pastor!) I have found their communication skills to range between poor and abysmal.

doctoremma

I will remember, if I ever choose to spawn, to never visit Ireland while pregnant. It appears that presenting at a hospital with a life-threatening condition might not garner me the treatment I require. I hadn't really registered the potential reality of this situation.

ETA: just realised that my travel insurance might cover a medical flight home.

Are there any public records for frequency of abortions on the grounds of maternal health in Irish hospitals?

PDN

doctoremma wrote: »

I will remember, if I ever choose to spawn, to never visit Ireland while pregnant. It appears that presenting at a hospital with a life-threatening condition might not garner me the treatment I require. I hadn't really registered the potential reality of this situation.

ETA: just realised that my travel insurance might cover a medical flight home.

Are there any public records for frequency of abortions on the grounds of maternal health in Irish hospitals?

According to the WHO, as a pregnant mother, you will be 8 times as safe in Ireland as in the UK. http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2007/9789241596213_eng.pdf

doctoremma

PDN wrote: »

According to the WHO, as a pregnant mother, you will be 8 times as safe in Ireland as in the UK. http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2007/9789241596213_eng.pdf

Ah, but having not had access to the Irish health care system for my fertile years (or even just during pregnancy), it's plausible that I would be an outlier on any stats such as those you've posted. I could hardly expect to receive the majority of antenatal care in the UK, then visit Ireland for my annual homage to the family and suddenly become less likely to die from pregnancy-related factors over the course of a lifetime, could I?

I'm thinking of a sudden and unpredictable event, early eclampsia or something. I'm not sure I want to ask or know but would I be treated for that, even if treatment would (with full knowledge) cause the baby to die? I want you to say 'Of course, we might be rampant pro-lifers but we don't let women die' because that's what I thought the situation was. As of today, I'm actually scared of your answer.

PDN

doctoremma wrote: »

Ah, but having not had access to the Irish health care system for my fertile years (or even just during pregnancy), it's plausible that I would be an outlier on any stats such as those you've posted. I could hardly expect to receive the majority of antenatal care in the UK, then visit Ireland for my annual homage to the family and suddenly become less likely to die from pregnancy-related factors over the course of a lifetime, could I?

I'm thinking of a sudden and unpredictable event, early eclampsia or something. I'm not sure I want to ask or know but would I be treated for that, even if treatment would (with full knowledge) cause the baby to die? I want you to say 'Of course, we might be rampant pro-lifers but we don't let women die' because that's what I thought the situation was. As of today, I'm actually scared of your answer.

Women die everywhere, sadly. You, as a doctor, should know that.

Lingua Franca

PDN wrote: »

According to the WHO, as a pregnant mother, you will be 8 times as safe in Ireland as in the UK. http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2007/9789241596213_eng.pdf

...in 2005. As I pointed out earlier, given how many deaths there have been in the last month alone I doubt they'll be quite so complimentary next time.

And that's only been safe from death in childbirth. Let's not forget arrogant consultants performing symphysiotomies instead of feeling smug about how "safe" Ireland's hospitals are for women.

doctoremma wrote: »

Are there any public records for frequency of abortions on the grounds of maternal health in Irish hospitals?

None. Northern Ireland have published theirs but whilst everyone claims that life saving abortions are carried out, no one can point to a single case.

doctoremma

PDN wrote: »

Women die everywhere, sadly. You, as a doctor, should know that.

Brilliant. Thanks for that. Very helpful. I'll take that as a tacit admission that there is a high likelihood that a termination would likely not be offered, even in dire medical circumstances.

doctoremma

Lingua Franca wrote: »

None. Northern Ireland have published theirs but whilst everyone claims that life saving abortions are carried out, no one can point to a single case.

Apart from the ectopics. Which aren't counted as terminations, right?

Morbert

PDN wrote: »

c) The most plausible way I could see this happening (based on working for the last ten years with many non-nationals and visiting them in hospital) would be a simple conversation broadly along the lines of the following:
Consultant: We think the safest course of treatment is to let the miscarriage run it's course."
Patient: No, I want rid of the foetus now.
Consultant: I'm afraid that's not your call to make. You can't get that on demand.
Patient: Why not?
Consultant: Well, historically Ireland is a Catholic country and doesn't have abortion on demand.

My last word on the issue, at least until investigation findings are in, is this: I think they were probably told that to let the miscarriage run its course was safe, but not that it was safer than a termination. A conclusion that would be incredibly damning to the abortion laws in Ireland.