Pregnant woman dies in UCHG after being refused a termination

Leftist

there's some woman who's been on newstalk a lot, she's head of an anti-abortion group, I think she's a director in a childer's hostibal in Dublin. She's a thug when she's debating and suggested there has never been any reason for abortion in order to save the mother's life.

gozunda

NamelessPhil wrote: »

The Medical Council of Ireland provides professional guidelines to all medical practitioners in the State. I've taken the following extracts from the "Guide to Professional Conduct and Ethics for Registered Medical Practitioners".

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 assess- ment of any such risk in light of the clinical research on this issue.
...
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.

It seems from the bare facts of the case that the doctors concerned waited too long to save the life of the mother despite their own professional guidelines which would permit intervention to save her life.

This ^^^

There is nothing that would actually prevent a doctor acting under the provisions for termination as given in the constitution
Only his own decision. His decision to refuse to provide the necessary care and medical intervention to save this woman's life

By refusing the women the necessary intervention and not stepping away from this case (where he had personal belief issues) he has effectively placed himself on even dodgier legal ground than ignoring to act either ethically or give regard to the constitution with this matter

I hope the family at least given final justice in this matter

HeyThereDeliah

Sharrow wrote: »

She was Hindu, she should have been celebrating Diwali with her husband.
Hopefully she will be treated better in her next life.

Does The Hindu religion not oppose abortion?

Zulu

eviltwin wrote: »

Not sure where you link abortion with taking organs from homeless people

Really? You can't make out the point I was making re: societies morality dictating what you can & can't do?

I have no problem with people's moral beliefs,

Well you do - when they don't agree with yours (by the looks of things).

if you don't want an abortion don't have one simple as.

It's not that simple, clearly. You are being very disingenuous.

But don't undermine the intelligence of people to make decisions for themselves based on what's best for them. Give them some credit.

Why should someone allow something to happen if they believe it to be wrong? I believe its wrong for people to mislead others into giving them cash - hence we have laws that protect people against con-men.
However, to apply your logic: "if you don't like con-jobs, don't con people" is far too simplistic.

wes

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

Does The Hindu religion not oppose abortion?

The Hindu Religion is very diverse, and there isn't any really central set of rules. Stuff can differ from village to village in some extreme cases. BTW, abortion is legal in India, so I doubt the vast majority of Hindu's have an issue with abortion on that basis.

Skrynesaver

Just read through the thread, so please forgive me if I come across as a little agitated. The fact that a woman was effectively tortured to death over a week in order to uphold the ethical framework of a faith she didn't share is abhorrent and no amount of jesuitical hair splitting can change that fact.

The failure to legislate for the X case is at the heart of the issue and I will be attending the protest demanding introduction of this legislation this evening, as Sharrow points out above the "Expert Group"'s report seems to have been found, perhaps our politicians were afraid of its findings and hoped to hide behind the group for the remainder of their term, or perhaps the printer finally got around to delivering the report late last night as stated, regardless this legislation is now a live issue and hopefully our political class will see its way clear to legislate for the safety of women.

I'm off for a quick walk so that I don't bite the head off clients.

Zulu

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

Does The Hindu religion not oppose abortion?

Does it really matter?

Morag

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

Does The Hindu religion not oppose abortion?

It is seen as a personal moral choice and should be done to cause least harm.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/hinduethics/abortion_1.shtml

Reincarnation
Abortion and reincarnation

The doctrine of reincarnation, which sees life as a repeating cycle of birth, death and rebirth, is basic to Hindu thinking.

The doctrine of reincarnation can be used to make a strong case against abortion:

If a foetus is aborted, the soul within it suffers a major karmic setback. It is deprived of the opportunities its potential human existence would have given it to earn good karma, and is returned immediately to the cycle of birth, death and rebirth. Thus abortion hinders a soul's spiritual progress.

Reincarnation can also be used to make a case that abortion should be permitted. Under the doctrine of reincarnation, abortion only deprives the soul of one of many births that it will have.

The consequences of abortion in the framework of reincarnation are therefore not as bad as they are in those religions where a soul gets only one chance to be born and where abortion deprives the soul of all possibility of life.

28064212

gozunda wrote: »

This ^^^

There is nothing that would actually prevent a doctor acting under the provisions for termination as given in the constitution

Except for the law:

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

LizT

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

Does The Hindu religion not oppose abortion?

What does it matter? She asked for the foetus to be removed.

Solair

Unfortunately, this country is still under the thumb of religious extremists when it comes to making any decisions about certain issues like this which they get upset about.

It is scary to think that in the relatively recent past you couldn't even buy condoms in the Republic of Ireland and then only with a prescription for a while after that.

While we have moved on massively , every once in a while something like this crops up to remind us of what a screwed up place this country can be at times.

We need to have a rational debate and implement the kind of legislation the people want.

Right now we have legislation that a very small minority want that is reflective of majority views decades ago.

Legislation for the x case ruling needs to be put in place as a matter of extreme urgency.
Perhaps it's also time we have another referendum on this issue and maybe a much more radical set of options than we've ever had before?

It's also time serious pressure is brought to bear on politicians on this. If you don't agree with the current situation, pick up your phone and ring your local TDs and ask what exactly they propose to do about it.

If you don't like their answer let them know that you'll be voting for someone else.


They need to know that there are seats to be won or lost on this or they will sit on their hands as usual.

MagicSean

NamelessPhil wrote: »

The Medical Council of Ireland provides professional guidelines to all medical practitioners in the State. I've taken the following extracts from the "Guide to Professional Conduct and Ethics for Registered Medical Practitioners".

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 assess- ment of any such risk in light of the clinical research on this issue.
...
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.

It seems from the bare facts of the case that the doctors concerned waited too long to save the life of the mother despite their own professional guidelines which would permit intervention to save her life.

You consider a three line guideline from the medical council to be sufficient to trump the law? I'll say it simply. There is no legislation or legal precedent to allow this doctor to perform an abortion without fear of prosecution. That is the plain fact of the matter.

eviltwin wrote: »

The country is not Catholic Sean, its a person that has a religion, not a country and that is fluid. You only have to look at the Census to see that. The majority might be Catholic ( in name at least ) but there are many people who are other faiths and none. Why do we persist on making laws that impact on everyone simply because of the religious views of some? And lets face it, being Catholic doesn't mean anything, plenty of Catholics voted in favour of divorce and would be happy to see marriage equality, why should this issue be any different?

I have no issue with people being pro-life for whatever reason but I'm pro-choice. I would encourage a woman to have an abortion she didn't agree with or want - I would be a monster if I did that - so why do they feel its okay to force me to continue with a pregnancy in the same circumstances?

Leftist wrote: »

that is disgusting.

you mean to say the catholics can be allowed to impose their religious laws on the rest of us?

that is a theocracy, not a democracy. A disgrace. And if the constitution really does say that, then it should be destroyed.

I've long argued that references to religion should not be in the constitution. But as it stands this country was founded on christian beliefs which were enshrined in the constitution and many laws passed since them have been influenced by the catholic ethos of the country. I don't see why people are in denial about this. It may not be nice but it's the truth. in the last census 84% of people identified themselves as Catholic. The catholic church basically own our schools and hospitals. Now if you were looking at this country as an outsider would you consider it a Catholic country? Of course you would.

steddyeddy

Isnt there provision in the constitution that the doctor can remove the foetus in order to spare the life of the mother?

CroatoanCat

Seaneh wrote: »

I didn't say that either, I am saying that the Hospital didn't just let a woman die, and everyone on here saying they did is just spreading nonsense, without knowing the actual details of the case, nobody can make any judgements on what happened.

There are a million and one reasons why this could have went wrong and without knowing which reason that is you cannot assign blame to anyone.


This is how witch hunts start and peoples reputations and lives are ruins because of baying mobs on uninformed idiots.

Of course the hospital did not shrug its shoulders and decide to let this woman die. Nobody is making that nonsensical argument. The reason people are so angered is very clear and is simply this. No, the doctors concerned did not decide to let the woman die. What they did was to avoid performing a procedure which could potentially have saved her life, and they did so because of the confusion arising out of the failure of successive Governments to legislate for the X case. Doctors in this country are operating in a lacuna legally in all such cases. The anti-choice pressure groups constantly tell us that no woman whose life is at risk will be denied all necessary life-savings interventions, including abortion. Here is the dreadful, tragic proof that this is not the case. We do not have all the facts in this case, but it seems the woman in question was in definite but perhaps not imminent danger. The doctor or doctors seem to have decided the risk to her life was not sufficient or immediate enough to perform an abortion - probably a reasonable decision in a country where there is no legislative provision and no clear mandate for the performance of such. In countries where abortion is available, one assumes it would have been performed immediately upon the woman's request. And she might well have lived. What it boils down to is that this woman was not given the best possible chance at recovery because of the ambiguous position in this country in regard to the provision of abortion even where there is a potential threat to the health or indeed life of the mother.

To be honest, I am overcome with anger and sadness for this woman's family. There is no point in venting our anger at the Catholic Church; we must instead do what we can to pressurise the Government into legislating for X once and for all. To any woman reading this thread - this could potentially be you. To any man reading this - this could potentially be your partner, mother, sister, daughter or friend. I wait with bated breath to see what possible spin the anti-choice sector put on this, particularly the lunatic fringe in Youth Defence. I'm sure the likes of Breda O'Brien and John Waters are already scrambling around frantically, composing some eloquently penned, manipulative drivel which completely misses the point that, contrary to all their protestations, women's lives are and will continue to be at risk in this country because of the legal ambiguity regarding the provision of "legitimate" abortion. Sickening.

LizT

steddyeddy wrote: »

Isnt there provision in the constitution that the doctor can remove the foetus in order to spare the life of the mother?

No it was never written into the constitution

the_syco

"It's a Catholic country"

The doctor who said this should be suspended/let go. Saying he cuoldn't do it because of the law is one thing, but bringing fairy toothfairy into the equation and you enter religious nutjob territory.

irishfeen wrote: »

Surely a doctor's conscience especially when he/she knows it is the right thing to do would take preference rather than the lack of legislation. A doctor is entrusted to do the right thing by the patient... END OF

I seems his conscience told him not to do it!

HalloweenJack

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

Does The Hindu religion not oppose abortion?

This is what I found:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/hinduethics/abortion_1.shtml

Although it's not accepted by their religion, it is done in Indian society and despite Hinduism being the overwhelming majority religion, abortion is legal in the country. This is what we should learn from. Not forcing the religious views of the majority on the entirety.

eviltwin

Zulu wrote: »

Really? You can't make out the point I was making re: societies morality dictating what you can & can't do?

Well you do - when they don't agree with yours (by the looks of things).

It's not that simple, clearly. You are being very disingenuous.

Why should someone allow something to happen if they believe it to be wrong? I believe its wrong for people to mislead others into giving them cash - hence we have laws that protect people against con-men.
However, to apply your logic: "if you don't like con-jobs, don't con people" is far too simplistic.

I can see the point you were trying to make but frankly it is so ridiculous to compare the two I'm not going to go there.

I think it would be interesting to see what the electorate really think on abortion. You might assume they would be pro-life but bear in mind society has moved on a lot since the last referendum. As others have pointed out a lot of the current electorate were not actually eligable to vote then so I'd be interested to see if we're still anti-abortion.

Regardless of that what we did vote on was to allow abortion in the case of the life of the mother being at risk. And sadly here was a case where a clear law could have been of benefit. We don't know for sure that it would have saved her life but it might have given her a chance.

Maggie 2

Having gone through a similar miscarriage 20 years ago, I can identify with both sides. I presented in the same circumstances, with a heartbeat. I went through physical and mental agony wanting my baby to live. 2 days later, there was no longer a heartbeat and I had a D & C done. In my case, I kept hold of the sight of that heartbeat on the monitor and thought that where there's life there's hope. I would not blame the doctors.
May she Rest in Peace.

gozunda

28064212 wrote: »

Except for the law:

With the exception where there is a case of risk of life to the mother as outlined by the Supreme Court

Women have a defacto right for medical intervention where their life is at risk

If doctors choose to deny a person this right - they are liable where the life of the women is lost

They may of course choose to do so because of religious belief or lack of professional ethics or a lack of basic human compassion - either way he now faces the very real threat of having a serious case of negligence and / or manslaughter taken against him

Dodge

Just on the doctor/legal angle.

If the doctor performed what he deemed a neccesary termination, and the family are happy that he has done so, is there a hospital review board (or similar) that would start proceedings that could lead (eventually) to a criminal conviction?

I realise this is slightly tangental

LizT

Maggie 2 wrote: »

Having gone through a similar miscarriage 20 years ago, I can identify with both sides. I presented in the same circumstances, with a heartbeat. I went through physical and mental agony wanting my baby to live. 2 days later, there was no longer a heartbeat and I had a D & C done. In my case, I kept hold of the sight of that heartbeat on the monitor and thought that where there's life there's hope. I would not blame the doctors.
May she Rest in Peace.

I'm very sorry for your loss but the circumstances are very different. She asked for a termination for 3 days before the foetal heartbeat stopped.

MagicSean

gozunda wrote: »

This ^^^

There is nothing that would actually prevent a doctor acting under the provisions for termination as given in the constitution
Only his own decision. His decision to refuse to provide the necessary care and medical intervention to save this woman's life

By refusing the women the necessary intervention and not stepping away from this case (where he had personal belief issues) he has effectively placed himself on even dodgier legal ground than ignoring to act either ethically or give regard to the constitution with this matter

I hope the family at least given final justice in this matter

gozunda wrote: »

With the exception where there is a case of risk of life to the mother as outlined by the Supreme Court

Women have a defacto right for medical intervention where their life is at risk

I'd doctors choose to deny a person this right - they are liable where the life of the women is lost

They may of course choose to do so because of religious belief or lack of professional ethics or a lack of basic human compassion - either way he now faces the very real threat of having a serious case of negligence and / or manslaughter taken against him

I direct you to this very useful comment by barbiegirl. I would also advise you to learn the difference between guidelines, the law and the constitution.

barbiegirl wrote: »

Having had 3 miscarriages I am in a position to comment on the guidelines handed down to doctors in relation to when they can operate to remove a fetus. As a result of court cases and stories 3 years ago where women who went for 2nd opinions having been told they had miscarried in early pregnancy and a fetal heartbeat was later found, doctors are not allowed, by the medical council, to carry out a D&C until no fetal heartbeat has been found over the course of a week.
Because this pregnancy was further advanced than these cases, and there were other factors such as leaking amniotic fluid etc. they could carry out the procedure as soon as they determined there was no heartbeat. These are the guidelines that their bosses have given them and that they HAVE to live by.
I am certain that the doctors wanted to operate, but couldn't. I would also point out that it is very rare for a mis-carriage to result in septicaemia.
Should the legislation have been in place so that these doctors could do what they needed to do? Absolutely. This a complete failure of successive governments to implement something we as a nation voted on nearly a generation ago. Is a disgrace that this woman died? Absolutely and my heart goes out to her husband and family. Were the doctors themselves to blame? In this case no, their hands were completely tied. :mad:

I think this post explains clearly why the doctor could not perform the termination

Dodge

steddyeddy wrote: »

Isnt there provision in the constitution that the doctor can remove the foetus in order to spare the life of the mother?

http://www.constitution.org/cons/ireland/constitution_ireland-en.htm

Article 40.3

3° 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.

This subsection shall not limit freedom to travel between the State and another state.

This subsection shall not limit freedom to obtain or make available, in the State, subject to such conditions as may be laid down by law, information relating to services lawfully available in another state.

MistyCheese

This poor woman was miscarrying for 3 days. How could any healthcare professional ignore their hippocratic oath and allow that to happen? People in Saw movies suffer less.

As for the fetus, I can't of course say that a baby could definately not survive if born at 17 weeks but the absolute earliest a premature baby has survived is 21 weeks. At 17 weeks the fetus generally weighs about 3.5 oz and is the size of an onion, it's not always possible to tell the gender yet.

As for the idea that the woman may still have died even if the doctors had tried to save her before the weekend, this is certainly something that no non-psychic can argue. However it's also possible that the woman could have been saved and then a crazed gunman could've burst into the room and shot her.

Akrasia

OldNotWIse wrote: »

One simple question for you: why are you bringing religion into this?

Ok its actually two questions: do you think that all people who are pro life are religious?

The only justification for giving an embryo or zygote or foetus an equal right to life as a pregnant woman is if you believe that the embryo has a soul and killing it is murder.

While everyone ought to find the idea of abortion unsettling on an emotional level. Unless we are psychopaths, we can relate to the plight of the embryo given that we were once embryos and we are fortunate to have been allowed to be born.


That said, there is no comparison between a conscious sentient woman with emotions, fears, relationships, a personality, human rights etc, and an undeveloped foetus who has only the potential of these things. Potential is not actualised yet. It is not equivilent to actual.


Arguments in favour of giving human rights to embryos and foetuses are all fundamentally based on religious dogma, that human life is sacred and we have no right to decide who lives or dies (only god has that right)

That same argument is present in the debate about Euthanasia.

The grown up position, the 21st century position, is that life is complex. Not everything can be broken down into 'right or wrong', 'good or evil'

Clearly here we have an instance where the right thing to do, was to terminate the pregnancy to save the life of the mother. Even if the mother had not been in mortal danger, the moral thing to do was to honour the wishes of the mother and to terminate the pregnancy once a miscarriage had been diagnosed in order to avoid unnecessary suffering of both the mother, and the unborn child (at whatever level it could experience distress given it's stage of development)

Only because of the religious influence in our society was this option not seen as available to the staff at the maternity hospital who would have faced the very real threat of criminal charges if they had ended the pregnancy.

HeyThereDeliah

Zulu wrote: »

Does it really matter?

LizT wrote: »

What does it matter? She asked for the foetus to be removed.

Obviously matters to ye considering ye replied.

It's not just catholic Ireland who opposes abortion it seems.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism_and_abortion

28064212

gozunda wrote: »

With the exception where there is a case of risk of life to the mother as outlined by the Supreme Court

Which is only in the Constitution, and has never been legislated for.

The law is unconstitutional, no-one is denying that (other than perhaps the governments of the last twenty years). But as it stands, if a doctor violates the law, they can be arrested for it, found guilty, and have to appeal on the basis of the law's unconstitutionality. This is a process which would take many years, cost an awful lot of money, involve at least some time in prison, and effectively end their career.

blacklilly

HalloweenJack wrote: »

This is what I found:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/hinduethics/abortion_1.shtml

Although it's not accepted by their religion, it is done in Indian society and despite Hinduism being the overwhelming majority religion, abortion is legal in the country. This is what we should learn from. Not forcing the religious views of the majority on the entirety.

I don't think we should even attempt to use India as an example. Countless females are aborted there every year, they advertise gender selection abortion. Girls are not worth as much as boys, its actually an horrific example to use, even if you are pro choice.

MakeEmLaugh

As terrible as today's news is, let's not get lost in a sea of hyperbole. The Catholic Church didn't personally intervene to deny Savita Halappanavar a termination; one consultant did. That consultant may well be struck off now, too.

I have no religious beliefs, but holding an entire Church responsible for the behaviour of one medical professional is just scapegoating.

fishy fishy

religion should NOT be brought into a medical situation by a doctor, nurse or anybody else caring for people. It sounds like something from the 1950's where people had to genuflect in front of a priest or a nun. the church has its poison tentacles everywhere

LizT

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

Obviously matters to ye considering ye replied.

It's not just catholic Ireland who opposes abortion it seems.

I replied because I don't see the relevance of what her religion advises. There are plenty of women who identify themselves as catholic who would ask for an abortion in the same circumstances.

Dodge

blacklilly wrote: »

I don't think we should even attempt to use India as an example. Countless females are aborted there every year, they advertise gender selection abortion. Girls are not worth as much as boys, its actually an horrific example to use, even if you are pro choice.

In fairness he/she was using that example as the lady who died is Indian.

Vicxas

fishy fishy wrote: »

religion should NOT be brought into a medical situation by a doctor, nurse or anybody else caring for people. It sounds like something from the 1950's where people had to genuflect in front of a priest or a nun. the church has its poison tentacles everywhere

I wouldnt blame the church for it. As they didnt intervene directly. I blame an outdated, barely modern applicable constitution that was moulded to appease the Catholic church nearly 100 years ago.

miss no stars

Email your TDs folks. Keep it calm and cool but make sure it's all there. Key points to include:

• March 1992: The X Case ruling was was made at the start of the 22nd government of Ireland. We're now on the 29th government of Ireland but no legislation.

• 2010: European Court of Human rights rules that Ireland's failure to implement legislation to allow medically necessary abortions had violated a woman's human rights (ABC case)

• 28 October 2012: Savita Halappanavar dies as a result of a drawn out miscarriage in which she was repeatedly refused an abortion, despite the foetus not being viable, as the foetus still had a faint heartbeat.

• 13 November 2012: Ireland wins seat on the UN Human Rights Council.
• This issue does not relate to elective abortion. It relates only to the right of the mother to LIVE.
• This is not an issue that investigations into what happened in the hospital can resolve. The issue under consideration is that successive governments have failed to introduce the legislation required to make the right of the woman to a termination if her life is at risk legal and unambiguous. In failing to bring in such legislation, successive governments have repeatedly violated the human rights of women in Ireland (as upheld by the European Court of Human Rights)
• What are they (your TDs) going to do to ensure this issue is dealt with expediently?
• When will the bill to allow for medically necessary abortion be before the Dail? Tell them you are asking directly and don't want an answer that side-steps the question.
• You await their reply.

Dodge

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

As terrible as today's news is, let's not get lost in a sea of hyperbole. The Catholic Church didn't personally intervene to deny Savita Halappanavar a termination; one consultant did. That consultant may well be struck off now, too.

I have no religious beliefs, but holding an entire Church responsible for the behaviour of one medical professional is just scapegoating.

Actually its the law tht tied the doctors hands in this matter. The law, that despite the sustained calls for it, hasn't been drafted by politicians.

Its not too much of a stretch to see why they haven't

HalloweenJack

blacklilly wrote: »

I don't think we should even attempt to use India as an example. Countless females are aborted there every year, they advertise gender selection abortion. Girls are not worth as much as boys, its actually an horrific example to use, even if you are pro choice.

I'm not advocating Indian society, just their approach to the legal system.

Again, you have a region which split into two because of huge religious majorities concentrated in separate areas. Despite the emergence of a state with an overwhelming Hindu majority (80%, iirc), they don't set the law according to Hindu doctrine.

That is what I'm getting at. Here, we have a country with a slightly larger majority (83%, iirc) and we make our laws to suit the interests of the doctrine of that majority. On that basis, the Indian legal system is better.

PlainP

miss no stars wrote: »

Email your TDs folks. Keep it calm and cool but make sure it's all there. Key points to include:

• March 1992: The X Case ruling was was made at the start of the 22nd government of Ireland. We're now on the 29th government of Ireland but no legislation.

• 2010: European Court of Human rights rules that Ireland's failure to implement legislation to allow medically necessary abortions had violated a woman's human rights (ABC case)

• 28 October 2012: Savita Halappanavar dies as a result of a drawn out miscarriage in which she was repeatedly refused an abortion, despite the foetus not being viable, as the foetus still had a faint heartbeat.

• 13 November 2012: Ireland wins seat on the UN Human Rights Council.
• This issue does not relate to elective abortion. It relates only to the right of the mother to LIVE.
• This is not an issue that investigations into what happened in the hospital can resolve. The issue under consideration is that successive governments have failed to introduce the legislation required to make the right of the woman to a termination if her life is at risk legal and unambiguous. In failing to bring in such legislation, successive governments have repeatedly violated the human rights of women in Ireland (as upheld by the European Court of Human Rights)
• What are they (your TDs) going to do to ensure this issue is dealt with expediently?
• When will the bill to allow for medically necessary abortion be before the Dail? Tell them you are asking directly and don't want an answer that side-steps the question.
• You await their reply.

I used this to email the TD's in my constituency

http://www.nwci.ie/takeaction/

Vicxas

miss no stars wrote: »

Email your TDs folks. Keep it calm and cool but make sure it's all there. Key points to include:

• March 1992: The X Case ruling was was made at the start of the 22nd government of Ireland. We're now on the 29th government of Ireland but no legislation.

• 2010: European Court of Human rights rules that Ireland's failure to implement legislation to allow medically necessary abortions had violated a woman's human rights (ABC case)

• 28 October 2012: Savita Halappanavar dies as a result of a drawn out miscarriage in which she was repeatedly refused an abortion, despite the foetus not being viable, as the foetus still had a faint heartbeat.

• 13 November 2012: Ireland wins seat on the UN Human Rights Council.
• This issue does not relate to elective abortion. It relates only to the right of the mother to LIVE.
• This is not an issue that investigations into what happened in the hospital can resolve. The issue under consideration is that successive governments have failed to introduce the legislation required to make the right of the woman to a termination if her life is at risk legal and unambiguous. In failing to bring in such legislation, successive governments have repeatedly violated the human rights of women in Ireland (as upheld by the European Court of Human Rights)
• What are they (your TDs) going to do to ensure this issue is dealt with expediently?
• When will the bill to allow for medically necessary abortion be before the Dail? Tell them you are asking directly and don't want an answer that side-steps the question.
• You await their reply.

While this is a very good way to convey your anger, i dont think any TD will have big enough balls to take this one head on.

MakeEmLaugh

How many of you, honestly, ticked 'Roman Catholic' on last year's census form?

If 84% of a country identifies itself as Catholic - despite not attending mass or believing in transubstantiation - then don't be surprised if one medical consultant describes Ireland as "a Catholic country".

wes

HalloweenJack wrote: »

On that basis, the Indian legal system is better.

Except that in some cases, Indian law does enforce the opinion of the majority religious community:

Cowed down by the ban

Then, there are the statues of various Gods in government buildings etc. India has its own issues in regards, to separation of church and state. Abortion isn't one of those issues however.

Then, there is the Public Safety act, that in certain parts of Indian, give there army completely impunity to rape and murder civilians, which has nothing to do with Religion, but nonetheless, shows problems with there legal system, where they give there armed forces complete immunity, to all kinds of nasty stuff.

Either way the Indian legal system doesn't matter on this topic, just our own.

blacklilly

HalloweenJack wrote: »

I'm not advocating Indian society, just their approach to the legal system.

Again, you have a region which split into two because of huge religious majorities concentrated in separate areas. Despite the emergence of a state with an overwhelming Hindu majority (80%, iirc), they don't set the law according to Hindu doctrine.

That is what I'm getting at. Here, we have a country with a slightly larger majority (83%, iirc) and we make our laws to suit the interests of the doctrine of that majority. On that basis, the Indian legal system is better.

I understand where you're coming from but I just personally can't agree because I know there are many many unjust happenings in that country on a daily basis, human rights isn't something they put much emphasis on really, if you're rich you'll be fine, if you're poor you literally don't stand a chance.

irishfeen

Why do we always have to be seen as a backward country still ruled by the Catholic Church?

this is now making news in the UK, Finland, USA, Spain, Lithuania, Italy and Turkey.

And its still only early.....:mad:

miss no stars

Vicxas wrote: »

While this is a very good way to convey your anger, i dont think any TD will have big enough balls to take this one head on.

Probably not, but there's no harm in sending it to them. TDs are elected to represent YOU and YOUR views, not their own. They can't do that if they don't know your views. Please, people, email them.

It's a complete farce that less than 3 weeks after a woman dies because of Ireland's failure to legislate to uphold the human rights of women in Ireland we end up being elected to the UN Human Rights Council. That seat should be gone from us until we can uphold the most basic right of all - the right to life.

Edit, the link by PlainP is looks good (http://www.nwci.ie/takeaction/) and could save you a bit of time with typing one up yourself. Very easy, just select your constituency and pick which TDs you want to send it to. In goes your details and you can view the text and modify as you please.

HeyThereDeliah

LizT wrote: »

I replied because I don't see the relevance of what her religion advises. There are plenty of women who identify themselves as catholic who would ask for an abortion in the same circumstances.

If her religion is not relevant why is the catholic religion relevant? Posters are calling Ireland backward and giving out about the religion so I do see the relevance.

There might be just as many women who would not ask for an abortion in the same circumstances. It's not something we can say for sure.

Maggie 2

MistyCheese wrote: »

This poor woman was miscarrying for 3 days. How could any healthcare professional ignore their hippocratic oath and allow that to happen? People in Saw movies suffer less.

As for the fetus, I can't of course say that a baby could definately not survive if born at 17 weeks but the absolute earliest a premature baby has survived is 21 weeks. At 17 weeks the fetus generally weighs about 3.5 oz and is the size of an onion, it's not always possible to tell the gender yet.

As for the idea that the woman may still have died even if the doctors had tried to save her before the weekend, this is certainly something that no non-psychic can argue. However it's also possible that the woman could have been saved and then a crazed gunman could've burst into the room and shot her.

There was still a heartbeat. Nothing could be done because of this.

Dodge

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

There might be just as many women who would not ask for an abortion in the same circumstances. It's not something we can say for sure.

Isn't that the point though? Some would, some wouldn't. Having the option doens't mean its compulsory

If abortion is legal, that doesn't mean you agree with it. it just means you don't get to tell other people what they can/can't do

LizT

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

If her religion is not relevant why is the catholic religion relevant? Posters are calling Ireland backward and giving out about the religion so I do see the relevance.

There might be just as many women who would not ask for an abortion in the same circumstances. It's not something we can say for sure.

Because the reason given for not terminating the pregnancy was 'we are a catholic country' (allegedly). So she could have been Hindu, Muslim, atheist, a scientologist, a Jedi! And it wouldn't have mattered. Her religion has nothing to do with the situation. SHE requested a termination and was denied, her religious beliefs are irrelevant.

Ireland is a backwards country if we value a potential life above an actual life.

mike65

Feel free to register and comment

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/14/savita-halappanavar-medically-unnecessary-death

spank_inferno

Maggie 2 wrote: »

There was still a heartbeat. Nothing could be done because of this.

Irrelevent I'm afraid Maggie.

The unborn child had no chance of survival, the presense of a heart-beat or otherwise should have had no bearing on their decision.

As per the Supreme court, she could receive the termination in the event of her life being in danger.

It will take time to know if the attending doctors felt that would her life was threatened.