Pregnant woman dies in UCHG after being refused a termination

The Jammy dodger

LizT wrote: »

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.

Ireland is a backward country when don't value a human life with potential or the life of the Mother.

I don't see how me having the right to kill somebody is something I can do just because its part of my religious belief. Nobody has the right to kill anybody regardless of belief.

Being pro-life isn't just a religious matter ya know. Many non-religious are pro-Irish law on the ban of abortion. So what the doctor said about it being a Catholic country gives us no reason to bash the Catholic Church because of it. Because the fact that human life begins at conception is a scientific fact, all the pro-abortionist is left with is ''oh its my choice''.

Solair

irishfeen wrote: »

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:

Because on this particular issue (and a few others) we are a backwards country still ruled by the Catholic Church (via very socially right wing conservatives swaying decision making and political debate).

There's no point denying the facts. We're not just seen as a backwards country on this we absolutely are!

It just serves to reinforce unfair stereotypes that we are backwards about everything else though

However, if you have stupid laws expect to be seen as such abroad.

Dodge

The Jammy dodger wrote: »

Being pro-life isn't just a religious matter ya know. Many non-religious are pro-Irish law on the ban of abortion. So what the doctor said about it being a Catholic country gives us no reason to bash the Catholic Church because of it. Because the fact that human life begins at conception is a scientific fact, all the pro-abortionist is left with is ''oh its my choice''.

There's nothing pro-life about allowing a woman to die

krudler

LizT wrote: »

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.

a potential life that was already known wouldnt be viable at that.

HeyThereDeliah

LizT wrote: »

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.

Fact of the matter is there is no abortion in Ireland, until we change that there is nothing the hospital could do.
She cannot request a termination when it was not possible to be carried out.

Ireland is not backward IMO.

Leftist

Solair wrote: »

Because on this particular issue (and a few others) we are a backwards country still ruled by the Catholic Church (via very socially right wing conservatives swaying decision making and political debate).

There's no point denying the facts. We're not just seen as a backwards country on this we absolutely are!

It just serves to reinforce unfair stereotypes that we are backwards about everything else though

However, if you have stupid laws expect to be seen as such abroad.

yep. We're still in the cold, clammy grip of the religious.

It's sickening.

LizT

The Jammy dodger wrote: »

Ireland is a backward country when don't value a human life with potential or the life of the Mother.

I don't see how me having the right to kill somebody is something I can do just because its part of my religious belief. Nobody has the right to kill anybody regardless of belief.

Being pro-life isn't just a religious matter ya know. Many non-religious are pro-Irish law on the ban of abortion. So what the doctor said about it being a Catholic country gives us no reason to bash the Catholic Church because of it. Because the fact that human life begins at conception is a scientific fact, all the pro-abortionist is left with is ''oh its my choice''.

All the pro choice people are left with is 'I don't have the right to tell any woman what she can do to her body' IMO.

Life may begin at contraception, independent life (I.e the foetus surviving outside the mother's body) does not. That's a whole other debate though.

The subject here is not should abortion be available on demand, it's should abortion be available to a woman whose life is at risk if she continues her pregnancy.

LizT

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

Fact of the matter is there is no abortion in Ireland, until we change that there is nothing the hospital could do.
She cannot request a termination when it was not possible to be carried out.

Ireland is not backward IMO.

So a woman dies, it was possibly preventable and the country is not backward?
She can't request a termination to save her own life and the country is not backward?
The hospital couldn't do anything to save her life because of legislation and the country is not backward?


I can guarantee that's not the way it's being reported outside of Ireland.

MagicSean

Akrasia wrote: »

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.

i would consider myself pretty free of religious influence yet i still consider a human life to begin before birth. My views on abortion are not related to religion at all.

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.

No, holding one medical professional responsable for the consequences of the catholic churches influence on our laws is scapegoating.

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

Would you cop on to yourself. He wasn't forcing his beliefs on her, he was telling her why abortion wasn't available in this country.

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

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".

irishfeen wrote: »

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:

Because we allow churches run our schools and hospitals, because our constitution is infused with christian dogma, because our laws are based on a catholic ethos and becuase 84% of the country are idiots and marked their religion as Catholic in the last census.

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.

The Catholic religion is relevent because it's influence on this country is the reason this woman could not obtain the treatment she required.

hooradiation

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

Ireland is not backward IMO.

The clusterfuck that prompted this thread would suggest you need to review your opinions, thoroughly.

jimmycrackcorm

Solair wrote: »

Because on this particular issue (and a few others) we are a backwards country still ruled by the Catholic Church (via very socially right wing conservatives swaying decision making and political debate).

There's no point denying the facts. We're not just seen as a backwards country on this we absolutely are!

It just serves to reinforce unfair stereotypes that we are backwards about everything else though

However, if you have stupid laws expect to be seen as such abroad.

How is the Catholic Church ruling this country? The census statistics of Catholics don't tally with mass attendance for example.

curlzy

THis case has made me so sad and so angry. What f*cking waste. She was only 31. She would have had more rights in India and that's saying something about us : ( I'm going to the protest outside the Dail tonight at 6pm tonight and the one on Saturday at the Garden of Rememberance at 4pm. Those of you who actually give a f*ck about the women of this country please please please get off your arse and join us.

Akrasia

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.

That is a total red herring
This woman asked for the termination, repeatedly by the accounts we have heard. She was denied life saving medical treatment on the basis that Catholic Ireland will not permit abortions under any circumstances

Penny Dreadful

LizT wrote: »

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.

The State currently sees a foetus as an actual life though not a potential life.
The entire episode is sad and tragic beyond anything I've heard for such a long time. I feel so sorry for this woman's husband, he lost his wife and his baby in the worst circumstances.
I also feel for the medical staff of the hospital too. They had nowhere to go with this dreadful situation. The law of the land did not support them doing what each and every person sees as the right thing i.e. following the wishes of the woman who was their patient.
The current and all previous governments should hang their heads in shame for it is they that have allowed situations such as this to come about.

spank_inferno

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

Fact of the matter is there is no abortion in Ireland, until we change that there is nothing the hospital could do.
She cannot request a termination when it was not possible to be carried out.
.

Incorrect.

If the doctors deemed the live of the mother to be at risk they could have carried out the termination.

There is no law in Ireland prohibiting such an act

I guess it's down to what the medics felt the risk to the patient was.

gozunda

LizT wrote: »

No it was never written into the constitution

You are incorrect in your assumption

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.


The Medical Council advises doctors to undertake a full assessment of any
risk “in light of the clinical research on this issue”.

According to its guidelines: “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.”

LINK


I believe you may be mixinig up enactment under legislation with the constitution

According to the Medical Council the onus is on medical professionals to provide a termination where there is a real risk to the life of the mother and there is little or no hope of survival of the fetus

Where a medical professional refuses to provide such intervention based on his or her religous beliefs they have an ethical duty to step away so that patient can be afforded the best chance of survival ie they cannot enforce their own beliefs against the life of the patient

This is where the doctor concerned may I believe face very serious consequences with regard to his inaction and the death of the patient

ibarelycare

I know that this has been posted already, but just for those who missed it:

PROTEST at Savita's death - Legislate for X case now
https://www.facebook.com/events/306835169430369/

Happening tonight at 6pm at Dail Eireann (Kildare Street)

Please share on Facebook.

spank_inferno

gozunda wrote: »

You are incorrect in your assumption



LINK


I believe you may be mixinig up enactment under legislation with the constitution

According to the Medical Council the onus is on medical professionals to provide a termination where there is a real risk to the life of the mother and there is little or no hope of survival of the fetus

Where a medical professional refuses to provide such intervention based on his or her religous beliefs they have an ethical duty to step away so that patient can be afforded the best chance of survival ie they cannot enforce their own beliefs against the life of the patient

This is where the doctor concerned may I believe face very serious consequences with regard to his inaction and the death of the patient

Excellent post Gozunda.

I hope all of the "there was nothing they could do"... "there is no abortion available" crowd take heed

Dirk Gently

Zulu wrote: »

Look, I know it's far fetched, but really, we all do want to be a part of a society that upholds the moral belief of it's majority. Don't lose sight if that.

That's the essence of a democracy.

I wouldn't go that far tbh. That's mob rule more so than a democratic republic. I want to live in a country where everyones human rights are respected regardless of the moral beliefs of the majority. What you describe could well be a theocracy where the majority morally believe gay people should be stoned to death. I don't think religious belief should come anywhere near state law regardless of the percentage of the population calling for their moral will to be imposed on others. Thats just tyranny of the majority.

Dodge

As an aside; a collection of pro/anti choice leaflets

http://irishelectionliterature.wordpress.com/category/abortion/

ash23

LizT wrote: »

AThe subject here is not should abortion be available on demand, it's should abortion be available to a woman whose life is at risk if she continues her pregnancy.

Actually I disagree. I think the issue should be, if a foetus is incompatible with life, should the mother be allowed to choose a termination.

That poor woman spent the last days of her life in pain, knowing she was miscarrying her baby and being refused any help to hasten the process.

Similarly the 3 women who went to court last year who had to go abroad for terminations because their pregnancies were not viable.

No woman should die because of a pregnancy. But neither should any woman be left to suffer when there is no hope for the foetus and they do not wish to proceed with the pregnancy.

If we're going to campaign for something, we might as well make it worthwhile and not ambiguous.

ibarelycare

Dodge wrote: »

As an aside; a collection of pro/anti choice leaflets

http://irishelectionliterature.wordpress.com/category/abortion/

From the same crowd who made this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVGvUF217us

Zulu

Zulu wrote: »

Look, I know it's far fetched, but really, we all do want to be a part of a society that upholds the moral belief of it's majority. Don't lose sight if that.

That's the essence of a democracy.

The majority have voted 4 times for what they want and been ignored, so I'm glad to hear you're on our side.

krudler

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

Fact of the matter is there is no abortion in Ireland, until we change that there is nothing the hospital could do.
She cannot request a termination when it was not possible to be carried out.

Ireland is not backward IMO.

Our blasphemy law would suggest otherwise.

ash23

There is also a candlelit vigil in Eyre Square on Saturday at 5pm (28th of Oct).

tolosenc

spank_inferno wrote: »

Incorrect.

If the doctors deemed the live of the mother to be at risk they could have carried out the termination.

There is no law in Ireland prohibiting such an act

I guess it's down to what the medics felt the risk to the patient was.

The Abortion Act of 1861 (IIRC).

The Supreme Court made a judgement on the X case, and the legislation has not been amended to reflect that. It is still illegal, just not unconstitutional, to perform an abortion in these circumstances.

gozunda

MagicSean wrote: »

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.

A personal comment - yes. Useful to the life of the women in question - no. Maybe you should actually look up the constitution instead of pontificating on belief systems

MagicSean wrote: »

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

No it does not explain anything - women have aright to medical intervention under the constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court where there is a real risk to their life

As stated one persons personal belief system has no impact on this issue. Where a medical professional has a personal or religous issue with this then it is necessary that they step away from the issue and not endanger the life of the mother. Not to do so constitutes negligence at best.

goodie2shoes

Very tragic events.

Sadly mothers die during child birth all the time.
Thankfully due to modern medicine and the excellent care they receive in our hospitals, such tragedies occur very rarely.

28064212

spank_inferno wrote: »

Excellent post Gozunda.

I hope all of the "there was nothing they could do"... "there is no abortion available" crowd take heed

Again, the current applicable law is the Offences Against the State Act 1861 which states:

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

This law has never been repealed, and has never been superceded. It is an active law. It is unconstitutional, but it is still an active law. A Garda who arrests a doctor under this law is acting lawfully, a public prosecutor who decides to take a case based on this law is acting correctly, and a judge who finds the doctor guilty has reached the correct verdict. The only way to overturn such a verdict is to appeal the case to the High or Supreme Court, who would strike down the law as unconstitutional.

tolosenc

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

How is the Catholic Church ruling this country? The census statistics of Catholics don't tally with mass attendance for example.

The two largest parties in the state, like it or not, are Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, both of whom depend strongly on the rural, conservative Catholic vote. As such, when in power, they are very careful not to offend this demographic.

Pawwed Rig

I hope the Indian government has strong words with the Irish about this

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/nri/other-news/Denied-abortion-Indian-woman-dies-in-Ireland-probe-ordered/articleshow/17217360.cms

irishfeen

tolosenc wrote: »

The two largest parties in the state, like it or not, are Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, both of whom depend strongly on the rural, conservative Catholic vote. As such, when in power, they are very careful not to offend this demographic.

I would class my parents as one with a conservative Catholic vote but they are truly shocked by this case and want change in the legislation, hopefully the fallout from this tragedy will finally force the governments hands.

Penny Dreadful

goodie2shoes wrote: »

Very tragic events.

Sadly mothers die during child birth all the time.
Thankfully due to modern medicine and the excellent care they receive in our hospitals, such tragedies occur very rarely.

She didn't die during childbirth:(

ebbsy

Good ould Ireland. Paying billions to those bastards in Anglo, we c'ant pay a few thousand to students for grants, we waste money on a children's referendum but cannot protect the women who carry the children.

Good ould Ireland, maybe we are better off to be controlled by other countries.

gozunda

28064212 wrote: »

Again, the current applicable law is the Offences Against the State Act 1861 which states:

This law has never been repealed, and has never been superceded. It is an active law. It is unconstitutional, but it is still an active law. A Garda who arrests a doctor under this law is acting lawfully, a public prosecutor who decides to take a case based on this law is acting correctly, and a judge who finds the doctor guilty has reached the correct verdict. The only way to overturn such a verdict is to appeal the case to the High or Supreme Court, who would strike down the law as unconstitutional.

hhhhmm 1861 - real recent bit of legislation there...

I would suggest you take a full read thru the constitution and current law

There are many aspects of the constitution that awould appear to be contradictory however in this case the Constitution clearly states that there is a right to termination where the mothers life is deemed to be at risk

Where there is a real risk to the mothers life that piece of legislation becomes immaterial otherwise the Supreme Court (Highest Court in the land) would not have been able to make such a rulling on the Constitution, (as interpreted by the Supreme Court in 1992) that 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.

Pro lifers will use any stick they can find to beat a woman to death with.....

goodie2shoes

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I hope the Indian government has strong words with the Irish about this

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/nri/other-news/Denied-abortion-Indian-woman-dies-in-Ireland-probe-ordered/articleshow/17217360.cms

maybe they should throw an eye over this article also.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/apr/12/maternal-mortality-rates-millennium-development-goals

MagicSean

gozunda wrote: »

A personal comment - yes. Useful to the life of the women in question - no. Maybe you should actually look up the constitution instead of pontificating on belief systems



No it does not explain anything - women have aright to medical intervention under the constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court where there is a real risk to their life

As stated one persons personal belief system has no impact on this issue. Where a medical professional has a personal or religous issue with this then it is necessary that they step away from the issue and not endanger the life of the mother. Not to do so constitutes negligence at best.

It is still illegal to perform an abortion under Irish law. The supreme court ruled the law should be changed but they did not change it or strike out the law and no government since then has changed it either. What part of this do you not understand?

Dodge

ebbsy wrote: »

Good ould Ireland. Paying billions to those bastards in Anglo

Surprised it took this long :rolleyes:

spank_inferno

tolosenc wrote: »

The Abortion Act of 1861 (IIRC).

The Supreme Court made a judgement on the X case, and the legislation has not been amended to reflect that. It is still illegal, just not unconstitutional, to perform an abortion in these circumstances.

My apologies.
I assumed that once a law was deemed unconstitutional it was 'null & void' so to speak.

I thought the Doctors would have the protection of that judgement behind them.

Sucessive governments really should hang their heads in shame on this one.

old hippy

This case won't go away. I feel Ireland has reached a turning point with this tragedy.

goodie2shoes

Penny Dreadful wrote: »

She didn't die during childbirth:(

i stand corrected. it was blood poisoning i believe.

goodie2shoes

old hippy wrote: »

This case won't go away. I feel Ireland has reached a turning point with this tragedy.

why?

Anita Blow

gozunda wrote: »

There are many aspects of the constitution that awould appear to be contradictory however in this case the Constitution clearly states that there is a right to termination where the mothers life is deemed to be at risk

Where there is a real risk to the mothers life that piece of legislation becomes immaterial otherwise the Supreme Court (Highest Court in the land) would not have been able to make such a rulling on the Constitution, (as interpreted by the Supreme Court in 1992) that 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.

Yes but that has never been legislated for. Current law states that abortion is illegal. Full stop. The 1992 Supreme Court ruling has not yet been translated into law because successive governments have been too afraid to legislate for it.
I'm fuming that this was allowed to happen. Someone was allowed to die as they asked for an abortion as the foetus had no chance of survival and yet they were denied because of stupid archaic laws.
What I will say though is that this is the government's fault, not the doctor's (However the "catholic country" remark is disgusting). It's all very well and good for the armchair heroes here to say "He should've given the abortion anyway and ignored the law" because they are not in the position he was in. He would've lost his licence to practice and would've been fired, possibly facing jail. That is not an easy decision to make for anyone.

Duggys Housemate

tolosenc wrote: »

The Abortion Act of 1861 (IIRC).

The Supreme Court made a judgement on the X case, and the legislation has not been amended to reflect that. It is still illegal, just not unconstitutional, to perform an abortion in these circumstances.

All of the ministers for Justice in the interim of the X case are therefore responsible. Also responsible are the doctors and managers who could have terminated - who was going to bring a case? Not the parents. Not the gardai.

( They are ethically responsible, probably not legally).

What I will say though is that this is the government's fault, not the doctor's (However the "catholic country" remark is disgusting). It's all very well and good for the armchair heroes here to say "He should've given the abortion anyway and ignored the law" because they are not in the position he was in. He would've lost his licence to practice and would've been fired, possibly facing jail. That is not an easy decision to make for anyone.

I dont agree. he could have appealed any decision to the supreme court if it needed to go that far - probably lower courts would have just shown any prosecution out. illegal under law and legal constitutionally is, basically, still legal. You may have to appeal to the supreme court if anybody bothers to take a case, if it isn't thrown out by the lower court - and who was going to except the management at the hospital. The doctor is also responsible, he was acting to this conscience. ( And I bet similar procedures have been carried out in Ireland in the last 20 years).

The supreme court needs to be able to hold ministers for justice in contempt. Legistlate this is a few months, or go to jail.

barbiegirl

gozunda wrote: »

A personal comment - yes. Useful to the life of the women in question - no. Maybe you should actually look up the constitution instead of pontificating on belief systems



No it does not explain anything - women have aright to medical intervention under the constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court where there is a real risk to their life

As stated one persons personal belief system has no impact on this issue. Where a medical professional has a personal or religous issue with this then it is necessary that they step away from the issue and not endanger the life of the mother. Not to do so constitutes negligence at best.

The Medical Council whose job it is to oversee the professional competence and ethics have handed down very strict guidelines in relation to how doctors can and cannot proceed. Doctors MUST adhere to these guidelines. This is NOT my personal opinion but rather exactly the reason why the doctors hands were tied.

The constitution may have provision for abortion in cases where the life of the mother is at risk, but the legislation has not been enacted, leaving doctors in a terrible position. They CANNOT act or they are open to having their license revoked. That is NOT what we voted for but as I said earlier as the result of the failures of successive governments it IS where we are.

28064212

gozunda wrote: »

hhhhmm 1861 - real recent bit of legislation there...

I would suggest you take a full read thru the constitution and current law

IT IS CURRENT

gozunda wrote: »

Where there is a real risk to the mothers life that piece of legislation becomes immaterial

Legislation does not magically become immaterial. It has to be repealed or succeeded by newer legislation.

gozunda wrote: »

otherwise the Supreme Court (Highest Court in the land) would not have been able to make such a rulling on the Constitution, (as interpreted by the Supreme Court in 1992) that 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.

That ruling meant that the law became unconstitutional. Which meant that the legislators needed to change it. They didn't, and they are the one's who have failed.

gozunda wrote: »

Pro lifers will use any stick they can find to beat a woman to death with.....

....What?

In the situation I outlined:

A Garda who arrests a doctor under this law is acting lawfully, a public prosecutor who decides to take a case based on this law is acting correctly, and a judge who finds the doctor guilty has reached the correct verdict

who has acted wrongly?

Roadtrippin

Very tragic case. My heart goes out to the poor woman and her family.

I was outraged when I read about this at first because I was under the impression that in life-threatening circumstances a termination was legal in this country. Judging by the legislation quoted on this forum this must be the case still, surely? So what happened? There may be more to this story than what's being published at the moment.

The only good thing coming from this case is that the issue of abortion and the lack of clear legislation surrounding it is being discussed again. Abortions are happening whether people like it or not. People just travel abroad for them at the moment. In this day and age we need to be able to leave this choice to the parents.

SafeSurfer

I think its disgusting that this tragedy is being used for political point scoring.

krudler

goodie2shoes wrote: »

Very tragic events.

Sadly mothers die during child birth all the time.
Thankfully due to modern medicine and the excellent care they receive in our hospitals, such tragedies occur very rarely.

Eh, thats not what happened.

Sierra Oscar

The husband is on RTE Radio 1 now.