Pregnant woman dies in UCHG after being refused a termination

irishfeen

SafeSurfer wrote: »

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

who?

Predalien

People have the law arseways. Abortion is illegal under the 1861 Act except for situations where the mother's life is at risk and an abortion could help save her life. There is no legislation to say this but there is a Supreme Court ruling, it still needs legislation for clarity, but simply put, abortion is not illegal in every circumstance in Ireland.

28064212

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

who was going to bring a case? Not the parents. Not the gardai.

Gardaí don't bring cases, they act on reported crimes. If some Youth Defence nutter becomes aware of abortions being performed and reports it, the Gardaí have to follow it up. The prosecutor has to take a case.

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

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.

At the very least, it would have had to go to the High Court, that's the mininum level at which the courts can strike down a law. And you say he could have appealed, like that's no big thing. Taking that route means all of the following: years of court; at least some time in prison; massive expenses; the effective end of his career.

goodie2shoes

SafeSurfer wrote: »

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

yes it's becoming a right old feeding frenzy.
isn't ireland great?

gozunda

MagicSean wrote: »

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?

Your belligerence mainly tbh...

The Supreme court ruling is quite clear IMO - where there is real risk to the life of the mother - termination is permissible

But yes you are right on one thing - Its about time our lazy gobshytes politicians pulled their fingers out of their hole and enacted the full legislation.

However it is of note that the absence of such legislation based on the Supreme Court ruling Does Not preclude a doctor intervening to save the life of a women in these circumstances. Even that august body the Medical Council concurs with this. So what dont you understand?

...
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.”

Btw do you actually approve of women dying in such circumstances? From your responses that would appear to be your stance. Please correct me if I have misinterpreted this...

28064212

Predalien wrote: »

People have the law arseways. Abortion is illegal under the 1861 Act except for situations where the mother's life is at risk and an abortion could help save her life. There is no legislation to say this but there is a Supreme Court ruling, it still needs legislation for clarity, but simply put, abortion is not illegal in every circumstance in Ireland.

Until there is legislation, it is illegal. That's what legal and illegal mean. The law is unconstitutional, but that means being arrested and appealing to the courts, a long drawn-out, expensive, process

Dodge

sean_wayne wrote: »

agreed , ivana bacik was on the airwaves this morning milking this for all it was worth

Or she was highlighting the fact that the people responsible for this are politicians

The lack of legislation CAUSED this tragedy. It is absolutely a political issue

Emeraldy Pebbles

old hippy wrote: »

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

Definitely.

jaykay74

SafeSurfer wrote: »

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

I would have thought all political parties bear some blame for dragging their feet for almost 20 years.

Emeraldy Pebbles

goodie2shoes wrote: »

i stand corrected. it was blood poisoning i believe.

Back in the day, that was usually the cause of death in childbirth/miscarriage. It shouldn't happen now though!

twinQuins

SafeSurfer wrote: »

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

goodie2shoes wrote: »

yes it's becoming a right old feeding frenzy.
isn't ireland great?

Yeah, it's really awful people want to highlight this case as an example of why the law should be changed.

I mean, who cares that it might prevent it happening again in the future, self-righteous indignation and trying to smugly hold the moral high ground is much more important.

goodie2shoes

sean_wayne wrote: »

agreed , ivana bacik was on the airwaves this morning milking this for all it was worth

this is just what we now need.
another messy, undignified national debate on abortion.

am i back in the frickin '80s'?
should i grow a mullet?
will there be a concert in the RDS?

Dodge

goodie2shoes wrote: »

this is just what we now need.
another messy, undignified national debate on abortion.

am i back in the frickin '80s'?
should i grow a mullet?
will there be a concert in the RDS?

Are you for real? Would you prefer we shut up and hoped it went away?

Death and Taxes

28064212 wrote: »

Until there is legislation, it is illegal. That's what legal and illegal mean. The law is unconstitutional, but that means being arrested and appealing to the courts, a long drawn-out, expensive, process

Wrong, The Supreme Court ruling made it legal, even the anti-women anti-choice groups accept that fact.
The Supreme Court Judgement is very clear, abortion is allowed under the Constitution (which supercedes statute and common law) where there is a real and substantial threat to life of the Mother, the threat of suicide for instance would constitute such a threat.

gozunda

barbiegirl wrote: »

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.

Dear barbiegirl - this is what the Medical Council says on the issue...

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.”

In this case the fetus at 17 weeks was not viable and could not "be preserved"

Btw NO "hands were tied" - just some ignorant medievel beliefs forced upon a woman who ended up dead. Nice.

barbiegirl wrote: »

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.

See above.

MagicSean

gozunda wrote: »

Your belligerence mainly tbh...

The Supreme court ruling is quite clear IMO - where there is real risk to the life of the mother - termination is permissible

But yes you are right on one thing - Its about time our lazy gobshytes politicians pulled their fingers out of their hole and enacted the full legislation.

However it is of note that the absence of such legislation based on the Supreme Court ruling Does Not preclude a doctor intervening to save the life of a women in these circumstances. Even that august body the Medical Council concurs with this. So what dont you understand?

Btw do you actually approve of women dying in such circumstances? From your responses that would appear to be your stance. Please correct me if I have misinterpreted this...

Do you accept that there is currently enacted legislation that prevents abortion being performed?

Do you accept that the doctor would have had to breach this legislation to perform this legislation thereby opening himself to prosecution?

Duggys Housemate

28064212 wrote: »

At the very least, it would have had to go to the High Court, that's the mininum level at which the courts can strike down a law. And you say he could have appealed, like that's no big thing. Taking that route means all of the following: years of court; at least some time in prison; massive expenses; the effective end of his career.

28064212 wrote: »

Until there is legislation, it is illegal. That's what legal and illegal mean. The law is unconstitutional, but that means being arrested and appealing to the courts, a long drawn-out, expensive, process

Thats wrong. An unconstitutional law is not really in effect. I bet there were plenty of terminations in the last 20 years which were not reported, you have to assume before anything goes to court that the DPP would even bring a case and I doubt it.

This isn't to forgive the ministers for justice - the supreme court should be able to hold them in contempt if needs be - but your argument is excusing the doctors and management at Galway. They - particularly the doctor - made this decision and there would be no repercussions if they had terminated.

Predalien

28064212 wrote: »

Until there is legislation, it is illegal. That's what legal and illegal mean. The law is unconstitutional, but that means being arrested and appealing to the courts, a long drawn-out, expensive, process

You clearly don't understand how the law works in this country. Abortion is legal and constitutional where there is a real risk to the mother's life and an abortion might save her.

krudler

goodie2shoes wrote: »

this is just what we now need.
another messy, undignified national debate on abortion.

am i back in the frickin '80s'?
should i grow a mullet?
will there be a concert in the RDS?

a debate to begin with is well overdue instead of dodging and hand wringing from the government afraid to lose the older rural vote. this shouldnt have happened, end of , if something is brought in as a result to prevent it happening again then its something that needs to be talked about and debated not ignored.

baldbear

Heres link that might be of interest that contacts your local td. Sorry if it has already been posted. http://www.nwci.ie/takeaction/legislate-for-x/

SEPT 23 1989

I have not felt such shame of this country since the IMF arrived

Dodge

sean_wayne wrote: »

yes bacik grabbing the mic on this one is akin to john gormley making a statement right after a tsunami , you would perfer hear from someone less idealogical

I'd like to hear from everyone. Not sure censorship is the way forward

I certainly don't think ideals are a bad thing

LeeHoffmann

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

I really really hope so

K-9

miss no stars wrote: »

Couldn't read the whole thread as the ignorance being displayed in it was getting to me.

See this:




Basically, there'd be nothing in the law to say that the doctor COULD perform the termination. Maybe they were saying "It's a catholic country that won't legislate for this". Because it is. Pro-fcuking-lifers. I don't give a sh!t what anyone's view on elective termination is, medically necessary is medically necessary, yet the doctor COULD NOT carry it out due to being strangled by the theocracy in which we live. :mad:

I was just giving my opinion in that post. If you'd quoted later posts I'd agreed that the doctor did nothing wrong legally initially, as the mothers life wasn't as risk at the start.

Anita Blow

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

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.

But I think that even the huge discussion here shows how much of a grey area it is, and in his position, it would've been a massive gamble to take without fully knowing what could happen to him.

Solair

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

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

Subtle little things like:

It owns over 90% of the schools.
It owns a huge % of the hospitals.

There's a huge legacy of extreme interference in the legislative process e.g. the archbishop of Dublin getting to see bills before they were debated in the Dail in the 50s.

We still have prayers at the start of Dail, Seanad and a lot of council meetings.

This is how all Dail/Seanad meetings start:

"Direct, we beseech Thee, O Lord, our actions by Thy holy inspirations and carry them on by Thy gracious assistance; that every word and work of ours may always begin from Thee, and by Thee be happily ended; through Christ our Lord. Amen."

See: http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?fn=/documents/a-misc/prayer.htm for details.

How can anyone argue that something like that does not alter the tone of the debates in those chambers?!

Also, how does a atheist or a non-christian fit into that situation?

Also, take a look at the constitution preamble.

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

I'm not saying that other countries aren't equally weird in some respects e.g. the UK still has an official established religion even if it's a de facto secular country these days. Also Since 1956 the USA sticks "in God we trust" all over stuff instead of their original motto "E pluribus unum" (out of many one) However, we are supposedly a Republic founded on radical ideas of power being derived from the people.
However, we've managed to hand a huge amount of actual power over to religious institutions for some bizarre reason.

Ireland really needs to wake up and take a look at itself.
There's an awful lot of mythology about how we see ourselves as this noble Republic that is all about by the people, for the people, of the people. The reality of a lot of our state institutions is that they are basically theocratic or at least heavily leaning that way.

I fear that some of us may be confusing Ireland's constitution with a modern liberal democratic Republic like France.

starlit

Honest to god if there was any risk to the mother's health they should have taken her health into consideration. How is it possible for a foetal heartbeat to be detected if she already miscarried? Surely if she did they take into that into consideration that she was miscarrying, surely that been a reason to give her a termination or send her to a hospital that carry it out it only been fair on her. I know the child is important too but so is the mother if it meant her surviving also.

You think they do all they could to save the mother while she was miscarrying. Wouldn't that not been a good enough reason whether or not their was a foetal heartbeat which might have been something else, a faint heartbeat wouldn't be enough to state it was alive it was likely to be slowly passing away. Heartbreaking on both counts for mother and child. Surely their is a law in the constitution that deals with this sort of thing in a more humane manner for both mother and child.

Its 2012 not 1912!

iregk

This may have been discussed before and apologies if it has. It's common knowledge that the Irish Constitution was essentially written by the Catholic Church and the politicians of the day went along with whatever they said and wanted. Since then we've had minor amendments here and there but it is still largely influenced by the Catholic Church. Does anyone else feel or think that we need a complete re-write of the entire constitution. Take it back to scratch and write it from a completely agnostic point of view.

All references to religion or religious organizations should be removed from the constitution and essentially just leave it to the people where their moral compass rests. Catholicism may well be the majority religion in this country but to call ourselves a catholic country smacks of living in the past and refusing to accept any cultural or societal changes. If in the future atheism, protestantism or whatever else over takes catholicism as the majority religion/belief system are we still held to the constitutional standing in that we remain a catholic country?

Cool Mo D

MagicSean wrote: »

Do you accept that there is currently enacted legislation that prevents abortion being performed?

Do you accept that the doctor would have had to breach this legislation to perform this legislation thereby opening himself to prosecution?

The law prohibiting abortion does not apply, because the Supreme Court overruled it in the X case. In Ireland, abortion is legal when the life of the mother is at risk.

MagicSean

iregk wrote: »

This may have been discussed before and apologies if it has. It's common knowledge that the Irish Constitution was essentially written by the Catholic Church and the politicians of the day went along with whatever they said and wanted. Since then we've had minor amendments here and there but it is still largely influenced by the Catholic Church. Does anyone else feel or think that we need a complete re-write of the entire constitution. Take it back to scratch and write it from a completely agnostic point of view.

All references to religion or religious organizations should be removed from the constitution and essentially just leave it to the people where their moral compass rests. Catholicism may well be the majority religion in this country but to call ourselves a catholic country smacks of living in the past and refusing to accept any cultural or societal changes. If in the future atheism, protestantism or whatever else over takes catholicism as the majority religion/belief system are we still held to the constitutional standing in that we remain a catholic country?

I beleieve the constitution needs to be completely rewritten

Zamboni

Maybe India will out their nuclear weapons to good use and wipe our moronic "catholic" nation off the face of the planet.

28064212

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Wrong, The Supreme Court ruling made it legal, even the anti-women anti-choice groups accept that fact.
The Supreme Court Judgement is very clear, abortion is allowed under the Constitution (which supercedes statute and common law) where there is a real and substantial threat to life of the Mother, the threat of suicide for instance would constitute such a threat.

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Thats wrong. An unconstitutional law is not really in effect. I bet there were plenty of terminations in the last 20 years which were not reported, you have to assume before anything goes to court that the DPP would even bring a case and I doubt it.

This isn't to forgive the ministers for justice - the supreme court should be able to hold them in contempt if needs be - but your argument is excusing the doctors and management at Galway. They - particularly the doctor - made this decision and there would be no repercussions if they had terminated.

Predalien wrote: »

You clearly don't understand how the law works in this country. Abortion is legal and constitutional where there is a real risk to the mother's life and an abortion might save her.

Offences against the state act 1861:

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

There is no provision for the state of the mother's health. Any of you, which character acts incorrectly in this scenario:

• Someone reports an abortion to the Gardaí which was necessary to save the life of the mother, but was against the 1861 act.
• The Gardaí arrests the doctor on the basis of the 1861 act
• The DPP takes a case on the basis of the 1861 act
• The criminal judge convicts on the basis of the 1861 act

Does the Gardaí, DPP or criminal courts get to decide what laws are constitutional? Which one of them gets to make the decision?

Duggys Housemate

Zamboni wrote: »

Maybe India will out their nuclear weapons to good use and wipe our moronic "catholic" nation off the face of the planet.

reported as a call to genoicde. Cant see it helping pregnant women in Ireland as they will also be killed.

recyclebin

This is now the main story on the Daily Mail webpage so this news story has now gone global. Apparently the daily mail webpage is the most viewed news website in the world.

I expect there to be a referendum soon.

I don't know what religion has got to do with this story. Non Catholics/Atheists etc can be just as much against abortion.

Duggys Housemate

recyclebin wrote: »

This is now the main story on the Daily Mail webpage so this news story has now gone global. Apparently the daily mail webpage is the most viewed news website in the world.

I expect there to be a referendum soon.

I don't know what religion has got to do with this story. Non Catholics/Atheists etc can be just as much against abortion.

The doctor's view matter.

MagicSean

Cool Mo D wrote: »

The law prohibiting abortion does not apply, because the Supreme Court overruled it in the X case. In Ireland, abortion is legal when the life of the mother is at risk.

No. They did not overrule it. If the Supreme court finds a law to be unconstitutional they strike out the law. They did not do this. They stated a very general rule that in cases were a mothers life is at risk an abortion can be performed. The law was not changed. New law was not introduced. The medical council has not given any guidelines on how a case such as this should be decided.

An example might help explain the problem. Who should make the decision for the abortion? Her GP? The doctor treating the woman? Should he require a second opinion? Should a doctor in a particular field of medicine make the decision? Maybe the doctor who would perform the operation? These are the things that had to be put into law and where not.

As it stands it is still illegal to perform an abortion. A doctor who performs one can be prosecuted for it. He would have to rely on the supreme court decision to defend himself from a prosecution. This would be a lengthy and expensive battle for him and he would likely lose his career in the process.

Leftist

recyclebin wrote: »

This is now the main story on the Daily Mail webpage so this news story has now gone global. Apparently the daily mail webpage is the most viewed news website in the world.

I expect there to be a referendum soon.

hope so. Without one we're left with politicians judging the public demand based on the noise it makes, and stupid ones always make the most noise, which means we'll be left with lay people telling us what to do in our own private lives.

I just can't get over how repulsive these people are, telling the rest of us what to do.

Predalien

28064212 wrote: »

Offences against the state act 1861:

There is no provision for the state of the mother's health. Any of you, which character acts incorrectly in this scenario:

• Someone reports an abortion to the Gardaí which was necessary to save the life of the mother, but was against the 1861 act.
• The Gardaí arrests the doctor on the basis of the 1861 act
• The DPP takes a case on the basis of the 1861 act
• The criminal judge convicts on the basis of the 1861 act

Does the Gardaí, DPP or criminal courts get to decide what laws are constitutional? Which one of them gets to make the decision?

We live in a common law jurisdiction where judgments of the courts carry the weight of law, a supreme court judgment ruled that abortion is permissable under certain circumstances. What would happen in that scenario is it would be investigated, and if it was found/probable that the abortion was performed in order to save the mother's life, then nothin further would come of it. Gardai enforce legislation and also common law. So do judges. The law is clear even without legislation.

Cool Mo D

28064212 wrote: »

Offences against the state act 1861:

There is no provision for the state of the mother's health. Any of you, which character acts incorrectly in this scenario:

• Someone reports an abortion to the Gardaí which was necessary to save the life of the mother, but was against the 1861 act.
• The Gardaí arrests the doctor on the basis of the 1861 act
• The DPP takes a case on the basis of the 1861 act
• The criminal judge convicts on the basis of the 1861 act

Does the Gardaí, DPP or criminal courts get to decide what laws are constitutional? Which one of them gets to make the decision?

The Supreme Court has already decided that that part of the law is unconstitutional. The decision has already been made.

In the X case, the Supreme Court help that there exists a constitutional right to an abortion in the case where a mothers life is at risk.
However, no government since has legislated to clarify how exactly that right is to be implemented, so there are no standard procedures for doctors to follow to ensure their judgement accords with the law.

irishfeen

recyclebin wrote: »

This is now the main story on the Daily Mail webpage so this news story has now gone global. Apparently the daily mail webpage is the most viewed news website in the world.

I expect there to be a referendum soon.

I don't know what religion has got to do with this story. Non Catholics/Atheists etc can be just as much against abortion.

Am I right in saying a referendum is not actually needed as we have already passed a referendum on the issue?

Death and Taxes

MagicSean wrote: »

No. They did not overrule it. If the Supreme court finds a law to be unconstitutional they strike out the law. They did not do this. They stated a very general rule that in cases were a mothers life is at risk an abortion can be performed. The law was not changed. New law was not introduced. The medical council has not given any guidelines on how a case such as this should be decided.

An example might help explain the problem. Who should make the decision for the abortion? Her GP? The doctor treating the woman? Should he require a second opinion? Should a doctor in a particular field of medicine make the decision? Maybe the doctor who would perform the operation? These are the things that had to be put into law and where not.

As it stands it is still illegal to perform an abortion. A doctor who performs one can be prosecuted for it. He would have to rely on the supreme court decision to defend himself from a prosecution. This would be a lengthy and expensive battle for him and he would likely lose his career in the process.

They Ruled abortion to be permissable in law under certain limited circumstances. I dont suppose they gave lessons on the X Case in Templemore, so maybe you should do a tiny bit of research!
The current legal position in that abortion in Ireland is legal under certain limited circumstances.

Duggys Housemate

yes, its a constitutional common law jurisdiction. New laws are in effect made by the Supreme court. Sometimes I wonder why we even need to legislate, as the American Supreme court made Abortion legal with Roe vs Wade, making all other State laws illegal.

HellFireClub

iregk wrote: »

This may have been discussed before and apologies if it has. It's common knowledge that the Irish Constitution was essentially written by the Catholic Church and the politicians of the day went along with whatever they said and wanted. Since then we've had minor amendments here and there but it is still largely influenced by the Catholic Church. Does anyone else feel or think that we need a complete re-write of the entire constitution. Take it back to scratch and write it from a completely agnostic point of view.

All references to religion or religious organizations should be removed from the constitution and essentially just leave it to the people where their moral compass rests. Catholicism may well be the majority religion in this country but to call ourselves a catholic country smacks of living in the past and refusing to accept any cultural or societal changes. If in the future atheism, protestantism or whatever else over takes catholicism as the majority religion/belief system are we still held to the constitutional standing in that we remain a catholic country?

This has nothing to do with the law, religion, or the Catholic Church. Our constitution provides for ANY medical operation that may be necessary to save a mothers life, regardless of whether she is pregnant or not, and our High Court interpreted this as so previously. The law couldn't be clearer and the Catholic Church has nothing whatsoever to do with any of this.

This was a medical fúck up of horrendous proportions.

positron

Zamboni wrote: »

Maybe India will out their nuclear weapons to good use and wipe our moronic "catholic" nation off the face of the planet.

Don't worry, India has a self-imposed "no first use" policy on nuclear weapons. Indians wouldn't be attacking anyone with their nukes.

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

Sorcha16

Akrasia wrote: »

Your belief that a non sentient group of cells would suffer more from a termination, than a child would suffer from being raised in circumstances where he/she is not wanted and the parent is not equipped to raise him or her is clearly a religious one, and you have no right to impose your religious fantasy onto others with the kinds of horrific consequences that we all woke up to this morning

Are you on drugs or did you arrive at that conclusion through your own irrationality? :rolleyes:

Noffles

In modern times like this I'm still amazed that a so call modern country, Ireland, has law and religion so interlinked...

idiotic and backward..........

HellFireClub

irishfeen wrote: »

Am I right in saying a referendum is not actually needed as we have already passed a referendum on the issue?

The worst thing about this, aside from the sheer tragedy of a woman losing her life unnecessarily, is the fact that we will have the loony left who want abortion on demand in this country, citing this tragedy in support of their aim to have abortion introduced as effectively a means of contraception.

We don't need another referendum (which will be demanded now by feminists and the left wing loo laa brigade in this country), we need medical professionals to respect the constitution as it already stands on the subject. Couldn't have less to do with the Catholic Church, that's just nonsense.

HellFireClub

Noffles wrote: »

In modern times like this I'm still amazed that a so call modern country, Ireland, has law and religion so interlinked...

idiotic and backward..........

Where does religion come into this? Ireland isn't even a practicing Catholic country, that's back in the 50's, this claim that Ireland is a "catholic Country" is a load of horseshít, most people don't darken a church door other than Christmas Day.

Brain Stroking

af_thefragile wrote: »

I'm pretty sure any doctor wouldn't just stand there and let the mother die in the very faint chance of saving a fetus which if very premature wouldn't have a high chance of survival anyway.

Hence why I'm skeptical about the way the story is presented. Sounds more like pro-choice propaganda than a tragedy (which no doubt it is).

I'm assuming you're a doctor? Otherwise you're just talking out of your passive aggressive pro-life arse

MagicSean

WileyCoyote wrote: »

They Ruled abortion to be permissable in law under certain limited circumstances. I dont suppose they gave lessons on the X Case in Templemore, so maybe you should do a tiny bit of research!
The current legal position in that abortion in Ireland is legal under certain limited circumstances.

A bit condescending to assume things about my educational background. Incorrectly I might add.

No law was changed as a result of the X-case. A defence may have been introduced for doctors who acted on the basis of the x-case but they would still be open to prosecution because of the lack of legislation or even guidelines.