Pregnant woman dies in UCHG after being refused a termination

ash23

HellFireClub wrote: »

Nonsense, I believe the woman who is the subject of this thread should have been allowed have a procedure in this state that saved her life without any politics or rubbish getting involved.

Unfortunately politics is the EXACT reason that the woman in question didn't get the procedure to save her life.

Hence why it needs to be dealt with by the people who legislate for this country. We've pretended for far too long that this isn't a real problem and now a woman has died because of our complacency and reluctance to rock the boat and offend the voters.

strandroad

robman60 wrote: »

Wait, am I overlooking something here?

Wasn't this ignorance of the law on the doctors part? As far as I know, this is from the doctor rules of practice:

'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.'

Isn't this what's currently allowed? I think you guys may be missing this, but I'm pretty sure that's legally permitted. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Depends on how you define 'to protect the life of the mother" as opposed to her health; it may be argued that blood infection is not necessarily fatal.

Angie_Baby

ZeRoY wrote: »

But dont you know they are Pro Lif... oh no wait.

this "discussion" ought to be shut.
it's like an episode of Jerry Springer in here.

kylith

Min wrote: »

She went to the hospital on the Sunday but did not receive any antibiotics until the Tuesday.

Two days with what basically an open womb, it seems like the problem here is negligence rather than anything else.

She didn't develop symptoms of septicaemia until Tuesday. It is not common for doctors to hand out antibiotics for things which the patient hasn't contracted yet. Had she been allowed a termination when she asked for one she may never have developed septicaemia, never have needed antibiotics, and would not have died.

Mardy Bum

HellFireClub wrote: »

This is what Labour in this country want and this is what those in the United Left Alliance want, they want abortion on demand for any reason or no reason at all. A lot of people in this country, regardless of their religious persuasion, don't want to see that kind of service being offered in this country and have stated so in several referendums.

What is your reason so? It better be rational seeing as you are so quick to slate others for it i.e not religious?

spank_inferno

HellFireClub wrote: »

There is no difference in my opinion, not when you take out the people who agree that abortion is sometimes necessary to save a woman's life, as is the tragic case under discussion here. I agree with abortion being permitted where a woman's life is at risk (as was the case here or so it appears), but I do not agree that the idiots that occupy the left in this country should be allowed direct a debate with sane and rational people on this subject of abortion, about this apparent abundance of mothers out there who will commit suicide if they are not allowed have an abortion.

This is what Labour in this country want and this is what those in the United Left Alliance want, they want abortion on demand for any reason or no reason at all. A lot of people in this country, regardless of their religious persuasion, don't want to see that kind of service being offered in this country and have stated so in several referendums.

In saying that HellFire, you are mis-reading the vast majority of posters here.

From what I can see... most posters would prefer there to be No abortion on demand.

And I wouldn't be so sure regarding the labour party.
Their members are not unanimous regarding abortion

Angie_Baby

had this poor woman been back home in India do you think she would have been given an abortion?

otto_26

seenitall wrote: »

Already shown on-thread twice or three times, I lose track... but it means nothing to you, so I won't be engaging with you any more. Enjoy!

You mean you got called and wanna do a runner!

so I won't be engaging with you any more. Enjoy!

HellFireClub

ibarelycare wrote: »

You've used this phrase at least twice in this thread. How on earth are those who support giving women a choice on what to do with their bodies "loo laa"? Yes, provision for this has been rejected by the country...20 years ago. Since then the country has become a lot more liberal, and people are rejecting the Catholic Church and its teachings and opinions in a steady stream.

If people believe in something so strongly, why shouldn't they keep fighting for it?

IMO it's the Youth Defence and staunch right wing fundies who are much more "loo laa" than anyone else.

What has what happened to that poor woman got to do with the Catholic Church??? It has nothing to do with what happened her, she died because someone was clearly negligent while she was in their care, and either didn't understand their responsibilities to the patient or else did understand their responsibilities but failed to provide them. It's called professional negligence. What has that got to do with the church in this country???

Zulu

mud wrote: »

Pro-Choice.

Choice is the operative word.

Yet interestingly it ignore the choice of 2 of the 3 people involved!

Choice of the mother - check.
Choice of the child - ehhh, well, it's not the point.
Choice of the father - look lets be clear about this...

"Choice" my arse.

Angie_Baby

otto_26 wrote: »

You mean you got called and wanna do a runner!

so I won't be engaging with you any more. Enjoy!

i wont be engaging with either of you. Enjoy!

rossie1977

are we really that surprised, this is a country where a blasphemy law exists ffs and yet we try to paint ourselves as a progressive nation :rolleyes:

if the doctor said "this is a catholic country" he or she should stand trial for manslaughter

HellFireClub

ash23 wrote: »

Unfortunately politics is the EXACT reason that the woman in question didn't get the procedure to save her life.

Hence why it needs to be dealt with by the people who legislate for this country. We've pretended for far too long that this isn't a real problem and now a woman has died because of our complacency and reluctance to rock the boat and offend the voters.

So if the same situation presented itself tomorrow to a different medical professional, you reckon the same tragic outcome would be the only possible outcome?

joydivision

I could be miles off but dont some hospitals have a policy to save the mother and some to save the baby . It was said to me a few times when choosing the hospital for the pregnancy by different people .
" do they save the mother or the baby?"
I never gave it much thought . Is there any grounds to this ?

otto_26

poeticseraphim wrote: »

It is the culture of fear in the HSE because the legislation is unclear and lacking the laws DID KILL HER.
It is the legislation...it is lacking...it is not there ..'they have not gotten round to it'

The fact thousands of medical interventions to save a mothers life have been done in Ireland without a problem. I find it hard to understand how legislation is the problem in this case?

Shouldn't we be talking about the Doctor and why he didn't do his job properly considering thousands have been done before without a problem?

strandroad

HellFireClub wrote: »

What has what happened to that poor woman got to do with the Catholic Church??? It has nothing to do with what happened her, she died because someone was clearly negligent while she was in their care, and either didn't understand their responsibilities to the patient or else did understand their responsibilities but failed to provide them. It's called professional negligence. What has that got to do with the church in this country???

It influences laws that prevent the termination of an unviable pregnancy.

Angie_Baby

rossie1977 wrote: »

are we really that surprised, this is a country where a blasphemy law exists ffs and yet we try to paint ourselves as a progressive nation :rolleyes:

if the doctor said "this is a catholic country" he or she should stand trial for manslaughter

you're being totally hysterical now.

Dodge

HellFireClub wrote: »

This is what Labour in this country want and this is what those in the United Left Alliance want, they want abortion on demand for any reason or no reason at all. A lot of people in this country, regardless of their religious persuasion, don't want to see that kind of service being offered in this country and have stated so in several referendums.

Here's Labour's leaflet on abortion from 2010;
http://irishelectionliterature.wordpress.com/2011/06/20/its-time-to-legislate-for-the-x-case-leaflet-from-labour-2010/

robman60

ZeRoY wrote: »

What sort of mad statement is that. I do miss France sometimes. Retarded laws.

Maybe you should educate yourself before saying things are "retarded". Health is removed as it creates a legal mind field and effectively means abortion on demand (I know some people support that I'm just explaining it if you're opposed to on demand).

Contrary to popular belief, abortion on demand isn't actually legal in the UK, but instead on the basis of health. Introducing it on the basis of mental or physical health effectively means on demand.

Also, I strongly disagree with those who say mental health is a legitimate ground for abortion. A Finnish study showed post-abortion suicide rate of 31.9/100,000 as opposed to 5.0/100,000 for those who gave birth. It seems counter-productive to me.

kieran26

Andy-Pandy wrote: »

I have to say that i am ashamed to be Irish today. I hope whoever her doctor was is struck off at the very least. May she RIP.

How do you know it was the doctors fault? its not for you to decide if a doctor should be struck off based on the few details that are available to us on the internet. Wait until after the investigation for such sentiments.

Ellis Dee

Angie_Baby wrote: »

had this poor woman been back home in India do you think she would have been given an abortion?

Absolutely. India has very liberal abortion laws. They attach more importance to the life of a woman than to a collection of cells.:cool:

Read some of the reader comments at the end of this article. Several posters ask whey she didn't just fly home for an abortion, but we all know that she was in no condition to do so.

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/291923/karnataka-woman-dies-being-refused.html

Angie_Baby

we dont want abortion on demand.
and we dont want this,

robman60

otto_26 wrote: »

The fact thousands of medical interventions to save a mothers life have been done in Ireland without a problem. I find it hard to understand how legislation is the problem in this case?

Shouldn't we be talking about the Doctor and why he didn't do his job properly considering thousands have been done before without a problem?

This is what the majority of the posters in this thread are missing, and the media refuse to present this fact. This was malpractice on the part of the doctor, or ignorance of the law on his part.

ejmaztec

I hope the HSE's got adequate insurance.

Zulu

Ellis Dee wrote: »

They attach more importance to the life of a woman than to a collection of cells.:cool:

Yawn, this trite bs, really?

A woman is a collection of cells, so essentially your point boils down to "attaching more importance to a collection of cells than to a collection of cells". Simplistic boarding on retarded.

Angie_Baby

Ellis Dee wrote: »

Absolutely. India has very liberal abortion laws. They attach more importance to the life of a woman than to a collection of cells.:cool:

Read some of the reader comments at the end of this article. Several posters ask whey she didn't just fly home for an abortion, but we all know that she was in no condition to do so.

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/291923/karnataka-woman-dies-being-refused.html

I dont think India is a good place to be a female (collection of cells).

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43155122/ns/health-childrens_health/t/million-girls-aborted-india-years/#.UKPQ8ofcmSo

billybudd

HellFireClub wrote: »

What has what happened to that poor woman got to do with the Catholic Church??? It has nothing to do with what happened her, she died because someone was clearly negligent while she was in their care, and either didn't understand their responsibilities to the patient or else did understand their responsibilities but failed to provide them. It's called professional negligence. What has that got to do with the church in this country???

Or he got caught unaware of what definded that law.

On a side note your use of the left as being somehow not mentaly sound is very childish and really takes away from how people view your opinion, you are coming of as a far right extremist with no respect for anyone that could be considered liberal, we all have our opinions here and you can disagree with whatever or whoever you wish but do it with some undertsanding that there is different voices out there and of the thought that when crisis happens its solution has always been found through people of all persuasions coming togeather.

HellFireClub

spank_inferno wrote: »

In saying that HellFire, you are mis-reading the vast majority of posters here.

From what I can see... most posters would prefer there to be No abortion on demand.

And I wouldn't be so sure regarding the labour party.
Their members are not unanimous regarding abortion

Well in fairness, this debate is a wider debate than this thread and I'm personally SICK of left wing slags in this country like the kind in the ULA, trying to ride roughshod over people who have stated a democratic opinion on this subject several times.

I have to say, our current government must be absolutely loving this. We've spent the last 2 months having a completely unnecessary discussion and poorly timed discussion on a children's referendum... The polls were not 12 hours closed last Sunday when Eamon Gilmore started telling us that now we needed to talk about a referendum on gay marriage! And now this abortion topic is back centre stage again.

Very convenient isn't it, the way we always seem to have something to occupy ourselves with in this country by way of the national conversation, besides the small little pressing matter of half a million people out of work, of tens of thousands emigrating out of the hopelessness that has now consumed this country at the moment, the hundreds of people and families every month falling further into food poverty.

HellFireClub

mhge wrote: »

It influences laws that prevent the termination of an unviable pregnancy.

What law exists that prevents the termination of a pregnancy in Ireland, viable or otherwise, where there is a risk to the life of the mother?

strandroad

otto_26 wrote: »

The fact thousands of medical interventions to save a mothers life have been done in Ireland without a problem. I find it hard to understand how legislation is the problem in this case?

Shouldn't we be talking about the Doctor and why he didn't do his job properly considering thousands have been done before without a problem?

Her life could have been saved twice.

Once when it turned out that her pregnancy is not viable. Likely she would have walked out of the hospital on the following day. But the law does not allow to terminate such a pregnancy even if the foetus is not prognosed to survive.

And again at the first signs of infection; she was made to suffer in order to wait for the vital signs to fade. It took a day but it could have taken more. Again it's not clear whether they would have been allowed by the law to terminate; was her life threatened or just her health?

billybudd

HellFireClub wrote: »

What law exists that prevents the termination of a pregnancy in Ireland, viable or otherwise, where there is a risk to the life of the mother?

The law that is ambiguous, that places the responsibilty on the Doctor and not the government with decision the he makes.

pablomakaveli

HellFireClub wrote: »

Well in fairness, this debate is a wider debate than this thread and I'm personally SICK of left wing slags in this country like the kind in the ULA, trying to ride roughshod over people who have stated a democratic opinion on this subject several times.

I have to say, our current government must be absolutely loving this. We've spent the last 2 months having a completely unnecessary discussion and poorly timed discussion on a children's referendum... The polls were not 12 hours closed last Sunday when Eamon Gilmore started telling us that now we needed to talk about a referendum on gay marriage! And now this abortion topic is back centre stage again.

Very convenient isn't it, the way we always seem to have something to occupy ourselves with in this country by way of the national conversation, besides the small little pressing matter of half a million people out of work, of tens of thousands emigrating out of the hopelessness that has now consumed this country at the moment, the hundreds of people and families every month falling further into food poverty.

Thats odd. I dont remember getting the oppurtunity to express my will in this matter through voting. In fact a sizeable number of people in the country havent had the oppurtunity either.

EmptyTree

robman60 wrote: »

Wait, am I overlooking something here?

Wasn't this ignorance of the law on the doctors part? As far as I know, this is from the doctor rules of practice:

'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.'

Isn't this what's currently allowed? I think you guys may be missing this, but I'm pretty sure that's legally permitted. Correct me if I'm wrong.

While I would be inclined to agree with what you are saying, from what I have heard on the radio today it sounds like the doctor(s) didn't believe that the life of the woman was in danger and so couldn't act as they were bound by the current constitution i.e.

"It shall be unlawful to terminate the life of an unborn unless such termination is necessary to save the life, as distinct from the health, of the mother where there is an illness or disorder of the mother giving rise to a real and substantial risk to her life, not being a risk of self-destruction."

If the doctor(s) acted knowing that the life of the mother was in danger then they surely knew that this is malpractice and could be struck off as a result.

One can only assume hope that based on the information they had at the time they believed the woman would survive.

I've a feeling my contribution won't have a happy ending....:eek:

HellFireClub

billybudd wrote: »

Or he got caught unaware of what definded that law.

On a side note your use of the left as being somehow not mentaly sound is very childish and really takes away from how people view your opinion, you are coming of as a far right extremist with no respect for anyone that could be considered liberal, we all have our opinions here and you can disagree with whatever or whoever you wish but do it with some undertsanding that there is different voices out there and of the thought that when crisis happens its solution has always been found through people of all persuasions coming togeather.

Well sorry but I fúcking hate the left in this country, I despise Labour and I despise the ULA. There is a despicable collection of people on the left in this country. Clare Daly, Joan Collins, Ivana Bacik, Richard Boyd Barrett, absolute mouth pieces the lot of them who I personally think are unfit for any political system.

They are all pro-abortion and I'm sick of these people telling us that we keep having to revisit this subject of abortion. Legislate for how people spoke previously when it was put to the country and get on with it!

ibarelycare

HellFireClub wrote: »

What has what happened to that poor woman got to do with the Catholic Church??? It has nothing to do with what happened her, she died because someone was clearly negligent while she was in their care, and either didn't understand their responsibilities to the patient or else did understand their responsibilities but failed to provide them. It's called professional negligence. What has that got to do with the church in this country???

You conveniently missed my point. Where did I even refer to this case in my post to you? You were talking about the "left wing loo laa brigade". I questioned you on that.

ibarelycare

Angie_Baby wrote: »

we dont want abortion on demand.
and we dont want this,

Sorry, who are you speaking for?

mrsbyrne

These 51 pages explain exactly why no one in governmemt wants to touch the abortion question.:(
Hysteria from both sides of the debate.
All we have at the moment is one side of this terribly sad story, yet here we are screaming at one another about the Catholic Church, having doctors struck off, or even charged with manslaughter,Pro-Life, Pro-Choice, Left, Right.
Abuse and insults flying left right and centre.
And next week or whenever the facts are revealed it could turn out to be a tragic but unavoidable death.
The poor girl might have contracted septiceamia any way, we dont know because the facts aren't available.
But dont let me stop you all using her demise to tear each other a new a**h*le...

HellFireClub

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Thats odd. I dont remember getting the oppurtunity to express my will in this matter through voting. In fact a sizeable number of people in the country havent had the oppurtunity either.

You probably didn't have the right to vote for the Good Friday Agreement either, maybe we should open up that whole can of worms again, just to accommodate yourself and anyone else who didn't get to vote back then? Same for the Maastrict Treaty maybe?

Icepick

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).

Your shameless accusation is the propaganda.

HellFireClub

billybudd wrote: »

The law that is ambiguous, that places the responsibilty on the Doctor and not the government with decision the he makes.

Well the responsibility is on him/her now isn't it, with a patient in a grave?

otto_26

mhge wrote: »

Her life could have been saved twice.

Once when it turned out that her pregnancy is not viable. Likely she would have walked out of the hospital on the following day. But the law does not allow to terminate such a pregnancy even if the foetus is not prognosed to survive.

And again at the first signs of infection; she was made to suffer in order to wait for the vital signs to fade. It took a day but it could have taken more. Again it's not clear whether they would have been allowed by the law to terminate; was her life threatened or just her health?

Well they don't just terminate a child in the UK if the women gets a cold they make sure her life is threatened and if so they then terminate.

The fact thousands of medical interventions to save a mothers life have been done in Ireland without a problem. Why is it all of a sudden a problem?

The doctor didn't do his job properly and that's what we should be talking about.

Angie_Baby

HellFireClub wrote: »

Well in fairness, this debate is a wider debate than this thread and I'm personally SICK of left wing slags in this country like the kind in the ULA, trying to ride roughshod over people who have stated a democratic opinion on this subject several times.

I have to say, our current government must be absolutely loving this. We've spent the last 2 months having a completely unnecessary discussion and poorly timed discussion on a children's referendum... The polls were not 12 hours closed last Sunday when Eamon Gilmore started telling us that now we needed to talk about a referendum on gay marriage! And now this abortion topic is back centre stage again.

Very convenient isn't it, the way we always seem to have something to occupy ourselves with in this country by way of the national conversation, besides the small little pressing matter of half a million people out of work, of tens of thousands emigrating out of the hopelessness that has now consumed this country at the moment, the hundreds of people and families every month falling further into food poverty.

couldn't agree more.
why we are still having this debate is beyond me. i thought we voted on this abortion thing a few times now.
and it (abortion on demand) was robustly rejected each time.

this should have been dealt with as a medical procedure/emergency, if/when the woman's life was in jeopardy.
if the doctor felt her life was not at risk, then he fuucked up and made a bad call. he should have to answer for that.

billybudd

HellFireClub wrote: »

Well sorry but I fúcking hate the left in this country, I despise Labour and I despise the ULA. There is a despicable collection of people on the left in this country. Clare Daly, Joan Collins, Ivana Bacik, Richard Boyd Barrett, absolute mouth pieces the lot of them who I personally think are unfit for any political system.

They are all pro-abortion and I'm sick of these people telling us that we keep having to revisit this subject of abortion. Legislate for how people spoke previously when it was put to the country and get on with it!

I dont know a country that has 100% of total agreement of everything, of course people will have different wants and different views and you cannot alter that, all you can do is make your point without belittling people because when people belittle others for their own gains then that is called bullying and intimidation and i am sure you would not like to live in a country that is ruled that way, debate does not have to be nasty and name calling, it can be much more productive and interesting when people give their different view points and in fact you can change peoples perception of something by pointing it out in a rationale and non threatening way.

You get more with honey than vinegar sort of thing.

Nodin

Angie_Baby wrote: »

we dont want abortion on demand.
and we dont want this,

Who is "we"? And yes, she could have had an abortion back in India.

strandroad

HellFireClub wrote: »

What law exists that prevents the termination of a pregnancy in Ireland, viable or otherwise, where there is a risk to the life of the mother?

The mother doesn't need to be at risk of losing her life to need termination of an unviable pregnancy. It may pose risks to her health, physical or mental - often it's not immediate and you are left to carry a dying baby or to know that it will die the moment it is born. You're a walking coffin. The legislation forces these women, already in mourning, to travel in order to terminate, and denies them aftercare in Ireland. Savita could not travel but could have been recognised as being at risk to her health "only" and therefore denied. All according to the law.

billybudd

mrsbyrne wrote: »

These 51 pages explain exactly why no one in governmemt wants to touch the abortion question.:(
Hysteria from both sides of the debate.
All we have at the moment is one side of this terribly sad story, yet here we are screaming at one another about the Catholic Church, having doctors struck off, or even charged with manslaughter,Pro-Life, Pro-Choice, Left, Right.
Abuse and insults flying left right and centre.
And next week or whenever the facts are revealed it could turn out to be a tragic but unavoidable death.
The poor girl might have contracted septiceamia any way, we dont know because the facts aren't available.
But dont let me stop you all using her demise to tear each other a new a**h*le...

what did you expect, communal daisy chain making?:pac: its AH where normal and full rounded people stay away from.

Cool Mo D

HellFireClub wrote: »

You probably didn't have the right to vote for the Good Friday Agreement either, maybe we should open up that whole can of worms again, just to accommodate yourself and anyone else who didn't get to vote back then? Same for the Maastrict Treaty maybe?

It has been nearly 30 years since the constitutional ban on abortion was put in. Since then, there have been 4 more referendums on abortion, and every one has been won by the side for broadening women's access to abortion, or preventing further restrictions on abortion. So it's hardly a resounding no to abortion from the electorate.

HellFireClub

ibarelycare wrote: »

You conveniently missed my point. Where did I even refer to this case in my post to you? You were talking about the "left wing loo laa brigade". I questioned you on that.

You said the church influences laws in this country that prohibit a termination where a featus is not viable. I said that where there is a risk to the continuing life of the mother, there is no law that prevents the best surgical care being made available to treat the mother, even where that care results in the medical termination of her pregnancy.

Either a law exists that stops a medical practitioner from providing best care to a pregnant woman in this country for the purposes of treating her and sustaining her life, or else it doesn't. You claimed that such a law seems to exist and that the Catholic Church and its influence is behind this law being on the statute book... I disagree...

Angie_Baby

Nodin wrote: »

Who is "we"? And yes, she could have had an abortion back in India.

she could indeed, but was in no fit state to travel i imagine.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43155122/ns/health-childrens_health/t/million-girls-aborted-india-years/#.UKPQ8ofcmSo

mrsbyrne

billybudd wrote: »

what did you expect, communal daisy chain making?:pac: its AH where normal and full rounded people stay away from.

I did say dont let me stop you all... please continue...