Pregnant woman dies in UCHG after being refused a termination

andrewdeerpark

pennypocket wrote: »

Why would it matter? They acted within the parameters of Irish law as it stands.

Their is the grey area where the mothers life is threatened.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/debate-rages-on-20-years-after-the-x-case-resolved-nothing-3294263.html

X Case
"The case resulted in a Supreme Court ruling that terminations should be lawful when a woman's life is in danger or she is at risk of suicide."

The consultant had plenty of grey areas to work within.

Or did he / she (consultant) not think to transfer her to a hospital in Northern Ireland?

Either way the consultant has questions to answer. So put a microphone in front of him.

starlit

Its true its all down to the legality. It unfortunate. Surely if the child wouldn't likely to survive the mother's health should be the first concern. I suppose the hospital didn't want to get the wrong side of the law I suppose but at the same time they should have sent her to the UK asap even if she requested to terminate the pregnancy. The catholic church or any religion should not have much to do with this.

This case though very sad it could have a huge bearing of what might happen in the future in terms of abortion if it were to be a possibility in Ireland, a referendum in this case could be on the cards and could change all that into a potential yes vote. I don't agree with it but under certain circumstances like this an abortion should been allowed for medical reasons to save the mother. Catholic religions and those who are religious should not come into the equation but it was the law that stopped them but in the back of their minds the ould catholic church hold and beliefs still stood in the way.

Every pregnancy should be looked after right throughout and the after care after a birth or what ever the outcome it maybe regardless of number of weeks. Each mother and baby should be treated equally and with the care they should deserve and be thorough care.

Wouldn't the best interest of the mother take just as much of a priority of the baby!

Benny_Cake

saspeir wrote: »

I'm pretty sure it couldn't do that.

Ireland is not secular. Church still interferes with State. It's called the Iona Institute.

The Iona Institute is a private think-tank with no more power than any other private organisation.

ash23

Red Pepper wrote: »

This is an extremely sad case but am I the only one amazed at the reaction and the coverage this story has got in 24 hours? People protesting at the Dáil already (I thought Irish people didn't protest), Candle-lit vigils organised, Twitter on fire, Facebook, Forums. I would prefer to hear more from the consultants perspective before I make any comments myself.

I'm not surprised about it. Since I was a child I have seen occasional stories crop up about abortion. The X case, the C case, the A,B and C case .....and now this. It's infuriating that for many people, they have been watching case after case, woman after woman, be put through the ringer over abortion laws in this country. And now a woman has died.
Enough is enough.

People are maddened at the absolute unwillingness of the government to deal with this issue because none of them are brave enough to take a stance.

I was watching it with my daughter on the news today and realised as I was explaining it to her that she is the same age I was when my mam was explaining the X case to me.......in 20 years will she be explaining it to her daughter, or worse will she be another letter in another case?

notnumber

Seems to me she could have well have died anyway..if the baby was terminated would she still have died? I would still give the benefit of the doubt to our learned doctors to have the final say but having the option to terminate..

Tasden

andrewdeerpark wrote: »

Or was the consultant a religious fanatic who used this case to prove a point against abortion. Lets assume he aborted the child with the express consent of both parties and the mother lived. Would he be prosecuted for it?

Its such a grey area legally I seriously doubt the DPP would even send it to court.

Only the hospital staff know if the consultant is a religious fanatic however the way its being leaked out means I suspect the staff are leaking for a reason.

Grey area or not a doctor made a medical judgement (which unfortunately was wrong) and abided by the law.
If you're going to play ifs and buts what if he aborted the baby and the mother still died?
What do you want doctors to do, turn a blind eye to every law they consider a grey area? Decide what to do based on whether they will be prosecuted or not? The doctor concluded that her life was not at risk and acted accordingly.
And if the hospital staff had issues with his abilities as a doctor they should have expressed them before a woman died in his care.

saspeir

A question I would have is:

How were the family informed of the situation regarding the law in Ireland and the fine line between abortion by choice vs. abortion because of a risk to the mother's life.

If the doctor left the issue by saying "Ireland is a Catholic country" then I strongly feel this man/woman should be struck off. He didn't inform the patient/family of their rights should the patient deteriorate further. All scenarios should have been covered.

Had the husband known of the situation here maybe those 3 days could have been used to seek advice and legal counsel.

I hope the papers thoroughly investigate this and leave no stone unturned. This is now of international interest.

HeyThereDeliah

andrewdeerpark wrote: »

Their is the grey area where the mothers life is threatened.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/debate-rages-on-20-years-after-the-x-case-resolved-nothing-3294263.html

X Case
"The case resulted in a Supreme Court ruling that terminations should be lawful when a woman's life is in danger or she is at risk of suicide."

The consultant had plenty of grey areas to work within.

Or did he / she (consultant) not think to transfer her to a hospital in Northern Ireland?

Either way the consultant has questions to answer. So put a microphone in front of him.

I don't think moving her would be an option at that stage.

btard

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

RIP to the woman but personally I'd never be embarrassed to be Irish.

Well you damn well should be.

saspeir

Tasden wrote: »

Grey area or not a doctor made a medical judgement (which unfortunately was wrong) and abided by the law.
If you're going to play ifs and buts what if he aborted the baby and the mother still died?
What do you want doctors to do, turn a blind eye to every law they consider a grey area? Decide what to do based on whether they will be prosecuted or not? The doctor concluded that her life was not at risk and acted accordingly.
And if the hospital staff had issues with his abilities as a doctor they should have expressed them before a woman died in his care.

Did the doctor abide by the law in not informing the patient of her right to abortion should her life be at risk and that it might be prudent to seek legal counsel?

If s/he didn't that surely must count as misconduct for hiding/forgetting vital information.

andrewdeerpark

As B0jangles said in his excellent post the woman gave 3 days dying. The faint heartbeat of the foetus beating poisoning her from within.

The hospital and head consultant could have got a legal opinion from the DPP even went to the supreme court in emergency in that all that time. Did they even seek a legal opinion from any senior counsel?

Instead they sat around gave some anti-biotic's and watched her die. Disgraceful.

That is why I linked the staff directory I believe senior medical figures in that hospital did not do enough.

Tragedy

jill_valentine wrote: »

Why would I need an advance copy?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-20321741

Septicemia is an infection in the blood, it tells us nothing about how it was caused.

And even if that were not the case yet, would you seriously sit there with a straight face and suggest that her death was entirely coincidental to an agonising three day miscarriage?

I don't know.

Neither do you.

The point I'm making is you're arrogantly and thunderously posting as if you know all the facts already and the only conclusion to be made is your conclusion.

You know no more than anyone else, so do stop being so arrogant.

Now, are you going to admit you don't know the details of her death and were in fact bull****ting in your prior posts?
Are you also willing to admit you can't speak to(or for) the dead so don't in fact know what reaction would be the most insulting for her? (handy that the reaction you chose is one diametrically opposed to your point of view).

Stop raping this womans memory for your own purpose, stop lying and bull****ting while doing so.

Someone died, have some ****ing respect for her and her memory, she's more than a way for you to achieve whatever agenda you're trying to forward.

billybudd

ilovesleep wrote: »

The CC are partly to blame and although interest in the CC is dwindling, many people still look up to the CC and CC still has an influence of sorts. They impose their views on others and some people lap it up.
(I'm guessing a lot of these people who still look up to the CC are those of the grey vote. And that's where politics plays a part. A politician willing to legalise abortion could lose many votes).

Look i dont want to turn this into an argument and i am not a CC apologist. It is the peoples fault for not demanding more clarity after the X case and for it to be legislated and its the governments fault for not having the balls to get this done, plus they should have made provision for a new referendum and let the population decide as it has been too long since the last one especially with the mind set having changed so much since then in regard to the CC.

The CC are just a lobby and a vocal group but they do not make laws and they do not have the authority to change the way a country is, not anymore anyway.

My point is that by blaming the CC it takes away from the shortcomings of the people who should be held accountable.

HeyThereDeliah

saspeir wrote: »

A question I would have is:

How were the family informed of the situation regarding the law in Ireland and the fine line between abortion by choice vs. abortion because of a risk to the mother's life.

If the doctor left the issue by saying "Ireland is a Catholic country" then I strongly feel this man/woman should be struck off. He didn't inform the patient/family of their rights should the patient deteriorate further. All scenarios should have been covered.

Had the husband known of the situation here maybe those 3 days could have been used to seek advice and legal counsel.

I hope the papers thoroughly investigate this and leave no stone unturned. This is now of international interest.

I'm sure they both knew abortion is illegal in Ireland. How do you know what was said to the couple?

saspeir

Tragedy wrote: »

Septicemia is an infection in the blood, it tells us nothing about how it wad caused.

Did the Bible tell you that? Septicemia occurs once an infection has developed in an organ, the womb in this case, and then breaks out into the blood.

Don't be a sciolist and pretend you know it all.

Benny_Cake

andrewdeerpark wrote: »

That is why I linked the staff directory I believe senior medical figures in that hospital did not do enough.

What do you expect to achieve by doing that exactly?

Tragedy

saspeir wrote: »

Did the Bible tell you that? Septicemia occurs once an infection has developed in an organ, the womb in this case, and then breaks out into the blood.

Don't be a sciolist and pretend you know it all. Did the

What? Is this even English?

Ghost Buster

Tragedy wrote: »

What? Is this even English?

YOU GOT HIM REALLLLLLLLLLL GOOOOD!

saspeir

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

I'm sure they both knew abortion is illegal in Ireland. How do you know what was said to the couple?

I don't know what exactly was said to the couple but having heard the husband interviewed on C4 news he said he was told by a doctor that "Ireland is a Catholic country".

My gut feeling, just as an aside, is when you hear such a phrase used it screams of 'this is Ireland, get used to it or fook off'.

I wonder is that medic either (a) a religious nutjob and/or (b) xenophobic.

Lingua Franca

Tasden wrote: »

Hence me saying he (or whoever) made a rational medical judgement.

Yes it turned out to be wrong in hindsight but a medical assessment was made as to whether or not her life was in danger at the time, it was deemed not to be. Due to legislation this meant they could not carry out a termination.

My point was that the doctor did not just whip out his bible and spout on about how abortion is wrong in catholic Ireland. He may have just been trying to explain how his hands are tied due to the legislation.

It's awesome that you know that. How did you get an advance copy of the autopsy report/inquiry?

andrewdeerpark

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

I don't think moving her would be an option at that stage.

Erne Hospital in Enniskillen is 3 hours away by road travelling the legal speed limit so less by ambulance. I would assume about 30 minutes by air ambulance helicopter.

Did they even suggest it? Has it ever been tried. If the correct medical decision was to abort the child but Galway could not do it, why was it not tried?

It seems to me a lot was not tried. No senior counsel legal opinion, no court action and no transfer to NI.

A lot of questions to answer.

Benny_Cake

saspeir wrote: »

My gut feeling, just as an aside, is when you hear such a phrase used it screams of 'this is Ireland, get used to it or fook off'.

I wonder is that medic either (a) a religious nutjob and/or (b) xenophobic.

Good to see that people are relying on their gut instincts rather than evidence or anything like that.

Would it kill people to wait for the outcome of a credible investigation? Or should we just hang the consultants now?

MagicSean

andrewdeerpark wrote: »

As B0jangles said in his excellent post the woman gave 3 days dying. The faint heartbeat of the foetus beating poisoning her from within.

The hospital and head consultant could have got a legal opinion from the DPP even went to the supreme court in emergency in that all that time. Did they even seek a legal opinion from any senior counsel?

Instead they sat around gave some anti-biotic's and watched her die. Disgraceful.

That is why I linked the staff directory I believe senior medical figures in that hospital did not do enough.

No you were looking for a witch hunt.

The doctor could not perform the termination without risk of prosecution, incarceration and litigation as well as the possibility of losing his job. Even if it is likely he would have it all overturned in the future it is unfair to put that kind of decision on one man. That is why legislation and guidance was needed.

Callan57

The way this lady was treated is appalling ... you really wouldn't leave a dog in pain & distress for 3 days. It's too easy to blame the consultant - listening to the 6 news this evening it is entirely unclear what the position is and it would appear to me the doctors hands were tied unless s/he was prepared to risk their career & reputation.
This is a very worrying time for pregnant women in this country ... it's high time we grew up and deal with 2012 issues as adults not as gombeens looking over their shoulder trying to appease a lunatic fringe. :eek: And leaving it to Britian to sort out our mess.
Beside the point but no doubt this case will in due course involve another huge payout to this ladys husband (and rightly so) ... another hole to be filled by the hard pressed taxpayer.

keano_afc

saspeir wrote: »

Did you drop your morals when you picked up the Bible?

saspeir wrote: »

Did the Bible tell you that? Septicemia occurs once an infection has developed in an organ, the womb in this case, and then breaks out into the blood.

Don't be a sciolist and pretend you know it all.

I think you should stop using this tragedy as a springboard for your hatred of God.

andrewdeerpark

Benny_Cake wrote: »

What do you expect to achieve by doing that exactly?

Narrow it down, lets get the consultants name out their and address several questions raised.

Tragedy

keano_afc wrote: »

I think you should stop using this tragedy as a springboard for your hatred of God.

I wouldn't mind but I've never actually read the bible!

PS: Quote from here.

Dr Muiris Houston, health analyst for The Irish Times, said that all of the circumstances surrounding the incident had not been revealed yet.

He described it as a "rare situation".

"It is deeply shocking, but I think as responsible people we have to remember that you do need to hear all sides of the story before you make any definitive comment," he said.

"I do believe we need to do that in this case."

HeyThereDeliah

Tragedy wrote: »

Septicemia is an infection in the blood, it tells us nothing about how it was caused.

The cause here was because she was fully dilated, cervix was open and high risk for infection.

Ghost Buster

keano_afc wrote: »

I think you should stop using this tragedy as a springboard for your hatred of God.

he doesnt believe in unicorns either. Unicorn hatin' bastid!

billybudd

MagicSean wrote: »

No you were looking for a witch hunt.

The doctor could not perform the termination without risk of prosecution, incarceration and litigation as well as the possibility of losing his job. Even if it is likely he would have it all overturned in the future it is unfair to put that kind of decision on one man. That is why legislation and guidance was needed.

This is it, the government can say what it likes because they are hiding behind a legal quarry, rather than clarify, they state an ambiguous law and wait and see what happens.

Truman Burbank

andrewdeerpark wrote: »

If Galway hospital handled the situation with "this is a catholic country" and left the woman die then manslaughter charges should be made against the consultant concerned that is the actions of a religious zealot, no better than the Taliban

Andrew dear, park your thoughts in your head because they are absurd. Yours etc.

Cool Mo D

MagicSean wrote: »

No you were looking for a witch hunt.

The doctor could not perform the termination without risk of prosecution, incarceration and litigation as well as the possibility of losing his job. Even if it is likely he would have it all overturned in the future it is unfair to put that kind of decision on one man. That is why legislation and guidance was needed.

Yes he could. It is clearly established that abortion is legal in the case of risk of life to the mother. Abortions are routinely carried out in the case of ectopic pregnancies here even.

andrewdeerpark

MagicSean wrote: »

No you were looking for a witch hunt.

The doctor could not perform the termination without risk of prosecution, incarceration and litigation as well as the possibility of losing his job. Even if it is likely he would have it all overturned in the future it is unfair to put that kind of decision on one man. That is why legislation and guidance was needed.

So the hospital and consultant done a brilliant job so, no questions to answer case closed!

strandroad

http://www.thejournal.ie/savita-demonstration-leinster-house-674695-Nov2012

There is an excellent post on The Journal explaining how the law is applied in practice and how fuzzy edges may cause it happen again, by Katie Does.

Not sure if it's ok to quote it here, mods please edit it out if not!

@Mike You make it sound so simple.
If you had listened to her husband and to news reports you would know that she was given antibiotics from the outset. You would also know that septicemia is a well known and extremely serious complication of miscarriage, because when the cervix is open and the uterus enlarged, soft and with such a good blood supply, antibiotics alone are often not enough. You would also have learned that the recognised treatment, where infection is likely or there are signs of infection and the pregnancy no longer viable, is to empty the uterus so that the cervix can close.
You are wrong to say there is legislation in place to deal with this already. There is not.
The law in a fuzzy way allows for procedures where the death of the foetus is the likely result of life saving treatment for the mother – but ONLY provided every effort is also made to preserve the life of the foetus, which is accorded equal rights. The dilemma that arises in Ireland is that if there are no signs of life-threatening infection already present, even though everyone knows that there is a very high risk of it occuring, there are NO legal grounds on which doctors can act to remove the foetus – thereby necessarily causing its death – even where there is no hope that it would have lived anyway. You are assuming a failure of diagnosis in the absence of evidence. There are fast moving, fast changing medical conditions – diagnosis is not a simple black and white affair.
It seems to me that the sad truth is that Savita did not get sick enough fast enough to allow doctors to decide that such an procedure could legally be carried out. She wasn’t assessed to be already dying, therefore legally nothing could be done, even in the knowledge that every extra hour was increasing the risk of the eventual outcome substantially. Only by risking their careers by carrying out a procedure that was clearly against the law could the medics have acted.
You can argue that they should, morally, have done so in spite of the legal situation and to hell with the consequences. But dilemmas of this sort, in spite of what people like to believe, are not all that rare. Doctors have to make difficult calls like this regularly.
Sometimes they are lucky and although they don’t act, things work out ok, but I personally know of more than one case where they have taken a risk and quietly broken the law to do what was needed. But they should never, ever, ever, be in a position where they have to take medical decisions like this in the absence of legal protection and while thinking about the law rather than the best interests of their patient.

saspeir

keano_afc wrote: »

I think you should stop using this tragedy as a springboard for your hatred of God.

I don't hold particularly strong emotions for fictitious characters.

Dangerous and irrationally held beliefs that take lives on the other hand...

K-9

The X case wouldn't have helped this woman when she initially found out she was having a miscarriage, from press reports.

I think there is a huge body of opinion out there that thinks legislating for the X case would be a panacea, its still very limited and mostly deals with suicide being treated as justifiable cause.

I'm no expert but the X case wouldn't have been much use to this woman who wanted to "abort" a baby, she was going to miscarry anyway.

andrewdeerpark wrote: »

Their is the grey area where the mothers life is threatened.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/debate-rages-on-20-years-after-the-x-case-resolved-nothing-3294263.html

X Case
"The case resulted in a Supreme Court ruling that terminations should be lawful when a woman's life is in danger or she is at risk of suicide."

The consultant had plenty of grey areas to work within.

Or did he / she (consultant) not think to transfer her to a hospital in Northern Ireland?

Either way the consultant has questions to answer. So put a microphone in front of him.

Tragedy

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

The cause here was because she was fully dilated, cervix was open and high risk for infection.

Really, where did you read that?

I mean it's true that the cervix being fully dilated carries a high risk of infection, but I don't recall reading anywhere that that was deemed to be the case in this situation.

Any chance you could provide proof, or are you another spoofer drawing wonky conclusions and facts from supposition?

keano_afc

Ghost Buster wrote: »

he doesnt believe in unicorns either. Unicorn hatin' bastid!

Sshhh, the adults are talking.

andrewdeerpark

Truman Burbank wrote: »

Andrew dear, park your thoughts in your head because they are absurd. Yours etc.

Mine is just another view point, I may be totally wrong, however as I and several others cannot understand the woman took 3 days to die, this was not a case where an instant decision has to be made, the consultant had time to consider a lot of possibilities, all I am saying is did he / she do his or her job to the fullest.

efb

Twenty years late, two failed referenda and an innocent woman dead in UCGH
WE MUST LEGISLATE FOR X!
#Savita

Ghost Buster

keano_afc wrote: »

Sshhh, the adults are talking.

Adults know the difference between having issues with religions which influence state, hatred, and not believing in fictional beings.

Callan57

Cool Mo D wrote: »

Yes he could. It is clearly established that abortion is legal in the case of risk of life to the mother. Abortions are routinely carried out in the case of ectopic pregnancies here even.[/QUOTE]

Ah but we don't call them abortions .... it's all about the angels dancing on the head of the pin - the Irish solution as always, hypocrisy.:rolleyes:

HeyThereDeliah

Cool Mo D wrote: »

Yes he could. It is clearly established that abortion is legal in the case of risk of life to the mother. Abortions are routinely carried out in the case of ectopic pregnancies here even.

An ectopic pregnancy will put the mothers life in danger immediately, in this case the woman's life was not in danger when she was admitted to the hospital.
It should have been a normal miscarriage but it wasn't. The baby was still alive and the doctors IMO neglected her.
They probably hoped the baby would miscarry naturally and the mother would be ok.

golden lane

trial by forum ?????.......time to change the constitution ........again.....

MagicSean

Cool Mo D wrote: »

Yes he could. It is clearly established that abortion is legal in the case of risk of life to the mother. Abortions are routinely carried out in the case of ectopic pregnancies here even.

No it was generally established. There was no clear rules set out by the supreme court. They left that to the government.

andrewdeerpark wrote: »

So the hospital and consultant done a brilliant job so, no questions to answer case closed!

They did all they could legally do in this country.

Ghost Buster

Tragedy wrote: »

Really, where did you read that?

I mean it's true that the cervix being fully dilated carries a high risk of infection, but I don't recall reading anywhere that that was deemed to be the case in this situation.

Any chance you could provide proof, or are you another spoofer drawing wonky conclusions and facts from supposition?

If you had read it anywhere then by your own criteria you would have to discount it as it came from the press in some for or other.

billybudd

Cool Mo D wrote: »

Yes he could. It is clearly established that abortion is legal in the case of risk of life to the mother. Abortions are routinely carried out in the case of ectopic pregnancies here even.

There is no clearly, thats the point.

keano_afc

Ghost Buster wrote: »

If you had read it anywhere then by your own criteria you would have to discount it as it came from the press in some for or other.

Is this not the point? Nobody here knows the full facts, yet it hasnt stopped the majority of posters from making their own minds up about what has happened.

Ghost Buster

keano_afc wrote: »

Is this not the point? Nobody here knows the full facts, yet it hasnt stopped the majority of posters from making their own minds up about what has happened.

Some have some have not. From whence else do we get our info?

HeyThereDeliah

Tragedy wrote: »

Really, where did you read that?

I mean it's true that the cervix being fully dilated carries a high risk of infection, but I don't recall reading anywhere that that was deemed to be the case in this situation.

Any chance you could provide proof, or are you another spoofer drawing wonky conclusions and facts from supposition?

Well considering she was having a miscarriage, her cervix was open then it is fairly safe to assume this is how she got the infection.
If you want proof wait for the report.