Pregnant woman dies in UCHG after being refused a termination

Tragedy

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.

What are you talking about? I haven't seen a single news report or press release state that the definitive cause of this woman's death, yet this thread is full of people willing to tell me what definitely 100% caused her death.

I'm more than entitled to ask for some evidence when people are making claims like that.

Tragedy

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

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.

Oh, so your definitive fact is actually just supposition and opinion?

Nice of you to spoof about it, cheers.

Out of curiosity, are you a medical professional, or from whence comes your expert medical opinion?

jill_valentine

Tragedy wrote: »

What are you talking about? I haven't seen a single news report or press release state that the definitive cause of this woman's death, yet this thread is full of people willing to tell me what definitely 100% caused her death.

I'm more than entitled to ask for some evidence when people are making claims like that.

You're getting fixated on what amounts to a semantic issue because it makes you feel like you're right, but what difference does it actually make to the substance of the debate?

She died of septicemia that was almost certainly caused by her protracted miscarriage. "Almost certainly" is not different enough from "Very certainly" to have any bearing on the material point.

HeyThereDeliah

Tragedy wrote: »

Oh, so your definitive fact is actually just supposition and opinion?

Nice of you to spoof about it, cheers.

What is your problem? Did she die from blood poisoning ? How do you think this happened?

Rodin

the internet is great at giving people an opportunity to have their voice heard. Unfortunately that means the uneducated and illinformed are all the louder.

Anyone who is an medical professional, put your hands up. Anyone else, pipe down. you REALLY don't know what you're talking about.

No report is released yet. And until it is, all else is conjecture and supposition.

How anyone with no medical background thinks their opinion on this subject is even worth hearing I have no idea. Even with said background, I doubt anyone here was present in the hospital, so please, refrain.

Tragedy

jill_valentine wrote: »

You're getting fixated on what amounts to a semantic issue because it makes you feel like you're right, but what difference does it actually make to the substance of the debate?

I'm getting fixated on semantic issues because it makes me feel like I'm right? About what? All I've said so far was that people were jumping on the bandwagon too quickly for my liking, based on there being very few facts about the case around.

This thread isn't about an Abortion debate, it's about the death of a woman - although your callous and cavalier attitude probably shouldn't surprise me at this stage as so far you only seem to care about the abortion debate and not a whit about the death of a person.

She died of septicemia that was almost certainly caused by her protracted miscarriage. "Almost certainly" is not different enough from "Very certainly" to have any bearing on the material point.

Where does almost certainly come from?

Rodin

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.

Complete rubbish.

Tragedy

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

What is your problem? Did she die from blood poisoning ? How do you think this happened?

My problem is people lying about 'facts' to suit their opinion and viewpoint.

You stated the definitive cause of her death. No-one as yet seems to know the definitive cause of her death past septicemia.

You lied.

Lingua Franca

Tragedy wrote: »

I'm getting fixated on semantic issues because it makes me feel like I'm right? About what? All I've said so far was that people were jumping on the bandwagon too quickly for my liking, based on there being very few facts about the case around.

This thread isn't about an Abortion debate, it's about the death of a woman - although your callous and cavalier attitude probably shouldn't surprise me at this stage as so far you only seem to care about the abortion debate and not a whit about the death of a person.

And your sympathy was expressed where, exactly? Your own posts have been beyond callous and cavalier and seem to be more about attacking other posters than anything else.

dr.bollocko

Tragedy wrote: »

What are you talking about? I haven't seen a single news report or press release state that the definitive cause of this woman's death, yet this thread is full of people willing to tell me what definitely 100% caused her death.

I'm more than entitled to ask for some evidence when people are making claims like that.

Did you just read the headlines and then kinda come up with the point at which you are going to stick your head in the sand before you heard any of the details?

Tragedy wrote: »

I'm getting fixated on semantic issues because it makes me feel like I'm right? About what? All I've said so far was that people were jumping on the bandwagon too quickly for my liking, based on there being very few facts about the case around.

This thread isn't about an Abortion debate, it's about the death of a woman - although your callous and cavalier attitude probably shouldn't surprise me at this stage as so far you only seem to care about the abortion debate and not a whit about the death of a person.


Where does almost certainly come from?

Actually I think you'll find people are not using this to forward an abortions for everyone debate or cheapening the death of a woman to forward their own evil ends.

The issue here is that the medical treatment given to a woman who suffered a miscarriage was less than what it should be because of a technicality.

The woman is now dead.

People have every right to be angry about that.

keano_afc

saspeir wrote: »

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

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

I believe in God. My faith is very strong and very important to me. I also believe that a foetal termination should be carried out if there is a real threat to the life of the mother.

Can you get your narrow mind around that?

Tragedy

Lingua Franca wrote: »

And your sympathy was expressed where, exactly? Your own posts have been beyond callous and cavalier and seem to be more about attacking other posters than anything else.

Why would I express my sympathy to strangers on the internet?

Also, do show where my posts have been callous and cavalier over the death of this poor woman?

HeyThereDeliah

Tragedy wrote: »

My problem is people lying about 'facts' to suit their opinion and viewpoint.

You stated the definitive cause of her death. No-one as yet seems to know the definitive cause of her death past septicemia.

You lied.

I never stated the cause of her death, I stated how in this case she got septicaemia. I did not lie.

jill_valentine

Tragedy wrote: »

This thread isn't about an Abortion debate, it's about the death of a woman - although your callous and cavalier attitude probably shouldn't surprise me at this stage as so far you only seem to care about the abortion debate and not a whit about the death of a person.

I am inclined to suggest you're projecting. Either that, or you're reading posts other than mine.

I am neither callous nor cavalier in my attitude towards this case. I find it incredibly frustrating and deeply upsetting that a woman could spend three days in unnecessary agony because our legislators don't have the decency to get their acts together.

I care about the abortion debate because I do not believe that the circumstances which allowed this death to happen are tolerable. This is not an acceptable loss, somebody died a horrible death that could have been avoided. This woman was denied the best medical response for her situation, to no end except hers, and that is why the legislation matters.

poeticseraphim

K-9 wrote: »

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.

Here here.

Lingua Franca

Tragedy wrote: »

Why would I express my sympathy to strangers on the internet?

Because you're complaining that others don't care one whit about a woman's death when you've not shown any sign that you do either.

Also, do show where my posts have been callous and cavalier over the death of this poor woman?

Tragedy wrote: »

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

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


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

Also, you can speak with the dead? I have some people I'd like you to get in touch with, ta.

Also this little gem:

Tragedy wrote: »

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



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.

Raping this woman's memory? Pretty disgusting terminology there.

Tragedy

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Did you just read the headlines and then kinda come up with the point at which you are going to stick your head in the sand before you heard any of the details?

Right, and what details am I missing? Because ya know, my whole point was people should wait for details before leaping to join a cause.

Actually I think you'll find people are not using this to forward an abortions for everyone debate or cheapening the death of a woman to forward their own evil ends.

Actually, I think you'll find people are using this to forward their own personal opinions and viewpoints and Jill_Valentine does indeed seem to be cheapening the death of a woman to forward her own viewpoint.

Also, good job on the whole evil ends bit, way to condescend rather than address. A+

Just a couple I noticed on Twitter from the Savita protest/vigil:

Ruth Coppinger 'we need a separation of church and state'

Ellie a pro-choice activist says it 'should be a right to choose'

'No longer can abortion be stigmatised'

The issue here is that the medical treatment given to a woman who suffered a miscarriage was less than what it should be because of a technicality.

The woman is now dead.

People have every right to be angry about that.

Sure, but people might want to wait and find out what to angry about first.

saspeir

keano_afc wrote: »

I believe in God. My faith is very strong and very important to me. I also believe that a foetal termination should be carried out if there is a real threat to the life of the mother.

Can you get your narrow mind around that?

I presume your faith is Catholicism... If that is the case then no, I can't. Pope Benedick, your main man is against abortion. He's also not for the a la carte. You obviously ain't got your head around that.

Tragedy

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

I never stated the cause of her death, I stated how in this case she got septicaemia. I did not lie.

You don't know how she got septicemia, you know a possible way she got it. You did lie!

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Because you're complaining that others don't care one whit about a woman's death when you've not shown any sign that you do either.

There's quite a big difference between showing signs you don't care, and showing no signs either way.

Also this little gem

How is it callous or cavalier to ask a poster how they're getting definitive factual information on cause of death that no-one else seems to have?
It isn't? Oh right, do feel free to apologise so.

Someone died, have some ****ing respect for her and her memory

Ya, terribly callous and cavalier. My apologies for wanting people to treat someone who just died with some respect.

Raping this woman's memory? Pretty disgusting terminology there.

Oh right, you're one of those.

Lingua Franca

One of what?

saspeir

Rodin wrote: »

Complete rubbish.

Care to enlighten us so?

My source was what I picked up off a professional talking on Pat Kenny this morning.

ilovesleep

billybudd wrote: »

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.

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

I said the CC are partly to blame. The CC views on abortion as shameful act and some people look up to the CC and follow them and their views. It could also be possible to believe in pro-life and not look up to the CC. I don't know. The CC may not have a part to play in this case but they do have a part to play in Ireland's backwards position on abortion.

Your post applies that we are to blame. How so

phoenix999

Wasn't this the same hospital that failed to diagnose breast cancer in a woman on three occasions? She had to go to Cork to be correctly diagnosed. Incompetence of the highest order. Why do the staff involved never seem to face any consequences for their actions?

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/doctors-failed-three-times-to-diagnose-my-breast-cancer-3256465.html

Ann22

I've had 5 miscarriages, each one I've been bleeding for up to a week before I've passed the fetus and placenta, a d&c wasn't performed in any until this happened. I'm sure my cervix was open a fair bit for all this time and I was in pain and an emotional wreck the whole time. If there was the slightest hint of a heartbeat I'd have wanted to hold on.

What happened this girl was an absolute tragedy and my thoughts and prayers go out to her loved ones. I'd say similar things happen all the time but thankfully don't end in the death of the mother. I wouldn't imagine for a minute that the doctors thought her life was in danger.

I had a heavy bleed at 16wks with my son and thank God he survived. I was told at around 16-17 wks the placenta moves upwards and at this time there can be some blood loss. Maybe the doctors thought that this is what was happening this girl.

If this poor girl had've had an abortion, she could well have been tortured with regret and fear that maybe, just maybe her little one may have survived. I know well the irrational feelings of guilt and remorse that occurs after the trauma of miscarriage, 'maybe I shouldn't have lifted those heavy shopping bags' or 'maybe I didn't rest enough'. I can't imagine how I'd feel if the doctors had removed my baby at my request no matter how many times I was told that there was no hope of survival.:(

jill_valentine

Lingua Franca wrote: »

One of what?

Yes, I'd very much like you to elaborate too, in the most unambiguous terms, what exactly you mean by that.

Rodin

saspeir wrote: »

Care to enlighten us so?

My source was what I picked up off a professional talking on Pat Kenny this morning.

Septicaemia is simply an infection of the blood with large numbers of bacteria present. It does not have to have started in an organ. An intravenous drug user can introduce infection by way of a syringe directly into the blood stream. No organ infection needs to be present first.

billybudd

ilovesleep wrote: »

I said the CC are partly to blame. The CC views on abortion as shameful act and some people look up to the CC and follow them and their views. It could also be possible to believe in pro-life and not look up to the CC. I don't know. The CC may not have a part to play in this case but they do have a part to play in Ireland's backwards position on abortion.

Your post applies that we are to blame. How so

We elect the goverment and maybe we prioritise the wrong things, this subject has by the majority of people been ignored for the guts of 20 yrs, are we not partly to blame for not getting it properly legislated before so there is no question to what is allowed and what is not? I mean i dont think there has been this much debate or profile about abortion since the x case in 1992.

I think that may have been true a decade ago, i dont think the CC have much power over people now, esp people under 50.

dr.bollocko

Tragedy wrote: »

Right, and what details am I missing? Because ya know, my whole point was people should wait for details before leaping to join a cause.






Actually, I think you'll find people are using this to forward their own personal opinions and viewpoints and Jill_Valentine does indeed seem to be cheapening the death of a woman to forward her own viewpoint.

Also, good job on the whole evil ends bit, way to condescend rather than address. A+

Wait... Your argument is that others should wait to hear details before leaping to a cause?

Do you read your own posts?

ilovesleep

The previous government were able to give us
- a plastic bag levy
- a smoking ban
- off licenses close at 10pm
- the banning of headshops

and yet they weren't ever able to give us anything on abortion. Why not? Is it a topic no politician wants to touch?

saspeir

Rodin wrote: »

Septicaemia is simply an infection of the blood with large numbers of bacteria present. It does not have to have started in an organ. An intravenous drug user can introduce infection by way of a syringe directly into the blood stream. No organ infection needs to be present first.

Yes, but usually it is from an organ or body part? This woman was clearly not a drug user. You said my information was 'complete rubbish'. Care to say why that is?

HeyThereDeliah

Tragedy wrote: »

You don't know how she got septicemia, you know a possible way she got it. You did lie!

No I don't know but it's fairly obvious how she contacted it.

If it makes you feel better I will say I lied. You are acting like a spoilt child who has to get his own way.

keano_afc

saspeir wrote: »

I presume your faith is Catholicism... If that is the case then no, I can't. Pope Benedick, your main man is against abortion. He's also not for the a la carte. You obviously ain't got your head around that.

You'd presume wrong. Something which, reading this thread, you do an awful lot of the time.

billybudd

ilovesleep wrote: »

The previous government were able to give us
- a plastic bag levy
- a smoking ban
- off licenses close at 10pm
- the banning of headshops

and yet they weren't ever able to give us anything on abortion. Why not? Is it a topic no politician wants to touch?

where was the demand for it?

and yes they didnt want to confront it because as you see it is a very devisive thing and yes they will get it in the neck by both sets of groups with agendas of their own.

B0jangles

Rodin wrote: »

Septicaemia is simply an infection of the blood with large numbers of bacteria present. It does not have to have started in an organ. An intravenous drug user can introduce infection by way of a syringe directly into the blood stream. No organ infection needs to be present first.

So it was a coincidence that she arrived in hosiptal with severe backpain, was eventually diagnosed to be miscarrying, was told it would be over in hours, then spent three full days in increasing pain, fever and incapacity waiting for the miscarriage to be over.

And then died.

Of septicaemia.

Rodin

B0jangles wrote: »

So it was a coincidence that she arrived in hosiptal with severe backpain, was eventually diagnosed to be miscarrying, was told it would be over in hours, then spent three full days in increasing pain, fever and incapacity waiting for the miscarriage to be over.

And then died.

Of septicaemia.

I think you are arguing against a point I haven't even made.

Lingua Franca

B0jangles wrote: »

So it was a coincidence that she arrived in hosiptal with severe backpain, was eventually diagnosed to be miscarrying, was told it would be over in hours, then spent three full days in increasing pain, fever and incapacity waiting for the miscarriage to be over.

And then died.

Of septicaemia.

She was actually told she was miscarrying a week before she died, so she was miscarrying at home for 4 days before going to the hospital. Which means her cervix was at least partially opened for 4 days before she presented at hospital with the back pain etc.

OMD

B0jangles wrote: »

So it was a coincidence that she arrived in hosiptal with severe backpain, was eventually diagnosed to be miscarrying, was told it would be over in hours, then spent three full days in increasing pain, fever and incapacity waiting for the miscarriage to be over.

And then died.

Of septicaemia.

Did the miscarriage cause the septicaemia or did the septicaemia cause the miscarriage?
Did the miscarriage or live baby effect in any way the treatment she received?

strandroad

Lingua Franca wrote: »

She was actually told she was miscarrying a week before she died, so she was miscarrying at home for 4 days before going to the hospital.

I think she was in the hospital for a week. Four days until she miscarried (collapsing on the third), then ill and getting worse for the next three or so.

Noreen1

Ann22 wrote: »

I've had 5 miscarriages, each one I've been bleeding for up to a week before I've passed the fetus and placenta, a d&c wasn't performed in any until this happened. I'm sure my cervix was open a fair bit for all this time and I was in pain and an emotional wreck the whole time. If there was the slightest hint of a heartbeat I'd have wanted to hold on.

What happened this girl was an absolute tragedy and my thoughts and prayers go out to her loved ones. I'd say similar things happen all the time but thankfully don't end in the death of the mother. I wouldn't imagine for a minute that the doctors thought her life was in danger.

I had a heavy bleed at 16wks with my son and thank God he survived. I was told at around 16-17 wks the placenta moves upwards and at this time there can be some blood loss. Maybe the doctors thought that this is what was happening this girl.

If this poor girl had've had an abortion, she could well have been tortured with regret and fear that maybe, just maybe her little one may have survived. I know well the irrational feelings of guilt and remorse that occurs after the trauma of miscarriage, 'maybe I shouldn't have lifted those heavy shopping bags' or 'maybe I didn't rest enough'. I can't imagine how I'd feel if the doctors had removed my baby at my request no matter how many times I was told that there was no hope of survival.:(

My niece has had three miscarriages.(None of them in Galway)
Standard practice in each case, even though the baby was already dead, was to wait until she miscarried naturally. On one occasion, that took two weeks.
Each time, she was given a course of antibiotics until the baby was miscarried, and for a week afterwards, to ward off infection/septicaemia.

It appears to be standard medical practice. My niece was told it was because the risk related to infection was regarded as lower than the risks associated with D&C.
Hence, afaik, the whole abortion thing appears to be a complete red herring.

My sincere condolences to the family involved. R.I.P.

Lingua Franca

mhge wrote: »

I think she was in the hospital for a week. Four days until she miscarried (collapsing on the third), then ill and getting worse for the next three or so.

Ah, you're right. Thanks for clearing that up.

ilovesleep

billybudd wrote: »

where was the demand for it?

and yes they didnt want to confront it because as you see it is a very devisive thing and yes they will get it in the neck by both sets of groups with agendas of their own.

Where was the demand for
- a plastic bag levy?
- a smoking ban?
- early closure of offlicenses?
- the banning of headshops?

And yet they were able to do all this without any demands. Why not abortion? Are we supposed to go into the Dail, hold their hands and do their work?

Rodin

57 women have died while pregnant from sepsis in the UK between the years 2000-2008.

All those waving their placards and shouting aloud that she'd have been grand had she had a surgical evacuation really need to get their facts straight.

The sad truth is that things go wrong. Was someone negligent? A report will tell us in time. But there is no guarantee that a woman will make it through pregnancy with all the care in the world. Thankfully that case is much rarer in Ireland than in most other countries including those with much less scruples regarding abortion.

strandroad

OMD wrote: »

Did the miscarriage cause the septicaemia or did the septicaemia cause miscarriage?

Miscarriage process preceded septicaemia signs by a few days so it's probably the former.

franktheplank

phoenix999 wrote: »

Wasn't this the same hospital that failed to diagnose breast cancer in a woman on three occasions? She had to go to Cork to be correctly diagnosed. Incompetence of the highest order. Why do the staff involved never seem to face any consequences for their actions?

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/doctors-failed-three-times-to-diagnose-my-breast-cancer-3256465.html

Unfortunately this woman isn't to first to die while in the health care system. There wasn't quite the same demands for referendums on the other occaisions though.

Is this tragedy (blameless or not) being co-opted by the pro-choice movement? Also did this woman 'choose' to have a miscarraige, 'choose' to become ill?

I think the circumstances under which she asked for an abortion we're not a free choice. As such i think it's very wrong for her to suddenly become the poster-child of the 'pro-choice' movement.

Pro-medical abortion or something along those line fine, any one that wants to argue that point is fine by me. But calling this 'pro-choice' is sick and twisted imho.

jam_mac_jam

The more I hear about this the less I think this is about the need for choice or abortion but that this hospital incompetence. I am in favour of legislation for the X case however maybe they just ****ed up.

I wonder how much was this due to staff and the fact it was a bank holiday weekend rather than anything to do with the law. The fact that somebody said "its a catholic country" might have been right at the start, we don't know the context. This seems to be just being reported from the Irish Times article all over the place when its not really clear what went on. I think there is more to this then meets the eye.

dr.bollocko

franktheplank wrote: »

Unfortunately this woman isn't to first to die while in the health care system. There wasn't quite the same demands for referendums on the other occaisions though.

Is this tragedy (blameless or not) being co-opted by the pro-choice movement? Also did this woman 'choose' to have a miscarraige, 'choose' to become ill?

I think the circumstances under which she asked for an abortion we're not a free choice. As such i think it's very wrong for her to suddenly become the poster-child of the 'pro-choice' movement.

Pro-medical abortion or something along those line fine, any one that wants to argue that point is fine by me. But calling this 'pro-choice' is sick and twisted imho.

According to the widower they chose to terminate the nonviable foetus to protect the dwindling health of the mother. That choice was taken away from them.

calling this 'pro-choice' is sick and twisted imho.

billybudd

ilovesleep wrote: »

Where was the demand for
- a plastic bag levy?
- a smoking ban?
- early closure of offlicenses?
- the banning of headshops?

And yet they were able to do all this without any demands. Why not abortion? Are we supposed to go into the Dail, hold their hands and do their work?

Because they are easy things to legislate for, abortion is not.

I am not saying it is right.

No we are not suppose to hold their hands, but we are not meant to ignore issues as serious as abortion and all its implications and leave it to be ignored by our government, the one we elected, we are constantly meant to question government and lobby it if we think something needs to be brought to the surface.

In the US abortion is a big issue and is very often protested at and often weekly there is protests outside the whitehouse so the government do have to confront it and then we know where members of government stand and we can vote them in or our on those beliefs, you very rarely see that here because until something like this happens then no one really cares.

JackPerry

"Apparently the women was told "this is a Catholic country, we don't have abortion"
I have not read all the comments on this issue but has anyone given consideration that these words may have been stated by a Non Catholic ,non Irish doctor or nurse who were actually criticising the situation as it stands and felt powerless to do anything. Equally the words could could have been stated by a Irish person who is critical of the present policies.

hiram

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

The more I hear about this the less I think this is about the need for choice or abortion but that this hospital incompetence. I am in favour of legislation for the X case however maybe they just ****ed up.

I wonder how much was this due to staff and the fact it was a bank holiday weekend rather than anything to do with the law. The fact that somebody said "its a catholic country" might have been right at the start, we don't know the context. This seems to be just being reported from the Irish Times article all over the place when its not really clear what went on. I think there is more to this then meets the eye.

It's being reported everywhere...just google it.
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-20321741

jam_mac_jam

JackPerry wrote: »

"Apparently the women was told "this is a Catholic country, we don't have abortion"
I have not read all the comments on this issue but has anyone given consideration that these words may have been stated by a Non Catholic ,non Irish doctor or nurse who were actually criticising the situation as it stands and felt powerless to do anything. Equally the words could could have been stated by a Irish person who is critical of the present policies.

Yes, this is a good point. We don't know what the context is.