Pregnant woman dies in UCHG after being refused a termination

ilovesleep

Rodin wrote: »

And the mother's who bring the child to hospital convinced there is something serious but actually the child is perfectly fine?

I was making an example that a mothers instinct is the best thing to go on.

What is your point here with this?

jimmycrackcorm

saspeir wrote: »

http://www.channel4.com/news/woman-dies-in-ireland-after-abortion-refused

Read this. Particularly the quote about how medics referred to Ireland being a "Catholic Country"!

Most of our hospital doctors are non-Irish and probably under the same illusion that this is a Catholic country when it is anything but.

tolosenc

eyescreamcone wrote: »

I'd like to see an opinion poll done this week

Do you agree with abortion in the following cases??
If the mothers life is at risk?
If the mothers health is at risk?
If the pregnancy is due to rape or incest?
If the unborn child is not viable?
If the child was to be disabled or DS?
On demand??

(Any other relevant questions??)

The answers to these questions would be very useful to the discussion

I agree in all of those cases provided the parents of the foetus want to have an abortion.

Rodin

ilovesleep wrote: »

I was making an example that a mothers instinct is the best thing to go on.

What is your point here with this?

My point is I disagree with you.
I'd choose a doctor over my mother to decide medical treatment for me any day of the week.

ilovesleep

tolosenc wrote: »

Fox News presenter just criticised Ireland's abortion laws as overly restrictive live on air.

We've literally hit rock bottom.

We would have the likes of Rodkin and other pro-life pushers to thank along with our selfish, greedy government.

T-K-O

Hi,

Am I right in thinking this happened two weeks ago. If so why did it take two weeks for this story to hit the papers?

Rodin

tolosenc wrote: »

I agree in all of those cases provided the parents of the foetus want to have an abortion.

Yes.
Depends.
No.
No.
No.
No.

Absolutely no way should a kid with Down's be terminated just because they have Down's and the mother is otherwise healthy.

strandroad

Rodin wrote: »

I don't believe I made the claim that it was inevitable.

You did, by comparing with other pregnant women who died of sepsis. in their case it was a given, in hers a possibility. Possibly avoided with early enough help.

What is your point anyway, you just seem to throw loose facts around?

Rodin

ilovesleep wrote: »

We would have the likes of Rodkin and other pro-life pushers to thank along with our selfish, greedy government.

Have a little look at my answers to the poll just published.

Flier

Noreen1 wrote: »

You're missing the point I made.

My niece has had a child die, in utero, three times.

Standard practice, each time, was to wait until the baby was expelled naturally.

Nothing to do with being pro-life , or pro-choice. It was deemed the less risky form of treatment.

Another poster has had five miscarriages - with the same treatment.
Again. Nothing to do with pro-life, or pro-choice.
Just standard medical practice. Despite the associated risk of infection, or septicaemia.

Hence, women whose child has died, in utero, are at just as much risk of septicaemia as those who miscarry over a longer period than the normal couple of hours.
But their medical treatment is the same - therefore, the decision to wait for the baby to be miscarried naturally is one associated with medical risk - not pro-life, or legal issues.

In Savitas case, she developed septicaemia.
We don't know whether she was on antibiotics.
We don't know how soon a diagnosis of septicaemia was made.
If septicaemia had already set in before she requested a termination, (which appears to be the case, given her symptoms) the termination would not have altered the fact that she already had septicaemia - and, therefore, would have had no bearing on whether she lived, or died.

It's a tragic case.
But to state that a termination would have saved her life is pure speculation, at this point.
What we need right now are facts - and what we seem to be getting is people pushing an agenda.

I think Savita - and every other woman of child-bearing age (and below) - deserve better than that.

Women need to know the risks associated with "normal" (a couple of hours) miscarriage, as opposed to prolonged miscarriage, (irrespective of whether the baby is dead , or alive) and how they compare to the risks associated with D&C, for instance.
It seems logical to me that the risk of septicaemia is higher for a woman carrying a dead baby than a live one, for obvious reasons.
Yet that appears to have gone completely unnoticed in the hue and cry for "choice".
Or does it not matter whether a woman has a choice if her baby is already dead, because there's no agenda to push?

The difference being that when the cervix is closed and the amniotic sac is intact, the risk of infection is low. In this case, according to reports, the cervix was open, and amniotic fluid was leaking. In this case the risk of infection is much, much higher. I don't know what the guidelines are now, but it used to be that a woman should not be allowed to continue in labour if the waters had been broken for more than 24 hours because of the risk of infection. Savita was left 2 1/2 - 3 days. So I think this case may be very different to your experiences.

Rodin

mhge wrote: »

You did, by comparing with other pregnant women who died of sepsis. in their case it was a given, in hers a possibility. Possibly avoided with early enough help.

What is your point anyway, you just seem to throw loose facts around?

I use facts. Others just throw out unsubstantiated statements.

andrewdeerpark

Until an investigation is concluded the head consultant in charge of the late Savita and the hospital manager should step aside voluntarily, if not then the minister should place them on paid leave until an independent investigation is complete.

Also the pressure of this case will effect their working ability.

Plus the gardai should investigate the entire sad case.

The outrage here is that the woman slowly was left die over 3 days, many posters do not simply get that and understand how this is generating worldwide headlines.

Its bad when FOX the right wing nutters channel is outraged.

eyescreamcone

tolosenc wrote: »

I agree in all of those cases provided the parents of the foetus want to have an abortion.

Obviously you mean the mother ...especially in the cases of rape or incest??

Abi

The hypocrisy of it. They left a living, breathing human being in utter agony for a ridiculous period of time. Obviously showing signs of being extremely ill, and let her suffer a horrible death.

So, both mother and child suffered a prolonged, horrible death. If they viewed the baby as a human being with a right to life, should the mother not have the same entitlement?

ilovesleep

Rodin wrote: »

My point is I disagree with you.
I'd choose a doctor over my mother to decide medical treatment for me any day of the week.

I was giving an example of a mothers instinct when they have a young child who is ill. In a lot of cases a mothers instinct is correct.

This is besides the point and of topic now.

Sativa was the only one who knew her own body well enough so much so that she requested a termination but was refused (due to law).

tolosenc

Rodin wrote: »

Yes.
Depends.
No.
No.
No.
No.

Absolutely no way should a kid with Down's be terminated just because they have Down's and the mother is otherwise healthy.

Why don't you agree with someone else aborting their foetus? What has it got to do with you? It's their foetus and their choice. That's the only thing that should ever matter.

I know people who have a son with Down Syndrome. It is a massive financial burden that they are able to meet, but I imagine many would not. They would not be able to perform their duties as parents, and would, after much consideration, and with heavy hearts, conclude that an abortion is the best choice in their situation.

Rodin

I haven't yet found a paper on second trimester miscarriage but in a UK study of 1200 women in the UK, 'The incidence of gynaecological infection after surgical, expectant, and medical management of first trimester miscarriage is low (2-3%), and no evidence exists of a difference by the method of management.'

Rodin

tolosenc wrote: »

Why don't you agree with someone else aborting their foetus? What has it got to do with you? It's their foetus and their choice. That's the only thing that should ever matter.

I know people who have a son with Down Syndrome. It is a massive financial burden that they are able to meet, but I imagine many would not. They would not be able to perform their duties as parents, and would, after much consideration, and with heavy hearts, conclude that an abortion is the best choice in their situation.

What's wrong with having the Down's kid adopted?

CarrickMcJoe

This shameful story is front page news in the London Independent.

tolosenc

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Obviously you mean the mother ...especially in the cases of rape or incest??

Yes of course in those cases.

But in a broader sense, two people made that baby, why should only one get a say in the end.

phoenix999

The anti-Irish trolls are out in force in Daily Mail comments:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2232676/Savita-Halappanavar-Woman-died-blood-poisoning-Irish-medics-refused-perform-abortion-Catholic-country.html

strandroad

In Savitas case, she developed septicaemia.
We don't know whether she was on antibiotics.
We don't know how soon a diagnosis of septicaemia was made.
If septicaemia had already set in before she requested a termination, (which appears to be the case, given her symptoms) the termination would not have altered the fact that she already had septicaemia - and, therefore, would have had no bearing on whether she lived, or died.

From the articles, she showed signs of septicaemia on her third day in. She presented herself originally due to back pain and learnt that she is miscarrying. They asked for induction back then.

tolosenc

Rodin wrote: »

What's wrong with having the Down's kid adopted?

Up until last weekend that was illegal too.

Rodin

CarrickMcJoe wrote: »

This shameful story is front page news in the London Independent.

The article is OK until Clare Daly, whoever she is, makes an unsubstantiated statement.

jill_valentine

tolosenc wrote: »

Fox News presenter just criticised Ireland's abortion laws as overly restrictive live on air.

We've literally hit rock bottom.

Grim.

partyatmygaff

nervous_twitch wrote: »

However, this woman in pain requested a termination. She wanted to abort. It was denied, and unfortunately she lost her life for it.

That's not strictly speaking true. The fact the infection wasn't spotted and dealt with properly is what led to her death. Not the continued presence of the child in her uterus.

She was admitted to hospital with a miscarriage (Which initially appeared uncomplicated). Standard practice is to allow nature to take its course in "watchful waiting". Things didn't go as expected and the miscarriage continued far longer than it should have putting the medical team in a bit of a dilemma. On the one hand, they still had what appeared to be an uncomplicated miscarriage and they could continue waiting for the inevitable and pass off the entire scenario as a normal occurrence. On the other hand, they could dive in to a legal grey area and put themselves at a lot at risk for what (At the time) probably appeared to be a slightly prolonged miscarriage with few complications.

After 24 hours or so, warning bells should have started ringing in someone's head that an infection was possible and that she should be monitored for infection and given a course of antibiotics. That didn't seem to occur to any of the medical staff who only caught on as her condition became symptomatic. Instead, they seemed to focus their efforts on avoiding the legal grey area that is therapeutic abortion.

Had she been started on a course of antibiotics after 24 hours of admission and monitored for infection from that point on, the miscarriage would probably have resolved itself soon after the baby's heart stopped and she would have survived the ordeal. Depending on when the infection began, even if they aborted at the end of the first day it wouldn't have made any difference to the outcome as it was the septicaemia that actually killed her. The infection wouldn't have disappeared just because the baby was removed from the uterus. Considering she may have picked up the initial infection before she even requested an induction, it's hard to justify saying that her not getting an abortion definitely led to her death.

Flier

Rodin wrote: »

I haven't yet found a paper on second trimester miscarriage but in a UK study of 1200 women in the UK, 'The incidence of gynaecological infection after surgical, expectant, and medical management of first trimester miscarriage is low (2-3%), and no evidence exists of a difference by the method of management.'

But were these prolonged miscarraiges where the amniotic sac was no longer intact? You have to compare like with like, otherwise the study means nothing.

Rodin

'In Savitas case, she developed septicaemia.
We don't know whether she was on antibiotics.
We don't know how soon a diagnosis of septicaemia was made.
If septicaemia had already set in before she requested a termination, (which appears to be the case, given her symptoms) the termination would not have altered the fact that she already had septicaemia - and, therefore, would have had no bearing on whether she lived, or died. '

From RTE ''Sunday 21 October:

Patient presents to hospital complaining of backpain.

Patient is admitted with a threatened miscarriage to the Obstetrics and Gynaecology Unit.

Monday 22 October:

After 24 hours of admission, antibiotics are given.''

If you did some reading you would have known the patient had antibiotics given.

Tasden

nervous_twitch wrote: »

I really respect what you went through, I honestly do; and fair play to you for getting through your difficult pregnancy relatively unharmed.

However, this woman in pain requested a termination. She wanted to abort. It was denied, and unfortunately she lost her life for it.

Thank you for that.

My point was though that all through my pregnancy people made judgements on it, medically and otherwise, and they were wrong, which could have had serious consequences for my child's life. I was fortunate. This woman wasn't, but at the end of the day it is going to happen. People are only human. And I personally (so far) think this was an issue of human error in relation to deciding whether her life was in danger or not. I don't think the termination was denied as such, it was not an option due to legislation concerning her condition, which we now know was assessed incorrectly, if you get me?

Rodin

tolosenc wrote: »

Up until last weekend that was illegal too.

It was illegal to adopt a child with Down's syndrome?

strandroad

Rodin wrote: »

I use facts. Others just throw out unsubstantiated statements.

Random unrelated facts don't make any sense either. Apples and oranges.

Icepick

Rodin wrote: »

I haven't yet found a paper on second trimester miscarriage but in a UK study of 1200 women in the UK, 'The incidence of gynaecological infection after surgical, expectant, and medical management of first trimester miscarriage is low (2-3%), and no evidence exists of a difference by the method of management.'

200-300 of every 10,000 is far from low

Rodin

Tasden wrote: »

Thank you for that.

My point was though that all through my pregnancy people made judgements on it, medically and otherwise, and they were wrong, which could have had serious consequences for my child's life. I was fortunate. This woman wasn't, but at the end of the day it is going to happen. People are only human. And I personally (so far) think this was an issue of human error in relation to deciding whether her life was in danger or not. I don't think the termination was denied as such, it was not an option due to legislation concerning her condition, which we now know was assessed incorrectly, if you get me?

This is what we actually should be talking about. Whether there was a medical error or not, and how can changes make Ireland's already low maternal mortality rate even lower.

B0jangles

Rodin wrote: »

It was illegal to adopt a child with Down's syndrome?

Married people could not give up a child for adoption.

Rodin

mhge wrote: »

Random unrelated facts don't make any sense either. Apples and oranges.

I don't see how figures related to maternal mortailty due to sepsis are unrelated.

Flier

Rodin wrote: »

It was illegal to adopt a child with Down's syndrome?

If the parents were married, then yes!

Rodin

Flier wrote: »

If the parents were married, then yes!

Thankfully a divorce is now possible

strandroad

Rodin wrote: »

I don't see how figures related to maternal mortailty due to sepsis are unrelated.

Sure you don't, but I won't keep explaining.

Rodin

Flier wrote: »

If the parents were married, then yes!

Married people couldn't adopt a child with Down's syndrome?

Rodin

mhge wrote: »

Sure you don't, but I won't keep explaining.

You seem incapable of same anyway.

geetar

Rodin wrote: »

What's wrong with having the Down's kid adopted?

seriously? nobody would adopt a Down's syndrome child. it sounds pretty blunt, but its not really realistic at all.

Rodin

geetar wrote: »

seriously? nobody would adopt a Down's syndrome child. it sounds pretty blunt, but its not really realistic at all.

Absolute rubbish. NOBODY would adopt a kid with Down's?

Flier

Rodin wrote: »

This is what we actually should be talking about. Whether there was a medical error or not, and how can changes make Ireland's already low maternal mortality rate even lower.

The point is that if terminating a pregnancy was legal (and you can insert your own point of acceptability here - ie risk to health, on demand, or whatever) the doctor would have easily been able to make the decision, with the patients consent, to abort the foetus early. The patient would have gone home and we would not be having this debate.

redarmyblues

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0904/1224323574371.html

Fintan O Toole had a prescient piece in the IT in September on this issue and the doublethink that surrounds it.

The Supreme Court has ruled that abortion is legal in Ireland in certain limited circumstances; successive governments have failed to provide a statutory framework for this constitutional law. The Constitution is supreme source of law in this country and therefore can override certain provisions made against abortion in any circumstances in the 1861 offences against the person act, meaning it is legal to perform an abortion here and abortions are certainly performed.
Manslaughter on the other hand is a common law offence and there are ample precedents concerning the failure to act and also the effect of medical intervention or lack thereof to probably allow a prosecution in this case, whether it would succeed is another matter, the failure of legislature to provide legal guidance to medical practitioners would certainly be raised by the defence and this would surely exceed reasonable doubt.

The irony is that the 1983 amendment to the Constitution that opened the door to restricted abortions was inserted at the behest of the Pro Life Movement despite the fact that there was not at that time any chance that the statutory prohibitions on abortion be relaxed, the motive was to cement Catholic Church teaching into Irish Law and to I suppose allow the campaigners a moment to bask in hubristic piety, thus this week two familiar and ugly faces from Irish publicl life, moral superiority and political cowardice crossed paths and the place where they met was tragically for her Savita Halappanavar.

I think it is foolish to underestimate the continuing influence of the Catholic Church in the higher echelons of Irish life as the man said
“Oh Ireland my first and only love, Where Christ and Caesar are hand in glove!”

Well I just hope the gloves are well and truly off this time.

irishfeen

Sorry lads if it has been posted already but this this the report on the tragic death by NBC in America tonight ... http://video.msnbc.msn.com/nightly-news/49830482#49830482

Rodin

Flier wrote: »

The point is that if terminating a pregnancy was legal (and you can insert your own point of acceptability here - ie risk to health, on demand, or whatever) the doctor would have easily been able to make the decision, with the patients consent, to abort the foetus early. The patient would have gone home and we would not be having this debate.

So you're saying, if the foetus had been terminated, the patient would have lived? On what do you base this?

nervous_twitch

partyatmygaff wrote: »

That's not strictly speaking true.

She was admitted to hospital with a miscarriage (Which initially appeared uncomplicated). Standard practice is to allow nature to take its course in "watchful waiting". Things didn't go as expected and the miscarriage continued far longer than it should have putting the medical team in a bit of a dilemma. On the one hand, they still had what appeared to be an uncomplicated miscarriage and they could continue waiting for the inevitable and pass off the entire scenario as a normal occurrence. On the other hand, they could dive in to a legal grey area and put themselves at a lot at risk for what (At the time) probably appeared to be a slightly prolonged miscarriage with few complications.

After 24 hours or so, warning bells should have started ringing in someone's head that an infection was possible and that she should be monitored for infection and given a course of antibiotics. That didn't seem to occur to any of the medical staff who only caught on as her condition became symptomatic. Instead, they seemed to focus their efforts on avoiding the legal grey area that is therapeutic abortion.

Had she been started on a course of antibiotics after 24 hours of admission and monitored for infection from that point on, the miscarriage would probably have resolved itself soon after the baby's heart stopped and she would have survived the ordeal. Depending on when the infection began, even if they aborted at the end of the first day it wouldn't have made any difference to the outcome as it was the septicaemia that actually killed her. The infection wouldn't have disappeared just because the baby was removed from the uterus.

I can't respond to that honestly until the full details emerge; what I understand at the moment though is that this woman was hospitalised for a miscarriage - a miscarriage that continued for three days at her expense, even when she requested intervention. Legal grey areas aside, I would generally hope a medical practitioner could identify a life at threat, and be able to do all in his power to extinguish this threat. If he's restricted by the laws of the land, I understand that his hands are tied - and that's why people are seeking proper judicial resolution.

I made a point a few posts ago, that this case is more than just this woman getting ill treatment at an Irish hospital - it's about doctors having full rights to abort when they know it could save a patient at risk.

Flier

Rodin wrote: »

So you're saying, if the foetus had been terminated, the patient would have lived? On what do you base this?

Reason, experience and rationality.

Rodin

nervous_twitch wrote: »

I can't respond to that honestly until the full details emerge; what I understand at the moment though is that this woman was hospitalised for a miscarriage - a miscarriage that continued for three days at her expense, even when she requested intervention. Legal grey areas aside, I would generally hope a medical practitioner could identify a life at threat, and be able to do all in his power to extinguish this threat. If he's restricted by the laws of the land, I understand that his hands are tied - and that's why people are seeking proper judicial resolution.

I made a point a few posts ago, that this case is more than just this woman getting ill treatment at an Irish hospital - it's about doctors having full rights to abort when they know it could save a patient at risk.

I don't believe, that the treating doctors believed she was going to die at a time where they could intervene.
I don't believe that a consultant would knowingly let a patient die by withholding a termination he/she believed would be lifesaving because of some ambiguity (perceived or not) in the law.

Rodin

Flier wrote: »

Reason, experience and rationality.

You're an obstetrician?