Pregnant woman dies in UCHG after being refused a termination

phoenix999

The religious element seems to be featuring strongly in all the news reporting. Making us all out to be ultra conservative zealots. What the fcuk.

B.A._Baracus

So this news story has hit fox news?
Hmm. Was thinking this would go global after seeing it on BBC News.

Its a very powerful and global topic isnt it?

Rodin

phoenix999 wrote: »

The religious element seems to be featuring strongly in all the news reporting. Making us all out to be ultra conservative zealots. What the fcuk.

I agree. Sweeping statements abound.
I'm an atheist.

Flier

Rodin wrote: »

You're an obstetrician?

B.A.O.

nervous_twitch

Rodin wrote: »

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.

I don't believe they would either. But a woman's cervix open for three days, which has been responsible for many cases of septicemia in the past, is really bad practice. Especially if they ask for something to be done about it.

Rodin

Flier wrote: »

B.A.O.

8 weeks in a maternity unit?

Greenyfields

The power of Rome strikes again. Just like we said it would 100 years ago. No to Rome rule.

Rodin

nervous_twitch wrote: »

I don't believe they would either. But a woman's cervix open for three days, which has been responsible for many cases of septicemia in the past, is really bad practice. Especially if they ask for something to be done about it.

Perhaps it's standard practice. I don't know if it is or not, and i doubt you do either.

Lingua Franca

Rodin wrote: »

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.

Well, thankfully no one cares what you believe and it has absolutely no effect on anyone's lives.

We'll go by what the husband says happened until we hear differently.

partyatmygaff

Flier wrote: »

Reason, experience and rationality.

A lovely choice of words but that doesn't make your opinion correct.

Explain how an abortion could have prevented an already-present infection from turning to septicaemia?

frfintanstack

Rodin wrote: »

8 weeks in a maternity unit?

lol


Surely as this seems to be a case of "inevitable miscarriage" it has nothing to do with abortion and abortion laws in Ireland and is solely about the management of this particular miscarriage.


Expectant management is as valid a treatment as medical or surgical management. Its a clinical decision....

Rodin

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Well, thankfully no one cares what you believe and it has absolutely no effect on anyone's lives.

We'll go by what the husband says happened until we hear differently.

Sure about that?

Lingua Franca

Are you an obstetrician?

nervous_twitch

Rodin wrote: »

Perhaps it's standard practice. I don't know if it is or not, and i doubt you do either.

What? No it's not. Unless they're in delivery, attended.

Rodin

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Are you an obstetrician?

Thankfully not. But what I think does make a difference in patient's lives

Lingua Franca

Ah, a gynecologist then.

Flier

Rodin wrote: »

8 weeks in a maternity unit?

A bit more than that, and many years of surgical practice, - what's your medical experience?

Lingua Franca

Rodin wrote: »

Thankfully not. But what I think does make a difference in patient's lives

I really hope you actually don't let your personal beliefs affect your patients, that would be nothing to brag about.

Rodin

Flier wrote: »

A bit more than that, and many years of surgical practice, - what's your medical experience?

MB, BAO, BCh, MSc.

Rodin

Flier wrote: »

A bit more than that, and many years of surgical practice, - what's your medical experience?

which medical school spends more than 8 weeks in a maternity unit for its obs rotation?

2rkehij30qtza5

This is such an awful story. I had my children in that hospital and i also lost a baby there too, so I have been through it from both sides.

I don't believe that doctors expected her to die...i mean, they couldn't have expected her to die and put the life of a foetus which had no chance ahead of the life of a young woman? That makes no sense.

The X-case allows for an abortion when there is a real risk to the life of the mother. The doctors must not have believed there to be a 'real risk' or surely they would have interevened and terminated the pregnancy, heartbeat or no heartbeat?

It is too early for any of us to start assuming and making presumptions without the full facts of the case and the medical reasons behind the decision not to terminate the pregnancy.

I can't believe a woman of 31 years died like this in my local hospital. It's just too awful to think about. RIP and hope her husband and family have strength during this horrific time.

(just want to edit to add that a young doc in the hospital prescribed me medication I couldn't take for an infection when pregnant! Only that I had my wits about me and called back off my own bat, I honestly don't know if I'd have my child today. They posted me out a prescription from that hospital two weeks after I had given a urine sample..yes TWO weeks...all the while I had an infection and it took them two full weeks before the prescription was posted to me. When I called back in to query the prescription (as nobody would answer the phone down there!!) I was told to take the antibiotic and only when I really pressed them and made them double and treble check, it turned out I couldn't take the medication at all!!!!!)

Flier

partyatmygaff wrote: »

A lovely choice of words but that doesn't make your opinion correct.

Explain how an abortion could have prevented an already-present infection from turning to septicaemia?

Oh - I'm sorry. I didn't realise the full facts of the case had been released and there was an 'already present' infection when this woman presented. In any case, provided a patient is well enough for the procedure, removing the source of infection is going to be the best chance she has.
I think it's disengenuous for people not to accept that if she had not had a prolonged miscarraige, her chances a dying from sepsis would have been much lower. No one knows the full facts of the case, but on the balance of probability....

Flier

Rodin wrote: »

which medical school spends more than 8 weeks in a maternity unit for its obs rotation?

I actually worked in a maternity unit! Imagine that.

petersburg2002

Amazing the number of medical experts in After Hours these days.

nervous_twitch

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?

Sorry I only read this now. I understand what you're saying, there is medical misjudgement happening all the time - maybe doctors thought she and the child would survive.. Ultimate problem is abortion legislation in this country though, if someone asks for their unborn child to be terminated because they fear for their health, should they not be granted that wish?

EDIT: That's worded all wrong. What I mean is, if a woman is in agony, displaying life-threatening symptoms, should she not then be entitled to abort?

Rodin

Flier wrote: »

I actually worked in a maternity unit! Imagine that.

No thanks. 8 weeks was enough.

Rodin

nervous_twitch wrote: »

Sorry I only read this now. I understand what you're saying, there is medical misjudgement happening all the time - maybe doctors thought she and the child would survive.. Ultimate problem is abortion legislation in this country though, if someone asks for their unborn child to be terminated because they fear for their health, should they not be granted that wish?

No.

nervous_twitch

Rodin wrote: »

No.

Wow, thank you for such an enlightening anecdote. You've changed my mind completely.

Flier

petersburg2002 wrote: »

Amazing the number of medical experts in After Hours these days.

We're used to staying up late:D

tomasocarthaigh

A c-section would have removed the child and saved the mothers life. That is not an abortion, though at 17 weeks (some sources say she was 7 months, not 17 weeks) the baby probably would have died anyway.

Being in the process of miscarraige, the child was impossible to save, and current medical guidelines allow, indeed demand this.

Even Youth Defense agree...

http://www.writingsinrhyme.com/index.php/blog-savita-praveen-halappanavar-and-the-life-issue/ is my full post on the issue, from a secular pro-life writer.

Rodin

Flier wrote: »

We're used to staying up late:D

Too right

Rodin

nervous_twitch wrote: »

Wow, thank you for such an enlightening anecdote. You've changed my mind completely.

You never asked for a story. If you had . . .

Rodin

tomasocarthaigh wrote: »

A c-section would have removed the child and saved the mothers life. That is not an abortion, though at 17 weeks (some sources say she was 7 months, not 17 weeks) the baby probably would have died anyway.

Being in the process of miscarraige, the child was impossible to save, and current medical guidelines allow, indeed demand this.

Even Youth Defense agree...

http://www.writingsinrhyme.com/index.php/blog-savita-praveen-halappanavar-and-the-life-issue/ is my full post on the issue, from a secular pro-life writer.

which source says 7 months?

nervous_twitch

Rodin wrote: »

You never asked for a story. If you had . . .

I think we belong on opposite sides of the coin anyway. No point wasting our breath.

tomasocarthaigh

Rodin wrote: »

which source says 7 months?

One of the Facebook postings on the issue, not the media.

Rodin

tomasocarthaigh wrote: »

One of the Facebook postings on the issue, not the media.

Posted by who?

And why would you want a C-section abortion? ( I presume you're not talking about one for a 17/40)

jonsnow

Rodin wrote: »

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.

I thought you only dealt in facts not unsubstantiated beliefs.Do you know the doctors involved personally or are you just guessing as to how doctors you don't know would handle the situation.You probably wouldn't have believed that Dr sneery neary did what he did either but he did.People doctors included are actually capable of anything and selfishness and incompetence is the least of it.Any way continue circling the wagons.

Flier

tomasocarthaigh wrote: »

A c-section would have removed the child and saved the mothers life. That is not an abortion, though at 17 weeks (some sources say she was 7 months, not 17 weeks) the baby probably would have died anyway.

Being in the process of miscarraige, the child was impossible to save, and current medical guidelines allow, indeed demand this.

Even Youth Defense agree...

http://www.writingsinrhyme.com/index.php/blog-savita-praveen-halappanavar-and-the-life-issue/ is my full post on the issue, from a secular pro-life writer.

Have to disagree. A c section is a much more invasive procedure and entails more risk for the mother. Would you advocate a c-section for every inevitable abortion that rocks up in our maternity hospitals at 17 weeks?

Rodin

jonsnow wrote: »

I thought you only dealt in facts not unsubstantiated beliefs.Do you know the doctors involved personally or are you just guessing as to how doctors you don't know would handle the situation.You probably wouldn't have believed that Dr sneery neary did what he did either but he did.People doctors included are actually capable of anything and selfishness and incompetence is the least of it.Any way continue circling the wagons.

Facts. Not unsubstantiated statements of 'fact'!

whatdoicare

tomasocarthaigh wrote: »

A c-section would have removed the child and saved the mothers life. That is not an abortion, though at 17 weeks (some sources say she was 7 months, not 17 weeks) the baby probably would have died anyway.

Being in the process of miscarraige, the child was impossible to save, and current medical guidelines allow, indeed demand this.

Even Youth Defense agree...

http://www.writingsinrhyme.com/index.php/blog-savita-praveen-halappanavar-and-the-life-issue/ is my full post on the issue, from a secular pro-life writer.

Why the heck would you put a woman through a c section at 17 weeks?? The fetus would be tiny! That would be a totally unnecessary surgery with all its potential complications for any woman to go through!

Tasden

nervous_twitch wrote: »

Sorry I only read this now. I understand what you're saying, there is medical misjudgement happening all the time - maybe doctors thought she and the child would survive.. Ultimate problem is abortion legislation in this country though, if someone asks for their unborn child to be terminated because they fear for their health, should they not be granted that wish?

EDIT: That's worded all wrong. What I mean is, if a woman is in agony, displaying life-threatening symptoms, should she not then be entitled to abort?

In a way id agree but then again I don't know.

They, it would appear, didn't consider her symptoms to be life threatening. So according to them, if I'm understanding it correctly, this woman was in pain and distress. She was ill but not dying. She was asking for an abortion at a time when she was in a lot of distress. In this situation I don't know if it would be right to terminate when the mother is in that frame of my mind.

partyatmygaff

Flier wrote: »

Oh - I'm sorry. I didn't realise the full facts of the case had been released and there was an 'already present' infection when this woman presented.

That's not what I meant. As far as i'm aware it's standard procedure for an uncomplicated miscarriage to be dealt with by watchful waiting and not immediate surgical or drug treatment.

There's a very real possibility that the infection took hold while waiting for the miscarriage to resolve itself and that an abortion 24-48 hours after admission on its own wouldn't have made any difference.

In any case, provided a patient is well enough for the procedure, removing the source of infection is going to be the best chance she has.

That's true but from the medical team's perspective the potential legal headache that could ensue wasn't warranted by what (at the time) might have seemed to be an uncomplicated miscarriage. Not exactly best practice but not completely awful either.

I think it's disengenuous for people not to accept that if she had not had a prolonged miscarraige, her chances a dying from sepsis would have been much lower. No one knows the full facts of the case, but on the balance of probability....

The prolonged miscarriage increased her risk of infection but considering the initial infection could have occurred any time from the start of the miscarriage up until the Tuesday evening when her condition became symptomatic, it's not clear if her risk of dying would have been greatly reduced by an abortion on the Monday after her admission.

She was given antibiotics on Monday (Which may not have been effective considering it was an EBSL strain) and started developing symptoms of sepsis on Tuesday evening. With an incubation period of 24 hours (At an educated guess), that would have put the initial infection at sometime on Monday or earlier. Although you can't be certain, i'd say there's a good chance the infection started early on in the miscarriage.

tomasocarthaigh

Flier wrote: »

Have to disagree. A c section is a much more invasive procedure and entails more risk for the mother. Would you advocate a c-section for every inevitable abortion that rocks up in our maternity hospitals at 17 weeks?

Personally speaking I would. Abortion is the favoured option among clinicians as its the cheaper. Kill the baby (poison and/or D&C), then remove.

C-secion removes the baby, saves the mother, and if viable life support can be given to the premature baby. It costs, as with all operations is invasive, but D&C in particular leaves the woman open to infection if not sucked out right.

(D&C, woman is dilated, baby injected as base of spine to kill it with poison, head crushed to allow to be extracted, body pulled out, and womb vaccummed to remove blood, bone and residual body parts. Where body is too bog, arms and legs are chopped off. Basic summary)

Rodin

tomasocarthaigh wrote: »

Personally speaking I would. Abortion is the favoured option among clinicians as its the cheaper. Kill the baby (poison and/or D&C), then remove.

C-secion removes the baby, saves the mother, and if viable life support can be given to the premature baby. It costs, as with all operations is invasive, but D&C in particular leaves the woman open to infection if not sucked out right.

(D&C, woman is dilated, baby injected as base of spine to kill it with poison, head crushed to allow to be extracted, body pulled out, and womb vaccummed to remove blood, bone and residual body parts. Where body is too bog, arms and legs are chopped off. Basic summary)

You should stick to the 'poetry' and leave the medicine to the medics.

Flier

That's true but from the medical team's perspective the potential legal headache that could ensue wasn't warranted by what (at the time) might have seemed to be an uncomplicated miscarriage. Not exactly best practice but not completely awful either.


I think that's the crux of the argument. Nobody knows what would have, could have, might have happened. She may indeed have had a deep seated infection by the time she became symptomatic, and may have succumbed no mater what anybody did, but no doctor ought to be constrained from following best practice for fear of legal action.

Lyaiera

I think the requests that we stop talking about this specific case as a lot of details are unknown are correct (they're not, they're image management 101, try and delay and defuse the outrage at something, like making calls for a report to be released, so something doesn't become a hot button issue. If you can delay a few weeks in the majority of cases only those highly involved with the case will still be making it an issue.) But if one was to acquiesce to the calls to wait for the medical reports on this case and for the investigation to be conducted, it wouldn't change the fact that it's entirely possible for the substantive issue of the reporting of this case to happen tomorrow.

Even if we ignore this immediate case, it's a legal possibility that a mother dies tomorrow because of the government's failure to legislate for the X Case. If it turns out that this was actually a murder where Jesus visited the hospital and struck people down left right and centre for being apostates then it wouldn't change the fact that this country could prosecute a doctor for murder if he performs an abortion on a woman who would die without it.

K-9

efb wrote: »

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

X case is pointless for Savita.

Savita wasn't suicidal.

X case gets passed, irrelevant to Savita..

Study the subject.

Flier

Rodin wrote: »

You should stick to the 'poetry' and leave the medicine to the medics.

Agreed!! Good lord. With a capital "L" or without. Whatever takes your fancy!

Flier

K-9 wrote: »

X case is pointless for Savita.

Savita wasn't suicidal.

X case gets passed, irrelevant to Savita..

Study the subject.

The X case didn't just involve suicidal women. Very relevant to this case.

annascott

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/1114/1224326575203.html

This article is very clear for those of you who want facts.

The whole thing is a disgrace. There should be a public apology to India. A beautiful young woman is dead and it was entirely preventable. I feel ashamed to live in a country that could let this happen. My thoughts are with Savitas husband and family.