Pregnant woman dies in UCHG after being refused a termination

Rodin

annascott wrote: »

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.

How?

annascott

Savita was 17 WEEKS pregnant. The seven month confusion is coming from a case in China. Horrific in it's own right but an entirely different situation.

annascott

Rodin wrote: »

How?

...by removing the foetus that she was miscarrying three days earlier.

Rodin

annascott wrote: »

...by removing the foetus that she was miscarrying three days earlier.

And where's the evidence this would have saved her?

K-9

Like others who said we can't speculate on the facts, we don't know if this poor womans circumstances are the same as yours. They could well be, we just don't know the facts, its all very hyothetical atm.

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.:(

franktheplank

K-9 wrote: »

They could well be, we just don't know the facts, its all very hyothetical atm.

Doesn't stop the Irish Times (spit, not just because of this) from splashing it all over the front pages.

gozunda

Rodin wrote: »

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

It was made clear that the fetus was non viable -so whether the fetus
was terminated or not it was not going to survive - therefore this is a null point

In the scenario a doctor must look to the health of the mother as the overriding concern

The miscarriage was a huge risk to the health of the mother especially as the actual miscarriage had continued for a protracted amount of time

The mother would have had much better odds of survival if steps had been taken to terminate the pregnancy and close the cervix - instead the septicemia was allowed to advance and the woman went into septic shock which attacked her other organs and she died three days later

I really wish that the so called pro-lifers would get over "the every sperm is sacred" ideology that is being sprouted ad infinitum

I wouldn't leave a dog in pain for a day without proper care and yet we have individuals here who insist that a womans reproductive health is a somehow a moral issue and therefore cannot be treated with full medical care and due diligence

Get real. I really hope that the family sue both UCHG and the doctor into oblivion for their gross treatment and reduction of this woman to a disposable baby carrying vehicle who was judged to have no intrinsic value in her own right as dictated by such card carrying right wing sadists

UCHG has a well documented history of religious bias. As a state funded institution it should be held vicariously liable for the loss of of this womans life.

Lyaiera

K-9 wrote: »

Like others who said we can't speculate on the facts, we don't know if this poor womans circumstances are the same as yours. They could well be, we just don't know the facts, its all very hyothetical atm.

It's a reality that a woman could die from being refused an abortion because of current legislation. This is just a catalyst. The government needs to legislate.

K-9

Flier wrote: »

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

How is it relevant? Obvious question but do go on.

K-9

franktheplank wrote: »

Doesn't stop the Irish Times (spit, not just because of this) from splashing it all over the front pages.

We'll just stop the conversation on Boards, Facebook, Twitter etc., the main story in the Irish news, atracting big international news.

Leave it to RTE and the BBC who've proved themselves adept with their in depth investigation thing, with massive resources.

franktheplank

gozunda wrote: »

I
The mother would have had much better odds of survival if steps had been taken to terminate the pregnancy and close the cervix

Ok, im not even remotely a medical person and i can see that this is jumping to conclusions. You seem to have it in you're head that in was the unborn child that was infected and not the mother?

Can we just all please stop jumping to conclusions, or do some people here really want it to have played out in a certain way because it fits an agenda.

Even if it was not the medically correct thing to do. This still doesn't mean that the decision maker was acting on their legal interpretation or just made a bad individual decision.

Carry

Didn't read all the posts, but didn't need to after a few pages. Did read the news though.
Anyway:

I hardly post anymore on boards or any other internet media, though I’m a lurker, means I read.

This topic though made my blood boil and brought up an old story. So let me please digress a bit.

Don’t beat up yourselves about catholic Ireland – there is catholic elsewhere. And this is a story from Germany. Not exactly known as a catholic country as Ireland. They are more subtle and more curbed by legislation. But they, the catholic power holders, try to do there thing whenever they can, slimy as they are.

I once had an abortion when I was in my early twenties. I don’t need to justify it to hypocrites, but let me tell you this:

When my doctor confirmed the pregnancy she also found out that I had the first signs of cervix cancer. At the age of 24.

She recommended to make up my mind: get the child and maybe die of cancer leaving an orphan - or have an abortion and live.
I’m still alive.

I was comitted, after a gruelling questioning and a lot of paperwork, to one of the then few gynaecological hospitals who did abortions in Berlin, run by catholic nuns by the way, who were forced by law to do abortions and made the best of it, that is money and torturing women.

I was cruelly and deliberately comitted into the fertility ward where women desperate for babies were waiting to get treatment. I was pestered by them, I was even offered money to deliver the child for adoption for them and give my life for it. As an aside that made me very suspicious of women who would kill to give (or buy) life.

The abortion went like this, and so-called pro-lifers might want to cover their ears (and I don’t even go into the psychological torture):

First my pubic hair was forcibly and unnecessarily shaved. No, not shaved, chemically removed, never really to recover (well, saves the brazilian...).
Then I got a sedative, actually the 'best' part of it all, sort of, and for a while... I was happily resting on a trolley like a rohypnol victim and anyone could do anything to me.
Which they did.

They saved on anaesthesia. They made me suffer. Being in a sedative state, that is helpless nirvana, but not in a painkilling anaesthetic state they bound my legs apart and scraped with some sort of spoon my womb out.

They scraped a lot. They scraped with relish and completely. I wasn’t able to have children afterwards and had a lot of trouble with my reproductive organs ever since. Hippocratic oath anyone?

Nothing to do with the cancer treatment afterwards, by the way. Reliably not.

The nun who was supposed to look after me just glared at my miserable self and mumbled something of god’s will.

No. It wasn’t god’s will. It was a catholic mindset which doesn’t give a fiddle about women’s health. As long as they, the church, can have babies for what purpose ever... and we know what purpose... and as long as they can claim they are here to save the children, never mind if those children have a miserable life or not a life at all. All holy pretend-life-saving without regard for life as such.

I truly truly hate these hypocrites who happily kill and torture to establish their power over life and death.

As for Savita, I’m sure the medical establishment comes up with a lot of excuses and medical and legal gobbledegook. As do some posters here.

But what I believe is that the ignorance of any doctor, no matter where he/she comes from, or catholic or not, is an important factor.
And it is despicable that they are happily hiding their incompetence behind a legislation which is still in awe of old misogynic churchy men who know why they want to hold a grip on education, namely to brainwash everyone into believing that women are only good for giving birth (and making stew) so that men can do with their womb-developed semen whatever they want.

Sorry for the rant.
No, actually not.

franktheplank

K-9 wrote: »

We'll just stop the conversation on Boards, Facebook, Twitter etc., the main story in the Irish news, atracting big international news.

Leave it to RTE and the BBC who've proved themselves adept with their in depth investigation thing, with massive resources.

Well the Irish Times (spit, again not just because of this) seemed to have been the ones to have pushed this story until it hit critical mass.

I don't know how something so lacking in factual detail could have been deemed such a frontpage news story. Very irresponsible.

annascott

Rodin wrote: »

And where's the evidence this would have saved her?

The septicaemia that killed her happened because of the dangerous condition she was allowed to remain in for a week.
There are coroner's reports etc available on line.

K-9

Lyaiera wrote: »

It's a reality that a woman could die from being refused an abortion because of current legislation. This is just a catalyst. The government needs to legislate.

Yep, the hypothetical has become the reality. We don't want to confront reality, which is why this case is so disturbing.

Just legalise the X Case and everything will be grand.

Rodin

annascott wrote: »

The septicaemia that killed her happened because of the dangerous condition she was allowed to remain in for a week.
There are coroner's reports etc available on line.

A link would be most appreciated.

banquo

poeticseraphim wrote: »

Not to mention our Dáil is only 15% made up of women.....so our legislative body is not even gender balanced to ensure women have a say on this and other issues.

So not only does the state say it holds dominion over individual women's bodies it also has only men making these decisions.


We don't even get a 50 /50 balance in the debate ..it is CRAZY.

Why should men ..(and pretty misogynistic dishonest and corrupt men at that) decide or legislate this without female balance???


It is a disgrace.

I know, I'm such a monster.

franktheplank

Carry wrote: »

namely to brainwash everyone into believing that women are only good for giving birth (and making stew)

Ah keep your stew so.

Lyaiera

K-9 wrote: »

Yep, the hypothetical has become the reality. We don't want to confront reality, which is why this case is so disturbing.

Just legalise the X Case and everything will be grand.

It was never a hypothetical, it was always a reality. It's still a reality. A doctor can refuse a woman an abortion that would save her life. It was never hypothetical it was and still is the law.

franktheplank

annascott wrote: »

The septicaemia which killed her was a result of neglect. She was left in a dangerous condition for a whole week.
There is a coroners report available on line

Im pretty sure there isn't a coroner's report available online. Those things take months. It's the kind of thing that we should be waiting for before jumping to conclusions.

As of yet there's no evidence to show that having an abortion would have prevented her from getting septicemia.

gozunda

Extract from Statement - Savitas husband Mr Praveen Halappanavar

A termination "was refused, he
says, because the foetal heartbeat was still present and they were told, “this
is a Catholic country”.

She spent a further 2½ days “in
agony” until the foetal heartbeat stopped.

StudentDad

This is a truly horrific case. A case that should never have happened. The plain fact of the matter is that through the cowardice and inaction of successive Irish governments, who were told categorically to legislate for abortion albeit in limited circumstances by the Supreme Court.

The religious views of a politician, elected to govern for all the people are irrelevant as soon as he/she is elected.

The fact that a young woman died needlessly to save an unviable bunch of cells is abhorrent. To have the moral view of a church imposed on any citizen is equally so.
Religious belief is a private matter and as such the state should legislate impartially and allow citizens act as they see fit.

The sooner there is an absolute and tangible separation of church and state the better.

SD

whatdoicare

Carry wrote: »

Didn't read all the posts, but didn't need to after a few pages. Did read the news though.
Anyway:

I hardly post anymore on boards or any other internet media, though I’m a lurker, means I read.

This topic though made my blood boil and brought up an old story. So let me please digress a bit.

Don’t beat up yourselves about catholic Ireland – there is catholic elsewhere. And this is a story from Germany. Not exactly known as a catholic country as Ireland. They are more subtle and more curbed by legislation. But they, the catholic power holders, try to do there thing whenever they can, slimy as they are.

I once had an abortion when I was in my early twenties. I don’t need to justify it to hypocrites, but let me tell you this:

When my doctor confirmed the pregnancy she also found out that I had the first signs of cervix cancer. At the age of 24.

She recommended to make up my mind: get the child and maybe die of cancer leaving an orphan - or have an abortion and live.
I’m still alive.

I was comitted, after a gruelling questioning and a lot of paperwork, to one of the then few gynaecological hospitals who did abortions in Berlin, run by catholic nuns by the way, who were forced by law to do abortions and made the best of it, that is money and torturing women.

I was cruelly and deliberately comitted into the fertility ward where women desperate for babies were waiting to get treatment. I was pestered by them, I was even offered money to deliver the child for adoption for them and give my life for it. As an aside that made me very suspicious of women who would kill to give (or buy) life.

The abortion went like this, and so-called pro-lifers might want to cover their ears (and I don’t even go into the psychological torture):

First my pubic hair was forcibly and unnecessarily shaved. No, not shaved, chemically removed, never really to recover (well, saves the brazilian...).
Then I got a sedative, actually the 'best' part of it all, sort of, and for a while... I was happily resting on a trolley like a rohypnol victim and anyone could do anything to me.
Which they did.

They saved on anaesthesia. They made me suffer. Being in a sedative state, that is helpless nirvana, but not in a painkilling anaesthetic state they bound my legs apart and scraped with some sort of spoon my womb out.

They scraped a lot. They scraped with relish and completely. I wasn’t able to have children afterwards and had a lot of trouble with my reproductive organs ever since. Hippocratic oath anyone?

Nothing to do with the cancer treatment afterwards, by the way. Reliably not.

The nun who was supposed to look after me just glared at my miserable self and mumbled something of god’s will.

No. It wasn’t god’s will. It was a catholic mindset which doesn’t give a fiddle about women’s health. As long as they, the church, can have babies for what purpose ever... and we know what purpose... and as long as they can claim they are here to save the children, never mind if those children have a miserable life or not a life at all. All holy pretend-life-saving without regard for life as such.

I truly truly hate these hypocrites who happily kill and torture to establish their power over life and death.

As for Savita, I’m sure the medical establishment comes up with a lot of excuses and medical and legal gobbledegook. As do some posters here.

But what I believe is that the ignorance of any doctor, no matter where he/she comes from, or catholic or not, is an important factor.
And it is despicable that they are happily hiding their incompetence behind a legislation which is still in awe of old misogynic churchy men who know why they want to hold a grip on education, namely to brainwash everyone into believing that women are only good for giving birth (and making stew) so that men can do with their womb-developed semen whatever they want.

Sorry for the rant.
No, actually not.

You are one brave lady to share your absolutely harrowing tale! I really feel for you and your situation, that you were punished for putting your own health first is disgusting. It's ladies like you and Gentlemen like Savitas husband, willing to bare all to share your stories that will hopefully bring change and prevent this happening future generations.

franktheplank

gozunda wrote: »

Extract from Statement - Savitas husband Mr Praveen Halappanavar

Yes but what hasn't been established is whether or not having an abortion would have still been the medically sound thing to do.

Of course a grieving husband might well suspect the doctors hadn't done a good job, he may well be right it's still far too early to tell.

What people have put forward here is that sometimes the miscarriage is allowed to run it's course because it can be the best option for the mother's health.

franktheplank

whatdoicare wrote: »

You are one brave lady to share your absolutely harrowing tale! I really feel for you and your situation, that you were punished for putting your own health first is disgusting. It's ladies like you and Gentlemen like Savitas husband, willing to bare all to share your stories that will hopefully bring change and prevent this happening future generations.

I don't find it plausible. I find it extremely suspect that somebody is deliberately not anesthetized during an abortion to suffer because of some sort of religious conspiracy. It sounds like some crazy delusion to me.

It's the Internet, people make things up.

K-9

Lyaiera wrote: »

It was never a hypothetical, it was always a reality. It's still a reality. A doctor can refuse a woman an abortion that would save her life. It was never hypothetical it was and still is the law.

The problem isn't the people who get it.

The problem is the people who think there is no problem with our current laws. Nothing wrong with our current laws.

Lyaiera

K-9 wrote: »

The problem isn't the people who get it.

The problem is the people who think there is no problem with our current laws. Nothing wrong with our current laws.

I have no idea what any of that means.

gozunda

franktheplank wrote: »

Ok, im not even remotely a medical person and i can see that this is jumping to conclusions. You seem to have it in you're head that in was the unborn child that was infected and not the mother?Can we just all please stop jumping to conclusions, or do some people here really want it to have played out in a certain way because it fits an agenda.Even if it was not the medically correct thing to do. This still doesn't mean that the decision maker was acting on their legal interpretation or just made a bad individual decision.

FTP - I observe that your arguments are just that - arguments. I do not have "an agenda" btw . But do go and read at least a basic medical book especially the chapters on infection in relation to miscarriage. It should explain how things work ok...

The "unborn child" as you call it in this case was never going to be born alive so in the interests of the mothers health and the risk posed by the miscarriage it should have been incumbent on the doctor in charge to safeguard this womans helath - he didn't and she died.

Their "legal intrepretation" has been made quite clear on this thread numerous times in the form of the right to termination in specific cases and also the Medical Councils guidelines. Go reread I cant be bothered pointing it out to the apologists of this barbaric behaviour

If the doctor chose to rely on some nebulous mythical belief system as a basis for his decision making process so be it, but he is likley to get his ^se sued all the way to kingdom come and back again and rightly so.

franktheplank

Lyaiera wrote: »

I have no idea what any of that means.

But he repeated himself so it must be meaningful. It must be meaningful.

franktheplank

gozunda wrote: »

I do not have "an agenda" btw .

gozunda wrote: »

If the doctor chose to rely on some nebulous mythical belief system as a basis for his decision making process

Nope doesn't sound like an agenda to me.

gozunda wrote: »

But do go and read at least a basic medical book especially the chapters on infection in relation to miscarriage. It should explain how things work ok...

The "unborn child" as you call it in this case was never going to be born alive so in the interests of the mothers health and the risk posed by the miscarriage it should have been incumbent on the doctor in charge to safeguard this womans helath - he didn't and she died.

Are you a doctor, or do you just read medical books, do you understand them? Really?

We have a public body which has expertise in these issues. It's called the coroners office. Like any reasonable person, im quite happy to wait for their verdict and not pretend like im a doctor on the internet.

poeticseraphim

Originally Posted by Carry View Post
Didn't read all the posts, but didn't need to after a few pages. Did read the news though.
Anyway:

I hardly post anymore on boards or any other internet media, though I’m a lurker, means I read.

This topic though made my blood boil and brought up an old story. So let me please digress a bit.

Don’t beat up yourselves about catholic Ireland – there is catholic elsewhere. And this is a story from Germany. Not exactly known as a catholic country as Ireland. They are more subtle and more curbed by legislation. But they, the catholic power holders, try to do there thing whenever they can, slimy as they are.

I once had an abortion when I was in my early twenties. I don’t need to justify it to hypocrites, but let me tell you this:

When my doctor confirmed the pregnancy she also found out that I had the first signs of cervix cancer. At the age of 24.

She recommended to make up my mind: get the child and maybe die of cancer leaving an orphan - or have an abortion and live.
I’m still alive.

I was comitted, after a gruelling questioning and a lot of paperwork, to one of the then few gynaecological hospitals who did abortions in Berlin, run by catholic nuns by the way, who were forced by law to do abortions and made the best of it, that is money and torturing women.

I was cruelly and deliberately comitted into the fertility ward where women desperate for babies were waiting to get treatment. I was pestered by them, I was even offered money to deliver the child for adoption for them and give my life for it. As an aside that made me very suspicious of women who would kill to give (or buy) life.

The abortion went like this, and so-called pro-lifers might want to cover their ears (and I don’t even go into the psychological torture):

First my pubic hair was forcibly and unnecessarily shaved. No, not shaved, chemically removed, never really to recover (well, saves the brazilian...).
Then I got a sedative, actually the 'best' part of it all, sort of, and for a while... I was happily resting on a trolley like a rohypnol victim and anyone could do anything to me.
Which they did.

They saved on anaesthesia. They made me suffer. Being in a sedative state, that is helpless nirvana, but not in a painkilling anaesthetic state they bound my legs apart and scraped with some sort of spoon my womb out.

They scraped a lot. They scraped with relish and completely. I wasn’t able to have children afterwards and had a lot of trouble with my reproductive organs ever since. Hippocratic oath anyone?

Nothing to do with the cancer treatment afterwards, by the way. Reliably not.

The nun who was supposed to look after me just glared at my miserable self and mumbled something of god’s will.

No. It wasn’t god’s will. It was a catholic mindset which doesn’t give a fiddle about women’s health. As long as they, the church, can have babies for what purpose ever... and we know what purpose... and as long as they can claim they are here to save the children, never mind if those children have a miserable life or not a life at all. All holy pretend-life-saving without regard for life as such.

I truly truly hate these hypocrites who happily kill and torture to establish their power over life and death.

As for Savita, I’m sure the medical establishment comes up with a lot of excuses and medical and legal gobbledegook. As do some posters here.

But what I believe is that the ignorance of any doctor, no matter where he/she comes from, or catholic or not, is an important factor.
And it is despicable that they are happily hiding their incompetence behind a legislation which is still in awe of old misogynic churchy men who know why they want to hold a grip on education, namely to brainwash everyone into believing that women are only good for giving birth (and making stew) so that men can do with their womb-developed semen whatever they want.

Sorry for the rant.
No, actually not.

I am glad you are ok..that is pure evil...I believe you

franktheplank

poeticseraphim wrote: »

I am glad you are ok..that is pure evil...I believe you

Really, it's like something from a bad Dan Brown novel. Isn't there a conspiracy theories forum?

Carry

franktheplank wrote: »

I don't find it plausible. I find it extremely suspect that somebody is deliberately not anesthetized during an abortion to suffer because of some sort of religious conspiracy. It sounds like some crazy delusion to me.

It's the Internet, people make things up.

you are frank the plank, aren't you?

gozunda

franktheplank wrote: »

Yes but what hasn't been established is whether or not having an abortion would have still been the medically sound thing to do.Of course a grieving husband might well suspect the doctors hadn't done a good job, he may well be right it's still far too early to tell.
What people have put forward here is that sometimes the miscarriage is allowed to run it's course because it can be the best option for the mother's health.

FTP - Intervention may well have saved this womans life - the closing of the cervix post termination would at least have reduced the risk of infection. However the doctor did not make his decision based on best medical practice intead he chose to do nothing because a non viable fetus had a heartbeat and declared that no termination was possible as it was a "catholic country" He ignored Medical Council guidelines and the constitution (as amended by the Supreme Court) in relation to this. As a result the woman was left to suffer and develop complications arising directly from the miscarriage

From the husbands interview It would appear that the woman was not adequately medically treated in relation to the miscarriage taking into account the extended timeframe of the miscarriage and the risk of infection posed by an open cervix.

And all because "Its a catholic Country" and a woman was reduced to the status of a reproductive unit and further medical treatment withheld

Another absolutely disgusting piece of barbarism displayed by a right wing catholic organisation

whatdoicare

franktheplank wrote: »

I don't find it plausible. I find it extremely suspect that somebody is deliberately not anesthetized during an abortion to suffer because of some sort of religious conspiracy. It sounds like some crazy delusion to me.

It's the Internet, people make things up.

Well, that's your own opinion and you're entitled to it.
My mother is a survivor of sympysiotomy, in case you don't know what that is, it was when instead of a cesarean (which the church didn't approve of as it encouraged use of contraception ) they broke the mothers pelvis during labour, damaging them for life-there's a film coming out soon all about it, the story she has told me about my birth would make a grown man cry. This happened in Ireland until the late 1970s early 1980s and is still happening in parts of Africa. The doctors destroyed all the files and it is only now my mother knows the full extent of what happened her as she is in the middle of bringing her case to court.

This was all done because of catholic rule. So, long story short, I do indeed believe what this lady wrote, every word of it.

franktheplank

Carry wrote: »

you are frank the plank, aren't you?

I get that a lot.

Seriously, I think it's nuts and doesn't belong in a reasonable debate. The Catholic church and the medical establishment have conspired to have torturous un-anesthetized abortions, while at the same time the church is forcing people not to have abortions so there's more kids to abuse.

poeticseraphim

franktheplank wrote: »

Yes but what hasn't been established is whether or not having an abortion would have still been the medically sound thing to do.

Of course a grieving husband might well suspect the doctors hadn't done a good job, he may well be right it's still far too early to tell.

What people have put forward here is that sometimes the miscarriage is allowed to run it's course because it can be the best option for the mother's health.

What has been established is that she wanted one.

And that is the issue.

And it is true to say i want and demand ownership and complete volition of my body.

It is not a good idea to threaten my body with your beliefs...it is mine your ideology should not touch it...nor should a strange hand...

That is my position.

I find you offensive and dangerous to my health potentially.

Extreme Pro-lifers can back the hell up....

pauldla

franktheplank wrote: »

Really, it's like something from a bad Dan Brown novel. Isn't there a conspiracy theories forum?

Your comments are like something from a Dan Brown novel.

franktheplank

gozunda wrote: »

FTP - Intervention may well have saved this womans life - the closing of the cervix post termination would at least have reduced the risk of infection. However the doctor did not make his decision based on best medical practice instead intead he chose to do nothing because a non viable fetus had a heartbeat and declared that no termination was possible as it was a "catholic country" He ignored Medical Council guidelines and the constitution (as amended by the Supreme Court) in relation to this. As a result the woman was left to suffer and develop complications arising directly from the miscarriage

From the husbands interview It would appear that the woman was not adequately medically treated in relation to the miscarriage taking into account the extended timeframe of the miscarriage and the risk of infection posed by an open cervix.

Do you watch much Grey's anatomy or where are you getting all the big words from? I'm doubting any of us here are doctors. I can't understand why we're not waiting for the results of an investigation or the coroners report. It's pure speculation.

Lyaiera

franktheplank wrote: »

Do you watch much Grey's anatomy or where are you getting all the big words from? I'm doubting any of us here are doctors. I can't understand why we're not waiting for the results of an investigation or the coroners report. It's pure speculation.

Waiting for the results for what reason? The X Case hasn't been legislated for and people's live's are at risk. What will waiting for the reasons for this tragedy change?

franktheplank

poeticseraphim wrote: »

What has been established is that she wanted one.

And that is the issue.

I'm pretty sure it's not. I think whats getting all the attention here is whether or not she needed an abortion.

gozunda

franktheplank wrote: »

Nope doesn't sound like an agenda to me.

FTP - Its called an opinion. Your evident agenda appears to be to to push right wing doctrine as gospel...best of luck with that :rolleyes:

franktheplank wrote: »

Are you a doctor, or do you just read medical books, do you understand them? Really?

Yes - can you not understand written english? Go on pick up a book and read - you can use a dictionary for the big words if it will help.

franktheplank wrote: »

We have a public body which has expertise in these issues. It's called the coroners office. Like any reasonable person, im quite happy to wait for their verdict and not pretend like im a doctor on the internet.

Yes I am familar with the Coroners office btw :cool:

Well you would not know from your sproutings in relation to infection. I will say however - pot - kettle - black.

franktheplank

Lyaiera wrote: »

Waiting for the results for what reason? The X Case hasn't been legislated for and people's live's are at risk. What will waiting for the reasons for this tragedy change?

Well the X Case hadn't been legislated for yesterday? Ok legislate for the X-case if it's the courts ruling and the will of the people etc. But there still has to be some evidence that an abortion would have saved this woman's life for it to be relevant for the X case.

gozunda

franktheplank wrote: »

Do you watch much Grey's anatomy or where are you getting all the big words from? I'm doubting any of us here are doctors. I can't understand why we're not waiting for the results of an investigation or the coroners report. It's pure speculation.

FTP - I think the "big words" you mentioned might possibly have been a result of the little bit of education I undertook. Apologies for that - I will take myself out the back for a quick lobotomy - will I? But don't let that stop you pointing out that you believe that TV is the best source of academic enlightenment. It is interesting that you have retreated to the "pure speculation" stance when other posters pointed out the flaws in your arguments.

And yes I look forward to the coroners report.

poeticseraphim

franktheplank wrote: »

Do you watch much Grey's anatomy or where are you getting all the big words from? I'm doubting any of us here are doctors. I can't understand why we're not waiting for the results of an investigation or the coroners report. It's pure speculation.

What is not speculation is that she asked for an abortion.


Which is a woman's right in civilized countries like Italy ,Spain or the UK.


Irish women are denied this human right.

The UN, the EU and Amnesty international have repeatedly called Ireland out on this.

Several international human rights bodies have expressed concern over the impact of Ireland's restrictive abortion laws on women's human rights, including: UN Human Rights Committee, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women and the Council of Europe Human Rights Commissioner.


Let what happened to the Republican party be a warning to the GOVT...no woman died....there were just comments ...they lost the female vote.


I will be giving my vote in future only when i know a politicians stance on this issue is aligned with my own.

Lyaiera

franktheplank wrote: »

Well the X Case hadn't been legislated for yesterday? Ok legislate for the X-case if it's the courts ruling and the will of the people etc. But there still has to be some evidence that an abortion would have saved this woman's life for it to be relevant for the X case.

What does it's relevance to the X Case have to do with anything? The government's failure to act has meant that people are at risk of avoidable death's every day. That's appalling, and it's because of people like Youth Defence.

franktheplank

gozunda wrote: »

FTP - Its called an opinion. Your evident agenda appears to be to to push right wing doctrine as gospel...best of luck with that :rolleyes:

Would you believe I took the political compass thing and it tells me I'm left liberal and I'm also not religous. So no hidden agenda (or opinions if you wanna call it that here).

I just strongly believe that there has to be sufficient evidence before conclusions can be drawn from this case. Thats just logical and Im happy to be upfront about it.

I also believe the unborn child is a valid human life. I appreciate the complexities of the debate when it comes to the mothers life and rape cases (I don't believe in bowing to mass hysteria as appears to be the case here). What I fail to see is how the so called 'pro-choice' crowd are so quick to jump on the bandwagon in situations where there is no choice.

poeticseraphim

franktheplank wrote: »

I'm pretty sure it's not. I think whats getting all the attention here is whether or not she needed an abortion.

No for most people it is the issue.

franktheplank

Lyaiera wrote: »

What does it's relevance to the X Case have to do with anything? The government's failure to act has meant that people are at risk of avoidable death's every day. That's appalling, and it's because of people like Youth Defence.

Hey i got nothing to do with Youth Defense. As of yet I just haven't seen any evidence that people are at risk of avoidable death because of the X case.

franktheplank

poeticseraphim wrote: »

No for most people it is the issue.

I really don't think it's been the central issue of debate on this thread. It's more about a possible emergency life threatening situation.

But your not the first one to start co-opting this tragedy for a pro-choice agenda. Are you going to start telling me now that rape victims have made a choice too?

Look, if you just want to be free to choose an abortion because it's what you want, at least have the guts to say it?