Pregnant woman dies in UCHG after being refused a termination

Noreen1

Flier wrote: »

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.

In which cases? My niece, or the other poster? (and every other woman who has ever suffered an extended miscarriage)

Where a foetus is dead, in utero, for an extended period, the risk of infection is high, due to the decay of the foetal tissue.

In extended miscarriages, where the foetus is alive at the beginning of the process, the uterus is open, though not fully dilated.

Either case, then, clearly carries a risk of infection.

As to amniotic fluid leaking? I've had my waters break twice at 26 and 28 weeks.(though I didn't go into labour, until 34 and 36 weeks). There was a risk of infection, but thanks to constant monitoring throughout both pregnancies, I have two beautiful and healthy children, now in their teens, and I suffered no ill effects.

The truth is, any miscarriage, labour, or incidence of amniotic fluid leaking, carries a risk of infection.

In this case, it led to septicaemia. There was also e-coli present.

The question is, was Savita already suffering from septicaemia when she requested the termination?
If so, then the termination would have made no difference to the tragic outcome.
Until we know the answer to that question, all the statements in the world that her life could have been saved are pure speculation. No more, no less.

Personally, I suspect that vested interests have seized on this case, and used it to further their own objectives - all before the full facts are known.
I think Savita (R.I.P.) - and crucially, every other woman who has the misfortune to suffer a miscarriage, deserve more respect, tbh.
The full facts would be a good start, imo.

pablomakaveli

NamelessPhil wrote: »

As of August 27th 2012 a report in the Irish Times stated that the Catholic bishops were set to lobby politicians not legislate for abortion.

"Dáil deputies and Ministers will be lobbied by bishops and priests as part of a full-scale campaign of opposition if there is any attempt by the Government to legislate for abortion."

The Catholic church is still trying to interfere in political and secular matters.

This is why we should be pushing for full secularisation of the state. The church, or any religion for that matte,r should have no part in the running of this country.

Madam_X

gozunda wrote: »

'Excellent' only if you are card carrying right wing apologist

It smacks of desperation at best. Oh look we are not that bad - look what others do!
The treatment of Savita Halappananaver was a disgrace no matter how the Catholic Independant attempt to dress it up

It's disingenuous whataboutery - and of course he has to get a dig at The Guardian. Fair point that we should have all the facts, but typical Quinn undermining it with his agenda.

gozunda

Red Pepper wrote: »

We need to hear both sides of the story before we can pass judgement. Simple as that.

And that side of editorial hogwash is therefore 'excellent'? No. Don't get that

kunst nugget

frojay wrote: »

It's sad to see the anti-Catholic brigade jump on what is a personal tragedy for this family. Any excuse to bash the church.

Considering it was the husband that made the information public I can't see what the problem with people discussing it on a public forum. And not everyone discussing it has an anti-Catholic agenda but most are annoyed that legislation for this issue has been left for 20 years.

And this talk by certain people on the pro-life side accusing the pro-choice of overstepping private boundaries is ridiculous when they'd have no problem with waving a placard showing a picture of an aborted foetus on the street at my eight year old daughter.

frojay

But the church didn't even have a role in this, the doctors were simply obeying the law of the land, not canon law. If they could feel a heartbeat they were duty bound not to carry out an abortion. It could have happened in any other country, it's not an Irish thing.

HeyThereDeliah

Rascasse wrote: »

Broadsheet.ie have posted excerpts from this post by respected OB/GYN Doctor Jen Gunter of the San Francisco Medical Center.

Its pretty damning and well worth spending five minutes to read.

I read it and she is right of course, nice that she is calling doctors in Ireland incompetent because its not true.

Roadtrippin

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I think its disgusting that this tragedy is being used for political point scoring.

So, you'd rather wait for another tragic case to happen before discussing the issue again? Or we'll just continue sticking our head in the sand and hope this all goes away?
The political debates are happening because there are still too many grey areas in the legislation regarding abortion. I for one am all for raising awareness for that.

Madam_X

frojay wrote: »

It's sad to see the anti-Catholic brigade jump on what is a personal tragedy for this family. Any excuse to bash the church.

And it's even more sad to see some Catholics being so dismissive of this tragedy in order to defend their church. "Any excuse"?
I don't wish to see reasonable Catholics pilloried and this isn't directly the church's fault, but it IS partially to do with the church's legacy and refusal to get with reality.

Dodge

frojay wrote: »

It's sad to see the anti-Catholic brigade jump on what is a personal tragedy for this family. Any excuse to bash the church.

Every tragedy is personal. Are you suggesting that no lessons should ever be learned from any tragedy?

The key thing after all tragedies is "what happened, and how can we (as a society) stop it from happening again?"

In this case many believe the Church's influence on Irish legislation had a part to play. We can't change what happened to the family involved. We CAN do our best to make sure it doesn't happen again

kunst nugget

frojay wrote: »

But the church didn't even have a role in this, the doctors were simply obeying the law of the land, not canon law. If they could feel a heartbeat they were duty bound not to carry out an abortion. It could have happened in any other country, it's not an Irish thing.

But the church does have a role in this, don't you see? The reason that this legislation has been let go for so long is because the church is still a powerful lobby group in this country and rather than risky unpopularity amongst churchgoing voters, they sat on their arses.

Leftist

NamelessPhil wrote: »

As of August 27th 2012 a report in the Irish Times stated that the Catholic bishops were set to lobby politicians not legislate for abortion.

"Dáil deputies and Ministers will be lobbied by bishops and priests as part of a full-scale campaign of opposition if there is any attempt by the Government to legislate for abortion."

The Catholic church is still trying to interfere in political and secular matters.

disgusting.

Akrasia

frojay wrote: »

But the church didn't even have a role in this, the doctors were simply obeying the law of the land, not canon law. If they could feel a heartbeat they were duty bound not to carry out an abortion. It could have happened in any other country, it's not an Irish thing.

That is not true.

Can you give me a single non religious argument that says it is better to leave a woman in agony for days on end while you wait for a dying foetus's heart to stop by itself before removing it's corpse from the mother?

They were not trying to save the life of the foetus, they accepted that it was not going to survive. Rather than do the humane thing for both the mother and the unborn child, and end the suffering when the diagnosis and prognosis was confirmed, they stuck to the religious dogmatic principle (which is upheld by irish law) that they could not act to end the life of the foetus unless there was an immediate threat to the life of the mother.

Even if the mother had survived, this whole episode would still be have been barbaric.

folamh

frojay wrote: »

But the church didn't even have a role in this, the doctors were simply obeying the law of the land, not canon law. If they could feel a heartbeat they were duty bound not to carry out an abortion. It could have happened in any other country, it's not an Irish thing.

Saying the church didn't have any role in this is ludicrous. The influence of Catholic morality in Irish legislation is the very reason why our doctors don't have a clearly defined legal framework to worth within. The church has everything to do with preventing X-case legislation. It would not have happened in "any other country". If it were the UK, Savita would have gotten her termination and been saved.

kunst nugget

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

I read it and she is right of course, nice that she is calling doctors in Ireland incompetent because its not true.

She is not calling all doctors in Ireland incompetent. She points to the problem being either with the law, an overzealous doctor or hospital administrator or negligent doctors. She is talking about the specific case. At any point does she say the possible negligence is indicative of every doctor in Ireland?

gozunda

frojay wrote: »

But the church didn't even have a role in this, the doctors were simply obeying the law of the land, not canon law. If they could feel a heartbeat they were duty bound not to carry out an abortion. It could have happened in any other country, it's not an Irish thing.

Please read what has been posted already

UCHG is a catholic orientated institution. The doctor stated reason for withholding termination - was ' Ireland is a catholic country'

The doctors were not obeying the law if the land in relation to a women requiring medical termination . Neither did they give full consideration to the Medical Council guidelines

The 'heart beat' issue was disingenuous at best - the foetus was not viable and was relevant where the mothers life was at risk

It happened here and it will happen again unless we take RCC doctrine out of the provision of medical care

The hypocrisy of this matter is so Irish it is appaling

Solair

People need to get the message through to TDs that they have support to legislate for this too.

It's very easy for a backbencher to be extremely intimidated by the reaction of a highly organised lobby group that is still seen as part of the establishment.
So email, or phone your TDs!

They need to be aware of public opinion

HeyThereDeliah

kunst nugget wrote: »

She is not calling all doctors in Ireland incompetent. She points to the problem being either with the law, an overzealous doctor or hospital administrator or negligent doctors. She is talking about the specific case. At any point does she say the possible negligence is indicative of every doctor in Ireland?

Goo job I never said that then.

frojay

We don't know all the facts of the case here. Two lives were lost, let them rest in peace. Where were all these moral guardians before this tragedy happened? This law wasn't exactly passed yesterday.

kunst nugget

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

Goo job I never said that then.

So your problem is that she said that possibly doctors were negligent? I'm not really seeing what your issue is…

kunst nugget

frojay wrote: »

We don't know all the facts of the case here. Two lives were lost, let them rest in peace. Where were all these moral guardians before this tragedy happened? This law wasn't exactly passed yesterday.

Actually this law wasn't exactly ever passed. That's the problem.

Panrich

frojay wrote: »

We don't know all the facts of the case here. Two lives were lost, let them rest in peace. Where were all these moral guardians before this tragedy happened? This law wasn't exactly passed yesterday.

I suppose that most people thought that in the 21st century, the well-being of a mother would be catered for by our doctors and nurses even without the need for explicit legislation. It has come as a shock that because we live 'in a catholic country', this is not the case.

ilovesleep

NamelessPhil wrote: »

As of August 27th 2012 a report in the Irish Times stated that the Catholic bishops were set to lobby politicians not legislate for abortion.

"Dáil deputies and Ministers will be lobbied by bishops and priests as part of a full-scale campaign of opposition if there is any attempt by the Government to legislate for abortion."

The Catholic church is still trying to interfere in political and secular matters.

Jesus Christ!
They should have no say what so ever in the matter.

Dodge

frojay wrote: »

Where were all these moral guardians before this tragedy happened? This law wasn't exactly passed yesterday.

Plenty of people have been campaigning for legislation on this issue for the past 20 years

MakeEmLaugh

"Ireland Murders Pregnant Indian Dentist"

This was the headline of an article on Indiatimes.com yesterday. Frankly, I think it's one of the most ridiculously biased and sensationalist headlines I've ever read in my life.

To read the article, click here.

Solair

I don't think I am being anti-Catholic in saying this, nor anti-religious, but it is still rather bizarre that if any referendum comes up on this, I will be expected to vote in a church hall which has statues of religious icons all over the place.

Ireland's pretty weird at times.

Not to mention that before any Dail sitting to debate any issue like this the following prayer is said :

"Direct, we beseech Thee, O Lord, our actions by Thy holy inspirations and carry them on by Thy gracious assistance; that every word and work of ours may always begin from Thee, and by Thee be happily ended; through Christ our Lord. Amen."

Do they think the Dail is Mass or something?

How about starting sittings by asking deputies to stand up and swear to carry out their jobs in the interest of the people who elected them?

We have a LOOOOOOONG way to go before we move towards being an actual, liberal, open, normal democracy. There are still too many hang-ups about intertwining Irish identity with Catholic identity and a failure to comprehend that secularism is not anti-religious.

The reason that this situation arose is because when it comes to healthcare, family planning and education Ireland is absolutely not a secular country. It may well be in other areas of life, but not in those.

Leftist

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

"Ireland Murders Pregnant Indian Dentist"

This was the headline of an article on Indiatimes.com yesterday. Frankly, I think it's one of the most ridiculously biased and sensationalist headlines I've ever read in my life.

To read the article, click here.

it's probably a cheap tabloid. If an irish woman was stoned to death for religious reasons in a middle eastern or african country then the tabs would run with something equally as sensationalist.

getting windy about how a newspaper in india reports our absolutely ridiculous fundamentalist laws is the last thing we should be concerned about.

Show Time

ilovesleep wrote: »

Jesus Christ!
They should have no say what so ever in the matter.

I have said it already the lot of them priests nuns and bishops should all be shipped back to Rome where they belong and their land, estates and money should be shared out with the people who need it.

Solair

Leftist wrote: »

it's probably a cheap tabloid. If an irish woman was stoned to death for religious reasons in a middle eastern or african country then the tabs would run with something equally as sensationalist.

getting windy about how a newspaper in india reports our absolutely ridiculous fundamentalist laws is the last thing we should be concerned about.

I've no doubt that if an Irish person was denied a blood transfusion in a country which happened to have a majority religion where people disagreed with that we'd have similar headlines in our tabloids.

The situation on abortion in Ireland is massively out of line with almost all of the developed and most of the developing world.

Basically, our abortion laws are in line with some of the most screwed up regimes in parts of Africa and slightly more liberal than the Vatican State.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/abortion-laws--global-differences-8317069.html

We are going to get (deservedly) seriously bad publicity for this over the coming days and weeks.

Akrasia

Solair wrote: »

I don't think I am being anti-Catholic in saying this, nor anti-religious, but it is still rather bizarre that if any referendum comes up on this, I will be expected to vote in a church hall which has statues of religious icons all over the place.

Ireland's pretty weird at times.

Not to mention that before any Dail sitting to debate any issue like this the following prayer is said :



Do they think the Dail is Mass or something?

How about starting sittings by asking deputies to stand up and swear to carry out their jobs in the interest of the people who elected them?

We have a LOOOOOOONG way to go before we move towards being an actual, liberal, open, normal democracy. There are still too many hang-ups about intertwining Irish identity with Catholic identity and a failure to comprehend that secularism is not anti-religious.

The reason that this situation arose is because when it comes to healthcare, family planning and education Ireland is absolutely not a secular country. It may well be in other areas of life, but not in those.

That is especially worrying given what we know about the 'Framing Heuristic', whereby people can be influenced to act in a certain way based on, often extremely subtle, influences in their environment.

If people are being asked to vote on an issue which has religious implictions (they may be conflicted between their catholic up-bringing, and their rational analysis of what you believe the best course of action should be) the fact that people are often being asked to vote in a religious environment with religious iconography present would certainly have a statistically significant impact on the result.

An example of how this effect works, If someone asked you the following question.
If you are in a shop and after you have paid for your items, you realise that the shopkeeper undercharged you, would you A: tell them and pay the correct price, or B, pretend not to notice
A certain percentage of people would answer A and a certain percentage would answer B

If you asked the exact same question to a similar group of people but before asking them that question, you asked them do they believe in God, You would find that a significantly more people would answer A than in the first Group. (this effect would even influence those who state a non belief in god to the opening question)

MakeEmLaugh

Leftist wrote: »

it's probably a cheap tabloid. If an irish woman was stoned to death for religious reasons in a middle eastern or african country then the tabs would run with something equally as sensationalist.

Solair wrote: »

I've no doubt that if an Irish person was denied a blood transfusion in a country which happened to have a majority religion where people disagreed with that we'd have similar headlines in our tabloids.

You honestly think that even the cheapest, tackiest tabloid in Britain or Ireland would print a headline like "India Murders Pregnant Irish Dentist" or "Pakistan Murders Pregnant Irish Dentist"? And even if some rag in Ireland did print that headline about an international country, should we shrug it off and say we are fine with it?

gozunda

frojay wrote: »

We don't know all the facts of the case here. Two lives were lost, let them rest in peace. Where were all these moral guardians before this tragedy happened? This law wasn't exactly passed yesterday.

We know that a woman died whilst having a miscarriage where no there was little or no medical intervention to safeguard the patients health. Intervention that is standard in other countries. That she was told this was because 'Ireland is a catholic country'

I do not believe there is not a poster here who would aknowledge the tragedy of the death of this woman.

Should we not be outraged? Should we bury it under the carpet and pretend it didn't happen?

Should we ignore the tenants of the constitution and the medical counci?

Time to boot the cardinals, the bishops and the dominance of such organisations such as the Opus Dei out of their comfortable control of every aspect of this country. It is important that that people act that this is unlikely to happen again.

kunst nugget

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

You honestly think that even the cheapest, tackiest tabloid in Britain or Ireland would print a headline like "India Murders Pregnant Irish Dentist" or "Pakistan Murders Pregnant Irish Dentist"? And even if some rag in Ireland did print that headline about an international country, should we shrug it off and say we are fine with it?

What about Michaela McAreavey case? What about the mass calls for boycotting of the island that were said here and on the likes of facebook. Did any of you read the filthy comments left on the Mauritius Tourism Board's facebook page. We're hardly pious when it comes to stuff like this.

HeyThereDeliah

The church plays a big part in what happens in Ireland only because we have never had a government with the balls to stand up to them.
Politicians need to cop on, they have to change the legislation. I'm not in favour of doing something just because other countries do it.

If we had a vote for abortion next week how would people vote? I would only vote yes up to twelve weeks and if it were to protect the life of the mother, plus if the baby would have no quality of life when born.

Madam_X

kunst nugget wrote: »

What about Michaela McAreavey case? What about the mass calls for boycotting of the island that were said here and on the likes of facebook. Did any of you read the filthy comments left on the Mauritius Tourism Board's facebook page. We're hardly pious when it comes to stuff like this.

True. But there's a difference between social media tards and the mass media. I don't think even the spindo would resort to "Mauritius killed Michaela!" - it's salacious and disrespectful to the deceased, but obviously it's not the most pressing issue here.

SomethingElse

Why did it take so long for the media to get hold of this story? It says she died in October.

Has there been an inquiry already?

Panrich

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

The church plays a big part in what happens in Ireland only because we have never had a government with the balls to stand up to them.
Politicians need to cop on, they have to change the legislation. I'm not in favour of doing something just because other countries do it.

If we had a vote for abortion next week how would people vote? I would only vote yes up to twelve weeks and if it were to protect the life of the mother, plus if the baby would have no quality of life when born.

You are right in what you say but the fact is that we don't elect politicians with the balls to stand up to them. This is probably because our political system is a closed shop to people with the right stuff. Don't rock the boat and you'll succeed.

MakeEmLaugh

kunst nugget wrote: »

What about Michaela McAreavey case? What about the mass calls for boycotting of the island that were said here and on the likes of facebook. Did any of you read the filthy comments left on the Mauritius Tourism Board's facebook page. We're hardly pious when it comes to stuff like this.

I never saw a headline on news website - particularly a website that was the Internet subsidiary of the largest mass media company in its country - saying "Mauritius Murders Irish Newlywed Woman".

And please do not equate the vile output of anonymous internet trolls with the conduct of professional journalists.

kunst nugget

Madam_X wrote: »

True. But there's a difference between social media tards and the mass media. I don't think even the spindo would resort to "Mauritius killed Michaela!" - it's salacious and disrespectful to the deceased, but obviously it's not the most pressing issue here.

Different countries have different ways of using language. While no paper said out straight 'Mauritius killed Michaela!' a great deal of the coverage was completely biased and sensationalised with constant sneery putdowns of the country and its judicial system.

MagicSean

gozunda wrote: »

These guidelines have already been pointed out many times on this thread - they are nothing new - are you just waking up to smell the coffee? The medical council took their direction from the Constitution as amended by the Supreme Court - the highest court in the land

Is that not good enough for you? Do you pretend to know more than the Medical Council? Are you somehow more knowledgable than everyone else including the body responsible for medical ethics?

You say they are "absolutely useless"

Really to whom?

The woman that risks death because of pregnancy

To those that insist that reproductive health is a moral issue and would withhold life saving treatment from those that need it

To the every "sperm is sacred" movement

To the right wing doctrine of the RCC that holds that woman are there to have babies, and must be ruled by men?

Ms will you continue to advocate the brutalisation of women to promote some misogynist rcc agenda?

I am tired of your ramblings and attacks against the provision of basic rights of pregnant women. It is really amazing that there are such barbaric individuals out there that would deny others such rights

Don't really know what you're talking about to be honest. It seems you've gone a bit off the rails. Or maybe you are mixing me up with another poster. My comments on this thread have mostly been about the current legal position of a doctor faced with a situation like savita. I have purposely steered clear of the prolife/prochoice debate because I do not believe it is the issue here. The issue is wether a woman died because of the lack of direction and legal protection given to doctors in relation to the constitutional position on abortion.

And if you want an example ramblings and attacks I suggest you look at you own posts. Maybe take a break and calm yourself down.

MagicSean

gozunda wrote: »

Yes but they are the ones preaching that every sperm is sacred and insisting that a woman's reproductive health is a moral issue that they have dominion over because 'this is a catholic country'

MS - do you like sex? Do you have unprotected sex? Is rape and incest sex?
What about artificial insemination that results in pregnancy is that sex?

What pointless and unrelated bull.

Madam_X

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

please do not equate the vile output of anonymous internet trolls with the conduct of professional journalists.

Well... *most* of the time... :pac:

deandean

Very good article, interview with well-regarded Dr Sam Coulter Smith Master at the Rut. It says to me - wait for the reports.

Linky


Rotunda head: No confusion
A senior consultant has said he sees no evidence of confusion in medical ranks in Ireland over whether or not a woman can have an abortion if her life is at risk.

Dr Sam Coulter-Smith, master of the Rotunda Hospital in Dublin and consultant in obstetrics and gynaecology, said it would be preferable to have legislation to bring clarity.

But he said that in his experience he has not seen confusion among doctors on whether a woman is entitled to an abortion on clinical grounds.

“No. Not in relation to where a mother’s health is at risk,” he said.

“I think most of us who work in obstetrics and gynaecology, there may be individual differences, but the majority would be of the view that if the health is such a risk that there is a risk of death and we are dealing with a foetus that is not viable, there is only one answer to that question, we bring the pregnancy to an end.”

Dr Coulter-Smith is also clinical professor of obstetrics and gynaecology at the Royal College of Surgeons in Dublin and has headed the Rotunda for the last three and a half years.

“It’s a complex area. There are a whole series of issues that need to be resolved,” he said.

Dr Coulter-Smith said he could not discuss Mrs Halappanavar’s death directly but that introducing laws would offer further clarity.

“This case probably does not have a lot to do with abortion laws,” he said.

“It is a clinical scenario – someone in the process of miscarriage and had infective complications as a result of that process, whether or not if the situation had been actively managed in the 24-36 hours proceeding the tragedy of the baby’s death, would that have changed anything? No-one can answer that.

“But from the medical point of view it would be nice to have clarity – what is and isn’t possible and feasible.

“What is reasonably clear is that in a position where senior clinicians feel a woman’s health and life is at risk then it is permissible in this country to end the pregnancy.

“There isn’t legislation but the issues that have been judged on have set a precedent. It would be nice if there was legislation.”

Ireland’s Medical Council regulations on abortion state that the procedure is illegal unless there is a real and substantial risk to the life (as distinct from the health) of the mother.

The Rotunda is one of the three main maternity hospitals in Dublin alongside Holles Street and the Coombe.

The Medical Council's Guide to Professional Conduct and Ethics for Registered Medical Practitioners, states:

“Under current legal precedent, this exception includes where there is a clear and substantial risk to the life of the mother arising from a threat of suicide. You should undertake a full assessment of any such risk in light of the clinical research on this issue.

“It is lawful to provide information in Ireland about abortions abroad, subject to strict conditions. It is not lawful to encourage or advocate an abortion in individual cases.

“You have a duty to provide care, support and follow-up services for women who have an abortion abroad.

“In current obstetrical practice, rare complications can arise where therapeutic intervention (including termination of a pregnancy) is required at a stage when, due to extreme immaturity of the baby, there may be little or no hope of the baby surviving. In these exceptional circumstances, it may be necessary to intervene to terminate the pregnancy to protect the life of the mother, while making every effort to preserve the life of the baby.”

ilovesleep

Panrich wrote: »

You are right in what you say but the fact is that we don't elect politicians with the balls to stand up to them. This is probably because our political system is a closed shop to people with the right stuff. Don't rock the boat and you'll succeed.

But where before any election or indeed between any elections did a politician stand up and say 'I'm going to stand up and tell the church to fcuk off, when I'm elected' or any sort of a proposal for similiar. So how were we supposed to elect politicians who have the balls to stand up to the CC if we don't know who they are.

Enda Kenny issued a mighty good speech last year to the vatican last year which were empty words. No action. And do you know why this is? Sunday morning mass bucket collections for politicial parties. Charities get a go in too but politicial parties get their foot in too.

Leftist

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

You honestly think that even the cheapest, tackiest tabloid in Britain or Ireland would print a headline like "India Murders Pregnant Irish Dentist" or "Pakistan Murders Pregnant Irish Dentist"? And even if some rag in Ireland did print that headline about an international country, should we shrug it off and say we are fine with it?

they would say it in a different way. either way if you're more concerned about what he nasty foreigners are saying about us in our hour of shame, when we let one of their people die because of our religion, then you've got your priorities twisted.

Madam_X

Collective responsibility is illogical - plenty of "we" have voted/campaigned for change in relation to abortion here.

gozunda

MagicSean wrote: »

What pointless and unrelated bull.

MagicSean wrote: »

Don't really know what you're talking about to be honest. It seems you've gone a bit off the rails.

Finished with the personal attacks yet?

You have repeatedly posted both unrelated and unsubstaniated opinion as fact. Your method of argument is to ignore what has been posted by way of reply and directly attack posters you dont agree with (see above). Good luck with that.

MagicSean wrote: »

..Or maybe you are mixing me up with another poster. My comments on this thread have mostly been about the current legal position of a doctor faced with a situation like savita. I have purposely steered clear of the prolife/prochoice debate because I do not believe it is the issue here. The issue is wether a woman died because of the lack of direction and legal protection given to doctors in relation to the constitutional position on abortion.

What like this post ???

MagicSean wrote:

You appear to be confused about how babies are made. The catholic church dont put them in you. Pregnancy is a result of sex.

MagicSean wrote: »

..And if you want an example ramblings and attacks I suggest you look at you own posts. Maybe take a break and calm yourself down.

Oh mirror argument! Miaoww...:rolleyes: I am quite happy with what I have posted-. Perhaps a bit less of the personal attacks on your part, a bit more clarity of thought and less RCC dogma would be useful

old hippy

robman60 wrote: »

There's very little reporting in the media. I've read your posts in the past and I know you have no acceptance for opinions that don't match yours. My point was merely that this has featured internationally while similarly horrific cases involving abortion get literally no international (or even national) coverage.

There's plenty of coverage for the Irish Pro Life Taliban and its supporters are all over the net. And plenty of outcry against abortion.

Nice of you to read my posts. I've never heard of you before now

seb65

Madam_X wrote: »

True. But there's a difference between social media tards and the mass media. I don't think even the spindo would resort to "Mauritius killed Michaela!" - it's salacious and disrespectful to the deceased, but obviously it's not the most pressing issue here.

I think the Indian media would have gotten it right if it has said "Ireland tortures woman for three days and denies her medical treatment before her death"

How bout that?

Madam_X

If you think it's appropriate to say "Ireland" as a collective (including you) did it. Personally I think that way of thinking helps nobody. She wasn't deliberately tortured either.