Pregnant woman dies in UCHG after being refused a termination

MagicSean

gozunda wrote: »

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.



What like this post ???





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

That wasn't a personal attack, I'm genuinely concerned for your mental well being on the basis of your posts.

Like I said, the majority of my posts relate to the legal position of the doctor. But there's no way I would let that other posters claim slide. To equate getting pregnant with the catholic church hooking her womb up to someone was ridiculous.

And for your information I am not a catholic.

AlanG

gozunda wrote: »

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'

We don't know that. One side is free to discuss their view of what happened and the other is bound by doctor confidentiality.
Wait for the inquest and coroner’s court. There is no evidence that an abortion would have saved this woman. It may have or it may not.
Ireland is pretty much the safest place in the world to have a baby so dont rush to blame the level or type of care given.

AlanG

seb65 wrote: »

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?

Why don’t you wait until the hospital has had a chance to give their side on events. Try to have some balance. That is why we have a coroner's inquest and not lynch mob rule. It may be as you describe or the events being given to the media may not be fully accruate.

gozunda

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.

Rascesse If you dont mind I would like to quote this article

What does the standard of medical care say about this treatment? Without
access to the chart, “miscarrying” at 17 weeks can only mean one of three
things”

A) Ruptured membranes

Advanced cervical dilation

C) Labor (this is unlikely, although it is possible that she had preterm
labor that arrested and left her with scenario B, advanced cervical
dilation).

All three of these scenarios have a dismal prognosis, none of which should
involve the death of the mother.

The standard of care with ruptured membranes (scenario A) is to offer
termination or, if there is no evidence of infection and the pregnancy is
desired, the option of observing for a few days to see if the leak seals over
and more fluid accumulates. If no fluid accumulates and by some chance the pregnancy manages to go beyond 24 weeks (the vast majority of pregnancies with ruptured membranes delivery within a week), survival is unlikely given the lungs require amniotic fluid to develop. I have seen the rare case where a woman with no infection (and no fluid) elects conservative management in the hopes that might make it to at least 24 weeks in the pregnancy, however, I have never heard
of a baby surviving in this scenario. Regardless, if at any point infection is suspected the treatment is antibiotics and delivery not antibiotics alone.


The standard of care with scenario B involves offering delivery or possibly a
rescue cerclage (a stitch around the cervix to try to prevent further dilation
and thus delivery) depending on the situation. Inducing delivery (or a D and E) is offered because a cervix that has dilated significantly often leads to labor or an infection as the membranes are now exposed to the vaginal flora. Many women do not want wait for infection. A rescue cerclage is not without risks and is contraindicated with ruptured membranes or any sign of infection. Rescue cerclage is a very case by case intervention and well beyond the scope of this post. These decisions are difficult and the mark of good medical care is that all scenarios are discussed, all interventions that are technically possible offered, and then the patient makes an informed decision. All with the understanding that if infection develops, delivery is indicated.

Not only do I know these scenarios backwards and forwards as an OB/GYN, I had ruptured membranes in my own pregnancy at 22 weeks, a rescue cerclage, and then sepsis. I know how bad it can be.


As Ms. Halappanavar died of an infection, one that would have been brewing for several days if not longer, the fact that a termination was delayed for any reason is malpractice. Infection must always be suspected whenever, preterm labor, premature rupture of the membranes, or advanced premature cervical dilation occurs (one of the scenarios that would have brought Ms. Halappanavar
to the hospital).

As there is no medically acceptable scenario at 17 weeks where a woman is miscarrying AND is denied a termination, there can only be
three plausible explanations for Ms. Hapappanavar’s “medical care” :


1) Irish law does indeed treat pregnant women as second class citizens and
denies them appropriate medical care. The medical team was following the law to
avoid criminal prosecution.


2) Irish law does not deny women the care they need; however, a zealous
individual doctor or hospital administrator interpreted Catholic doctrine in
such a way that a pregnant woman’s medical care was somehow irrelevant and superceded by heart tones of a 17 weeks fetus that could never be viable.


3) Irish law allows abortions for women when medically necessary, but the
doctors involved were negligent in that they could not diagnose infection when it was so obviously present, did not know the treatment, or were not competent enough to carry out the treatment.

What we do know is that a young, pregnant, woman who presented to the
hospital in a first world country died for want of appropriate medical care.
Whether it’s Irish Catholic law or malpractice, only time will tell; however, no answer could possibly ease the pain and suffering of Ms. Halappanavar’s loved ones.

****

Since posting this piece I learned that Ms. Halappanavar’s widower reported that she was leaking amniotic fluid and was
fully dilated when first evaluated. There is no medically defensible position doing anything other than optimal pain control and hastening delivery by the safest means possible.

seb65

Madam_X wrote: »

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.

I'm not Irish, can't vote, can't determine public policy, so no it doesn't include me. Not deliberately eh? Forced to endure three days of pain, to be taken down and having to hear her dying babies heartbeat - to the point where she told the nurse she couldn't take it anymore - denied a medical treatment she could have received in civilized society. Seems conscious acts of torturing to me. But if you want to argue semantics to continue pontificating...

old hippy

AlanG wrote: »

Ireland is pretty much the safest place in the world to have a baby so dont rush to blame the level or type of care given.

Really?

Maybe if you're a god fearing catholic.

Up until a few decades ago it didn't look so good if you were having children "out of wedlock" and so on... not safe for the mothers who were sent to the laundries and the kids who were sent to the orphanage to be abused by men of the cloth.

gozunda

MagicSean wrote: »

That wasn't a personal attack, I'm genuinely concerned for your mental well being on the basis of your posts.

....

MS - I have just reported this as an unacceptable personal attack. Your behaviour on this thread is disgusting and indefensible imo.

seb65

AlanG wrote: »

Why don’t you wait until the hospital has had a chance to give their side on events. Try to have some balance. That is why we have a coroner's inquest and not lynch mob rule. It may be as you describe or the events being given to the media may not be fully accruate.

Yeah, I study law, so I get the concept of mob rule and facts thanks. I'll believe what comes directly from her husband's mouth. Here's another thing, as soon as the baby's heartbeat stopped, they removed the fetus. If it was best to let the miscarriage happen naturally, why did they even bother removing the fetus?

seb65

AlanG wrote: »

We don't know that. One side is free to discuss their view of what happened and the other is bound by doctor confidentiality.
Wait for the inquest and coroner’s court. There is no evidence that an abortion would have saved this woman. It may have or it may not.
Ireland is pretty much the safest place in the world to have a baby so dont rush to blame the level or type of care given.

Ireland is the safest place to have a baby....for the baby.

You want to take about all the women that had their pelvic's broken during childbirth up until 1992 in Ireland, when the rest of the world had stopped the practice two centuries ago?

I wouldn't let my dog have pups at one of the maternity hospitals here.

Madam_X

Nah, despite this tragedy and the horrible practices up to not very long ago, it is of course extremely safe for women to have babies in Irish maternity hospitals.

seb65 wrote: »

I'm not Irish, can't vote, can't determine public policy, so no it doesn't include me. Not deliberately eh? Forced to endure three days of pain, to be taken down and having to hear her dying babies heartbeat - to the point where she told the nurse she couldn't take it anymore - denied a medical treatment she could have received in civilized society. Seems conscious acts of torturing to me. But if you want to argue semantics to continue pontificating...

I'm not pontificating - dont be so upset over someone debating you.

It's not semantics, "torture" implies malice and intent to harm. I am furious and shocked and extremely upset by this tragedy too, but making up stuff about what was done by the medical personnel, and blaming the wrong people does nothing of any benefit whatsoever.

dr.bollocko

mod:

Cut out the personal stuff from here on out please.


Please report posts which cross the line...

Report as opposed to responding in kind.

seb65

Madam_X wrote: »

I'm not pontificating - dont be so upset over someone debating you.

It's not semantics, "torture" implies malice and intent to harm. I am furious and shocked and extremely upset by this tragedy too, but making up stuff about what was done by the medical personnel and blaming the wrong people does nothing of any benefit whatsoever.

Actually torture means to cause intense suffering to. Notice I said Ireland in my first post, not the doctors. I blame the whole country. I'd bet all the money in my pockets nothing will be done due to this incident, I've never seen a more inert legislature.

opinion guy

Madam_X wrote: »

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.

Madam_X wrote: »

It's not semantics, "torture" implies malice and intent to harm. I am furious and shocked and extremely upset by this tragedy too, but making up stuff about what was done by the medical personnel, and blaming the wrong people does nothing of any benefit whatsoever.

When someone is in pain and potential mortal danger and you withhold treatment is that not malice and intent to harm ?

If she had survived the baby would still have died but we would never have heard of it. Yet she would have been made suffer 3 days of agony and misery unnecessarily and against her will. How many women has this happened to that we don't know about ?

Sounds like torture to me

MagicSean

seb65 wrote: »

Ireland is the safest place to have a baby....for the baby.

You want to take about all the women that had their pelvic's broken during childbirth up until 1992 in Ireland, when the rest of the world had stopped the practice two centuries ago?

I wouldn't let my dog have pups at one of the maternity hospitals here.

Actually Ireland has one of the lowest maternal death rates. Something like 0.005%

Flier

Noreen1 wrote: »

I
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.


Sepsis is survivable. But only with treatment. And treatment includes removing the source of infection. So I think it's reasonable to say the termination may have made every difference to the outcome. I'm not saying she definitely would have survived, but once there were any signs or symptoms of infection, a termination should have been part of the treatment. And given that the foetus was not viable, it should be a no brainer.

Madam_X

seb65 wrote: »

Actually torture means to cause intense suffering to. Notice I said Ireland in my first post, not the doctors. I blame the whole country. I'd bet all the money in my pockets nothing will be done due to this incident, I've never seen a more inert legislature.

Well blaming an entire country including those who campaign/have voted for abortion, is completely lacking in logic or thought or intellect. But scapegoating is fun I suppose (for the lazy).

Flier

Akrasia wrote: »

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.

The non religious argument is that it is the law.

seb65

MagicSean wrote: »

Actually Ireland has one of the lowest maternal death rates. Something like 0.005%

Right, but breaking pelvises, forcing unmarried women into laundries, forcing women to undergo three days of a painful miscarriage, forcing women whose babies have abnormalities which means they won't survive after birth to undergo travel to England for a termination and then travel all the way back home while suffering from the after effects...those things don't actually kill the woman right? Doesn't make it a "safe" place to be a pregnant woman though does it?

Ireland has shown throughout history it could care less about a woman's body, soul and mind.

seb65

Madam_X wrote: »

Well blaming an entire country including those who campaign/have voted for abortion, is completely lacking in logic or thought or intellect. But scapegoating is fun I suppose (for the lazy).

I believe scapegoating would be blaming certain groups for an incident, who have very little control over the actual outcome. Blaming all of the groups together is the opposite of scapegoating.

billybudd

:pac:

seb65 wrote: »

Right, but breaking pelvises, forcing unmarried women into laundries, forcing women to undergo three days of a painful miscarriage, forcing women whose babies have abnormalities which means they won't survive after birth to undergo travel to England for a termination and then travel all the way back home while suffering from the after effects...those things don't actually kill the woman right? Doesn't make it a "safe" place to be a pregnant woman though does it?

Ireland has shown throughout history it could care less about a woman's body, soul and mind.

asherbassad

seb65 wrote: »

I'm not Irish, can't vote, can't determine public policy, so no it doesn't include me. Not deliberately eh? Forced to endure three days of pain, to be taken down and having to hear her dying babies heartbeat - to the point where she told the nurse she couldn't take it anymore - denied a medical treatment she could have received in civilized society. Seems conscious acts of torturing to me. But if you want to argue semantics to continue pontificating...

“... 'torture' means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.”

Rascasse

Flier wrote: »

The non religious argument is that it is the law.

That's the bit I don't buy. The Supreme Court in the X case set the precedent that under 40.3.3 that women too have a right to life and abortion is acceptable where her life is at risk. While the government hasn't legislated precise rules (methods, time limits etc) the precedent still exists. Abortions must happen here all the time, in ectopic pregnancies for example, so why the big deal in this case?

Madam_X

seb65 wrote: »

Right, but breaking pelvises, forcing unmarried women into laundries, forcing women to undergo three days of a painful miscarriage, forcing women whose babies have abnormalities which means they won't survive after birth to undergo travel to England for a termination and then travel all the way back home while suffering from the after effects...those things don't actually kill the woman right? Doesn't make it a "safe" place to be a pregnant woman though does it?
Ireland has shown throughout history it could care less about a woman's body, soul and mind.

While the above is true, it doesn't make Irish maternity hospitals today so dangerous that one wouldn't send their dog to have pups there. That's needless hysteria. I'm an Irish woman and hate all of the above obviously but I'm not going to pretend that today I have it as bad for healthcare as women in other parts of the world (I am speaking in general - I am not saying it makes this tragedy any less horrendous, but making sh1t up is just wrong).

seb65 wrote: »

I believe scapegoating would be blaming certain groups for an incident, who have very little control over the actual outcome. Blaming all of the groups together is the opposite of scapegoating.

You are blaming people who are not to blame, because it is convenient for you. That attitude is appalling and has led to some horrible stuff.

seb65

asherbassad wrote: »

“... 'torture' means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.”

Yeah because the UN is who I take my moral authority from....

billybudd

Madam_X wrote: »

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.

Not really, how long can people continue to bring the CC into every tragedy that happens here? This has not been legislated for over twenty years and that has nothing to do with the church, more likely weak willed TD'S and an electorate that didnt care/was happy to let it be ignored, pre this tragedy if there was a ref held on abortion polls showed that it would have been passed in many guises.

seb65

Madam_X wrote: »

While the above is true, it doesn't make Irish maternity hospitals today so dangerous that one wouldn't send their dog to have pups there. That's needless hysteria. I'm an Irish woman and hate all of the above obviously but I'm not going to pretend that today I have it as bad for healthcare as women in other parts of the world.

Actually, talking to my friends and family from North America - where I'm from - say they would be afraid to be pregnant here now. It's the weighing in the back of the mind of the pregnant woman of what could happen. I don't think any pregnant woman needs any more concern as to all the things that could go wrong during her pregnancy.

Cool Mo D

billybudd wrote: »

Not really, how long can people continue to bring the CC into every tragedy that happends here? This has not been legislated for over twenty years and that has nothing to do with the church, more likely weak willed TD'S and an electorate that didnt care/was happy to let it be ignored, pre this tragedy if there was a ref held on abortion polls showed that it would have been passed in many guises.

The church has been campaigning right up to a few months ago against legislating for the X case, and was the primary lobby group responsible for giving us our current abortion laws, so of course the church are responsible.

MagicSean

Rascasse wrote: »

That's the bit I don't buy. The Supreme Court in the X case set the precedent that under 40.3.3 that women too have a right to life and abortion is acceptable where her life is at risk. While the government hasn't legislated precise rules (methods, time limits etc) the precedent still exists. Abortions must happen here all the time, in ectopic pregnancies for example, so why the big deal in this case?

I think you'll find that the x case was more about including potential suicide in the definition of a life at risk. It didn't actually change anything. It urged that a legal framework be set out to assist doctors in making decisions.

billybudd

seb65 wrote: »

Actually, talking to my friends and family from North America - where I'm from - say they would be afraid to be pregnant here now. It's the weighing in the back of the mind of the pregnant woman of what could happen. I don't think any pregnant woman needs any more concern as to all the things that could go wrong during her pregnancy.

Your friends are idiots and more likely drama queens, please provide links where it is stated that the Irish maternity hospitals are not run properly and would cause ladies who are pregnant to be afraid.

seb65

billybudd wrote: »

Not really, how long can people continue to bring the CC into every tragedy that happens here? This has not been legislated for over twenty years and that has nothing to do with the church, more likely weak willed TD'S and an electorate that didnt care/was happy to let it be ignored, pre this tragedy if there was a ref held on abortion polls showed that it would have been passed in many guises.

Because every time the issue comes up some Bishop or Priest is publishing an article about how Ireland can't introduce abortion as the moral fortitude of the country would be impeached, blah, blah, blah?

Imagine being the government that brought it in. Most of the TDs are Catholic, I'm sure many of them are practicing. Imagine what their parish priests are whispering - or yelling - in their ears about their own eternal damnation if they legalize abortion.

MagicSean

seb65 wrote: »

Right, but breaking pelvises, forcing unmarried women into laundries, forcing women to undergo three days of a painful miscarriage, forcing women whose babies have abnormalities which means they won't survive after birth to undergo travel to England for a termination and then travel all the way back home while suffering from the after effects...those things don't actually kill the woman right? Doesn't make it a "safe" place to be a pregnant woman though does it?

Ireland has shown throughout history it could care less about a woman's body, soul and mind.

I never said it was the easiest place to be pregnant, just that it had one of the lowest death rates for women giving birth.

planetX

Rascasse wrote: »

That's the bit I don't buy. The Supreme Court in the X case set the precedent that under 40.3.3 that women too have a right to life and abortion is acceptable where her life is at risk. While the government hasn't legislated precise rules (methods, time limits etc) the precedent still exists. Abortions must happen here all the time, in ectopic pregnancies for example, so why the big deal in this case?

exactly - and the doctor responsible with be able to hide behind all this hysteria about the law. The law already allows proper medical treatment in this situation, and I hope the consultant doesn't walk away scott free because of the uproar over the constitution.

Madam_X

seb65 wrote: »

Actually, talking to my friends and family from North America - where I'm from - say they would be afraid to be pregnant here now. It's the weighing in the back of the mind of the pregnant woman of what could happen. I don't think any pregnant woman needs any more concern as to all the things that could go wrong during her pregnancy.

Understandable given the gravity of it, but still not taking into account that the likelihood is minuscule. The legislation has to be effected though of course.

Flier

Rascasse wrote: »

That's the bit I don't buy. The Supreme Court in the X case set the precedent that under 40.3.3 that women too have a right to life and abortion is acceptable where her life is at risk. While the government hasn't legislated precise rules (methods, time limits etc) the precedent still exists. Abortions must happen here all the time, in ectopic pregnancies for example, so why the big deal in this case?

I think the difference here is that in ectopic pregnancy there is always a risk to the LIFE of the mother. From the moment of implantation, so any termination in this case falls squarely within the law. In this case, the argument is at what point did the risk change from being to the health as opposed to the life of the mother. And it seems the conclusion was that as her life wasn't at risk, only her health, then it might not be lawful to terminate. Of course we know now...

seb65

billybudd wrote: »

Your friends are idiots and more likely drama queens, please provide links where it is stated that the Irish maternity hospitals are not run properly and would cause ladies who are pregnant to be afraid.

Well there's only about five stories in each of the country's national newspapers today about the death of a pregnant woman who was denied a proper medical procedure. Two others died last month as well. Go do your own research.

billybudd

Cool Mo D wrote: »

The church has been campaigning right up to a few months ago against legislating for the X case, and was the primary lobby group responsible for giving us our current abortion laws, so of course the church are responsible.

Lobbyist groups only lobby, they dont pass legislation. The sum of people in this country is greater than that of the church, well done people who have fought to have this legislated over the last 20 years as they can hold their heads high today unlike the majority who didnt really care and that has nothing to do with what the CC want.

I have not considered abortion and its effects good/bad up until this tragedy happened so i was part of the problem also.

billybudd

seb65 wrote: »

Because every time the issue comes up some Bishop or Priest is publishing an article about how Ireland can't introduce abortion as the moral fortitude of the country would be impeached, blah, blah, blah?

Imagine being the government that brought it in. Most of the TDs are Catholic, I'm sure many of them are practicing. Imagine what their parish priests are whispering - or yelling - in their ears about their own eternal damnation if they legalize abortion.

The government is run by the CC now? news to me.

Madam_X

seb65 wrote: »

Because every time the issue comes up some Bishop or Priest is publishing an article about how Ireland can't introduce abortion as the moral fortitude of the country would be impeached, blah, blah, blah?

Imagine being the government that brought it in. Most of the TDs are Catholic, I'm sure many of them are practicing. Imagine what their parish priests are whispering - or yelling - in their ears about their own eternal damnation if they legalize abortion.

Not as prevalent now though. You seem to be looking to Ireland of the past to make an assessment of it - it's not entirely irrelevant of course, but it doesnt account for the many changes in recent decades.

seb65

Madam_X wrote: »

Understandable given the gravity of it, but still not taking into account that the likelihood is minuscule. The legislation has to be effected though of course.

Yeah. I mean, it is minuscule. You know how people get about pregnancies though, the whole family is on edge for the nine months. Not buying things for the baby until its born, etc.

billybudd

seb65 wrote: »

Well there's only about five stories in each of the country's national newspapers today about the death of a pregnant woman who was denied a proper medical procedure. Two others died last month as well. Go do your own research.

As opposed to how many healthy child births?

Would you like me to list the US goverments role in maternity tragedies? Horrible things happen and we can only learn by them, hopefully.

seb65

billybudd wrote: »

Lobbyist groups only lobby, they dont pass legislation. The sum of people in this country is greater than that of the church, well done people who have fought to have this legislated over the last 20 years as they can hold their heads high today unlike the majority who didnt really care and that has nothing to do with what the CC want.

I have not considered abortion and its effects good/bad up until this tragedy happened so i was part of the problem also.

If the sum of the people is greater than the church than why hasn't there been a new referendum on abortion and one on gay marriage?

The government is afraid of alienating voters because those voters are ruled by the CC.

billybudd

seb65 wrote: »

If the sum of the people is greater than the church than why hasn't there been a new referendum on abortion and one on gay marriage?

The government is afraid of alienating voters because those voters are ruled by the CC.

No, this should have been legislated by now, it was 20 years since the x case and each government elected has ignored it and the electorate has ignored it and by blaming the CC you dont go to the root of the problem, polls conducted before this event show that a ref on abortion would most likely be passed, the fact is the amount of people needed to shout to get this brought to the surface was not loud so the government had no reason to rock the boat.

I am not relgious and wouldnt pay attention to priests in general but the blame being put on them reflects from the truth, this is a political problem that should have been resolved by now but basilcally nobody gave a f88k, they do now and i am very happy about that.

Flier

planetX wrote: »

exactly - and the doctor responsible with be able to hide behind all this hysteria about the law. The law already allows proper medical treatment in this situation, and I hope the consultant doesn't walk away scott free because of the uproar over the constitution.

I think this is an important point. I have no idea why the doctor on the day made the decision he/she did. Was there a religious bias for his decision, or did he believe he was following the letter of the law. But so long as there is a law to 'hide behind', we are allowing doctors let non medical factors influence their decision. I have no doubt in my mind that similar situations have happened before where the inevitable misscarraige is aborted and no more is said.

ruthloss

Eamonn Gilmore has today called for legal clarity on terminations.
Way to go Eamonn!!., better late than never I suppose.

opinion guy

Flier wrote: »

I think this is an important point. I have no idea why the doctor on the day made the decision he/she did. Was there a religious bias for his decision, or did he believe he was following the letter of the law. But so long as there is a law to 'hide behind', we are allowing doctors let non medical factors influence their decision. I have no doubt in my mind that similar situations have happened before where the inevitable misscarraige is aborted and no more is said.

One is forced to wonder - how many times has this happened in the past and the family has not spoken out ? This case is unusual in that her husband is willing to speak out, is well educated in a health care related field, she had family who are doctors and asking questions, they have a friend who is a consultant orthopaedic surgeon in Galway who is brave enough to speak out, and there is the international interest.

This is the perfect storm for Irish abortion debate and irish health care in general - its been a long time coming. Lets hope it changes things.

Morag

Flier wrote: »

The non religious argument is that it is the law.

Law that should have been changed 20 years ago after the Xcase ruling and the referendum.

Even if the X Case is legislated for it won't be enough.

It won't be enough, as it won’t cover women who need a medical termination due to fatal fetal abnormalities

It won’t be enough as it won’t cover women like Michelle Harte, was being treated for cancer.

Khannie

Sharrow wrote: »

Law that should have been changed 20 years ago after the Xcase ruling and the referendum.

Even if the X Case is legislated for it won't be enough.

It won't be enough, as it won’t cover women who need a medical termination due to fatal fetal abnormalities

It won’t be enough as it won’t cover women like Michelle Harte, was being treated for cancer.

To be fair, nothing short of abortion on demand will be enough for pro-choice activists. The first words I expect to hear when X is legislated for (and I want that legislation) is "it's not enough".

ZeRoY

NinjaK wrote: »

why?

Because Pro-life movements have been slowing things down when it comes to legislation on this matter. As per always, those minority groups are the loudest, and financial means - this is partially why no gouv has gone near the issue for 20 years.

Morag

Women on live line are talking about being left to miscarry in the same way.

Morag

Khannie wrote: »

To be fair, nothing short of abortion on demand will be enough for pro-choice activists. The first words I expect to hear when X is legislated for (and I want that legislation) is "it's not enough".

Some, not all, and in my expereince not most.