Pregnant woman dies in UCHG after being refused a termination

Morag

Did you know that White is the Hindu colour for mourning?
It is being asked that if you can, please wear white, to any of the vigils/marches/protests you are attending this weekend.

Sharrow

Sharrow wrote: »

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

The lady on now, her story is so, sad.
Has me in tears.
And i'm a 40 yr old man.

opinion guy

opinion guy wrote: »

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

NoDrama wrote: »

The lady on now, her story is so, sad.
Has me in tears.
And i'm a 40 yr old man.

Sometimes its depressing being right

K-9

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".

That happens with most things, I'm sure if we get a referendum on gay marriage some will say "didn't I tell you they'd get more rights after we made it legal".

Assuming the doctor acted correctly legally, I'm not sure if the X case would be much use in this case. My worry would be that we do indeed legislate for the X case but cases like this still happen.

later12

Haven't read all the pages of this thread so I don't know if this has come up, I just want to raise a comparison to the Michaela McAreevy case in Mauritius.

I felt there was an element of scoffing amongst Irish people at a perception of Mauritius as a primitive and barbaric society based on the McAreevy case.

We were disgusted at the treatment of John McAreevy at the hands of the authorities in Mauritius after his wife's death; but now the shoe is on the other foot. There are a number of parallels between that case and the treatment of Salvita Halappanavar & her husband and the lack of dignity & care that they were afforded by this state. It is embarrassing, and it should be.

Because the issue is not so much that maternal septicemia caused a substantial risk of death (medics suggest this might have been a freak case) but the first issue to resolve is the obligation of putting a mother through the ordeal & stress of miscarriage instead of inducing a fetus which is certain to die.

The latter, medical risk is a much more well worn issue & a cloudier one.

The former is something new which has never come before the courts or the people, and perhaps abortion under these circumstances is something the majority of Irish people would be happy to go along with... if given the opportunity.

seb65

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".

You mean to be unfair? You think pro-choice activists are waiting for bated breath to start killing babies?

That idiotic phrase, abortion on demand, as if we allow for abortion, everyone will want one, like it's an iPhone.

I think you'd find that instead of 5,000 women traveling to England a year, there'd be 5,000 abortions in Ireland a year.

omega666

Am i missing something but is it not already ok for doctors to provide abortions in cases where it is deemed necessary to save the life of a mother.

In the case the problem is one Particular doctor not following this/misdiagnosied the woman who died?

opinion guy

NoDrama wrote: »

The lady on now, her story is so, sad.
Has me in tears.
And i'm a 40 yr old man.

Who is the Doctor speaking on RTE right now ? I want to find his research

Mark someone

Wompa1

omega666 wrote: »

Am i missing something but is it not already ok for doctors to provide abortions in cases where it is deemed necessary to save the life of a mother.

In the case the problem is one Particular doctor not following this/misdiagnosied the woman who died?

I believe you are right. I think it was just incompetence on the part of the hospital staff which, if you've been to that hospital you'd realize is not just specific to this case. We should probably look at the quality of healthcare overall rather than make this completely about abortion legislation. The Hospital should not get off lightly because it's a "Catholic" country

Khannie

seb65 wrote: »

You mean to be unfair? You think pro-choice activists are waiting for bated breath to start killing babies?

No I think they're waiting with bated breath for choice / abortion on demand. That's why they're pro-choice activists.

seb65 wrote: »

That idiotic phrase, abortion on demand, as if we allow for abortion, everyone will want one, like it's an iPhone.

I don't think there's anything idiotic about the phrase. What would you call it? I don't see why people get upset about it tbh. I'm happy to use another phrase which accurately describes it.

seb65 wrote: »

I think you'd find that instead of 5,000 women traveling to England a year, there'd be 5,000 abortions in Ireland a year.

That's naive in the extreme. You should check the statistics on live births versus terminations in other countries. For most western countries it's roughly 3:1. I can't see any reason to think that Ireland would be massively different. In 2009 in Ireland we had 75,554 births. If live births remained the same and we hit the same ratio as other countries (and again, I can't see any reason to think that we wouldn't) that would result in roughly 25,000 terminations here.

paperclip2

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.

What happened to Savita was barbaric and nothing can make it otherwise. My heart goes out to her family.
But I do think it was only a matter of time before something like this happened. Its a wake up-call for all of us to put pressure on the government to cop the F**K on, do their job and introduce proper legislation that reflects the reality of life in 21st Century Ireland and not the 1950's.

(Off Topic: Sorry, but I had to )
However I will say that scaremongering about Irelands general maternal healthcare is as unhelpful as it is inaccurate:

The lowest maternal mortality rates are found in Ireland, with only 1 in 47,600 pregnancies ending in maternal death. Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and North America also have low maternal death rates
The U.S. has a higher than expected rate (1 in 4800, only the 40th lowest), which is attributed to lack of universal health care and economic inequality.

http://worldsavvy.org/monitor/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=579&Itemid=1026

Maternal death rates are actually increasing in the USA:
http://www.alterpolitics.com/politics/amnesty-international-condemns-u-s-for-soaring-maternal-death-rates/

later12

omega666 wrote: »

Am i missing something but is it not already ok for doctors to provide abortions in cases where it is deemed necessary to save the life of a mother.

In the case the problem is one Particular doctor not following this/misdiagnosied the woman who died?

Yes, but the medical argument here is whether or not the death of the foetus and any maternal septic infection was statistically likely to pose a mortal danger to the life of the mother.

We know in this case it was lethal, but the medical questions are whether the Doctors (a) knew that it was a substantial risk (and nevertheless acted out of their own morality and/ or fear of prosecution) or (b) could have known the risk (but did not discover it until it was too late, and so were negligent).

Maggie 2

omega666 wrote: »

Am i missing something but is it not already ok for doctors to provide abortions in cases where it is deemed necessary to save the life of a mother.

In the case the problem is one Particular doctor not following this/misdiagnosied the woman who died?

You are right. If I've read things correctly, this lady did have a D & C once the heartbeat was no longer seen, only for septicemia to set in later. Her life was NOT in danger while there was a heartbeat, this came about a couple of days later. She asked for an abortion, which was declined as her life was not in danger at that time.
I am Pro choice and have no political interest in this case. I lost a baby at 12 weeks, after being left in agony for 2 days in hospital. Abortion never entered my mind. Knee jerk reactions have no place in creating or passing legislation.

My name is URL

Is anyone actually arguing that the woman in question shouldn't have been given an abortion under the circumstances? I've not seen anyone make that argument... The way this whole thing is being dressed up by some foreign media sources is quite distasteful imo. According to the India Times 'Ireland murdered the woman'.. pretty sensationalist stuff considering no reports or inquiries in to the matter have been completed yet.

Flier

Wompa1 wrote: »

I believe you are right. I think it was just incompetence on the part of the hospital staff which, if you've been to that hospital you'd realize is not just specific to this case. We should probably look at the quality of healthcare overall rather than make this completely about abortion legislation. The Hospital should not get off lightly because it's a "Catholic" country

I don't think you can make that kind of assertion unless you have all the facts of the case. Which you don't.

Leftist

My name is URL wrote: »

Is anyone actually arguing that the woman in question shouldn't have been given an abortion under the circumstances? I've not seen anyone make that argument... The way this whole thing is being dressed up by some foreign media sources is quite distasteful imo. According to the India Times 'Ireland murdered the woman'.. pretty sensationalist stuff considering no reports or inquiries in to the matter have been completed yet.

yep, we should demand an apology from india. After all, it's just been dressed up as some anti-irish thing hasn't it?

nothing untoward happened, sure it's grand. Pass me a potato and let's go to mass.

My name is URL

Leftist wrote: »

yep, we should demand an apology from india. After all, it's just been dressed up as some anti-irish thing hasn't it?

nothing untoward happened, sure it's grand. Pass me a potato and let's go to mass.

Are you feeling okay?

Khannie

Khannie wrote: »

roughly 3:1

Correction - 4:1 is probably closer. Sweden is around 3:1.

StudentDad

seb65 wrote: »

You mean to be unfair? You think pro-choice activists are waiting for bated breath to start killing babies?

That idiotic phrase, abortion on demand, as if we allow for abortion, everyone will want one, like it's an iPhone.

I think you'd find that instead of 5,000 women traveling to England a year, there'd be 5,000 abortions in Ireland a year.

Unfortunately there is still a mindset in Ireland that views life through religious glasses.

It isn't enough to live as you see fit. There is a cohort who believe that the religious way of doing things is the only valid way of doing things.

Nobody is saying you can't live a religious life. What people are saying is that those of us who do not, do not want such views imposed us. Especially when the source of these views is an unelected and unaccountable religious organisation that frankly has to learn to mind its own business.

To allow abortion here would be to recognise the basic human right of individuals to live as they see fit within the bounds of the law. If abortion were legal people would be able to make the decision themselves without the interference of outside forces.

The sooner this state is run along secular lines the better.

SD

schemingbohemia

Maggie 2 wrote: »

You are right. If I've read things correctly, this lady did have a D & C once the heartbeat was no longer seen, only for septicemia to set in later. Her life was NOT in danger while there was a heartbeat, this came about a couple of days later. She asked for an abortion, which was declined as her life was not in danger at that time.
I am Pro choice and have no political interest in this case. I lost a baby at 12 weeks, after being left in agony for 2 days in hospital. Abortion never entered my mind. Knee jerk reactions have no place in creating or passing legislation.

I don't think it can be stated definitively that it set in later, the decision by the consultant to allow the risk of septicemia to set in - (open cervix, waters broken) must be questioned and this can only be put down to the theological argument against a termination of a non-viable foetus.

Remember the person in charge of Ob/Gyn in this hospital led a symposium not two months ago that stated that abortion was never required to save the life of the mother.

The whole issue with forcing women to endure "natural" miscarriages and be in agony for a number of days is rather medieval to my mind and conjures of memories of the sysphiotomy scandal - Men know best....

fishy fishy

Maggie 2 wrote: »

You are right. If I've read things correctly, this lady did have a D & C once the heartbeat was no longer seen, only for septicemia to set in later. Her life was NOT in danger while there was a heartbeat, this came about a couple of days later. She asked for an abortion, which was declined as her life was not in danger at that time.
I am Pro choice and have no political interest in this case. I lost a baby at 12 weeks, after being left in agony for 2 days in hospital. Abortion never entered my mind. Knee jerk reactions have no place in creating or passing legislation.

so you were there were you?

from your post, it certainly doesn't sound like you are pro-choice. Quite the opposite in fact.

your last paragraph can be interpreted as "I'm alright Jack, whats the big deal".

Khannie

StudentDad wrote: »

Unfortunately there is still a mindset in Ireland that views life through religious glasses.

You're quoting something that's in reply to me. I'm not religious. An Atheist in fact. I suppose your generalisation about what religious and non-religious people want kinda falls down there.

kunst nugget

Maggie 2 wrote: »

You are right. If I've read things correctly, this lady did have a D & C once the heartbeat was no longer seen, only for septicemia to set in later. Her life was NOT in danger while there was a heartbeat, this came about a couple of days later. She asked for an abortion, which was declined as her life was not in danger at that time.
I am Pro choice and have no political interest in this case. I lost a baby at 12 weeks, after being left in agony for 2 days in hospital. Abortion never entered my mind. Knee jerk reactions have no place in creating or passing legislation.

According to Dr. Jen Gunter, an obstetrician/gynecologist who commented on the case here:

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

CruelCoin

My name is URL wrote: »

According to the India Times 'Ireland murdered the woman'.. pretty sensationalist stuff considering no reports or inquiries in to the matter have been completed yet.

Didn't we? We had the ability to save her life, but made the active conscious decision not to. I can fully understand the sentiment.

I'm feeling pretty sick about the medical profession right now. For a doctor to forgo his Hippocratic oath for fear of a lawsuit is just vile.

kunst nugget

CruelCoin wrote: »

I'm feeling pretty sick about the medical profession right now. For a doctor to forgo his Hippocratic oath for fear of a lawsuit is just vile.

If they didn't act within the confines of the law, they faced being struck off and possible jail time, not just a law suit. If that's the reason why they didn't act then the law's an ass, not them.

later12

CruelCoin wrote: »

Didn't we? We had the ability to save her life, but made the active conscious decision not to. I can fully understand the sentiment.

I'm feeling pretty sick about the medical profession right now. For a doctor to forgo his Hippocratic oath for fear of a lawsuit is just vile.

Irish doctors do not take the Hippocratic oath.

It's also a bit much to argue in favour of that headline. The Irish constitution, and ultimately Irish people, may have let this woman and her family down irrevocably, but we didn't "murder" her.

StudentDad

Khannie wrote: »

You're quoting something that's in reply to me. I'm not religious. An Atheist in fact. I suppose your generalisation about what religious and non-religious people want kinda falls down there.

Okay you're athiest, I'm indifferent/agnostic/humanist. For me the idea of trying to put god into any sort of framework limits what god may or may not be and is ultimately little more than a human power grab.

This is why this state needs to be run along entirely neutral lines without reference to god. For me religious belief is a private matter and should remain out of the public sphere.
In this way the individual citizen can choose to live as they see fit.

SD

padd b1975

ruthloss wrote: »

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

Probably hoping for a bounce in the next Red Sea Poll.

My name is URL

CruelCoin wrote: »

Didn't we? We had the ability to save her life, but made the active conscious decision not to. I can fully understand the sentiment.

I'm feeling pretty sick about the medical profession right now. For a doctor to forgo his Hippocratic oath for fear of a lawsuit is just vile.

What's this 'we' nonsense?

There are multiple preventable deaths every day in Ireland. 'We' are not responsible for them all. Anyway to call it murder before any investigation takes place is no better than the fools that say all abortions equate to murder. It's lazy and completely illogical.

strandroad

opinion guy wrote: »

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.

I was thinking the same; are there any Irish women who died for similar reasons and whose families just accepted their treatment as that's how it is?

strandroad

Maggie 2 wrote: »

You are right. If I've read things correctly, this lady did have a D & C once the heartbeat was no longer seen, only for septicemia to set in later.

I don't think you can say it set in later - she was vomiting, shaking and collapsed a day before the heartbeat stopped.

Knasher

Maggie 2 wrote: »

You are right. If I've read things correctly, this lady did have a D & C once the heartbeat was no longer seen, only for septicemia to set in later. Her life was NOT in danger while there was a heartbeat, this came about a couple of days later. She asked for an abortion, which was declined as her life was not in danger at that time.

My understanding of this so far is that when the woman first came in, she didn't have septicemia at the time and there was a fetal heartbeat. It was also certain that she was going to have an miscarriage. She requested an abortion but was denied because at the time her life wasn't in immediate risk, although there is obviously an inherent risk in prolonging the miscarriage.
At some point during the next 3 days she became septic but before the fetal heartbeat stopped. She was given antibiotics and when the heartbeat stopped they went ahead with the D & C but her organs shut down and she died. As I understand it up to the point septicemia set in, it was a normal if prolonged miscarriage and she didn't have the legal right to an abortion, after she became septic it was already too late.
At least that's what I've gotten from all the news articles on it recently.

Mellio

This is a terrible thing to happen but religion and abortion have no place in this discussion and should not have been used in the media content until we know exactly what the cuase of death was.


We dont know that if the feotus was taken away sooner that she would have survived.

Who is to say the consultant would have provided the right treatment straight after the removal of the feotus.

I think this case will come down to negligence by the consultant/team resposible for the treatment of this lady's health during and post feotal dying naturally.

also are the procedures clear in terms of the possible onset septisemia during this time and if so were they followed.

Until we get a response from the hospital we will not get a full picture of events.

What we do know is that a lady died in the care of this hospital and they dont seem to have helped to ensure her health and safety were paramount knowing that she had misscaried.

Terrible shame!

Higher

This is one of the most disgusting stories I've ever had the mispleasure of reading. I am utterly ashamed to be Irish today.

strandroad

Khannie wrote: »

That's naive in the extreme. You should check the statistics on live births versus terminations in other countries. For most western countries it's roughly 3:1. I can't see any reason to think that Ireland would be massively different. In 2009 in Ireland we had 75,554 births. If live births remained the same and we hit the same ratio as other countries (and again, I can't see any reason to think that we wouldn't) that would result in roughly 25,000 terminations here.

5000 in UK alone is far from total number. Women travel to the Netherlands and other countries, and most of all, they take pills at home. Not sure how much of a surgical black market exists? These numbers would become official if procedures were carried out by professionals and they are far greater than just one stat from UK.

Morag

https://www.facebook.com/MakeTerminationForMedicalReasonsAvailableInIreland/posts/282614431859326

melekalikimaka

funny how everyone is ean expert on medical practice and law all of a sudden, people should really keep their moral compasses to themselves

Maggie 2

Sharrow wrote: »

https://www.facebook.com/MakeTerminationForMedicalReasonsAvailableInIreland/posts/282614431859326

The lady in this facebook story wasn't in any danger at any time. She was being monitored and if her blood count had dropped too low, action would have been taken. Hysterical reactions have no place in this traumatic case.

later12

melekalikimaka wrote: »

funny how everyone is ean expert on medical practice and law all of a sudden, people should really keep their moral compasses to themselves

People are using the discussion with reference to experts' opinions.

Between these medical opinions, the well known legal situation (after 2 referenda and the A, B, C & X cases) , and the accounts of the family, what is available in the public domain is in no way beyond the average man's comprehension.

It is actually hugely important that people do discuss this, especially with reference to expert opinions.

It's actually pretty important that people don't keep their moral compasses to themselves in a democratic republic, too.

kunst nugget

melekalikimaka wrote: »

people should really keep their moral compasses to themselves

Why? That's totally nonsensical in my eyes.

Knasher

Mellio wrote: »

We dont know that if the feotus was taken away sooner that she would have survived.

Standard procedure in countries where abortion is legal is to offer it in cases where a woman presents with her symptoms. The reason for this is that it offers the best odds of survival not to prolong the inevitable. We will never be able to say for certain if she would have survived if she had the right to avail of this option, everything carries risks, all we can say and with some certainity is that her odds would have improved.

Mellio wrote: »

Who is to say the consultant would have provided the right treatment straight after the removal of the feotus.

I think this case will come down to negligence by the consultant/team resposible for the treatment of this lady's health during and post feotal dying naturally.

Immediately after the D&C she was was brought to a high dependency unit in the hospital suffering from septicemia. Depending on the type of bacteria involved, the death rate for septicemia can be as high as 50%. I haven't heard anything suggesting that the doctors did anything negligent after the septicemia set in, so what exactly are you basing your comment on?

Flier

Maggie 2 wrote: »

The lady in this facebook story wasn't in any danger at any time. She was being monitored and if her blood count had dropped too low, action would have been taken. Hysterical reactions have no place in this traumatic case.

I don't see how this was an hysterical reaction. It's quite a similar situation. Where is the line between the health (this lady must have been quiet anaemic, which is accentuated by pregnancy) and the life (which you seem to be able to know was never at risk here - although there is no evidence from her story to confirm it. In fact she thought her life was at risk). Do we really have to let women get right to the line and past it before they get appropriate treatment. Never mind the pain and trauma, both physical and emotional that they must go through.

kunst nugget

Maggie 2 wrote: »

The lady in this facebook story wasn't in any danger at any time. She was being monitored and if her blood count had dropped too low, action would have been taken. Hysterical reactions have no place in this traumatic case.

What's hysterical about this story? It's another angle to the termination for medical reason debate which is essentially what this all boils down to. From reading that story I can't understand what good was achieved by letting that woman suffer carrying a non-viable foetus.

opinion guy

Maggie 2 wrote: »

The lady in this facebook story wasn't in any danger at any time. She was being monitored and if her blood count had dropped too low, action would have been taken. Hysterical reactions have no place in this traumatic case.

Well she was bleeding. Those bleeds can turn torrential quickly.

And besides all of that why should she have had to carry a slowing dying fetus for 7 weeks ?????:eek: Just to keep a religious minority happy ?

strandroad

Maggie 2 wrote: »

The lady in this facebook story wasn't in any danger at any time. She was being monitored and if her blood count had dropped too low, action would have been taken. Hysterical reactions have no place in this traumatic case.

No danger? She had multiple haemorrhages, her baby was not viable and yet she was made to return home and carry it for weeks. Had one of the haemorrhages escalated she could have lost her life. Are you happy to make her go through it for the heartbeat? there was no life to be saved apart from her own.

ejmaztec

opinion guy wrote: »

Well she was bleeding. Those bleeds can turn torrential quickly.

And besides all of that why should she have had to carry a slowing dying fetus for 7 weeks ?????:eek: Just to keep a religious minority happy ?

Mellio

Knasher wrote: »

Standard procedure in countries where abortion is legal is to offer it in cases where a woman presents with her symptoms. The reason for this is that it offers the best odds of survival not to prolong the inevitable. We will never be able to say for certain if she would have survived if she had the right to avail of this option, everything carries risks, all we can say and with some certainity is that her odds would have improved.

Immediately after the D&C she was was brought to a high dependency unit in the hospital suffering from septicemia. Depending on the type of bacteria involved, the death rate for septicemia can be as high as 50%. I haven't heard anything suggesting that the doctors did anything negligent after the septicemia set in, so what exactly are you basing your comment on?

Mainly Probabilities, someone is going to be made accountable for it!

From reading articles and listening to the comments of the husband it is not clear that she was taken to the ICU because of septicemia so it is not clear that she was in fact ever diagnosed.

accordingly she was given antibiotics and bloods were checked on the second day and eventually when the foetus was removed on the 3rd day it was then she became more ill during that evening and was taken to the ICU as her health was deteriarating rapidly.

This does not confirm that septecemia was diagnosed and was being treated in any way and is why I suggest that all proceduress m,ay not have been followed.

Flier

Mellio wrote: »

Mainly Probabilities, someone is going to be made accountable for it!

Why don't we try and fix the system rather than finding scapegoats for individual cases. It's always easy to find someone to blame, but that won't ensure this doesn't happen again.

MagicSean

My name is URL wrote: »

Is anyone actually arguing that the woman in question shouldn't have been given an abortion under the circumstances? I've not seen anyone make that argument... The way this whole thing is being dressed up by some foreign media sources is quite distasteful imo. According to the India Times 'Ireland murdered the woman'.. pretty sensationalist stuff considering no reports or inquiries in to the matter have been completed yet.

Assuming the facts are as have been reported and the abortion would have saved her life I can't really see why someone would object. Some people are arguing it would not have saved her life though.

melekalikimaka wrote: »

funny how everyone is ean expert on medical practice and law all of a sudden, people should really keep their moral compasses to themselves

So you disagree with people discussing the facts and the morals of the issue? Perhaps you would like to discuss the font in which the story was written

eyescreamcone

I think it's time we looked past legislation for abortion as per 92.
It's time for a 'warts and all' full debate and referendum on what WE the people of Ireland want in 2012.

No more will we allow fundamentalist groups lobby to fudge wordings of referenda, as has been done in the past.
Let's put all the cards on the table and ask the people if we want abortion in the relevant cases.

To me the relevant cases are:
1. if the mother is in danger of death (a no brainer)
2. if the mother is in danger of serious illness
3. if the fetus is not viable
4. if the child will be born disabled/handicapped or DS
5. on demand

Greater than 50% support for any or all will bring in abortion.
We need to know what the people want.
The anti-abortion rabble can have their say and if they are successful then the issue will be put to bed.

But I think the rabbit is now out of the box and it's going to be hard to go backwards from here.
Interesting times ahead.