Pregnant woman dies in UCHG after being refused a termination

Mellio

Flier wrote: »

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.

I couldnt agree more but I was asked why I thought it would be put down to negligence so your jumping on to something that I am responding to on something else.

please put your views accross in terms of the subject, always easy to point out the inadequacies of other peoples posts like so many do on here already.

I wasn't condoning it mearly stating what more than likely it will happen.

I do think though that if the correct procedures were not followed then what else can be done to ensure it doesnt happen again.

If the guidlines are not clear enough for the medical staff then they need to be made very clear and the staff need to be trained apprpriately otherwise this will happen again.

gozunda

kunst nugget wrote: »

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.

Welll Guess what?
He now faces being struck off and possible jail time, including a lawsuit if he is found to have acted negligently. In light of his apparent refusal to consider the risk of the miscarriage and liklyhood infection caused by an open cervix and his comment concerning a "catholic country" I believe he may very well be in trouble. Time will tell.

Maybe this will make others in the hospital think twice before attempting to administer the same treatment with regard to catholic morality to other women.

Knasher

Mellio wrote: »

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.

The first article I read on this from the journal http://www.thejournal.ie/savita-praveen-halappanavar-abortion-galway-hospital-673590-Nov2012/
states "Immediately afterwards Savita was brought to a high dependency unit in the hospital suffering from septicaemia.", I haven't heard anything contradicting this, so I'd like to ask for your source saying that septicemia wasn't diagnosed.

On top of that, antibiotics are pretty much the only thing to be administered when you are suffering from septicemia, everything else is pretty much just to try and keep you alive long enough so that the antibiotics can do their job before organ failure. Obviously we don't know what antibiotics were given and in what dose, but again I have to ask what exactly are you basing your suspicions that the doctors did something wrong in regards to the septicemia on?

mikom

A woman is dead.
A husband has lost his wife.

All because the deceased was not allowed to choose.
The choice was taken away by a law led by religion.

For shame Ireland.

I suppose it could be worse.
The deceased could have left behind a son or daughter.
If that was the case, maybe they could pray for her....

schemingbohemia

Mellio wrote: »

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.

This article by an experienced Ob/Gyn was linked to earlier, however I think it's worth quoting substantially from in response to this post

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 for doing anything other than optimal pain control and hastening delivery by the safest means possible.

From here:

http://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2012/11/14/did-irish-catholic-law-or-malpractice-kill-savita-halappanavar/

If you read her "about me" you will see that she is not a baby-killer and has written a book about caring from premature babies.

kunst nugget

gozunda wrote: »

Welll Guess what?
He now faces being struck off and possible jail time, including a lawsuit if he is found to have acted negligently. In light of his apparent refusal to consider the risk of the miscarriage and liklyhood infection caused by an open cervix and his comment concerning a "catholic country" I believe he may very well be in trouble. Time will tell.

Maybe this will make others in the hospital think twice before attempting to administer the same treatment with regard to catholic morality to other women.

I was talking purely from one possible reason for the inaction of the doctor. If he didn't act because of uncertainty over the legality of his actions then I can understand the problem he might have faced. I'm not discounting any other possible reasons for what happened. If it was because of his or the hospitals ethos or his own negligence then let him burn tbh.

MagicSean

schemingbohemia wrote: »

This article by an experienced Ob/Gyn was linked to earlier, however I think it's worth quoting substantially from in response to this post

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 for doing anything other than optimal pain control and hastening delivery by the safest means possible.

From here:

http://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2012/11/14/did-irish-catholic-law-or-malpractice-kill-savita-halappanavar/

If you read her "about me" you will see that she is not a baby-killer and has written a book about caring from premature babies.

Whatever about her qualifications or motivations, I fail to see how she can make such firm medical conclusions based on second hand information from media reports.

annascott

I know it doesn't bring Salvita back, but shouldn't there at least be a book of condolence from Ireland to India. I for one would feel better that it was known that we are not all as religiously swayed and barbaric as the people responsible for her death. On a public front, Ireland seems to be shrugging it's shoulders and trying to avoid blame rather than genuinely apologising.

MagicSean

annascott wrote: »

I know it doesn't bring Salvita back, but shouldn't there at least be a book of condolence from Ireland to India. I for one would feel better that it was known that we are not all as religiously swayed and barbaric as the people responsible for her death. On a public front, Ireland seems to be shrugging it's shoulders and trying to avoid blame rather than genuinely apologising.

To India? That bastion of equality and human rights? No. A book of condolence for the family sure but it'll be a cold day in Delhi when I take criticism of human rights issues from India.

Mellio

Knasher wrote: »

The first article I read on this from the journal http://www.thejournal.ie/savita-praveen-halappanavar-abortion-galway-hospital-673590-Nov2012/
states "Immediately afterwards Savita was brought to a high dependency unit in the hospital suffering from septicaemia.", I haven't heard anything contradicting this, so I'd like to ask for your source saying that septicemia wasn't diagnosed.

On top of that, antibiotics are pretty much the only thing to be administered when you are suffering from septicemia, everything else is pretty much just to try and keep you alive long enough so that the antibiotics can do their job before organ failure. Obviously we don't know what antibiotics were given and in what dose, but again I have to ask what exactly are you basing your suspicions that the doctors did something wrong in regards to the septicemia on?

Well I read the part of the article on the first page and then looked at the article in the irishtimes also linked on the fist page and it doesnt state either time that she was taken to HDU suffering from Septicemia even though the Journal states this so in fact this also doesnt state that septecemia was actually, it just states that she was suffering from it.

They state this because we know from the autopsy that she died of septicemia and E-Coli also in the irishtimes article.


My other question would be how would the journal know this if the hospital hasn't made a statement on the incident yet so therefore tit is not clear that septecemia was diagnosed.

By stating that someone was suffering from it does not mean that it was diagnosed. this is why they doctors will possibly be deemed negligent, I think there are a coupel of other threads suggesting this after mine, you may want to challenge there views as well.:)

My assumption like yours and the newspapers is pure speculation until the full outcome is made public.

mikom

MagicSean wrote: »

A book of condolence for the family sure but it'll be a cold day in Delhi when I take criticism of human rights issues from India.

Where were you on Feb the 9th?

Feb 9, 2012, 11.14AM IS

NEW DELHI: Mercury plunged five degrees below normal on Thursday morning bringing back cold conditions in the city which was experiencing a spell of relatively pleasant weather over the last few days.

The low was recorded at 4 degree Celsius, down by 4.5 degrees from Wednesday's minimum temperature of 8.5 degrees, the MeT office said.

Cold winds added to the chill in the air early in the morning but a bright sun gave some relief to people.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:f3xIAAwh33MJ:timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/Cold-winds-leave-Delhiites-shivering/articleshow/11819866.cms+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ie&client=firefox-a

Flier

Mellio wrote: »

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.

Mellio wrote: »

I couldnt agree more but I was asked why I thought it would be put down to negligence so your jumping on to something that I am responding to on something else.

please put your views accross in terms of the subject, always easy to point out the inadequacies of other peoples posts like so many do on here already.

I wasn't condoning it mearly stating what more than likely it will happen.

I do think though that if the correct procedures were not followed then what else can be done to ensure it doesnt happen again.

If the guidlines are not clear enough for the medical staff then they need to be made very clear and the staff need to be trained apprpriately otherwise this will happen again.

OK so firstly I'm not jumping on anyone or anything. I have made many more posts on this thread which contain my views. I don't have the time to repeat them every time I post. I imagine that the bigger picture here involves more than the medical staff.

gozunda

Mellio wrote: »

Well I read the part of the article on the first page and then looked at the article in the irishtimes also linked on the fist page and it doesnt state either time that she was taken to HDU suffering from Septicemia even though the Journal states this so in fact this also doesnt state that septecemia was actually, it just states that she was suffering from it.

They state this because we know from the autopsy that she died of septicemia and E-Coli also in the irishtimes article.


My other question would be how would the journal know this if the hospital hasn't made a statement on the incident yet so therefore tit is not clear that septecemia was diagnosed.

By stating that someone was suffering from it does not mean that it was diagnosed. this is why they doctors will possibly be deemed negligent, I think there are a coupel of other threads suggesting this after mine, you may want to challenge there views as well.:)

My assumption like yours and the newspapers is pure speculation until the full outcome is made public.

If you read the US gynaecologist report on what has been stated including a first hand report on what had happened provided by the husband on this she clearly states that the risk of infection is the primary decider for going ahead with a termination in all possible scenarios. In the case of someone suffering a miscarriage and having an open cervix this is highlighted as paramount.

So it would appear that it is irrelevant whether she was or was not diagnosed with septicaemia or other infection.

She was not treated with due regard to the risk posed by the miscarriage - hence the likley case of negligence

The Waltzing Consumer

annascott wrote: »

I know it doesn't bring Salvita back, but shouldn't there at least be a book of condolence from Ireland to India. I for one would feel better that it was known that we are not all as religiously swayed and barbaric as the people responsible for her death. On a public front, Ireland seems to be shrugging it's shoulders and trying to avoid blame rather than genuinely apologising.

Wow, so you have skipped waiting for facts to become known from any study of this horrible event, and you have graciously acknowledged that a book of condolence won't bring this poor lady back.

You do know that India has one of the highest maternal death rates in the world right? Whereas Ireland is 15th lowest in the world?

later12

MagicSean wrote: »

To India? That bastion of equality and human rights? No. A book of condolence for the family sure but it'll be a cold day in Delhi when I take criticism of human rights issues from India.

Invoking John 8:7 in this context is to invoke one of the most absurd attitudes possible in international relations.

If only perfect societies could criticise imperfect societies, the world would dissolve into a general state of anarchy.

Of course they have a right to criticize us on human rights issues. Yes, it's bizarre; in fact it is so bizarre that India are criticizing our attitude to human rights that we need to wake up and pay attention to it and stop ignoring the European Court of Human Rights Ruling, which is another bizarre act on the part of Ireland.

Knasher

Mellio wrote: »

Well I read the part of the article on the first page and then looked at the article in the irishtimes also linked on the fist page and it doesnt state either time that she was taken to HDU suffering from Septicemia even though the Journal states this so in fact this also doesnt state that septecemia was actually, it just states that she was suffering from it.

They state this because we know from the autopsy that she died of septicemia and E-Coli also in the irishtimes article.

My other question would be how would the journal know this if the hospital hasn't made a statement on the incident yet so therefore tit is not clear that septecemia was diagnosed.

That is a reasonable point. I don't know what the source for the journals statement was. The fact that they tested blood and administered antibiotics suggests they might have been away of the possibility.

Mellio wrote: »

By stating that someone was suffering from it does not mean that it was diagnosed. this is why they doctors will possibly be deemed negligent, I think there are a coupel of other threads suggesting this after mine, you may want to challenge there views as well.:)

The difference is that you are claiming that the doctors were negligent for actions taken (or not taken) after the septicemia set in, an accusation you haven't backed up with anything (and it's possible that your accusation pertain to a different set of doctors). Whereas the other calls of negligence are based on the doctors comments about this being a catholic country and possibly deciding not to abort the fetus for personal religious reasons instead of being bound legally from aborting. Which aren't entirely baseless questions, though if I had to guess I'd say the doctor was bound legally.

old hippy

Oh crap, here we go. "My country is more X than that country etc" :rolleyes:

What happened to this woman, if not barbaric, was (at the very least) bad healthcare.

partyatmygaff

mikom wrote: »

A woman is dead.
A husband has lost his wife.

All because the deceased was not allowed to choose.
The choice was taken away by a law led by religion.

For shame Ireland.

I suppose it could be worse.
The deceased could have left behind a son or daughter.
If that was the case, maybe they could pray for her....

Sure, it would have been best practice to induce delivery after waiting for 24 hours in hospital and sure we should legislate to make it clear that therapeutic abortion is legal but that really isn't the crux of the issue (Despite the media and others erroneously making it out that the hospital's refusal to abort is the main reason for her death).

I know it doesn't make convenient material for making posts and sensationalising things for the benefit of pro-choice lobbyists but her not having an abortion probably played a relatively miniscule role in her death.

For one, it's extremely likely that she got the initial infection on Monday at the very latest (The day she requested an induction) as she only became symptomatic on Tuesday. I'd be more inclined to think it was earlier than Monday as I don't think it's hugely likely that the incubation period for an E.Coli strain was just 24 hours.

If they induced a delivery immediately on her request and discharged her from hospital a few hours later on foot of that, she would have went home and suffered the exact same fate. Even if she remained in hospital after the induction and they somehow realised a huge septicaemic infection was currently spreading throughout her body the chances of them getting the choice of antibiotic right with just empirical prescribing is very low. An ESBL strain like the one she was infected with is resistant to the vast majority of commonly used antibiotics. By the time they realised she was not responding to treatment and/or properly investigated the infection, it would have been too late to act and she would have become (Just as she actually did) another one of the thousands who die at the hands of septicaemia's huge mortality rate.

To my mind, whether she did or didn't have an abortion really wouldn't have made any difference to this tragic story. I can understand the husband and her family latching on to the abortion side of things as having something to direct your grief at is probably some help to the bereaved. As for the media and everyone else, it's really just sensationalism for the sake of having a convenient story to talk about to stir emotions and sell newspapers. Before anyone misunderstands me, I'm not saying we shouldn't legislate for therapeutic abortion because i'm all for clearing up that legal grey area. All i'm saying is despite what everyone else (Including her family) seems to be saying, abortion probably wouldn't have saved her. It could have helped, but I very highly doubt it would have helped to the point of saving her life.

MagicSean

mikom wrote: »

Where were you on Feb the 9th?

That's not cold. Practically a Summers day.

later12 wrote: »

Invoking John 8:7 in this context is to invoke one of the most absurd attitudes possible in international relations.

If only perfect societies could criticise imperfect societies, the world would dissolve into a general state of anarchy.

Of course they have a right to criticize us on human rights issues. Yes, it's bizarre; in fact it is so bizarre that India are criticizing our attitude to human rights that we need to wake up and pay attention to it and stop ignoring the European Court of Human Rights Ruling, which is another bizarre act on the part of Ireland.

But when our maternal death rates are so much lower than theirs I can't see how they could have an moral authority for it.

SomethingElse

mikom wrote: »

A woman is dead.
A husband has lost his wife.

All because the deceased was not allowed to choose.
The choice was taken away by a law led by religion.

For shame Ireland.

I suppose it could be worse.
The deceased could have left behind a son or daughter.
If that was the case, maybe they could pray for her....

Was the choice not taken away by the doctor?

Correct me if I'm wrong but abortions are allowed here when the mothers life is at risk, as was the case.

mikom

SomethingElse wrote: »

Was the choice not taken away by the doctor?

Was the doctor hamstrung by the law?

Was the law hamstrung by religion?

MagicSean wrote: »

That's not cold. Practically a Summers day.
But when our maternal death rates are so much lower than theirs I can't see how they could have an moral authority for it.

Fuck moral authority.
Moral authority is cold comfort when the pillow next to you is empty.

hooradiation

MagicSean wrote: »

But when our maternal death rates are so much lower than theirs I can't see how they could have an moral authority for it.

Moral authority? Get out.
As a nation we have fucked up really badly - and unsurprisingly, when you fuck up people get to call you on it.
Getting all Tu quoque about it doesn't change that in the slightest.


You're welcome.

Rascasse

MagicSean wrote: »

But when our maternal death rates are so much lower than theirs I can't see how they could have an moral authority for it.

I really wish people would stop touting Ireland's ever so impressive maternal mortality rate. It's irrelevant, this woman died.

frfintanstack

annascott wrote: »

I know it doesn't bring Salvita back, but shouldn't there at least be a book of condolence from Ireland to India. I for one would feel better that it was known that we are not all as religiously swayed and barbaric as the people responsible for her death. On a public front, Ireland seems to be shrugging it's shoulders and trying to avoid blame rather than genuinely apologising.

If the facts of this case are as reported this case has nothing to do with catholicism or irish abortion law and is entirely to do with medical malpractice.

Its sad that this woman died.

Does Ireland need to apologise for it? Hell No, we have nothing to apologise for.

The amount of self loathing nonsense going on is amazing.

SomethingElse

mikom wrote: »

Was the doctor hamstrung by the law?

But the doctor would have been legally entitled to perform an abortion, had he deemed it necessary.

later12

MagicSean wrote: »

That's not cold. Practically a Summers day.



But when our maternal death rates are so much lower than theirs I can't see how they could have an moral authority for it.

Invoking hypocrisy is a logical fallacy, as noted above.

It doesn't make us any less wrong or their grievance at our human rights shortcomings any less valid.

I wish people would leave this issue of maternal mortality aside, being as it is entirely irrelevant.

Mortality can be low for many reasons. It's the equivalent of saying

"Irish people have low incidence of AIDS by African standards"
"Irish people drink more Guinness than Africans"
"Therefore Guinness helps prevent AIDS"

General maternal mortality rates are irrelevant to this discussion to an exasperating degree, yet this line about how great our mortality stats are seems to be rolled out without correction both in the media and online.

frfintanstack

mikom wrote: »

Was the doctor hamstrung by the law?

Was the law hamstrung by religion?

The answer to those 2 questions is categorically NO!

This case has nothing to do with Irelands abortion laws....and everything to do with one hospitals management of a miscarriage

(and before you start I think abortion should be legalised up to 12weeks on demand)

Unfortunately when abortion becomes involved people cant see past their outrage

MagicSean

mikom wrote: »

Was the doctor hamstrung by the law?

Was the law hamstrung by religion?



Fuck moral authority.
Moral authority is cold comfort when the pillow next to you is empty.

hooradiation wrote: »

Moral authority? Get out.
As a nation we have fucked up really badly - and unsurprisingly, when you fuck up people get to call you on it.
Getting all Tu quoque about it doesn't change that in the slightest.


You're welcome.

Rascasse wrote: »

I really wish people would stop touting Ireland's ever so impressive maternal mortality rate. It's irrelevant, this woman died.

I disagree. India has such a high mortality rate during childbirth there criticism of our system is invalid.

The Waltzing Consumer

mikom wrote: »

Was the doctor hamstrung by the law?

Was the law hamstrung by religion?

No, the law is pretty clear, unless people are lying.

"Abortion in the Republic of Ireland is illegal unless it occurs as the result of a medical intervention performed to save the life of the mother."
Charleton, Peter; McDermott, Paul Anthony; Bolger, Marguerite (1999). Criminal law. Dublin: Butterworths. p. 518.

Even Michael Martin, horrible FF as they are states:
""The Medical Council guidelines provide for the termination of the pregnancy when a mother's life is in danger and in fact the medical guidelines available to the hospital would have provided for that where there is a threat to the mother's life.""

""In Ireland, the maternal death rate is very low because of the fact that they do treat the mother's life as paramount. Why wouldn't you?""

http://www.herald.ie/news/law-on-x-case-would-not-have-saved-savita-says-martin-3294869.html

Have to say, he makes sense. I think people really gotta wait and reserve judgement till facts are known

hooradiation

MagicSean wrote: »

I disagrre. .

And you are wrong.
It's that simple.

mikom

SomethingElse wrote: »

But the doctor would have been legally entitled to perform an abortion, had he deemed it necessary.

frfintanstack wrote: »

The answer to those 2 questions is categorically NO!

This case has nothing to do with Irelands abortion laws....and everything to do with one hospitals management of a miscarriage

(and before you start I think abortion should be legalised up to 12weeks on demand)

Unfortunately when abortion becomes involved people cant see past their outrage

Was it necessary, was it not?
It will be interesting to see the results of the investigation into this.

We'll leave aside the request for the termination by the injured parties....

later12

SomethingElse wrote: »

But the doctor would have been legally entitled to perform an abortion, had he deemed it necessary.

You overlook the basic fact that the medic in this could have been found to have behaved either unprofessionally by the IMC or even criminally by a court, given there is no clear procedure to establish when the mother is or is not in mortal danger to a degree that would deem an abortion justifiable.

How on Earth can they know where to draw the line? These are doctors, not politicians or moral theologians. If we tell them what we want them to do, they can do it. Until then, we have to anticipate more Salvitas, or more A, cases, B cases, C cases, X cases....

gozunda

Rascasse wrote: »

I really wish people would stop touting Ireland's ever so impressive maternal mortality rate. It's irrelevant, this woman died.

As did two others deaths this year as highlighted in the Dail debate.

The problem with such statistics is that they can be manipulated to show whatever is required by whomever.

I would be very slow to cite such statistics considering the data was gathered in the main by catholic controlled hospitals.

I would like to see some rigorous statistical testing of this data

Personally the tendency here to say we have the best educated, the widest street, the biggest park is all part of a naive nationalism that we have never quite got over.

Having only once been in a religious controlled hospital - one of the largest in the state gave me enough reason never to darken its doors again.

It's peculiar that those being most sceptical about the religious agenda as stated in this woman's tragic death are the ones who keep quoting this questionable statistic

Strange but true...

frfintanstack

mikom wrote: »

Was it necessary, was it not?
It will be interesting to see the results of the investigation into this.

We'll leave aside the request for the termination by the injured parties....

It may be a simple case of poor clinical practice.

At this point unfortunately nobody knows until the investigation...

deciding that Ireland is some awful backward place where women are allowed to die for the lack of treatment on the basis of one side of a story is pretty crazy.

hotmail.com

frfintanstack wrote: »

If the facts of this case are as reported this case has nothing to do with catholicism or irish abortion law and is entirely to do with medical malpractice.

Its sad that this woman died.

Does Ireland need to apologise for it? Hell No, we have nothing to apologise for.

The amount of self loathing nonsense going on is amazing.

She asked for a termination and she didn't get it.

What part of that don't you understand.

Madam_X

I wish people would stop saying "we" as a nation are responsible though - you'd swear YD, the church and simpering TDs many of us did not vote for represented us all (yes I know the latter are public representatives but they dont literally represent all our views). You'd swear we were all alive/old enough to effect change during the dark days.
Some of the very people who go on about "we" would find it unacceptable if someone here posted that another country is to blame as a nation for something as atrocious as this taking place there.
We, as a nation, need to fight for change, but we are not all to blame for this tragedy.

Someone commented on one of the blogs re this case that Ireland is worse for women than Saudi Arabia. Really an appalling disregard for what Saudi Arabian women suffer.

Btw, going on about India's record in this regard is a load of shyte too.

mikom

In reply to : Was the doctor hamstrung by the law? Was the law hamstrung by religion?

First you said........

frfintanstack wrote: »

The answer to those 2 questions is categorically NO!

This case has nothing to do with Irelands abortion laws....and everything to do with one hospitals management of a miscarriage

(and before you start I think abortion should be legalised up to 12weeks on demand)

Unfortunately when abortion becomes involved people cant see past their outrage

Then you said

frfintanstack wrote: »

It may be a simple case of poor clinical practice.

At this point unfortunately nobody knows until the investigation...

deciding that Ireland is some awful backward place where women are allowed to die for the lack of treatment on the basis of one side of a story is pretty crazy.

Sure or unsure?

frfintanstack

hotmail.com wrote: »

She asked for a termination and she didn't get it.

What part of that don't you understand.

Maybe the doctors didnt think it was appropriate management in the clinical setting.....what part of that don't you understand?

The woman was having a miscarriage, it has nothing to do with abortion on demand.

Doctors are under no obligation to perform procedures that they dont believe is appropriate be it surgical management of a miscarriage or a heart bypass.

gozunda

later12 wrote: »

You overlook the basic fact that the medic in this could have been found to have behaved either unprofessionally by the IMC or even criminally by a court, given there is no clear procedure to establish when the mother is or is not in mortal danger to a degree that would deem an abortion justifiable.

How on Earth can they know where to draw the line? These are doctors, not politicians or moral theologians. If we tell them what we want them to do, they can do it. Until then, we have to anticipate more Salvitas, or more A, cases, B cases, C cases, X cases....

Medical professional are trained in risk Assesment and best practice. Where there was a real and likely risk to the life of the mother then the decision is a no brainier. To cite any decision on the statement given "this is a catholic country" is not only not professional but is a gross insult to anyone placing themselves in the care of our supposedly state controlled hospitals.

Lingua Franca

gozunda wrote: »

As did two others deaths this year as highlighted in the Dail debate.

The problem with such statistics is that they can be manipulated to show whatever is required by whomever.

I would be very slow to cite such statistics considering the data was gathered in the main by catholic controlled hospitals.

I would like to see some rigorous statistical testing of this data

Personally the tendency here to say we have the best educated, the widest street, the biggest park is all part of a naive nationalism that we have never quite got over.

Having only once been in a religious controlled hospital - one of the largest in the state gave me enough reason never to darken its doors again.

It's peculiar that those being most sceptical about the religious agenda as stated in this woman's tragic death are the ones who keep quoting this questionable statistic

Strange but true...

According to AIMS

Ireland's classification system masks the true numbers for maternal death. In EU and UK, maternal death is recorded for direct and indirect deaths (homicide, suicide, etc) in pregnancy, birth or up to a year after birth. In IRELAND, maternal death is only recorded for direct death (ie maternity related complications) in pregnancy, birth, and only 42 days following birth. Once Ireland is forced to comply with EU standards of classification in 2013, our rates will jump from 1 per 100,000 to around 10 per 100,000 - similar to UK and EU states.

And there's this: http://www.medicalindependent.ie/page.aspx?title=maternal_death_%E2%80%93_into_the_great_unknown

frfintanstack

mikom wrote: »

In reply to : Was the doctor hamstrung by the law? Was the law hamstrung by religion?

First you said........



Then you said



Sure or unsure?

Talking about 2 completely different things there buddy, getting confused are we?

I'll lay it out for you.

In any case of the management of miscarriage (any miscarriage) the doctor isn't hamstrung by irelands abortion laws (they are nothing to do with it)

in a seperate point

this case may have been improperly managed by the hospital....we wont know that until the investigation...

clear?

gozunda

Lingua Franca wrote: »

According to AIMS



And there's this: http://www.medicalindependent.ie/page.aspx?title=maternal_death_%E2%80%93_into_the_great_unknown

Thanks for the addendum - it is a very serious concern that we are pretending to be some how a first world provider of maternal care. The truth is far from that.

frfintanstack

gozunda wrote: »

Thanks for the addendum - it is a very serious concern that we are pretending be some how a first world provider of maternal care. The truth is far from that.

Misleading point there friend.

We are a first world provider of maternal care.

From that article if we measure the stats the same as others.....it puts us the same as the UK and EU. Surely they count as first world?


We are not talking about hiding stats that have us looking like bangladesh!!

petersburg2002

It's a sad day indeed when a country like India where children are still in bonded labour has to lecture our government to get its house in order.

kunst nugget

Madam_X wrote: »

I wish people would stop saying "we" as a nation are responsible though - you'd swear YD, the church and simpering TDs many of us did not vote for represented us all (yes I know the latter are public representatives but they dont literally represent all our views). You'd swear we were all alive/old enough to effect change during the dark days.
Some of the very people who go on about "we" would find it unacceptable if someone here posted that another country is to blame as a nation for something as atrocious as this taking place there.
We, as a nation, need to fight for change, but we are not all to blame for this tragedy.

Someone commented on one of the blogs re this case that Ireland is worse for women than Saudi Arabia. Really an appalling disregard for what Saudi Arabian women suffer.

Btw, going on about India's record in this regard is a load of shyte too.

But we're Irish! We love feeling guilty!

Lingua Franca

Irish pro life groups often point to the Netherlands saying "look, our maternal mortality is better than theirs and they have abortion on demand!". That may be so, but the comparison between maternal mortality and the availability of abortion is utterly irrelevant.

The actual reason that maternal mortality is higher than the rest of Europe because the vast majority, something like 60%, of women here in the Netherlands give birth at home. This is a concern and it is changing, but slowly because homebirths are culturally entrenched here. If I become pregnant again I will insist on a hospital birth.

gozunda

frfintanstack wrote: »

Misleading point there friend.
We are a first world provider of maternal care.
From that article if we measure the stats the same as others.....it puts us the same as the UK and EU. Surely they count as first world?
We are not talking about hiding stats that have us looking like bangladesh!!

I will take it that you did't actually read the article then. It clearly states that our statistics are at least misleading and at worse a gross inaccuracy

later12

gozunda wrote: »

Medical professional are trained in risk Assesment and best practice. Where there was a real and likely risk to the life of the mother then the decision is a no brainier. To cite any decision on the statement given "this is a catholic country" is not only not professional but is a gross insult to anyone placing themselves in the care of our supposedly state controlled hospitals.

It depends what is meant by that phrase.

A busy medic may not have time to get into the intricacies of Irish social history, what may have been meant was that "this is a country still burdened with the after effects of Catholic moral theology".

I mean it's pretty hard to imagine that someone would start getting all John Charles MxQuaid on someone whose wife was in pain and carrying a dying baby in her womb. I find that hard to believe on a human level.

I would have presumed that the Catholic thing was a reference to the genesis of the legal sitiuation; admittedly that is wild & unreliable speculation on my part.

mikom

frfintanstack wrote: »

Talking about 2 completely different things there buddy, getting confused are we?

I'll lay it out for you.

In any case of the management of miscarriage (any miscarriage) the doctor isn't hamstrung by irelands abortion laws (they are nothing to do with it)

in a seperate point

this case may have been improperly managed by the hospital....we wont know that until the investigation...

clear?

As clear a Flutterin bantam on a clear day........... old buddy, old pal.

Oh look.......... 18 posts, but you seem familiar.

gozunda

later12 wrote: »

It depends what is meant by that phrase.

A busy medic may not have time to get into the intricacies of Irish social history, what may have been meant was that "this is a country still burdened with the after effects of Catholic moral theology".

I mean it's pretty hard to imagine that someone would start getting all John Charles MxQuaid on someone whose wife was in pain and carrying a dying baby in her womb. I find that hard to believe on a human level.

I would have presumed that the Catholic thing was a reference to the genesis of the legal sitiuation; admittedly that is wild & unreliable speculation on my part.

I appreciate your imagination but the statement given "this is a catholic country" was given in response to the request for a termination. Consisting that UCHG is a RC orientated organisation and that the previous head of maternity services lead and chaired the Dublin Convention symposium which concluded that 'there is never a reason for a termination to save the life of the mother.

In this respect the statement about being a catholic country taken in context is absolutely damning.