Pregnant woman dies in UCHG after being refused a termination

frfintanstack

gozunda wrote: »

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

I totally acknowledge that the stats arent fully accurate. AIMS says our stats will be similar to EU average measured the same way.

Of course you are presuming that international stats are accurate...

"at worse a gross inaccuracy" is in no way a reflection of what the article says.

We arent the safest place in the world to have a child...totally acknowledged. We are probably average( a first world average)

You seem to be trying to classify us as something else than a provider of first world maternal care with no evidence at all....accurate, mildly inaccurate or "grossly innaccurate"

But sure whatever you want to believe yourself.

mazi

We don't know the facts on this but it was horrible what happened and morally wrong that the lady was not given what she requested however has anyone thought of it from the Doctors point of view.If he carried out what was requested he is breaking the law and can be struck off practising medicine and sent to prison.It's the law abortion is illegal not because of religious points of view.

I personally believe it should be legal and a persons choice if they choose to do it without any judgment.

Would you do something if you knew you were going to be sent to prison for murder and loose everything you have worked and studied for???!!

Just giving my 2 cents!

gozunda

frfintanstack wrote: »

I totally acknowledge that the stats arent fully accurate. AIMS says our stats will be similar to EU average measured the same way.
Of course you are presuming that international stats are accurate...
"at worse a gross inaccuracy" is in no way a reflection of what the article says.
We arent the safest place in the world to have a child...totally acknowledged. We are probably average( a first world average)

You seem to be trying to classify us as something else than a provider of first world maternal care with no evidence at all....accurate, mildly inaccurate or "grossly innaccurate"

But sure whatever you want to believe yourself.

Not so much the estimated scale of misreporting more that as a "first world" country our statistics are not accurate and not undertaken in the same manner as other EU countries. My main concern would be why the lies? The fact that many state funded hospitals are still run as RC trusts concerns me even more.....

HeyThereDeliah

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.

A book of condolence for what so some people can feel good about themselves, we as a country have nothing to apologise for.

gozunda

mazi wrote: »

We don't know the facts on this but it was horrible what happened and morally wrong that the lady was not given what she requested however has anyone thought of it from the Doctors point of view.If he carried out what was requested he is breaking the law and can be struck off practising medicine and sent to prison.It's the law abortion is illegal not because of religious points of view.
I personally believe it should be legal and a persons choice if they choose to do it without any judgment.

Would you do something if you knew you were going to be sent to prison for murder and loose everything you have worked and studied for???!!

Just giving my 2 cents!

mazi - the doctor would not necessarily have been "breaking the law" this was clarified in the Dail today. The medical Council is quite clear where treatment is required to save a womans life then intervention is allowed. This comes from the Supreme Courts clarification of the Constitution. However the fact that he may not have provided the necessary care and may be found to have been negligent could lead to him being struck off practising medicine and possibly sent to prison OR being sued by the family of the woman concerned. What is damning was his citing of "its a catholic country" rather than bone fide medical reasons.

The Waltzing Consumer

later12 wrote: »

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 have to agree that this "catholic" quote seems so strange. There is no real surprise that there is so much speculation about it. The image in my mind is some Irish doctor replying after being asked to be perform an abortion "no, this is a Catholic country" just does not sit right.

Is it possible the doctor was even not Irish? Is it possible as you say that when refusing to perform an abortion, the doctor was asked why we have strict laws and they simply stated the link between the predominant religion and abortion laws?

Morag

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.

Are they really?

http://www.medicalindependent.ie/page.aspx?title=maternal_death_%E2%80%93_into_the_great_unknown

The 2005 WHO report acknowledges the difficulties surrounding data collection in some countries. According to the report, "even in developed countries where routine registration of deaths is in place, maternal deaths may be underreported, and identification of the true numbers of maternal deaths may require additional special investigations into the causes of deaths".

"We are not saying that Ireland is the only country that has problems with data collection but we are absolutely sure that Ireland has problems in that respect," Dr O'Hare said.

The Waltzing Consumer

Sharrow wrote: »

Are they really?

http://sharrowshadow.wordpress.com/2012/11/15/maternal-death-into-the-great-unknown-the-medical-independent/

Did you even read that link?

Madam_X

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

A book of condolence for what so some people can feel good about themselves

No, to extend our sympathies - that is a what a book of condolences is.

we as a country have nothing to apologise for.

It's not apologising.

The Waltzing Consumer

Madam_X wrote: »

No, to extend our sympathies - that is a what a book of condolences is.

It's not apologising.

The original poster said "On a public front, Ireland seems to be shrugging it's shoulders and trying to avoid blame rather than genuinely apologising."

That's where the apology remark came from, not from the book of condolence idea

HeyThereDeliah

Madam_X wrote: »

No, to extend our sympathies - that is a what a book of condolences is.

It's not apologising.

It's so people can feel good about themselves, what will a book of condolence do? Nothing,waste of time IMO.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/david-quinn-media-rushes-to-judgment-but-we-dont-know-the-facts-3294515.html

I found this an interesting read.

Morag

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

It's so people can feel good about themselves, what will a book of condolence do? Nothing,waste of time IMO.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/david-quinn-media-rushes-to-judgment-but-we-dont-know-the-facts-3294515.html

I found this an interesting read.

Written by David Quinn, who was the editor of the Irish Catholic for 6 years and founder of the Iona institute.

The Waltzing Consumer

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

It's so people can feel good about themselves, what will a book of condolence do? Nothing,waste of time IMO.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/david-quinn-media-rushes-to-judgment-but-we-dont-know-the-facts-3294515.html

I found this an interesting read.

That is an interesting read and he makes some very valid points. These good points are drowned out though by a very obvious bias in his writings.

It's a pity, good points, ruined by a pre-existing agenda.

gozunda

Sharrow wrote: »

Written by David Quinn, who was the editor of the Irish Catholic for 6 years.

It was also already posted here earlier today I believe....check couple pages back...

As an aside - the worldwide coverage of how this woman was treated will impact our international reputation as a country
to visit, work or live in - Perhaps The Gathering project should do some rethinking....

HeyThereDeliah

Sharrow wrote: »

Written by David Quinn, who was the editor of the Irish Catholic for 6 years and founder of the Iona institute.

I know but still some valid point, the media highlights what they choose to. I think Ireland is getting a harder time than it deserves over this tbh. I agree changes are needed and only the government can make that happen.

jill_valentine

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).

I do feel responsible, or at least complicit. I can't help feeling that even our local shower of halfwits in government would have had to act if we had made more noise, more often, much sooner. If we didn't have the ferry to act as a safety valve, maybe we would have.

I feel a terrific sense of personal shame to be a citizen of a nation that could do this to a young woman commended to the care of its medical system. I have very strong opinions on the subject and have campaigned in the past, but it's absolute madness that it had to come to this.

If it's true that we get the politicians we deserve, well then...

frfintanstack

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

That is an interesting read and he makes some very valid points. These good points are drowned out though by a very obvious bias in his writings.

It's a pity, good points, ruined by a pre-existing agenda.

A good point is a good point....

I think peoples view of David Quinn will mean they wont pay his article any attention but its the most sensible report on this tragedy I've seen.

(apart from where he veers off on his pro-life agenda)

Mellio

gozunda wrote: »

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

which if you read my early posts I am stating I think it will come down to negligence.

petersburg2002

frfintanstack wrote: »

A good point is a good point....

I think peoples view of David Quinn will mean they wont pay his article any attention but its the most sensible report on this tragedy I've seen.

Surely better than the level of hysteria witnessed over the last two days. People should let the enquiry speak for itself. A lot of conjecture being spouted.

gozunda

Mellio wrote: »

which if you read my early posts I am stating I think it will come down to negligence.

The husband in an interview today on RTE News appeared to be saying that they were looking at taking a case against the hospital / consultant as well

Mellio

Knasher wrote: »

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.

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.

I dont think I mentioned after or before the septicemia set in my point is I beleive they will be deemed negligent due to there lack of immediate action. whether this is by not performing the abortion or considering the requirement to deal with the possibility of contracting septicemia.

There was also a point made on the tv this morning that with her contracting E-Coli the antibiotics were not going to make a difference as antibiotics dont work on E-Coli.

This kind of takes the question back to the requirement for the abortion.

frfintanstack

Mellio wrote: »

There was also a point made on the tv this morning that with her contracting E-Coli the antibiotics were not going to make a difference as antibiotics dont work on E-Coli.

Just being pedantic..................E.coli is treatable but I think they mentioned ESBL E.coli which is a antibiotic resistant strain and very hard to treat.


i think Ireland is getting an undeserved bashing for this and there are too many Irish people ready to accept it and apologise for something we haven't done.

But by the time the full story comes out it'll get no international media attention. The agenda of some in the media has done us a great disservice here. I couldnt get over the Irish girl who wrote in the guardian today...ridiculous stuff, but her mask slipped badly on newstalk. She came across as pretty crazy pro-choice.

It's unfortunate that this tragedy has gotten mixed up with the abortion debate. Both sides of which have so many extremists its impossible to have a rational debate.......

Madam_X

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

It's so people can feel good about themselves, what will a book of condolence do? Nothing,waste of time IMO

You can read people's minds? It's just a gesture of support and solidarity and compassion. Why should it achieve something? It doesn't mean we as a nation are directly responsible but it might show we as citizens are disgusted by what happened and want change.

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

I agree changes are needed and only the government can make that happen.

We are the ones who have the power to put pressure on the government. We're not accountable for what happened but we should be taking action in light of it.

jill_valentine wrote: »

If it's true that we get the politicians we deserve, well then...

Well it's easy to blame ourselves with hindsight but we didn't have crystal balls.

frfintanstack wrote: »

A good point is a good point....

I think peoples view of David Quinn will mean they wont pay his article any attention but its the most sensible report on this tragedy I've seen.

Madam_X

My issue with the Quinn article isn't merely that he's the writer, but the fact it's littered with whataboutery and of course an auld dig at the Guardian and it's "pro abortion agenda". Exceptionally petty and unprofessional journalism.

Madam_X

annascott wrote: »

On a public front, Ireland seems to be shrugging it's shoulders and trying to avoid blame rather than genuinely apologising.

Who in Ireland do you mean?

partyatmygaff

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.

Who is responsible for her death? How exactly are they responsible from a medical point of view? What could they have done and didn't do that would have definitely prevented her death?

To quote myself from another thread...

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I don't really care what a newspaper types up in big bold attention-grabbing print in the hope of garnering sales. What I care about is this case.

Let's forget all this stuff about the law, the Catholic church and whatever else the international media and the general public seem to be so focused on. Look at this from a medical perspective. So far, we know the following.

• She died of a septicaemic ESBL-producing E.Coli infection.
• She was admitted to hospital on a Sunday complaining of back pains and was told she was suffering a miscarriage. At this point, it didn't seem that her level of pain was as debilitating as it was from Tuesday evening on.
• On Monday, she asks for an induction to resolve the miscarriage and her request is refused due to the presence of a foetal heartbeat. At this point, i'd imagine the pain very slowly started to increase. At an estimation based on when she became symptomatic, i'd she was at least suffering from systemic inflammatory response syndrome + the early stages of sepsis.
• On Tuesday morning, she asked for another induction and was refused again. Symptoms of advanced septicaemia started to show that evening and the medical team responded by starting her on antibiotics.
• Wednesday lunchtime, the foetus died and the womb contents were removed. By evening, she is critical with weak vital signs and a high fever.
• By Saturday, her infection progressed to multiple organ failure and by the end of the day she had died.

Let's consider the scenario where they agreed to her request and aborted on Monday evening. She would have still been in a bit of pain which would have written off as normal and she would have been discharged with a prescription for painkillers. The abortion would have removed the source of the infection and some portion of the bacteria but if (as I suspect) the infection had already reached the bloodstream all it really would have done is prolong the incubation time. Instead of becoming symptomatic on Tuesday evening, she would have become symptomatic later on in the week. She'd return to the hospital again, they'd treat her with a standard antibiotic (Empirical prescribing is standard practice until they identify the species responsible for the infection) which probably wouldn't have any effect on the strain she was infected with and she'd die in the exact same way.

What medically sound reason is there to suggest that an abortion would definitely have stopped her death by septicaemia? (Providing it was already underway before she suggested an abortion as appears to be the case)

jill_valentine

People arguing over whether or not an abortion in the early stages would have been technically legal or not are missing the point to a mindboggling extent - there shouldn't be any room for argument in the first place, and that's the heart of the problem.

Doctors shouldn't have to wait around trying to figure out if the patient is dying enough to go ahead with the best medical practice for the situation. There shouldn't be any risk of a disincentive to do that, or any risk at all that the doctor would take into account any interest other than the patient's own.

The fact that they went ahead and removed the foetus when the heart had stopped - rather than letting a miscarriage process take its course - makes it pretty clear that they did know and believe that would have been best for her, they just chose not to do it sooner for reasons of their own. Whatever those reasons were, her wishes or welfare clearly weren't among them.

They denied her, at the very least, a fighting chance that she could have had. There's no disputing that - there was no reason at all to make her endure three more days of miscarriage than she needed to, there was no reason at all to knock a chunk off her odds of survival. But they did, and they could, because we lack an unambiguous legal mechanism to ensure otherwise.

billybudd

old hippy wrote: »

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.

Barbaric? to even use that word is mind boggling, i hardly think the medical team dealing with this lady acted in a barbaric way, neglect? maybe, confused? probaly although there is provisions set forth for Doctors regarding terminating a baby if the mothers life is in danger it is hampered by the fact that if the baby still has a heart beat then your in murky waters regarding prosecution, criminal and personal liability.

Morag

gozunda wrote: »

It was also already posted here earlier today I believe....check couple pages back...

As an aside - the worldwide coverage of how this woman was treated will impact our international reputation as a country
to visit, work or live in - Perhaps The Gathering project should do some rethinking....

Actually there are people who are using the gathering postcards to send to thier TDs saying they can't invite people to a country which lets women die like this.

gozunda

Sharrow wrote: »

Actually there are people who are using the gathering postcards to send to thier TDs saying they can't invite people to a country which lets women die like this.

That's a good idea - but I think I already filed mine under 'Bin'...

I like it though - the government are getting their own crap back

Pity there was no stamp - but I suppose that as a taxpayer one could write 'Already Paid' instead...hmmm

*goes off to root in the bin*

Hannibal Smith

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Who is responsible for her death? How exactly are they responsible from a medical point of view? What could they have done and didn't do that would have definitely prevented her death?

To quote myself from another thread...

Have you any idea the pain a miscarriage causes? you assume she was in mild discomfort? try picturing yourself in the worst physical pain possible, where your whole body feels like its on fire and your insides are actually gonna rot and that pain is only going to ease when the fetus passes. she had been going though her version for 3 days...how many more days would she have to endure it....when the baby was dying anyhow.

Couple that with the emotions of knowing your baby is dying inside you...it would only be a matter of time before it died and you have to sit and wait. how mentally exhausting that all is.

So never say 'just' when it comes to miscarriage it is a horrendous experience and if the laws were different in this country it may not have saved her from the sceptisima but it would have saved her from the awful trauma and spared her further anguish.

If the new child protection referendum provides that a child has a say in whether it can be adopted...then surely women should have a say in what happens to their own bodies.

billybudd

gozunda wrote: »

It was also already posted here earlier today I believe....check couple pages back...

As an aside - the worldwide coverage of how this woman was treated will impact our international reputation as a country
to visit, work or live in - Perhaps The Gathering project should do some rethinking....[/QUOTE]


Wow! why should it do our international reputation any harm? you think attrocities like this do not happen every day? in every part of the world? every country in the world at one point or another violates its citizens human rights.

The next question is, who gives a ****? we obvioulsy have a problem that needs fixing and judging by the majority of peoples anger at this then it hopefully will be dealt with, so really i couldnt give a **** what other countries think of us at this moment in time, i am just interested in this awful tragedy never happening again.

frfintanstack

Sharrow wrote: »

Actually there are people who are using the gathering postcards to send to thier TDs saying they can't invite people to a country which lets women die like this.

more reasonable reaction :rolleyes:

Big Bottom

Something should have been done to save that poor woman.

Id say the doctors were afraid to make the huge decision to end the pregnancy for fear of their careers.

billybudd

Sharrow wrote: »

Actually there are people who are using the gathering postcards to send to thier TDs saying they can't invite people to a country which lets women die like this.

Fantastic idea, now is the time to really put TD's under preasure and not let this fade, we demand change and we shall have it.

frfintanstack

Hannibal Smith wrote: »

Have you any idea the pain a miscarriage causes? you assume she was in mild discomfort? try picturing yourself in the worst physical pain possible, where your whole body feels like its on fire and your insides are actually gonna rot and that pain is only going to ease when the fetus passes. she had been going though her version for 3 days...how many more days would she have to endure it....when the baby was dying anyhow.

Most miscarriages have very little pain and can be utterly painless, in fact many women don't even realise they've had one.


But hey go for it with the melodrama, your description describes a very rare event......dramatically.

frfintanstack

Big Bottom wrote: »

Something should have been done to save that poor woman.

Id say the doctors were afraid to make the huge decision to end the pregnancy for fear of their careers.

Doubt it, doctors manage miscarriages every day in maternity hospitals.

The fact that this is such big news is that its such a rare event......

Annabella1

frfintanstack wrote: »

Most miscarriages have very little pain and can be utterly painless, in fact many women don't even realise they've had one.


But hey go for it with the melodrama, your description describes a very rare event......dramatically.

This poor lady suffered a miscarraige at 17weeks causing severe hemorrhage and severe pain causing hospitalisation

Whats your point??

gozunda

billybudd wrote: »

Wow! why should it do our international reputation any harm? you think attrocities like this do not happen every day? in every part of the world? every country in the world at one point or another violates its citizens human rights.

The next question is, who gives a ****? we obvioulsy have a problem that needs fixing and judging by the majority of peoples anger at this then it hopefully will be dealt with, so really i couldnt give a **** what other countries think of us at this moment in time, i am just interested in this awful tragedy never happening again.

BB thanks for that - you appear to have been a mine of amazing detail - none of which I'm afraid I have paid a blind bit of notice to date tbh...no offence intended

However as you have replied to my last post I will suggest that with regard to our international reputation - it's taken hell of a battering - take a look at every single major newspaper / TV channel worldwide. Rightly or wrongly Ireland has come out as a medieval backwater with a belief system to match. Only a fully transparent response and action by the government to this horrendous matter is likely to help regain this.

This is supposed to be the Year of the Gathering when we persuade poor benighted escapees to return so that they can hand over their well earned dosh so that we can continue paying developers to build mansions in bogs in the national interest.

As you have asked I for one give a Shyte. I know plenty others both here and abroad who are also. The more pressure nationally and internationally brought on this dank little island and its corrupt and bankrupt systems the better for all of us imo.

I like the Gathering postcard idea...the rubbed in detritus that they have gathered in the bin adds a certain pathos...

partyatmygaff

Hannibal Smith wrote: »

Have you any idea the pain a miscarriage causes? you assume she was in mild discomfort? try picturing yourself in the worst physical pain possible, where your whole body feels like its on fire and your insides are actually gonna rot and that pain is only going to ease when the fetus passes. she had been going though her version for 3 days...how many more days would she have to endure it....when the baby was dying anyhow.

When did I assume she was in mild discomfort? I didn't actually say that at all and you just invented it out of thin air.

What I actually said was "At this point, it doesn't appear she was in abnormally huge pain." which is a perfectly acceptable description relatively speaking unless you consider the pain of a miscarriage to be equivalent to the the final stages of septicaemia. She initially presented with back pain which wasn't necessarily caused as a result of the miscarriage. Pain in the lower back is often one of the early symptoms of septicaemia.

Couple that with the emotions of knowing your baby is dying inside you...it would only be a matter of time before it died and you have to sit and wait. how mentally exhausting that all is.

What's even more mentally exhausting is realising you have septicaemia and seeing yourself deteriorate so rapidly. Being a dentist, even in the awful state she was in, i'm sure she would have had some idea of what has happening and her prognosis all the way through.

So never say 'just' when it comes to miscarriage it is a horrendous experience and if the laws were different in this country it may not have saved her from the sceptisima but it would have saved her from the awful trauma and spared her further anguish.

I didn't even use the word "just" in my post let alone make it out that miscarriage is a little thing

SomethingElse

Hey, I posted this earlier, but does anyone know how it took so long for this story to filter through to the media? According to the reports, the woman died in October. Was there an inquiry in the interim?

Clarehobo

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

I have to agree that this "catholic" quote seems so strange. There is no real surprise that there is so much speculation about it. The image in my mind is some Irish doctor replying after being asked to be perform an abortion "no, this is a Catholic country" just does not sit right.

Is it possible the doctor was even not Irish? Is it possible as you say that when refusing to perform an abortion, the doctor was asked why we have strict laws and they simply stated the link between the predominant religion and abortion laws?

To be honest about it, there are doctors in this country that hide behind their religion: like the case of the woman who was denied the MAP by her doctor. And the fact that in Ireland they would carry out symphysiotomies when they could easily have carried out cesareans, because a cesarean can only be carried out a few times.
Religious beliefs are actually quite a scary influence on medical care - you should never be forced to undergo torturous procedures or to travel farther afield to seek medical aid for no good reason.

My take on this whole situation is this: my father is a farmer. If he had an animal miscarrying/in pain for any amount of time and he could see that the creature was in distress, he would call the vet and have the animal cared for.

What sort of medical professionals can leave any person: man, woman or child in such unnecessary pain for such a prolonged duration when they could have resolved it at the start? They told them at the start the foetus would not survive. Why drag out her pain and suffering? Even if she hadn't died, it is inhumane in the extreme to fail/refuse to use your medical expertise to resolve the situation as quickly as possible.

At the end of the day, if any government of the last 20 years had legislated properly, the doctors could not have denied her care on the "fear of being prosecuted" defence. It may not have saved her life, but then again it may have. I'd prefer to know that whoever is taking care of me would do their utmost to ensure I was not in pain or danger if it was within their ability.

gozunda

partyatmygaff wrote: »

When did I assume she was in mild discomfort? I didn't actually say that at all and you just invented it out of thin air.

What I actually said was "At this point, it doesn't appear she was in abnormally huge pain." which is a perfectly acceptable description relatively speaking unless you consider the pain of a miscarriage to be equivalent to the the final stages of septicaemia. She initially presented with back pain which wasn't necessarily caused as a result of the miscarriage. Pain in the lower back is often one of the early symptoms of septicaemia.

What's even more mentally exhausting is realising you have septicaemia and seeing yourself deteriorate so rapidly. Being a dentist, even in the awful state she was in, i'm sure she would have had some idea of what has happening and her prognosis all the way through.

I didn't even use the word "just" in my post let alone make it out that miscarriage is a little thing

"Abnormally Huge Pain" wow - is that a medical term or a diagnosis?

Excuse me if I don't take the rest of your argument seriously..

jill_valentine

SomethingElse wrote: »

Hey, I posted this earlier, but does anyone know how it took so long for this story to filter through to the media? According to the reports, the woman died in October. Was there an inquiry in the interim?

It seems to only have come to light because the husband decided to go to the press with it, and to be fair to him, presumably he had more immediate things on his mind for the last few weeks.

The other stories that have emerged on radio etc since would suggest that it's not an isolated occurrence, so it would seem that the media was either not previously aware of or willing to investigate and report on situations like it that have been occurring until now. So AFAIK, it wasn't so much a delay in the press breaking the story as it was that it took him a while to come forward with it.

Had he not done so, it would have been business as usual and we likely never would have known about it at all.

partyatmygaff

gozunda wrote: »

"Abnormally Huge Pain" wow - is that a medical term or a diagnosis?

"Pain" cannot be a diagnosis. Pain is a symptom, not a condition.

As for "abnormally huge" it was the first term that came to me for describing a particularly high level of pain that still paled in comparison to the pain of advanced septicaemia.

Excuse me if I don't take the rest of your argument seriously..

No need to excuse yourself. Not having incredibly fragile sensibilities and being able to handle incredibly unorthodox terms like "abnormally huge pain" isn't for everyone after all

Edit: I even changed it to "At this point, it didn't seem that her level of pain was as debilitating as it was from Tuesday evening on.". Better?

SomethingElse

jill_valentine wrote: »

It seems to only have come to light because the husband decided to go to the press with it, and to be fair to him, presumably he had more immediate things on his mind for the last few weeks.

The other stories that have emerged on radio etc since would suggest that it's not an isolated occurrence, so it would seem that the media was either not previously aware of or willing to investigate and report on situations like it that have been occurring until now. So AFAIK, it wasn't so much a delay in the press breaking the story as it was that it took him a while to come forward with it.

Do you know if it originated in the Irish media or the international media?

Cookie_Monster

Indian news isn't exactly holding back on this
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81765677&postcount=2202

Madam_X

SomethingElse wrote: »

Do you know if it originated in the Irish media or the international media?

Irish Times as far as I know.

jill_valentine

SomethingElse wrote: »

Do you know if it originated in the Irish media or the international media?

As far as I'm aware, and I stand to be corrected, the first mention of it was Vincent Brown in advance of the Irish Times story going out the following morning.

padd b1975

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Indian news isn't exactly holding back on this
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81765677&postcount=2202

India would be better off getting its own house in order.

Clean drinking water.

Poverty.


Shanty towns.


Child labour laws.


But they do have a belter of a nuclear weapons program.:rolleyes: