Pregnant woman dies in UCHG after being refused a termination

gozunda

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The medic could also have been trying badly to explain why he/she felt his/her hands were tied.

I disagree fundamentally with your attack on the medic - especially when the full facts of the case are unknown.

Face it - his response and actions or lack of stink to high heaven especially given the context of what happened. No medical professional should ever come out with such a disgusting statement to a patient in his care considering the nature of the woman's condition. It matters not what religion or country he comes from. I do not believe His hands were tied - this trite sound bite does not fit the facts tbh - if he felt unable to provide adequate medical care to this woman, he should have excused himself from that responsibility. He didn't and he will have to face the backlash that his inaction has caused

MagicSean

It would be interesting if the doctor turned out not to be catholic

gozunda

billybudd wrote: »

Ill ignore your sneering ways.
How we respond will say alot internationaly. As for goodwill? companies primarily invest here from overseas because of our generous tax breaks and low corporate tax, nothing to do with goodwill, financial sense.
They come here for a variety of reasons, when the scandals hit home about abuse by clergy and institutions it had no effect on why people come here.
This tragic thing that happened is rare and was not intentional in my opinion and if it opens the door to change and the loosening of draconian perceptions and laws then it will not have been in vain and hopefully no woman has to go throug this terrible thing again.

Apologies if you believe I was "sneering" however I believe you may have taken that up incorrectly

I am not just talking companies and corporations here - the playing field is a lot larger than that. Let us not worry how we look but what we actually are

We have a view in this country that everyone loves us - well this clearly shows they don't. It may be the best thing for us to get our house together in this regard.

oppenheimer1

gozunda wrote: »

Face it - his response and actions or lack of stink to high heaven especially given the context of what happened. No medical professional should ever come out with such a disgusting statement to a patient in his care considering the nature of the woman's condition. I do not believe His hands were tied - this trite sound bite does not fit the facts tbh - if he felt unable to provide adequate medical care to this woman, he should have excused himself from that responsibility. He didn't and he will have to face the backlash that his inaction has caused

Well I'll agree with you there, thats exactly what it is - a sound bite, presented without context. I do not know the facts of the case and neither do you. You should not rush to judgement on this individual, and your attitude stinks of a trial by media. Your charges are both currently baseless and outrageous. You clearly do not work in a high pressure, emotionally charged environment such as medicine.

Also, why the presumption that the doctor was male?

d'Oracle

gozunda wrote: »

Face it - his response and actions or lack of stink to high heaven especially given the context of what happened. No medical professional should ever come out with such a disgusting statement to a patient in his care considering the nature of the woman's condition. I do not believe His hands were tied - this trite sound bite does not fit the facts tbh - if he felt unable to provide adequate medical care to this woman, he should have excused himself from that responsibility. He didn't and he will have to face the backlash that his inaction has caused

What sound bite?
There has been no sound bite.

You know the sum total of bugger all about what was said and what the context was.
And from the sounds of it, you know even less about what conditions doctors are under.

billybudd

gozunda wrote: »

Apologies if you believe I was "sneering" however I believe you may have taken that up incorrectly

I am not just talking companies and corporations here - the playing field is a lot larger than that. Let us not worry how we look but what we actually are

We have a view in this country that everyone loves us - well this clearly shows they don't. It may be the best thing for us to get our house together in this regard.

We are not as bad as your making out and not as good as other people make us out to be, only a certain type of person would have the thought that everyone loves us, to a good preportion of the world we are not even relavant.

gozunda

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Well I'll agree with you there, thats exactly what it is - a sound bite, presented without context. I do not know the facts of the case and neither do you. You should not rush to judgement on this individual, and your attitude stinks of a trial by media. Your charges are both currently baseless and outrageous. You clearly do not work in a high pressure, emotionally charged environment such as medicine.

Also, why the presumption that the doctor was male?

How baseless? The husband reported what was said to him and his wife and has detailed that there were others present. If this doctor would not excuse himself and thereby put the woman's life in jeopardy then he will have to face the consequences.
The woman is dead - I hope he can sleep at night...

d'Oracle

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Well I'll agree with you there, thats exactly what it is - a sound bite, presented without context. I do not know the facts of the case and neither do you. You should not rush to judgement on this individual, and your attitude stinks of a trial by media. Your charges are both currently baseless and outrageous. You clearly do not work in a high pressure, emotionally charged environment such as medicine.

Also, why the presumption that the doctor was male?

Its not a feckin soundbite, a sound bite is something someone says, an actual quote.
It is a heavily editorialised snippet from the recollection of a conversation from an extremely distressed man

girl2

Haven't read any of the posts, just want to acknowledge this poor poor woman's death, that was so uncalled for. And the suffering and heartache her poor husband is going through.

A waste of life here. Shocking, shocking.

gozunda

d'Oracle wrote: »

What sound bite?
There has been no sound bite.

You know the sum total of bugger all about what was said and what the context was.
And from the sounds of it, you know even less about what conditions doctors are under.

Oh deary me that was taken up incorrectly. Please do reread the post again.
The sound bite of the doctors 'hands were tied' - I have seen it written dozens of time without basis. He had the responsibility to step away if he could not provide the required treatment. It does not stand up to scrutiny. I watched and read the transcript of the interview with Savitas husband. Ie a first hand source - are you saying he shouldn't believed? Of course what he said may not suit everybody - I cannot help that tbh

seb65

tomasocarthaigh wrote: »

I don't want to stir up a fuss on the pro-life issue, but a lot here would know my position on that. The recent Savita case in UCH Galway brings the abortion topic to sharp focus, and on thinking of all the angles on the case, and questioning very closely my heretofor thinking on the topic in general and moral implications - on an ethics point as much as on a faith based one - I still came out pro-life.

I thought the baby should have been removed, either by section or induction, as does every pro-life body as the operation is not abortion not being aimed to kill the child, but to save the mothers life, with the child dying as consequence, as it was going to being miscarried.

The doctor, in their fanaticism, thought he was God, and cited God to deny the removal of the baby. The woman died, as did the baby, a tragic outcome for all concerned.

Youth Defence, the Pope himself (not addressing this case in particualr, but cases similar in general previosly), every Protestant pro-life blog Ive read on the issue say she should have been saved by removing the baby, as do the secular pro-life blogs.

I hope, if you dont agree with the sentiments, at least you understand where a pro-lifer is coming from when trying to square this circle.

The Shepherd, The Wolf, The Ewe and the Lamb

Why does every anti-woman proponent talk about performing a c-section? Do you even know what it is? It's an invasive medical procedure where they cut through your abdomen - including the layers of muscle. It's a painful surgery to recover from and carries its own risks of infection. THE BABY WAS NOT VIABLE! There was some inherent defect, that's why a miscarriage occurred. It would not have survived if there'd been a c-section, inducement or a blessing from holy moses himself. My God, NO medical health professional would have recommended a c-section. I see Ireland's educational system, particularly in the sciences, is as backwards as its treatment of women.

billybudd

gozunda wrote: »

Sometimes the true impact of a situation is only properly reflected through some else's view of it


For those that don't think what happened does not reflect on the country and us as its citizens - take a good long hard look...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/sep/10/usman-javed-wife-baby-died-hospital

Dont recall the mass outrage, the imediate repsonse from government, the vigils and protests set up within a day of this becoming public.

oppenheimer1

gozunda wrote: »

Don't take it personally but this is not 'my answer" It is simply a statement of things currently stand. However what makes what actually happened barbaric was the consultant not even attempting to give a bone fide medical reason why the procedure could not be carried out. The reference to 'this is a Catholic Country' shows the doctor to be either a moral coward, a bigot or a murder with the life of this woman was in his hands.

Yes he may have had some right wing pro lifer come after him but with the current standing of the constitution it is highly unlikely he would have faced prosecution. What it does show is that some medical providers lack any back bone when it come to doing what is ethically right.

gozunda wrote: »

How baseless? The husband reported what was said to him and his wife and has detailed that there were others present. If this doctor would not excuse himself and thereby put the woman's life in jeopardy then he will have to face the consequences.
The woman is dead - I hope he can sleep at night...

You do not know the facts of the case, therefore your charges bolded above are groundless. You have damned this doctor based on a snippet of a presumably longer conversation that you do not know the contents of or context in which it was discussed.

If you need this explained further to you, you are trolling.

What happened was wrong, but lets establish the facts to find out exactly what went wrong before we lay the blame.

billybudd

seb65 wrote: »

Why does every anti-woman proponent talk about performing a c-section? Do you even know what it is? It's an invasive medical procedure where they cut through your abdomen - including the layers of muscle. It's a painful surgery to recover from and carries its own risks of infection. THE BABY WAS NOT VIABLE! There was some inherent defect, that's why a miscarriage occurred. It would not have survived if there'd been a c-section, inducement or a blessing from holy moses himself. My God, NO medical health professional would have recommended a c-section. I see Ireland's educational system, particularly in the sciences, is as backwards as its treatment of women.

No need for that, you can make a point without insulting a whole country.

Flier

gozunda wrote: »

The sound bite of the doctors 'hands were tied' - I have seen it written dozens of time without basis. Check for yourself. It does not stand up to scrutiny. I watched and read the transcript of the interview with Savitas husband. Ie a first hand source - are you saying he shouldn't believed? Of course what he said may not suit everybody - I cannot help that tbh

So you've read the transcript and you know the context. Seems to me the husband has given many interviews to many orgonisations. None of us know the full facts, so save your damnation of individuals until we do.

seb65

billybudd wrote: »

No need for that, you can make a point without insulting a whole country.

Please, some of the arguments about how it's possible to end a pregnancy without aborting a fetus are akin to people in Africa who believe they can get rid of their HIV virus by raping virgins. Disgusting ignorance.

billybudd

seb65 wrote: »

Please, some of the arguments about how it's possible to end a pregnancy without aborting a fetus are akin to people in Africa who believe they can get rid of their HIV virus by raping virgins. Disgusting ignorance.

That is a valid argument and one you made without insulting a sizeable amount of people who would agree with you in Ireland.

gozunda

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

You do not know the facts of the case, therefore your charges bolded above are groundless. You have damned this doctor based on a snippet of a presumably longer conversation that you do not know the contents of or context in which it was discussed.

If you need this explained further to you, you are trolling.

What happened was wrong, but lets establish the facts to find out exactly what went wrong before we lay the blame.

So do you know more than that reported by the husband - if so please share. How about you find out what was said yourself rather than casting doubt on the husbands first hand account. What are you afraid of here. The doctor damned himself with that statement - as a professional it was inexcusable - a doctor who is used to dealing with the environment he was working in and presumably an expert in his field. He also failed to stand away if he could not provide the woman with the required treatment.

Of course a forum cannot convict or otherwise. - that does not mean that the issues at hand and detail available cannot be evaluated. Yes this is my opinion - I'm sure you have yours.

billybudd

gozunda wrote: »

So do you know more than that reported by the husband - if so please share. How about you find out what was said yourself rather than casting doubt on the husbands first hand account. What are you afraid of here. The doctor damned himself with that statement - as a professional it was inexcusable - a doctor who is used to dealing with the environment he was working in and presumably an expert in his field.

Of course a forum cannot convict or otherwise. - that does not mean that the issues at hand and detail available cannot be evaluated. Yes this is my opinion - I'm sure you have yours.

Do you know what context he used those words in? as magicsean said maybe anger or in defiance? that is a key issue would you not agree?

gozunda

billybudd wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/sep/10/usman-javed-wife-baby-died-hospital

Dont recall the mass outrage, the imediate repsonse from government, the vigils and protests set up within a day of this becoming public.

BB - is that your link? Ok I get what you have written below it but not too sure how it fits in with the section you quoted above from me re. how others may perceive Ireland following what happened in Galway.
Can you explain perhaps?

billybudd

gozunda wrote: »

BB - is that your link? Ok I get what you have written below it but not too sure how it fits in with the section you quoted above from me re. how others may perceive Ireland following what happened in Galway.
Can you explain perhaps?

Well i think it shows we are able to be proactive in the face of shameful events and we understand and accept that a tragedy like this has no place in modern Ireland and although we became complacent with a legislation that should have had more public interest than it has had we are now going to act.

Boombastic

Seems like the gov won't be doing much any time soon

Too soon to commit on abortion legislation, says Reilly
Minister for Health James Reilly is resisting pressure to commit to the introduction of legislation to clarify the legal situation governing terminations of pregnancy.

Dr Reilly said it would be improper of him to make such a commitment before he considered the report of his expert group on abortion.

gozunda

billybudd wrote: »

Do you know what context he used those words in? as magicsean said maybe anger or in defiance? that is a key issue would you not agree?

The indicator here is that he did not step away from the situation. If he believed his 'hands were tied' as some have suggested then he had this option. If he was 'angry or feeling defiant' then surely he would have provided the woman with the treatment that at least one independent expert opinion has stated is best practice, which is provided for under the constitution and would have given the woman the best chance of recovery. if he believed the catholic ethos was wrong then he in my view would have followed thru by acting on that anger and defiance ignoring whatever possible consequences to ensure that the woman had the best chance of recovery. Looking at this objectively what was said and what was done and not done just does not add up for me.

You are of course free to make up your mind and your own opinion on this matter.

jill_valentine

Boombastic wrote: »

Seems like the gov won't be doing much any time soon

Too soon to commit on abortion legislation, says Reilly
Minister for Health James Reilly is resisting pressure to commit to the introduction of legislation to clarify the legal situation governing terminations of pregnancy.

I remember hearing bits and pieces of all these conversations I'm hearing now back when I was seven years old, twenty years ago.

Too soon. :rolleyes: How long do yis need lads?

billybudd

gozunda wrote: »

The indicator here is that he did not step away from the situation. If he believed his 'hands were tied' as some have suggested then he had this option. If he was 'angry or feeling defiant' then surely he would have provided the woman with the treatment that at least one independent expert opinion has stated is best practice, which is provided for under the constitution and would have given the woman the best chance of recovery. if he believed the catholic ethos was wrong then he in my view would have followed thru by acting on that anger and defiance ignoring whatever possible consequences to ensure that the woman had the best chance of recovery. Looking at this objectively what was said and what was done and not done just does not add up for me.

You are of course free to make up your mind and your own opinion on this matter.

Maybe or maybe not, hopefully we will know soon what happened and hopefully core issues are clarified and legislated for properly.

gozunda

billybudd wrote: »

Well i think it shows we are able to be proactive in the face of shameful events and we understand and accept that a tragedy like this has no place in modern Ireland and although we became complacent with a legislation that should have had more public interest than it has had we are now going to act.

Ok get that but not to sure with what I said below ?

]
Sometimes the true impact of a situation is only properly reflected through some else's view of it

For those that don't think what happened does not reflect on the country and us as its citizens - take a good long hard look...(US TV report)

What I am trying to get across here is that this country is often overtly inward looking on many issues and that it will help to take into account others views. on a personal level it can be quite hard to be totally objective on something that people can get so tied up with. I also don't believe we necessarily have the right political momentum atm to tackle something of this complexity. I believe that the government will try and drag their heals on this as they do not wish to divide their electorate power base and are too canny to undertake something so potentially divisive.

billybudd

jill_valentine wrote: »

I remember hearing bits and pieces of all these conversations I'm hearing now back when I was seven years old, twenty years ago.

Too soon. :rolleyes: How long do yis need lads?

Did he actually use the words ''glanced at it'' shocking.

billybudd

gozunda wrote: »

Ok get that but not to sure with what I said below ?



What I am trying to get across here is that this country is often overtly inward looking on many issues and that it will help to take into account others views. on a personal level it can be quite hard to be totally objective on something that people can get so tied up with. I also don't believe we necessarily have the right political momentum atm to tackle something of this complexity. I believe that the government will try and drag their heals on this as they do not wish to divide their electorate power base and are too canny to undertake something so potentially divisive.

It is great to learn from others and to have peers that you can mature with but its important not to take judgement from hypocritical minds.

If you look at the political infrastructure of Ireland it is based on many socialist ideals where people were put first, in 50's and 60's america looked on Ireland as a communist country because we had free health care and social welfare.

What i am really saying is that there is no nirvana in any country and we all have problems caused by an out dated mentality.

gozunda

billybudd wrote: »

It is great to learn from others and to have peers that you can mature with but its important not to take judgement from hypocritical minds.

If you look at the political infrastructure of Ireland it is based on many socialist ideals where people were put first, in 50's and 60's america looked on Ireland as a communist country because we had free health care and social welfare.

What i am really saying is that there is no nirvana in any country and we all have problems caused by an out dated mentality.

Ok but there remains a need to move away from the idea of DeValera's isolationist catholic state that still exists in some respects. There is little or no political gradient in this country to engender change. Hence the need for a catalyst for chance. If this is at least partly external then so be it.

poeticseraphim

billybudd wrote: »

It is great to learn from others and to have peers that you can mature with but its important not to take judgement from hypocritical minds.

If you look at the political infrastructure of Ireland it is based on many socialist ideals where people were put first, in 50's and 60's america looked on Ireland as a communist country because we had free health care and social welfare.

What i am really saying is that there is no nirvana in any country and we all have problems caused by an out dated mentality.

Erm.....no ....

There was in actuality little of a welfare state....there were University fees and fees for secondary school.
Free secondary school was only introduced in 1967....many older people today in Ireland have never finished secondary education. We did not have free healthcare?? I guess you never studied Irish history or you would never have heard of the mother and child scheme crisis??
There had been no state funded healthcare in reality.

In 1950, Browne proposed introducing a scheme which would provide maternity care for all mothers and healthcare for children up to the age of sixteen, funded by the taxpayer. It met with ferocious opposition from conservative elements in the Catholic hierarchy and the medical profession. The Catholic Church leadership was divided between those like Archbishop of Dublin John Charles McQuaid who believed that it was the exclusive right of all parents to provide healthcare for their child, and younger moderates like William Philbin who saw some merit in state assistance to families.

Many doctors disapproved of the scheme, some on principle, others because they feared a loss of income and a fear of becoming a kind of civil servant, referring to the plan as "socialised medicine". n April 1951, MacBride demanded Browne's resignation as a Clann na Poblachta minister. Browne duly submitted his resignation to the Taoiseach John A. Costello for submission to President O'Kelly.[7] The resignation took effect from 11 April 1951. the Voluntary Health Insurance Board in 1957 removed the compulsory attempts of government to reform healthcare. Thus what became called the two-tier system was born, the private and public systems existing side-by-side,

The catholic church and the right ROBBED this country of an Irish NHS...

when Cumann na nGaedheal was in government and followed a conservative economic strategy. This involved supporting big farmers and encouraging exports of agricultural produce by improving standards and encouraging farmer education, very much in the way in which successive British administrations had done since the 1880s. At the same time, in spite of being the party of Griffith, they resisted all calls for protection for industry, believing that free access to the British market for agricultural produce was essential to the survival of the Irish economy and that this would be damaged by any move to protectionism.

Read this

http://test.scoilnet.ie/Res/maryodubhain100899230042_2.html

Economic policy was driven by the same people who had been in charge since British rule they and business men wanted nothing changed. There was a veil of secrecy over cabinet decisions for years there still is.

Economic policy for Dev did not exist beyond the economic war with Britain.

The political structure is not based on socialist ideals....it is based upon elitism....carried on from British ideals

We have two houses ....just like the British system...only certain people on the social ladder can get into one...like the British system.


Yes we have a constitution....but in fact legislation is dominated and manipulated to such an extend that the constitution is mauled.


DeV concentrated on maximizing agricultural output.

When the First World War broke out, the implementation of home rule was postponed until the conflict was over, and the nationalists hoped unionist opposition would be overruled.

Irish people generally enjoyed the right to free speech, free assembly, free organisation, and a varied and (mostly) uncensored media. Many initiatives had been taken by the British government to satisfy different sections of the population; old age pensions gave a weekly payment to those aged over 70, and the National University of Ireland Act of 1908 seemed to reflect an increasingly confident Catholic church that had succeeded in achieving its demands in the area of education. Most Irish farmers owned their own land, some 11 million acres having been purchased as a result of the Land Acts of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. After the First World War commenced, Irish agriculturalists benefited from the extra demand in Britain for Irish foodstuffs. Conscription to the armed forces was not imposed in Ireland, but many Irish men volunteered for service in the British army, with over 200,000 serving during World War One. The Royal Irish Constabulary, mostly Catholic, and a respected force, was policing an island relatively free of serious crime.

On the surface therefore, the years before the Rising seemed some of the more peaceful and prosperous in Ireland’s history.

It was the British that had started to put the structure up of a welfare state....the Irish dismantled a lot of it

. There also emerged a critical questioning of the persistence of underdevelopment, as the 1950s was the decade in which emigration damaged the national psyche and the rural hinterland and placed under strain much of the rhetoric concerning the ideal rural life and the merits of self-sufficiency. In the post-war period, until 1981,over 500,000 people emigrated from the Irish Republic. In 1958 alone almost 60,000 emigrated at a time when the population of the Republic was under 4 million people.

The mantra was self sufficiency on a national and individual scale.

The prosperity that accrued in the 1960s and the decline in unemployment and development of a robust export trade indicated the merits of a more open economy. With de Valera’s retirement in 1959, Seán Lemass began to implement change and Ireland engaged in a successful game of catch-up with many of the economies of Western Europe .The introduction of free secondary education in 1967, by linking greater access to further education with future economic and social development, demonstrated a commitment to change Ireland’s education system that had been dominated by an unsuccessful mission to restore the Irish language. The 1960s and 1970s were also notable for the emergence of a women’s liberation movement which successfully challenged some of the laws that discriminated against women and ensured the formation of a Council for the Status of Women.

Irish republicans always only want to line their own pockets.

We don't have free health care now ..have we ever ??? I don't remember it??? I always have paid. Am i being ripped off?

kraggy

Maybe this is a stupid question, but is a c section whike there is still a heartbeat an option if they're sure the foetus will die imminently anyway?

TwoShedsJackson

MagicSean wrote: »

It would be interesting if the doctor turned out not to be catholic

What difference would that make? More important is what they allegedly said.

suicide_circus

The MMR (Maternal Mortality Ratio) in Ireland is 3:100,000 while in India it is 250:100,000 so the Indian authorities might like to get their own house in order before threatening at diplomatic incident over this tragedy.
My sources in the medical profession tell that the situation did not play out exactly like is being portrayed in the meejah.

Atomicjuicer

Yep, Ireland is currently one of the safest countries on the planet for pregnant women.

What about all the women who die during abortions?

poeticseraphim

kraggy wrote: »

Maybe this is a stupid question, but is a c section whike there is still a heartbeat an option if they're sure the foetus will die imminently anyway?

That is a surgical abortion basically. An abortion is not legal in Ireland unless the woman is dying. Not while there is a heartbeat. And a surgical abortion is not always medically favorable over a suction abortion.


I don't think a C section would have been medically advisable..the truth is the legal situation and lack of legalized abortion is preventing the best medical treatment for women. And the pro-lifers know it.

ruthloss

Atomicjuicer wrote: »

Yep, Ireland is currently one of the safest countries on the planet for pregnant women.


That statistic must be all the more baffling for the husband and family of Sevita. It certainly will not be a comfort to them in their grief.

poeticseraphim

I just want o say it is sad how people are more preoccupied with the perception of Ireland more than they are of the reality women's rights and healthcare.

Like it or not until we fully legalize abortion the UN sees us as denying human rights.

And the rest of the world rightly sees us as backward.

The reality should be enough to spur us on.

suicide_circus

poeticseraphim wrote: »

And the rest of the world rightly sees us as backward.

The reality should be enough to spur us on.

what others think of us should have no baring on our actions. Our own collective conscience, expressed through democratic means is the only thing that should "spur us on"

Morag

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bwbc6yg6DS8

jumpguy

James Reilly really is keeping up a terribly disappointing stint as health minister. He "glanced" at the report? How incredibly insensitive. Does he not realise Ireland is a global spotlight over this issue, and the government in the national spotlight? Is the urgency lost on him? Perhaps he could've skipped brushing his teeth a night and read it before bed.

positron

+1 to above. I think he's just a puppet, acting under the orders of some seriously powerful lobbyists, like some religious group perhaps.

Another sad day to be Irish. Another sad day. PERIOD.

CruelCoin

My name is URL wrote: »

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.

"we" being the people who voted against abortion the last time it came up in referendum? An abortion that would have saved her life?

We may not have put the gun in the killers hands, but we let him have it, with ammo, with the knowledge it was going to kill someone someday.

Legalese nonsense aside, its ****ty from a societal point of view, and i'm ashamed that "we" the Irish people let this happen.

Morag

CruelCoin wrote: »

"we" being the people who voted against abortion the last time it came up in referendum?

We didn't.

Last referendum we votes yes to the right travel, yes to the right of information
and we voted NO to amending the X Case High Court Ruling.

What we did do, was allow 6 successive governments to ignore that ruling and the out come of that Referendum.

We had our say, and they ignored it and we let them.

Khannie

poeticseraphim wrote: »

the truth is the legal situation and lack of legalized abortion is preventing the best medical treatment for women. And the pro-lifers know it.

Tired of being incorrectly generalised about. I am pro life and in favour of legislating for the x case. Not everyone is a militant mentaller (on either side).

Maggie 2

SomethingElse wrote: »

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.

The mothers life was not at risk until after the D & C, when she was taken to ICU. The fact that she requested a termination doesn't mean that her life was at risk. She just wanted the inevitable over with, but best practice is to let nature take its course.

kunst nugget

Maggie 2 wrote: »

The mothers life was not at risk until after the D & C, when she was taken to ICU. The fact that she requested a termination doesn't mean that her life was at risk. She just wanted the inevitable over with, but best practice is to let nature take its course.

You seem to be stating fact there. For all we know at this stage she could have been having a septic miscarriage due to an Ecoli infection. In that instance her life would have been in danger.

Also as stated by Dr. Jean Gunther in a piece that has been linked several times so far but here it is:

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.

That doesn't sound like sitting around and waiting for nature to take it's course.

eyescreamcone

Maggie 2 wrote: »

The mothers life was not at risk until after the D & C, when she was taken to ICU. The fact that she requested a termination doesn't mean that her life was at risk. She just wanted the inevitable over with, but best practice is to let nature take its course.

That worked out well didn't it. :mad:

HeyThereDeliah

kunst nugget wrote: »

You seem to be stating fact there. For all we know at this stage she could have been having a septic miscarriage due to an Ecoli infection. In that instance her life would have been in danger.

Also as stated by Dr. Jean Gunther in a piece that has been linked several times so far but here it is:



That doesn't sound like sitting around and waiting for nature to take it's course.

The doctor in that link is stating fact also when she has no idea what the circumstances were. The lady's husband is not a doctor so its not safe to assume he knows what he is talking about.

fishy fishy

shame on Ireland............again

An embarrassment to the world..............again.

Mervyn Crawford

Sinn Fein web site statement:

Sinn Féin Health spokesperson Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin TD has said that thetragic death of Savita Halappanavar in University Hospital, Galway, underlinesthe need for long overdue legislation to provide for the termination ofpregnancy where the life of the woman is in real danger.
He said: “I extend deepest sympathy to the family of Savita Halappanavar. Newsof her death in such tragic and traumatic circumstances has caused distress topeople throughout the country.
“While we must await the outcome of on-going inquiries before drawingconclusions on all aspects of this particular case, it is clear that thetragedy highlights once again the need for long overdue legislation to providefor the termination of pregnancy where the life of the woman is in real danger.
“From the testimony of the husband of the deceased it appears that Savita wasdenied a termination on alleged legal and ethical grounds, even though it wasclear that the baby would not survive and that the mother’s life was in dangerfrom infection.
“The absence of the required legislation denies women protection and the rightto obtain a termination in such circumstances. It also creates an ambiguouslegal situation for clinicians in the same circumstances.
“Minister James Reilly has stated that he does not wish to be the seventhMinister for Health to fail to legislate in this regard. He must keep thatcommitment.” ENDS

Sinn Fein’s reluctant statement. A woman's life must be in "real danger".

My understanding of the condition that Savita Halappanavar suffered is that it is not normally life threatening; but there is a small chance that it can develop into such. And sound medical practice dictates that the grave potential risk is forestalled by inducement or termination.

As a doctor said on Pat Kenny's radio programme yesterday, in another country the patient would be asked to sign a disclaimer if she refused a termination as would be advised in the circumstances.

So according to Ó Caoláin, which situation does he believe merits medical intervention – when Savita Halappanavar was first diagnosed as miscarrying at GalwayUniversity Hospital; or was it when she was in “real danger”?

His reference to “alleged legal and ethical grounds” raises interrelated issues.Political position and philosophical outlook.

Along with his view that “ …we must await the outcome of on-going inquiries before drawing conclusions on all aspects of this particular case….” Ó Caoláin makes abundantly clear that Sinn Fein are committed to the system, and all that that implies.

For anyone with eyes to see Ireland is dominated by and riddled with a reactionary religious ideology that pervades all aspects of life. This does not mean that the great majority of people are religious reactionaries; but it does mean that the reactionaries have an insidious political control, as allies,and members, of the capitalist ruling class.

The determined opposition on the streets, and the voices that make their way into the broadcast media, the letters pages of the press and on the web sites make equally clear that this medieval ‘ethos’ is repugnant to the population.

Yet Sinn Fein’s ambiguity shies away from this divide in Irish society.Between those who believe that Catholic Church has a right to dictate and those who believe it does not. Hence Sinn Fein’s use of ‘ethical grounds’ in place of religious belief. This hiding of the true nature of the political world shows just where Sinn Fein’s allegiances lie– with the status quo; with the Catholic Church; with the rich.

The true nature and views of the great mass of the people is suppressed by Sinn Fein. The fact that those who reject the barbarism meted out to Savita Halappanavar cannot find a voice within the political system reveals the true nature of that system, and all the parties and organisations that support that system.