Pregnant woman dies in UCHG after being refused a termination

The Waltzing Consumer

Mervyn Crawford wrote: »

The true nature and views of the great mass of the people is suppressed by Sinn Fein. The fact that 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.

No fan of SF but seriously?? You want to find a political party who will predetermine a medical investigation into this tragic death, from a bunch of politicians, the majority who have no medical training?

To criticise any party or person who wishes to understand the circumstances and facts of this horrible event before laying blame everywhere is ridiculous and not helpful.

kunst nugget

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

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.

The widower is quoted as saying:

“The doctor told us the cervix was fully dilated, amniotic fluid was leaking and unfortunately the baby wouldn’t survive.” The doctor, he says, said it should be over in a few hours. There followed three days, he says, of the foetal heartbeat being checked several times a day.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/alex-massie/2012/11/ireland-and-abortion-cruelty-disguised-as-piety-cowardice-misrepresented-as-principle/

So in this instance it wasn't the widower that made the diagnosis but the doctor treating his wife. Dr. Jen Gunther then made her evaluation based on this.

The Waltzing Consumer

kunst nugget wrote: »

The widower is quoted as saying:

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/alex-massie/2012/11/ireland-and-abortion-cruelty-disguised-as-piety-cowardice-misrepresented-as-principle/

So in this instance it wasn't the widower that made the diagnosis but the doctor treating his wife. Dr. Jen Gunther then made her evaluation based on this.

But again, this is a grieving husband giving statements. It would be unfair to base fact on that without knowing all the circumstances.

gozunda

suicide_circus wrote: »

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"

In an ideal world yes....

There is little or no political gradient to engender the real change in this country that is required to do what is ethically right.
As citizens we can lobby or vote successive governments in however because these governments are continually under the influence of such insidious groups as the RCC both directly and indirectly it is highly unlikely that we as citizens can effect real change. If it takes real international presure to force our inept little government to do what is right then so be it - I for one am tired of waiting.

gozunda

Atomicjuicer wrote: »

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

ruthloss wrote: »

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.

That wonderful Maternal Death Rate quoted for the world has been already shown to be based on statistics that are best deeply flawed. This has already been discussed on this thread.

Even we're it a true state of affairs ( which it is not) as RL pointed out it is immaterial to what has happened to this woman and others who have suffered a similar fate. Great little country this - sure arn't we the best at everything.....

The Waltzing Consumer

gozunda wrote: »

In an ideal world yes....

There is little or no political gradient to engender the real change in this country that is required to do what is ethically right.
As citizens we can lobby or vote successive governments in however because these governments are continually under the influence of such insidious groups as the RCC both directly and indirectly it is highly unlikely that we as citizens can effect real change.

Well that's a bit of a cop-out. It is the easiest thing to blame the RCC influence. But it is also incorrect and passes the blame to an easy target.

A hundred times out of a hundred, I would bet that a politician is going to side with where they will retain most votes. It is simply implausible that any government or TD is going to risk being voted out if they were faced with overwhelmingly public opinion and support versus one priest or a few priests.

I think the simple truth is that the RCCs opinion for a long time matched the opinion of the majority of the electorate and that is the reason.

kunst nugget

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

But again, this is a grieving husband giving statements. It would be unfair to base fact on that without knowing all the circumstances.

True but I was responding to someone who seemed to think she had full and clear facts of when the infection set in. A gave another possible explanation for her septicemia. Also she said that best practice is to let nature take it's course. I pointed out the opinion of a respected obstetrician/gynecologist that said there was no medically defensible position for doing anything other than optimal pain control and hastening delivery by the safest means possible. I was told then that the husband was an unsound source of information given that he is grieving and not a doctor even though he listed a very specific set of symptoms that the doctor treating his wife said she was suffering from. Now he could be talking out his hoop but I'm willing to believe him at the moment. If a report comes and categorically shows that what he is saying is a lie then I willing come on here and admit my error of judgement.

But like everyone here I would like to know fully the facts of this case and whether it was down to the law of the land, the ethos of the hospital or the negligence of the doctor.

The Waltzing Consumer

gozunda wrote: »

[=

Atomicjuicer wrote: »

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

That wonderful Maternal Death Rate quoted for the world has been already shown to be based on statistics that are best deeply flawed. This has already been discussed on this thread.

Yes and those "deeply flawed" statistics would not only increase the maternal rate in Ireland and the UK, the would most certainly increase the rates in all, even more so in the worst offenders such as India. It is based on same criteria so would only Ireland be the only adjustment?

HeyThereDeliah

kunst nugget wrote: »

The widower is quoted as saying:



http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/alex-massie/2012/11/ireland-and-abortion-cruelty-disguised-as-piety-cowardice-misrepresented-as-principle/

So in this instance it wasn't the widower that made the diagnosis but the doctor treating his wife. Dr. Jen Gunther then made her evaluation based on this.

Hearsay it's not known what the doctor said, I'm in no way saying the husband is lying but the doctor could say different in his report.

We do not know all the facts of the case yet so for the doctor in the link to make a diagnosis is unfair, it's her opinion but its not fact.

The Waltzing Consumer

kunst nugget wrote: »

True but I was responding to someone who seemed to think she had full and clear facts of when the infection set in. A gave another possible explanation for her septicemia. Also she said that best practice is to let nature take it's course. I pointed out the opinion of a respected obstetrician/gynecologist that said there was no medically defensible position for doing anything other than optimal pain control and hastening delivery by the safest means possible. I was told then that the husband was an unsound source of information given that he is grieving and not a doctor even though he listed a very specific set of symptoms that the doctor treating his wife said she was suffering from. Now he could be talking out his hoop but I'm willing to believe him at the moment. If a report comes and categorically shows that what he is saying is a lie then I willing come on here and admit my error of judgement.

But like everyone here I would like to know fully the facts of this case and whether it was down to the law of the land, the ethos of the hospital or the negligence of the doctor.

Good points and the highlighted part, this is where I see issues. From reading the various news articles, there seems to be a general assumption from the grieving family and friends that because this lady was from a particular religion, the law of the land should not apply to her.

"The rules should be changed as per the requirement of Hindus. We are Hindus, not Christians,” she said."
http://www.thejournal.ie/savita-parents-speak-out-675917-Nov2012/

"Savita said to her she is not Catholic, she is Hindu, and why impose the law on her."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-20321741

Now, I don't want to be too critical, but this is one of the most basic things people understand when they travel, be it Ireland, Italy, India, you follow the law of the land. You or I have no right to travel to India and say laws do not apply to us because we are Christian or Athiest or any religion. This is why I think it is even more important to wait for the full findings as there are so many rumours and half heard facts in this case already.

gozunda

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Well that's a bit of a cop-out. It is the easiest thing to blame the RCC influence. But it is also incorrect and passes the blame to an easy target.

A hundred times out of a hundred, I would bet that a politician is going to side with where they will retain most votes. It is simply implausible that any government or TD is going to risk being voted out if they were faced with overwhelmingly public opinion and support versus one priest or a few priests.

I think the simple truth is that the RCCs opinion for a long time matched the opinion of the majority of the electorate and that is the reason.

So what do you recommend then - the RCC still retains a stranglehold over this country
The schools , the hospitals even schools and universities - in every aspect of influence they are there - manipulating and controlling our politics, our health care and our educational system . The RCC have traditionally controlled opinion and this is not the same thing as matching it imo. They have done this by telling people who to vote for , what to vote for and if that doesn't work high flying members in organisations such as Opus Dei have ensured that their wishes have been carried out to the highest level

What would you suggest - do to get rid of them or let them continue their pernicious influence. I know what I would advocate and all get them out of being allowed deciding what is best for us as a country and its citizens Organised religion has nothing to do with the reproductive health of woman.

It is Time to remove the clerics from the parlour once and for all....

gozunda

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Yes and those "deeply flawed" statistics would not only increase the maternal rate in Ireland and the UK, the would most certainly increase the rates in all, even more so in the worst offenders such as India. It is based on same criteria so would only Ireland be the only adjustment?

No they would not increase the rate of Maternal survival. - our statistics are clearly false . My concern at this junction is not so much the scale of this false reporting but why as a supposed first world country there is a need to lie about what the rate actually is. Is it coincidental that many of our hospitals are still controlled by the RCC. - I think not

kunst nugget

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

Hearsay it's not known what the doctor said, I'm in no way saying the husband is lying but the doctor could say different in his report.

We do not know all the facts of the case yet so for the doctor in the link to make a diagnosis is unfair, it's her opinion but its not fact.

How is it hearsay? It is a direct quote from one of the people involved in the conversation with the doctor. So either you think the husband is lying or not.

The Waltzing Consumer

gozunda wrote: »

So what do you recommend then - the RCC still retains a stranglehold over this country
The schools , the hospitals even schools and universities - in every aspect of influence they are there - manipulating and controlling our politics, our health care and our educational system . The RCC have traditionally controlled opinion and this is not the same thing as matching it imo. They have done this by telling people who to vote for , what to vote for and if that doesn't work high flying members in organisations such as Opus Dei have ensured that their wishes have been carried out to the highest level

What would you suggest - do to get rid of them or let them continue their pernicious influence. I know what I would advocate and all get them out of being allowed deciding what is best for us as a country and its citizens Organised religion has nothing to do with the reproductive health of woman.

It is Time to remove the clerics from the parlour once and for all....

Whilst I would certainly share you views on the RCC, I would disagree highly on the influence you give them in Ireland. The RCC had influence as people gave it to them, simple. I don't think this is the case now. If it is, maybe you have a few examples you could provide that shows the predominant view of electorate being defeated by a tiny number of priests? Do you have some examples?

HeyThereDeliah

kunst nugget wrote: »

How is it hearsay? It is a direct quote from one of the people involved in the conversation with the doctor. So either you think the husband is lying or not.

What if the other people involved in the conversation say different? I don't know what was said because I was not there. This is the problem everyone can contradict each other.

The Waltzing Consumer

gozunda wrote: »

No they would not increase the rate of Maternal survival. - our statistics are clearly false . My concern at this junction is not so much the scale of this false reporting but why as a supposed first world country there is a need to lie about what the rate actually is. Is it coincidental that many of our hospitals are still controlled by the RCC. - I think not

The statistics are not clearly false and no article has said that. It talks about different categories of maternal death, one being that of suicide as this is difficult to attribute to maternity. Are you saying that countries like India would have a perfect record of recording such deaths in their maternal rates whereas Ireland does not?

Have you read the particular article in how calculating the figure is difficult?
http://www.medicalindependent.ie/page.aspx?title=maternal_death_%E2%80%93_into_the_great_unknown

"Direct - deaths resulting from obstetric complications of the pregnant state; Indirect - deaths resulting from previous existing disease, or disease that developed during pregnancy, and not due to direct obstetric causes; Late - deaths occurring between 42 days and one year after abortion, miscarriage or delivery (includes direct or indirect causes); and Coincidental - deaths from unrelated causes which happen to occur in pregnancy or the puerperium."

gozunda

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Good points and the highlighted part, this is where I see issues. From reading the various news articles, there seems to be a general assumption from the grieving family and friends that because this lady was from a particular religion, the law of the land should not apply to her.

"The rules should be changed as per the requirement of Hindus. We are Hindus, not Christians,” she said."
http://www.thejournal.ie/savita-parents-speak-out-675917-Nov2012/

"Savita said to her she is not Catholic, she is Hindu, and why impose the law on her."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-20321741

Now, I don't want to be too critical, but this is one of the most basic things people understand when they travel, be it Ireland, Italy, India, you follow the law of the land. You or I have no right to travel to India and say laws do not apply to us because we are Christian or Athiest or any religion. This is why I think it is even more important to wait for the full findings as there are so many rumours and half heard facts in this case already.

Ok I understand what you are saying but I can also fully appreciate the families views on this matter.

If the law of the land was properly explained to and not given some Mumbo Jumbo catholic excuse why the doctor could not provide treatment. treatment which is considered best practice, is allowed for under the constitution and which would given the woman the best possible chance of recovery

The whole point here is what the hell should our religion have anything to do with our healthcare system? Why is a woman's reproductive health even considered a religious matter over which the RCC has dominion? We are allegedly a first world country and yet we have a healthcare system that is being controlled by ignorance and superstition - how do we explain that to our international visitors who may believe that their health and safety will safeguarded?

fishy fishy

Mervyn Crawford wrote: »

Sinn Fein web site statement:



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.

have no idea what you are trying to say mervyn. Are you just using the situation to have a go at SF. If so, Shame on you.

kunst nugget

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

What if the other people involved in the conversation say different? I don't know what was said because I was not there. This is the problem everyone can contradict each other.

Then somebody or everybody is lying. We can't make any assumptions based on when she developed the infection as this information is not known (this could easily have happened before as it could have after) but we can look at what the husband says he was told by their doctor and how long she had to wait for the fetal heartbeat to stop and a D&C to be performed and we can debate some of these issues raised and their wider implications for Irish society.

If, in the report, the husband's story is proven to be a falsehood I'll hold my hands up and say I was wrong. At the moment I see no reason not to trust his version of events.

The Waltzing Consumer

gozunda wrote: »

The whole point here is what the hell should our religion have anything to do with our healthcare system? Why is a woman's reproductive health even considered a religious matter over which the RCC has dominion? We are allegedly a first world country and yet we have a healthcare system that is being controlled by ignorance and superstition - how do we explain that to our international visitors who may believe that their health and safety will safeguarded?

Well it should not and I agree completely. But unfortunately, the majority of people in this country kept voting FF back in who sat on the fence and had a mandate to do so. Like the economic crash, adults cannot just lump blame on politicians and governments, the majority of people kept voting them back in and therefore, Gozunda, I would say, don't scapegoat the RCC or FF, it is too easy. The real blame goes to the electorate, those who voted FF or those who did not even bother to vote.

gozunda

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

The statistics are not clearly false and no article has said that. It talks about different categories of maternal death, one being that of suicide as this is difficult to attribute to maternity. Are you saying that countries like India would have a perfect record of recording such deaths in their maternal rates whereas Ireland does not?

Have you read the particular article in how calculating the figure is difficult?
http://www.medicalindependent.ie/page.aspx?title=maternal_death_%E2%80%93_into_the_great_unknown

"Direct - deaths resulting from obstetric complications of the pregnant state; Indirect - deaths resulting from previous existing disease, or disease that developed during pregnancy, and not due to direct obstetric causes; Late - deaths occurring between 42 days and one year after abortion, miscarriage or delivery (includes direct or indirect causes); and Coincidental - deaths from unrelated causes which happen to occur in pregnancy or the puerperium."

Yes the maternal rate of death reported is false. We are not talking about India here btw - we are talking about why we refuse to properly report the death rate in the same manner as other EU countries - why is this statistic being trotted out when it clearly does not show the full picture of maternal deaths. We are supposed to be a first world country! Our statistics omit deaths attributable to miscarriage and delivery exactly the type of death that is relevant in this case.

The Waltzing Consumer

gozunda wrote: »

Yes the maternal rate of death reported is false. We are not talking about India here btw - we are talking about why we refuse to properly report the death rate in the same manner as other EU countries - why is this statistic being trotted out when it clearly does not show the full picture of maternal deaths. We are supposed to be a first world country! Our statistics omit deaths attributable to miscarriage and delivery exactly the type of death that is relevant in this case.

Gozunda, as far as I read in that article which is arguing your point, it is not saying that the rates attributable to miscarraige and delivery are omitted, it is arguing about the other categories, deaths long after birth, suicide, unrelated deaths but in the time frame etc.,. Do you not agree with the article?

steddyeddy

What the husband, doctors or whoever else said does not change the fact that we need clear legislation.

suicide_circus

Sometimes people die.

We have ZERO actual evidence that an abortion would have prevented this death until the report is published.

My name is URL

CruelCoin wrote: »

"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.

We never voted 'against abortion'. As Sharrow said, we allowed successive governments to ignore the will of its people. What do you intend to do about it now? Will you be out protesting or taking part in any other form of civil disobedience until laws are modernised and the government legislates for the X Case?

In any event 'we' are not to blame for what happened to her.. maybe you are, I don't know if you've ever taken part in a protest on the issue, and I don't know how you voted in referendums of the past. But I (and evidently most others posting here) certainly don't condone what happened, and would vote in favor of new constitutional amendments if there was a plebiscite held tomorrow.

The whole 'we as a nation' diatribe is just the good old Irish guilt complex coming into play. If you truly feel responsible for what happened then I assume you will be taking to the streets until changes are made...

steddyeddy

suicide_circus wrote: »

Sometimes people die.

We have ZERO actual evidence that an abortion would have prevented this death until the report is published.

So does that change the fact that we need to legislate for cases where abortion might prevent death?

General Zod

suicide_circus wrote: »

Sometimes people die.

We have ZERO actual evidence that an abortion would have prevented this death until the report is published.

so despite the fact that she was miscarrying and there was no chance the baby would have survived, doctors should be legally forced to sit back and wait and risk the life of the mother?

She's basically got an open wound for 2 fecking days and the doctors should just leave her there?

suicide_circus

steddyeddy wrote: »

So does that change the fact that we need to legislate for cases where abortion might prevent death?

Did i say that?
I'm just opposed to the wild hysteria and wringing of hands all based on speculation and hearsay.

suicide_circus

General Zod wrote: »

so despite the fact that she was miscarrying and there was no chance the baby would have survived, doctors should be legally forced to sit back and wait and risk the life of the mother?

She's basically got an open wound for 2 fecking days and the doctors should just leave her there?

Are you a medical professional and do you know the precise circumstances of this case?

old hippy

suicide_circus wrote: »

Did i say that?
I'm just opposed to the wild hysteria and wringing of hands all based on speculation and hearsay.

This is an emotive topic. Our hysteria in regards to a simple medical procedure killed this woman. What's not to get upset about?

suicide_circus

old hippy wrote: »

This is an emotive topic. Our hysteria in regards to a simple medical procedure killed this woman. What's not to get upset about?

That's just it. You don't actually know if refusal to carry out an abortion caused her death. That is why two investigations are being carried out, to determine the FACTS.

old hippy

suicide_circus wrote: »

That's just it. You don't actually know if refusal to carry out an abortion caused her death. That is why two investigations are being carried out, to determine the FACTS.

Yes, of course. In the meantime I'll just bury my head in the sand, instead. That better?

StudentDad

While everyone is getting bogged down in stats, procedures etc. There is a far more fundamental question at issue here. Essentially it boils down to the fundamental right of every European Citizen in this State to decide their own fate. Be that whether to have an abortion, Euthanasia, power of attorney - and have those wishes complied with. I or anyone else may not like an individuals decision, it may run contrary to our beliefs but it is not a decision to be made by us.

The young woman asked for a valid medical procedure and was denied, for no good medical reason.

We had the same nonsense over divorce. The only valid opinion in these matters are those of the parties involved. Not a church or the state.

SD

ruthloss

positron wrote: »

+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.

old hippy wrote: »

Yes, of course. In the meantime I'll just bury my head in the sand, instead. That better?[/QUOTE

Yes old hippy, you finally got the message., shut up, close your eyes, and wait until you are told what to think by the 'righteous' of this country. Good man. :rolleyes:

HellFireClub

gozunda wrote: »

The whole point here is what the hell should our religion have anything to do with our healthcare system? Why is a woman's reproductive health even considered a religious matter over which the RCC has dominion? We are allegedly a first world country and yet we have a healthcare system that is being controlled by ignorance and superstition - how do we explain that to our international visitors who may believe that their health and safety will safeguarded?

THIS ^^^ is what irks the absolute SHÍT out of me, about being Irish and living in this country. A woman tragically dies, nobody knows the facts yet, we do know that if a termination would have saved this poor woman's life, it was perfectly permissible under the law and DOES HAPPEN REGULARLY in this country at the present time.

But let's ignore those FACTS, let's shíte on about the Catholic Church and us being a religiously suppressed nation, lets shíte on and embarrass ourselves further by claiming that we are a country where medical decisions get made by bishops & cardinals.

Nothing could be further from the truth, this is one of the safest countries on earth in which to give birth, far safer than India I might add, which is certainly no shining light of best practice when it comes to the provision of healthcare, with half its citizenry living in 3rd world poverty.

When you scratch even a tiny bit below the surface with these supposedly outraged people on the internet claiming that we are a backward 3rd world provider of healthcare and its a disgrace and we need new legislation and its an outrage, you always find the exact same political position, someone who believes in and is advocating for, abortion on demand in Ireland.

Funny how we have had 1,500 people who tragically died under the hopelessness of suicide within the last 3 years, where were these protestors and vigil holders then? How many children have died in HSE care in the last 10 years? Where were these outraged citizens then? Say what you want about the Catholic Church, at least they try to give some kind of a shít about this issue and provide local voluntary services to people who may be depressed.

This woman died in the most tragic of circumstances in the prime of her life, but PLEASE stop trying to hijack her regrettable departure from this earth, for abortion on demand in this country and please wait until the facts emerge before stupidly asking people to change our laws.

mikom

HellFireClub wrote: »

Funny how we have had 1,500 people who tragically died under the hopelessness of suicide, where were these protestors and vigil holders then?

At least they had the choice.
Flip back a few years and suicide was illegal as well.
More religion driving the law bollox
Ah, but they were better times............

billybudd

This thread has served its purpose for me now, will only say i hope this ladies family get the closure and answers they deserve and also legislation is made so there is never a chance of this happening again, Ireland must be free from suffering caused by lax laws and fear.

gozunda

HellFireClub wrote: »

THIS ^^^ is what irks the absolute SHÍT out of me, about being Irish and living in this country. A woman tragically dies, nobody knows the facts yet, we do know that if a termination would have saved this poor woman's life, it was perfectly permissible under the law and DOES HAPPEN REGULARLY in this country at the present time.

But let's ignore those FACTS, let's shíte on about the Catholic Church and us being a religiously suppressed nation, lets shíte on and embarrass ourselves further by claiming that we are a country where medical decisions get made by bishops & cardinals.

Nothing could be further from the truth, this is one of the safest countries on earth in which to give birth, far safer than India I might add, which is certainly no shining light of best practice when it comes to the provision of healthcare, with half its citizenry living in 3rd world poverty.

When you scratch even a tiny bit below the surface with these supposedly outraged people on the internet claiming that we are a backward 3rd world provider of healthcare and its a disgrace and we need new legislation and its an outrage, you always find the exact same political position, someone who believes in and is advocating for, abortion on demand in Ireland.

Funny how we have had 1,500 people who tragically died under the hopelessness of suicide within the last 3 years, where were these protestors and vigil holders then? How many children have died in HSE care in the last 10 years? Where were these outraged citizens then? Say what you want about the Catholic Church, at least they try to give some kind of a shít about this issue and provide local voluntary services to people who may be depressed.

This woman died in the most tragic of circumstances in the prime of her life, but PLEASE stop trying to hijack her regrettable departure from this earth, for abortion on demand in this country and please wait until the facts emerge before stupidly asking people to change our laws.

thanks for your rant

No one mentioned abortion on demand except you


The RCC are clearly implicated in the mess we have with regard to woman's reproductive health and what happened in this case.

Our laws needed changing even before this barbaric incident occurred but sadly it has taken something like this to give the impetuous to do so

Noreen1

Flier wrote: »

Noreen1 wrote: »

I
The question is, was Savita already suffering from septicaemia when she requested the termination?
If so, then the termination would have made no difference to the tragic outcome.


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

I'm aware that sepsis is survivable, with treatment.

I'm not, however, certain that the child was the source of the infection.
It's equally plausible that the uterus itself was the source of the infection, or the genito-urinary tract.

Hence, it is not at all certain that a termination would have had any effect on the outcome.
Unless you're party to some information that I've not heard? I will admit, I've been very busy for the last few days, so I may have missed something.

ruthloss

HellFireClub wrote: »

THIS ^^^ is what irks the absolute SHÍT out of me, about being Irish and living in this country. A woman tragically dies, nobody knows the facts yet, we do know that if a termination would have saved this poor woman's life, it was perfectly permissible under the law and DOES HAPPEN REGULARLY in this country at the present time.

But let's ignore those FACTS, let's shíte on about the Catholic Church and us being a religiously suppressed nation, lets shíte on and embarrass ourselves further by claiming that we are a country where medical decisions get made by bishops & cardinals.

Nothing could be further from the truth, this is one of the safest countries on earth in which to give birth, far safer than India I might add, which is certainly no shining light of best practice when it comes to the provision of healthcare, with half its citizenry living in 3rd world poverty.

When you scratch even a tiny bit below the surface with these supposedly outraged people on the internet claiming that we are a backward 3rd world provider of healthcare and its a disgrace and we need new legislation and its an outrage, you always find the exact same political position, someone who believes in and is advocating for, abortion on demand in Ireland.

Funny how we have had 1,500 people who tragically died under the hopelessness of suicide within the last 3 years, where were these protestors and vigil holders then? How many children have died in HSE care in the last 10 years? Where were these outraged citizens then? Say what you want about the Catholic Church, at least they try to give some kind of a shít about this issue and provide local voluntary services to people who may be depressed.

This woman died in the most tragic of circumstances in the prime of her life, but PLEASE stop trying to hijack her regrettable departure from this earth, for abortion on demand in this country and please wait until the facts emerge before stupidly asking people to change our laws.

You are irked., well I'm so sorry for you. I am livid that a women begged for the chance to live and was allowed to die. I refuse to stay silent while the powers that be use the old tactic of 'enquiries' and 'reports' to wait out the crisis and hope that time will allow them to once more return their heads to the sand.

By the way, I will be one of "these people" at the vigil in Dublin tomorrow.
My apologies if this 'irks' you even more.

Pherekydes

Noreen1 wrote: »

Hence, it is not at all certain that a termination would have had any effect on the outcome.

Many people keep coming up with this argument. Why? What's the purpose of it?

If you presented with a cancerous lump somewhere and a doctor said to you that there's no guarantee you'd survive after its removal, would you press for its removal anyway?

Surely removing the foetus improves the mother's survival chances?

The Waltzing Consumer

ruthloss wrote: »

You are irked., well I'm so sorry for you. I am livid that a women begged for the chance to live and was allowed to die. I refuse to stay silent while the powers that be use the old tactic of 'enquiries' and 'reports' to wait out the crisis and hope that time will allow them to once more return their heads to the sand.

By the way, I will be one of "these people" at the vigil in Dublin tomorrow.
My apologies if this 'irks' you even more.

Its pretty saddening to see this attitude. Being completely pro-choice and certainly not wishing to see any religious interference in health issues, I would have certainly felt that there would have been a restriction on pre-judging this horrible event until all facts are known.

It certainly shows that no matter where you sit on certain issues, every side has it's share of McCarthy-esque members, willing to hysterically and without any foundation, judge & condemn.

Ceasar the Wheezer

Death as a result of infection during miscarriage rare

DR MUIRIS HOUSTON

Wed, Nov 14, 2012

Background: A death as a result of an infection during a miscarriage is a rare event in the developed world. Referred to as a septic abortion or miscarriage, most cases are due to infection with bacteria such as E.coli or streptococci.

In a more severe form that spreads to the wall of the uterus, the patient will usually have a fever and a raised pulse.

The initial management of a suspected septic abortion involves taking a swab from the vagina and the neck of the womb. If the woman’s temperature goes above 38.4 degrees Celsius then blood is taken and sent to the laboratory to see if the bugs have spread to the bloodstream.

A combination of antibiotics is started even before the results of these tests are available. However, it is possible that despite the treatment the patient will go into medical shock, their blood pressure drops and a serious complication called disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) may ensue.

In this situation it is normal practice to wait until the patient has stabilised before surgically removing the contents of the uterus.

On rare occasions, a hysterectomy may be needed if the infection remains uncontrolled.

A miscarriage is defined as loss of pregnancy in first 24 weeks of gestation.

There are different types of miscarriage including:

* a threatened miscarriage with mild symptoms of bleeding and usually little or no pain. The neck of the womb remains closed;

* an incomplete miscarriage occurs if either the conception sac or the placenta remains in the womb;

* an inevitable miscarriage occurs with heavy bleeding, and the neck of the womb is now open. If the bleeding is severe the mother may slip into medical shock.

In an inevitable miscarriage, even though a foetal heart beat is present, the pregnancy cannot continue to term.

With the neck of the womb already open, the woman’s body prepares to naturally evacuate her womb.

However, with the neck of the womb open, there is an opportunity for bugs such as E.coli to travel from the vagina into the womb before multiplying and infecting the inside wall of the uterus.

Infection can then spread to the woman’s bloodstream, leading to shock and the onset of DIC, which occurs when the normal functioning of blood cells is progressively impaired, leading to multi-organ failure.

© 2012 The Irish Times

I suppose the lemmings who will be campaigning outside the Irish Embassy in London this evening will exercise their "Right to Choose" not to make themselves aware of the likely facts of this case preferring instead to vilify the hospital and its staff without knowing any of the facts. Brave people.

Ceasar the Wheezer

Pherekydes wrote: »

Many people keep coming up with this argument. Why? What's the purpose of it?

If you presented with a cancerous lump somewhere and a doctor said to you that there's no guarantee you'd survive after its removal, would you press for its removal anyway?

Surely removing the foetus improves the mother's survival chances?

Err... No. A foetus is not a disease and terminating a life - any life - does not improve in any way the lives of others.

K-9

Noreen1 wrote: »

I'm aware that sepsis is survivable, with treatment.

I'm not, however, certain that the child was the source of the infection.
It's equally plausible that the uterus itself was the source of the infection, or the genito-urinary tract.

Hence, it is not at all certain that a termination would have had any effect on the outcome.
Unless you're party to some information that I've not heard? I will admit, I've been very busy for the last few days, so I may have missed something.

Once the consultant knew she was going to miscarry, I don't see any point in refusing to abort the baby or having to wait until the heart stopped. Yes, we don't yet know if it played a part in her death but it seems it was a pointless decision to make.

I can only assume the consultant acted properly and with the law in mind which leads me to believe that something is wrong with the law when cases like this occur.

Mervyn Crawford

The issue is religion and those who promote it's power
The issue is religion. And the demand for a secular society.

The point about Savita Halappanavar's husband's claim that they were not Catholic (and not Irish) is that they should be treated according to enlightened norms of medical practice, not according to reactionary laws based on religious beliefs.

The issue for Irish people is the ejection of religious control and influence from all aspects of civil society. Religion must become a private matter, the individual decides privately whether or not they have religious beliefs; but one's religious beliefs, if one has them, can in no way be imposed on others - (including children).

Religious belief is a matter of faith. It cannot by it's very features have any scientific verification. It is reactionary in the extreme to force such an 'ethos' on others.

The absolute necessity to expel religion from all civil society is a political task. That is why I raised the issue of Sinn Fein's response (see earlier post).

In one way or another, every political tendency in official Ireland supports the status quo; even despite some loud noises apparently to the contrary.

Ceasar the Wheezer

HellFireClub wrote: »

THIS ^^^ is what irks the absolute SHÍT out of me, about being Irish and living in this country. A woman tragically dies, nobody knows the facts yet, we do know that if a termination would have saved this poor woman's life, it was perfectly permissible under the law and DOES HAPPEN REGULARLY in this country at the present time.

But let's ignore those FACTS, let's shíte on about the Catholic Church and us being a religiously suppressed nation, lets shíte on and embarrass ourselves further by claiming that we are a country where medical decisions get made by bishops & cardinals.

Nothing could be further from the truth, this is one of the safest countries on earth in which to give birth, far safer than India I might add, which is certainly no shining light of best practice when it comes to the provision of healthcare, with half its citizenry living in 3rd world poverty.

When you scratch even a tiny bit below the surface with these supposedly outraged people on the internet claiming that we are a backward 3rd world provider of healthcare and its a disgrace and we need new legislation and its an outrage, you always find the exact same political position, someone who believes in and is advocating for, abortion on demand in Ireland.

Funny how we have had 1,500 people who tragically died under the hopelessness of suicide within the last 3 years, where were these protestors and vigil holders then? How many children have died in HSE care in the last 10 years? Where were these outraged citizens then? Say what you want about the Catholic Church, at least they try to give some kind of a shít about this issue and provide local voluntary services to people who may be depressed.

This woman died in the most tragic of circumstances in the prime of her life, but PLEASE stop trying to hijack her regrettable departure from this earth, for abortion on demand in this country and please wait until the facts emerge before stupidly asking people to change our laws.

Some good points you make there. Ireland is FOUR times safer for expectant mothers than the UK. The MMR (Maternal mortality Rate for Ireland is 3 and for the UK is 12 - source WHO, UNFPA, UNICEF 2010). Now with all the billions of pounds that the UK has to throw at their NHS you would expect that their MMR would be the best in the world, certainly up there in the top five and far better than Ireland. It isn't. I think the reason for this is quite obvious, the number of women who die from abortion means that their figures are far higher than Ireland, this would explain too why the USA has a figure of 24.
As maternity care in hospitals in the UK is seen as being very sophisticated and receives significant investment what other reason could there be?

ruthloss

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Its pretty saddening to see this attitude. Being completely pro-choice and certainly not wishing to see any religious interference in health issues, I would have certainly felt that there would have been a restriction on pre-judging this horrible event until all facts are known.

It certainly shows that no matter where you sit on certain issues, every side has it's share of McCarthy-esque members, willing to hysterically and without any foundation, judge & condemn.

Strange that you should advocate a restriction on pre-judgements, yet you see fit to judge me. You don't know me and I will thank you to keep your very much mistaken impressions of me out of this debate.

strandroad

Ceasar the Wheezer wrote: »

Some good points you make there. Ireland is FOUR times safer for expectant mothers than the UK. The MMR (Maternal mortality Rate for Ireland is 3 and for the UK is 12 - source WHO, UNFPA, UNICEF 2010). Now with all the billions of pounds that the UK has to throw at their NHS you would expect that their MMR would be the best in the world, certainly up there in the top five and far better than Ireland. It isn't. I think the reason for this is quite obvious, the number of women who die from abortion means that their figures are far higher than Ireland, this would explain too why the USA has a figure of 24.
As maternity care in hospitals in the UK is seen as being very sophisticated and receives significant investment what other reason could there be?

The stats are counted differently, as has been pointed out several times already. As simple as that.

gozunda

Ceasar the Wheezer wrote: »

Some good points you make there. Ireland is FOUR times safer for expectant mothers than the UK. The MMR (Maternal mortality Rate for Ireland is 3 and for the UK is 12 - source WHO, UNFPA, UNICEF 2010). Now with all the billions of pounds that the UK has to throw at their NHS you would expect that their MMR would be the best in the world, certainly up there in the top five and far better than Ireland. It isn't. I think the reason for this is quite obvious, the number of women who die from abortion means that their figures are far higher than Ireland, this would explain too why the USA has a figure of 24.
As maternity care in hospitals in the UK is seen as being very sophisticated and receives significant investment what other reason could there be?

Not that old chestnut again - Ireland does not even measure its MMR in the same way as other countries. The figures are not even comparable with the UK. Statististics gathered by the way by largely catholic owned hospitals. We export our need for terminations / abortions and dont have the balls to actually face up the fact that a womans repoductive health is a medical and not a religous matter. The reason that the UK has the MMR rate it does is simple - it does not misrepresnt the facts unlike this medievel backwater where there is an idea that "sure arnt we the best in the world at everything"

We are not - the country is an huge anachronism - time we got out of the dark ages imo