Pregnant woman dies in UCHG after being refused a termination

Ceasar the Wheezer

Mervyn Crawford wrote: »

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.

Indeed, do you have any evidence to the contrary?

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).

Yes, you keep your views to yourself and I'm sure others will keep theirs to themselves too. After all your views on Ireland and religion are private to you and should in no way be imposed on others. My son thinks that his school shouldn't be imposing mathematics or physics on him either except that if he didn't learn about religion, maths and physics he would be truly ignorant. BTW how much do you know about any of those subjects?

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.

For God's sake wind your neck in. Go and listen to yourself.

kunst nugget

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?

There's nothing obvious about it. What about a shortage of midwives?

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/doubling-of-maternal-death-rate-blamed-on-shortage-of-midwives-7689172.html

Or an increase in aging mothers and complex cases?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9233608/Deaths-in-childbirth-rise-amid-struggle-with-complex-cases.html

Ceasar the Wheezer

mhge wrote: »

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

No they are not. The figures are produced by the WHO, Worldbank, UNICEF and UNFPA and intended for nations to make comparisons. They are all calculated according to a set formula and comparisons between similarly developed countries are accounted for within the figures.

Just ask yourself this question, if no comparison could be made between countries then why produce any figures at all?

Looks like you have been mis-informed again.

strandroad

Ceasar the Wheezer wrote: »

No they are not. The figures are produced by the WHO, Worldbank, UNICEF and UNFPA and intended for nations to make comparisons. They are all calculated according to a set formula and comparisons between similarly developed countries are accounted for within the figures.

Just ask yourself this question, if no comparison could be made between countries then why produce any figures at all?

Looks like you have been mis-informed again.

It's been debunked several times up thread, have a read. Every now and then someone parachutes with this argument.

kunst nugget

Ceasar the Wheezer wrote: »

No they are not. The figures are produced by the WHO, Worldbank, UNICEF and UNFPA and intended for nations to make comparisons. They are all calculated according to a set formula and comparisons between similarly developed countries are accounted for within the figures.

Just ask yourself this question, if no comparison could be made between countries then why produce any figures at all?

Looks like you have been mis-informed again.

And yet you jump to conclusion that it must be related to abortion deaths without doing any research of your own into what might actually be causing the fatalities. It seems a tad absurd to be calling some one else mis-informed.

K-9

Ceasar the Wheezer wrote: »

No they are not. The figures are produced by the WHO, Worldbank, UNICEF and UNFPA and intended for nations to make comparisons. They are all calculated according to a set formula and comparisons between similarly developed countries are accounted for within the figures.

Just ask yourself this question, if no comparison could be made between countries then why produce any figures at all?

Looks like you have been mis-informed again.

It was posted earlier that Ireland is under pressure to change the criteria used so you need to inform yourself again. Seriously, you think the UK would have 4 times the rate?

Ceasar the Wheezer

kunst nugget wrote: »

There's nothing obvious about it. What about a shortage of midwives?

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/doubling-of-maternal-death-rate-blamed-on-shortage-of-midwives-7689172.html

Or an increase in aging mothers and complex cases?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9233608/Deaths-in-childbirth-rise-amid-struggle-with-complex-cases.html

Ah yes of course! Two issues that don't affect Ireland at all.
Here's a tip, have a look at what the INMO are saying about mid-wife shortages in Ireland then have a look at the statistics office for older mother's, you may be surprised by the similarities.

Flier

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.

Well of course doctors would never instigate treatment for anything unless they were certain that the treatment will have the desired effect. Not. Diagnosis are often made on the balance of probabilities, best guess if you like. It is as much an art as a science. There is not a definitive test for everything. Doctors listen to symptoms, look for signs, and do whatever tests they think are necessary. Then they put it all together and decide what the likely diagnosis is. If they all waited around for the definitive diagnosis before committing to a course of treatment, we would all be dropping like flies. Given the facts we know of this case, the overwhelming expert opinion is that in these situations the appropriate treatment includes removing the contents of the uterus. No one knows for sure what the outcome would have been in this case. But the overwhelming medical opinion is that she didn't receive optimum treatment. And that is a great shame.

Ceasar the Wheezer

kunst nugget wrote: »

And yet you jump to conclusion that it must be related to abortion deaths without doing any research of your own into what might actually be causing the fatalities. It seems a tad absurd to be calling some one else mis-informed.

Not a conclusion at all. I made it quite clear in my posting that it was my thoughts only.

Ceasar the Wheezer

K-9 wrote: »

It was posted earlier that Ireland is under pressure to change the criteria used so you need to inform yourself again. Seriously, you think the UK would have 4 times the rate?

Are you seriously questioning the WHO, Worldbank, UNICEF and UNFPA OFFICIAL statistics?
This isn't about me or what I think this is about factual reporting and the reports show that the UK has a four times worse record than Ireland.

Ceasar the Wheezer

mhge wrote: »

It's been debunked several times up thread, have a read. Every now and then someone parachutes with this argument.

Debunked by who? Statisticians? Medical authorities? Government?
Are you seriously saying that I should believe some anonymous posters view over official records?

Lingua Franca

Ceasar the Wheezer wrote: »

Are you seriously questioning the WHO, Worldbank, UNICEF and UNFPA OFFICIAL statistics?
This isn't about me or what I think this is about factual reporting and the reports show that the UK has a four times worse record than Ireland.

No, we're questioning your claims of what those statistics are. Could you please link to all of those?

NB: the WHO statistics have been debunked due to Ireland not reporting those stats in a manner consistent with other nations and that is due to be rectified next year, so you can leave the WHO 2005 report out..

Ceasar the Wheezer wrote: »

Debunked by who? Statisticians? Medical authorities? Government?
Are you seriously saying that I should believe some anonymous posters view over official records?

No, there were links supplied for you to peruse at your leisure. Please do so before challenging their authenticity.

Hannibal Smith

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.

Its not melodrama or dramatics....its what happens. very early pregnancy miscarriages can happen without pain...not later miscarriages which is what the subject of the whole thread is about.

K-9

Ceasar the Wheezer wrote: »

Are you seriously questioning the WHO, Worldbank, UNICEF and UNFPA OFFICIAL statistics?
This isn't about me or what I think this is about factual reporting and the reports show that the UK has a four times worse record than Ireland.

I'm not, people more expert than me and you (unless you are an expert) are.

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

In January 2009, Ireland joined the Centre for Maternal and Child Enquiries (CMACE) in the UK, an independent charity that for the last 50 years has worked to improve the health of mothers by carrying out confidential inquiries into maternal deaths.
As a result of joining this initiative, a reliable record of maternal mortality in Ireland will be available for the very first time. The first Irish figures will be included in the organisation's 2013 report.

The criteria will change from next year on.

You need to be critical of reports that have such divergence in statistics, they could be using the exact same data but chances are, such a divergence between 2 similar health systems is down to something else, in this case different data sets.

Flier

Ceasar the Wheezer wrote: »

Are you seriously questioning the WHO, Worldbank, UNICEF and UNFPA OFFICIAL statistics?
This isn't about me or what I think this is about factual reporting and the reports show that the UK has a four times worse record than Ireland.

Getting a bit off topic here. In either case Irelands MMR is very, very good on a world scale. Arguing weather it is very very good or really very very good will get us nowhere. Nobody is saying the WHO etc is lying. Our statistics are official, and compiled in good faith according to a set process. They may however be compiled differently to other countries.

Hannibal Smith

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

So you completely missed my point...whether this woman was suffering from sceptisima or not, she shouldn't have been allowed to remain in the pain she was in. she should have been able to chose given that the baby was dying anyhow.

Miscarriages are sh*t and to be left for three days like that is cruel.

kunst nugget

Flier wrote: »

Getting a bit off topic here. In either case Irelands MMR is very, very good on a world scale. Arguing weather it is very very good or really very very good will get us nowhere. Nobody is saying the WHO etc is lying. Our statistics are official, and compiled in good faith according to a set process. They may however be compiled differently to other countries.

Actually getting to know what the true figure will make a big difference because it means that if in reality our figures are on a par with England then it can't be used as a tactic by the pro life as a reason why abortion doesn't need to be brought in here.

steddyeddy

Flier wrote: »

Well of course doctors would never instigate treatment for anything unless they were certain that the treatment will have the desired effect. Not. Diagnosis are often made on the balance of probabilities, best guess if you like. It is as much an art as a science. There is not a definitive test for everything. Doctors listen to symptoms, look for signs, and do whatever tests they think are necessary. Then they put it all together and decide what the likely diagnosis is. If they all waited around for the definitive diagnosis before committing to a course of treatment, we would all be dropping like flies. Given the facts we know of this case, the overwhelming expert opinion is that in these situations the appropriate treatment includes removing the contents of the uterus. No one knows for sure what the outcome would have been in this case. But the overwhelming medical opinion is that she didn't receive optimum treatment. And that is a great shame.

There are very few things in biology that people can be cetain about. Pharmokinetics and other immune response will be different for each person. I would rather a situation where a doctor judges each case on its own merits with the full backing of the law.

Ceasar the Wheezer

Lingua Franca wrote: »

No, we're questioning your claims of what those statistics are. Could you please link to all of those?

NB: the WHO statistics have been debunked due to Ireland not reporting those stats in a manner consistent with other nations and that is due to be rectified next year, so you can leave the WHO 2005 report out..



No, there were links supplied for you to peruse at your leisure. Please do so before challenging their authenticity.

How about the WHO 2010 report : http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2010/9789241500265_eng.pdf

Ceasar the Wheezer

Flier wrote: »

Getting a bit off topic here. In either case Irelands MMR is very, very good on a world scale. Arguing weather it is very very good or really very very good will get us nowhere. Nobody is saying the WHO etc is lying. Our statistics are official, and compiled in good faith according to a set process. They may however be compiled differently to other countries.

Agreed.

suicide_circus

old hippy wrote: »

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

So the only two reactions you can get your head around are;
1. Emotional hysteria
or
2. Bury your head in the sand?

How about...

3. Get your facts straight and then judge the case

any takers? No?

Ceasar the Wheezer

kunst nugget wrote: »

Actually getting to know what the true figure will make a big difference because it means that if in reality our figures are on a par with England then it can't be used as a tactic by the pro life as a reason why abortion doesn't need to be brought in here.

With due respect the MMR figures have only been quoted to counter the false premise that Ireland is a "backward" country when it comes to maternal healthcare. It means that the pro-death camp can't then use this argument as an excuse to introduce abortion into Ireland.
The whole basis of pro-life thinking people is to defend those who are least able to defend themselves, whether they be born or unborn. I get very irritated and annoyed at the hypocritical scumbags who call themselves "Socialists" who adopt a fascist view when it comes to matters of life and death.

suicide_circus

ruthloss wrote: »

I am livid that a women begged for the chance to live and was allowed to die.

You must be privy to some facts that the rest of us are unaware of! Otherwise that's some low sensationalist bullsh1t that does the cause no good. You should write for the Daily Mail.

Lingua Franca

Ceasar the Wheezer wrote: »

How about the WHO 2010 report : http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2010/9789241500265_eng.pdf

Still doesn't count, as per the post you quoted. The stats are not collected in a similar manner to other countries and this is being rectified. Changing the year doesn't matter a jot, unless you have the 2013 statistics to hand.

Pherekydes

Ceasar the Wheezer wrote: »

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

Well, it seems that removing the foetus earlier would probably have improved the survival chances of the mother. It was non-viable anyway. A spontaneous abortion was occurring anyway. I'm sure it would be best practice to help it along.

kunst nugget

Ceasar the Wheezer wrote: »

With due respect the MMR figures have only been quoted to counter the false premise that Ireland is a "backward" country when it comes to maternal healthcare. It means that the pro-death camp can't then use this argument as an excuse to introduce abortion into Ireland.
The whole basis of pro-life thinking people is to defend those who are least able to defend themselves, whether they be born or unborn. I get very irritated and annoyed at the hypocritical scumbags who call themselves "Socialists" who adopt a fascist view when it comes to matters of life and death.

But if the figures are shown to be false then it is a false counter argument. I have no problem with maternal health care in this country and have seen the fine work that staff do in the maternity wards but the simply fact of the matter is that this death, regardless of the cause, has opened up a huge debate in this country about abortion and termination on medical grounds. Should a pregnant woman have to carry a non viable foetus purely to satisfy pro-life campaign's notion of defending those that can't defend themselves? Should that woman have been made to wait until that foetus' heartbeat stopped even though there was no way that it was going to survive?

isisgodess

suicide_circus wrote: »

So the only two reactions you can get your head around are;
1. Emotional hysteria
or
2. Bury your head in the sand?

How about...

3. Get your facts straight and then judge the case

any takers? No?

There is too much of this kind of thinking on this thread. It is the MASCULINE MINDSET.

Why must you let the psychological HATRED of women dictate that a woman cannot choose what to do with her body. If I have cancer can I remove a tumor? Oh thank you.

A woman feels she is in pain, she listens to HER BODY because she knows how to be close to her body, because she has intuition.

But because of this HATRED she cannot remove the tumour.

I weep for the women of Ireland who can be destroyed like this.

jill_valentine

Ceasar the Wheezer wrote: »

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

That argument has been shot through after this, I'm afraid. It would have improved Savita Halappanavar's life in the most literal and immediate possible way.

isisgodess

Madam_X wrote: »

However, it's important we do what we can to make a change - not to fecking make foreigners think more highly of the Irish, but to ensure it doesn't happen again.

Thank you, of course we must ensure it must never happen again. There is too much HATRED OF WOMEN in the Irish psyche because for too long we let the rapists and peadophiles in the church decide everything.

It is still in our mindset.

We must learn to love and cherish and appreciate the beauty of womanhood and not to rape us with the constitution.

Flier

kunst nugget wrote: »

Actually getting to know what the true figure will make a big difference because it means that if in reality our figures are on a par with England then it can't be used as a tactic by the pro life as a reason why abortion doesn't need to be brought in here.

I do take your point, but the numbers really are so small that I wonder what the change would have to be to be statistically significant. I mean an increase from 1 in 1million to 2 in 1million (figures for example only) is a 50% increase but really meaningless. Anyone basing their argument on such figures clearly is very desperate!

Ceasar the Wheezer

Pherekydes wrote: »

Well, it seems that removing the foetus earlier would probably have improved the survival chances of the mother. It was non-viable anyway. A spontaneous abortion was occurring anyway. I'm sure it would be best practice to help it along.

"Seems"? What on earth are you basing that assumption on? If a spontaneous abortion was occurring anyway has it not crossed your mind that carrying out direct intervention at that stage might have been detrimental to the mother?

I don't know but neither does anyone else on this board.

jill_valentine wrote: »

That argument has been shot through after this, I'm afraid. It would have improved Savita Halappanavar's life in the most literal and immediate possible way.

Shot through after what? Where are you getting your facts from to make such a statement as "It would have improved Savita Halappanavar's life in the most literal and immediate possible way"? I replied to a comment about a cancerous growth. Do you equate pregnancy with cancer?


Just have a look at what Dr Muiris Houston said in the story I quoted earlier.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81779780&postcount=1694

LeeHoffmann

There is too much of this kind of thinking on this thread. It is the MASCULINE MINDSET. :eek:
Why must you let the psychological HATRED of women :eek: dictate that a woman cannot choose what to do with her body. If I have cancer can I remove a tumor? Oh thank you.
A woman feels she is in pain, she listens to HER BODY because she knows how to be close to her body, because she has intuition .
But because of this HATRED she cannot remove the tumour.
I weep for the women of Ireland who can be destroyed like this.

eh what now?
Your categorization of the rational as inherently masculine and intuition as inherently feminine exposes you as the greatest sexist on this thread IMO. I´ve underlined the particularly mad parts.

Flier

Ceasar the Wheezer wrote: »

"Seems"? What on earth are you basing that assumption on? If a spontaneous abortion was occurring anyway has it not crossed your mind that carrying out direct intervention at that stage might have been detrimental to the mother?

I don't know but neither does anyone else on this board.




Shot through after what? Where are you getting your facts from to make such a statement as "It would have improved Savita Halappanavar's life in the most literal and immediate possible way"? I replied to a comment about a cancerous growth. Do you equate pregnancy with cancer?


Just have a look at what Dr Muiris Houston said in the story I quoted earlier.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81779780&postcount=1694

What Dr Houston said in no way supports your argument.

MistyCheese

Ceasar the Wheezer wrote: »

"Seems"? What on earth are you basing that assumption on?

The "assumption" that had the woman's cervix not been open for three days she would have almost certainly not have contracted the infection that killed her.

Are you now going to argue the point "almost certainly"? Because that brings us back to my earlier "crazed gunman" theory.

CruelCoin

isisgodess wrote: »

There is too much of this kind of thinking on this thread. It is the MASCULINE MINDSET.

Why must you let the psychological HATRED of women dictate that a woman cannot choose what to do with her body. If I have cancer can I remove a tumor? Oh thank you.

A woman feels she is in pain, she listens to HER BODY because she knows how to be close to her body, because she has intuition.

But because of this HATRED she cannot remove the tumour.

I weep for the women of Ireland who can be destroyed like this.

Well if it's in caps it must be true!

stevenmu

Just out of idle curiosity, does anybody on this thread have

A) All of the facts of this case

and

The medical knowledge and experience required to assess them correctly

Anybody?

ruthloss

suicide_circus wrote: »

You must be privy to some facts that the rest of us are unaware of! Otherwise that's some low sensationalist bullsh1t that does the cause no good. You should write for the Daily Mail.

I am privy to the account of the story as told by the husband who witnessed the death of his wife., as are you if you care to read it and count the amount of times she asked for a termination. I believe his account of events as they unfolded.

As to your personal attack on me, it does not intimidate me as you obviously hoped it would.

My name is URL

stevenmu wrote: »

Just out of idle curiosity, does anybody on this thread have

A) All of the facts of this case

and

The medical knowledge and experience required to assess them correctly

Anybody?

I've got an opinion and a keyboard.. and that's all that matters!

MagicSean

isisgodess wrote: »

Thank you, of course we must ensure it must never happen again. There is too much HATRED OF WOMEN in the Irish psyche because for too long we let the rapists and peadophiles in the church decide everything.

It is still in our mindset.

We must learn to love and cherish and appreciate the beauty of womanhood and not to rape us with the constitution.

My opposition to medically unnecessary abortion is not based on a hatered of women or a religious belief. It is based on my own belief that life begins within the womb. I believe it is our duty to protect that life when it is threatened with extinction. The question I struggle with is when exactly does a bundle of cells become a conscious mind.

jill_valentine

stevenmu wrote: »

Just out of idle curiosity, does anybody on this thread have

A) All of the facts of this case

and

The medical knowledge and experience required to assess them correctly

Anybody?

We have the following facts.

a) A woman spent three days painfully miscarrying a foetus that would not have survived anyway.

b) She had previously requested an abortion which would have spared her a great measure of that ordeal and likely increased her chances of survival substantially.

c) She was denied it, for no sound medical reason.

We don't know the colour of the hospital room or the expression on the doctor's face, but the scenario painted by those three basic elements in themselves is unacceptable. Trying to vague up the conversation by demanding fairly immaterial details lends nothing.

kunst nugget

isisgodess wrote: »

There is too much of this kind of thinking on this thread. It is the MASCULINE MINDSET.

Why must you let the psychological HATRED of women dictate that a woman cannot choose what to do with her body. If I have cancer can I remove a tumor? Oh thank you.

A woman feels she is in pain, she listens to HER BODY because she knows how to be close to her body, because she has intuition.

But because of this HATRED she cannot remove the tumour.

I weep for the women of Ireland who can be destroyed like this.

Ah, ffs…

mac.in

Noreen1 wrote: »

You're missing the point I made.

I got your point. And, I didn't deny them but I supplemented with some more information

Noreen1 wrote: »

In Savitas case, she developed septicaemia.
We don't know whether she was on antibiotics.

Yourself stated that your niece was on antibiotics when she was awaited for spontaneous abortion. In Savita's case if she was not given antibiotics b4 septicemia set in, it could be ? medical negligence.

Noreen1 wrote: »

We don't know how soon a diagnosis of septicaemia was made. If septicaemia had already set in before she requested a termination, (which appears to be the case, given her symptoms) the termination would not have altered the fact that she already had septicaemia - and, therefore, would have had no bearing on whether she lived, or died.

Definitely the termination by itself wouldn't have cured the septicemia (considering, as per your statement too, septicemia set in b4 her symptoms and request. Symptoms and requests had been there at least 16 hours before she was aborted - Is 16 hours wait, after the symptoms surfaced, justified?). But termination (16 hours before) would have surely reduced the intensity of septicemia thereby resulting in her condition being a little better. Eventually she could have been successfully treated (alive).

Noreen1 wrote: »

What we need right now are facts - and what we seem to be getting is people pushing an agenda.

Even I second this thought of yours. We need an impartial inquiry and a pro-life legislation.

LeeHoffmann

The question I struggle with is when exactly does a bundle of cells become a conscious mind.

I think that´s the main point for most of us. The brain apparently begins to form around week 4/5. This obviously doesn´t mean that there is a conscious mind at this time, but it means that up until at least week 4 there is no conscious mind to destroy. At week 7, the brain is apparently "rapidly developing". By week 9, the nervous system is apparently well developed and properly functioning - this would mean the fetus could feel pain. Sources 1 and 2

K-9

stevenmu wrote: »

Just out of idle curiosity, does anybody on this thread have

A) All of the facts of this case

and

The medical knowledge and experience required to assess them correctly

Anybody?

I doubt anybody has, might as well lock up half the threads on AH if that's the citeria.

powerful princess

MagicSean wrote: »

It is based on my own belief that life begins within the womb. I believe it is our duty to protect that life when it is threatened with extinction.

But it is not life no more than the hair on my head is life. It is not a life in the same way that it can love and care and make decisions as a woman can and it is not your womb.

You say you don't hate women but still you want to control our bodies how is that not hatred?

Isisgodess re-reg banned

MagicSean

powerful princess wrote: »

But it is not life no more than the hair on my head is life. It is not a life in the same way that it can love and care and make decisions as a woman can and it is not your womb.

You say you don't hate women but still you want to control our bodies how is that not hatred?

I presume you are isisgodess reregistered.

I no more want to control anyone than you do. I only wish to protect a life that cannot protect itself.

So when do you believe life begins? Another poster has already shown that it can indeed be more a life than the hair on your head at an early stage.

ASVM

Very strong words being exchanged here and some people seem to have their own little agendas. Being a woman I agree that it is a woman who should get to decide ultimately. A woman would not lightly make a decision to terminate a pregnancy and for men to come on here and start telling us what our bodies feel and how we should react is inexcusable. I have suffered two miscarriages and I know that at any point had my life been in danger my husband would have been fully supportive of my having a termination.

In the case of this woman she wanted a termination because I am certain that she was in severe pain and she was listening to her own body.No woman would take this option lightly and while I regard human life as sacred the health of the mother has to come first.

I really hope this case brings clarity to the situation because no more women in this country should have to suffer like this. Shame on the men who think they know what is best for a womans body.

suicide_circus

isisgodess wrote: »

There is too much of this kind of thinking on this thread. It is the MASCULINE MINDSET.

Why must you let the psychological HATRED of women dictate that a woman cannot choose what to do with her body. If I have cancer can I remove a tumor? Oh thank you.

A woman feels she is in pain, she listens to HER BODY because she knows how to be close to her body, because she has intuition.

But because of this HATRED she cannot remove the tumour.

I weep for the women of Ireland who can be destroyed like this.

2/10
Must try harder

My name is URL

jill_valentine wrote: »

We have the following facts.

a) A woman spent three days painfully miscarrying a foetus that would not have survived anyway.

b) She had previously requested an abortion which would have spared her a great measure of that ordeal and likely increased her chances of survival substantially.

c) She was denied it, for no sound medical reason.

We don't know the colour of the hospital room or the expression on the doctor's face, but the scenario painted by those three basic elements in themselves is unacceptable. Trying to vague up the conversation by demanding fairly immaterial details lends nothing.

All he did was ask whether or not anyone knows all of the facts, he wasn't demanding anything. And since when are pertinent facts regarded as 'immaterial details'?

If people are going to claim medical negligence or state-supported murder; they'd want to make sure that they do have all the facts.

Flier

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

I think that´s the main point for most of us. The brain apparently begins to form around week 4/5. This obviously doesn´t mean that there is a conscious mind at this time, but it means that up until at least week 4 there is no conscious mind to destroy. At week 7, the brain is apparently "rapidly developing". By week 9, the nervous system is apparently well developed and properly functioning - this would mean the fetus could feel pain. Sources 1 and 2

Really in this case, that is irrelevant.