Pregnant woman dies in UCHG after being refused a termination

Lingua Franca

blacklilly wrote: »

With respect to the grieving process of say having a miscarriage versus your 10 year old child dying is akin to saying to parents of a 6month old that has passed...."it could've been worse, sure aren't you lucky you didn't know the kid that well"

Don't be so ridiculous. If you want to play that game, should we say that losing an elderly parent after a long illness is comparable to suddenly losing your 10 year old child or even your 6 month old baby?

Losing a child is horrific, don't mock it by playing about with ages.

I've known people who have lost their child to cot death, accidents, illness and murder and they are haunted. It's absolutely gut wrenching to witness their grief and the pain never leaves them. Have you? Would you really, honestly compare that to a miscarriage?

poeticseraphim

Lingua Franca wrote: »

I'm sorry to hear of what you went through, ASVM, that must have been awful.

I can only speak for the NHS because I'm not familiar with D&C's in other countries and yes, it is normal practice there too. I was sent home after my miscarriage and told to come back the next week but I ended up not needing a D&C in the end.

Since general anesthesia is usually required they need to slot you in when an anaesthesiologist is available and at the weekends they tend to be on call for emergencies only. A D&C is usually not considered an emergency.

At least we are giving women up to date care then.

Gosh you guys I am so sorry you went through all of that.

later12

nicki116 wrote: »

I had an unplanned pregnancy when I was 18 and miscarried it was the wrong time for me but I didn't blame the child I was shocked and scared but if I killed my baby it would have been a thousand times worse for me because then it would have been my fault. I would have made that decision and it would have been wrong to do so just because I was scared because the fear passed and I started to figure it out what I would do what I would tell people etc.

OK. That's fine for you. But you cannot reasonably expect to foist your experience or opinions on other women in their crisis, and deny them the opportunity of an opposing opinion.

Extending choice is not tantamount to extending abortion. Lets remember here that the only people offering a sole, universal solution are those who are "pro life". ChIoice is about allowing you your opinion based on your own moral direction, whilst having regard to those whose conclusion differs to your moral stance or opinion.

abortion on demand is to objective children to whether they have enough value to be allowed to live because we don't want one now or because its not convenient for us to have one is selfish and an abuse of our rights.

Define abortion on demand?

How on Earth can anyone, even one with medical need, ever acquire an abortion unless they demand one?

And if they demand that their bodies are their own, then we as a society should attempt to accommodate that within reason (i.e., in the exception where the child is potentially independently viable anyway, and can therefore be said to be a fully formed individual).

Lingua Franca

poeticseraphim wrote: »

I had no idea about that. I have no idea regarding other countries maybe someone else can answer. Was it always the case here? It seems very strange?

You are right it is not good enough.


Does anyone else know anything about this?

The only person I could ask about this in the Netherlands is my mother in law who lost many pregnancies, and I'm not about to do that.

poeticseraphim

blacklilly wrote: »

Interesting to note that the pro choice side were not particularly vocal when it was revealed that some hse and other state funded agencies were advising women not to disclose to their doctors their full medical history in reference to abortions.
Abortion can cause complications in later wanted pregnancies, should a women have major complications and die while pregnant and the medical team not be aware of her full history it will simply be explained as pregnancy complications when it could very well be related to the fact that the abortion caused her internal damage but then again the pro choice side don't want this high lighted do they? So much for women's rights.
This case is sad and should not have happened. I don't believe however that due to this one tragic case that legislation be made allowing abortion. This women was entitled to have her pregnancy terminated but it seems the doctor didn't follow medical counsel guidelines on the matter.
As a young women I fully support women's rights but I do not believe abortion is a right or an entitlement.
With respect to the grieving process of say having a miscarriage versus your 10 year old child dying is akin to saying to parents of a 6month old that has passed...."it could've been worse, sure aren't you lucky you didn't know the kid that well"

They were vocal. Very.

And an abortion rarely causes complications when preformed by a good abortionist but it does on a rare occasion the most common being septicemia I think.

But it is important women should be aware of them.

I could point out a lack of personage in a fetus. And it is estimated that 55% of all conceptions are miscarried without the mother even knowing.

I do not negate the personal grief women go through with miscarriage. But my concern is primarily them and their health as they go through it. This also means their emotional health. It might actually be less traumatic in some cases if they had the option of a termination after a partial miscarriage has begun and the pregnancy is not viable.

I understand that will not be right for every case or every woman though.

But what women go through with a miscarriage is the very topic. And how these women would like us to help them through their grief and their situation should be paramount.


Perhaps we could look at whether it is possible to help improve the above situation that AVSM and Lingua Franca went through . Or offer some counseling or support throughout.

I know it will be different for every woman though. But I want to hear what they think we could do either by law or practise to help them.

I am in NO way negating the emotional impact of a miscarriage ..the opposite.

poeticseraphim

Lingua Franca wrote: »

The only person I could ask about this in the Netherlands is my mother in law who lost many pregnancies, and I'm not about to do that.

Of course it is not I understand.

I will have a think myself. I do not want to research the net for that type of thing ..i doubt i could anyway...but i would doubt it's reliability.

I would imagine in places like America there are differences from state to state.

K-9

franktheplank wrote: »

I don't think anyone really believes that these groups have much power. And still that doesn't in any way explain why non-religious pro-lifers keep getting compared to them.

They gathered a few thousand to march in Castlebar a couple of weeks ago.

Seems innocent enough, a pro-life group marching in the Taoiseachs home town and constitutency.

Vincent Browne interviewed Kenny during the 07 election and he promised abortion would never be allowed under his leadership. That's so called pro-life organisations leaning heavily on a pro-life leaning Taoiseach.

Labour are seen as atheist, abortionist, heathens and it plays big in the West and NW. Dana got elected in Connaught Ulster and Ganley targeted it and nearly got in.

partyatmygaff

poeticseraphim wrote: »

And the right of a women's choice over her body outweighs the right of the fetus by the weight of scientific proofs that shows a fetus in the early trimester is not sentient. It lacks personage.

If a newborn baby were to be born in a coma (Which is very rare thankfully) would you consider them to have personage?

That is not my science ..it is an expert neurologist ...you are using language which indicates ownership 'your' over something that is in fact universal. It is like when anti-choicers interchange the term 'Human' with 'Human Being' a flake of dandruff is human..a group of cells can be human....but a human being???

A flake of dandruff is human tissue. A group of human cells is always just human tissue. Human tissue is not necessarily valuable or "worth" anything as an entity. Human cells are even sold alongside chemicals by Sigma and it's no big problem.

A foetus on the other hand is a human in its own right in that it is a distinct organism from its mother with its own set of tissues and DNA. That's not debatable, that's factual.

For instance the idea that life begins at conception is now illogical as embryological data shows that conception occurs over time as a process and not in an instant ...it is not an event we now know but a process....of events....

In this context, if we consider "life" to mean a new set of genetically distinct cells and tissues to the mother then yes "life" does begin at conception. When exactly during the process isn't that important as the first cell divisions take place only a few hours after the initial acrosomal and cortical reactions.

It is unclear when exactly a distinct life begins as the whole process of development is a continuum. We've created terms and timeframes to try and break down the process in to step form to make sense of it all but it's hard to pinpoint an exact point at which we can say that the "entity" we're discussing will eventually become a distinct, fully developed human being. Personally, i'd say it's around the time of gastrulation/neurulation but others may disagree (And none of this is really relevant to the thread anyway so please don't reply and take the thread off on a tangent).

later12

partyatmygaff wrote: »

A foetus on the other hand is a human in its own right in that it is a distinct organism from its mother with its own set of tissues and DNA. That's not debatable, that's factual.

Come now. That a foetus is "human in its own right" is not an objectively accepted position nor is it "factual"; not least because it is a clump of cells that often will not, under any circumstances, exist as an individual in its own right.

My position would be that an individual is an individual when it can exist in its own right, i.e. unattached to another individual's body.

poeticseraphim

partyatmygaff wrote: »

If a newborn baby were to be born in a coma (Which is very rare thankfully) would you consider them to have personage?


A flake of dandruff is human tissue. A group of human cells is always just human tissue. Human tissue is not necessarily valuable or "worth" anything as an entity. Human cells are even sold alongside chemicals by Sigma and it's no big problem.

A foetus on the other hand is a human in its own right in that it is a distinct organism from its mother with its own set of tissues and DNA. That's not debatable, that's factual.
In this context, if we consider "life" to mean a new set of genetically distinct cells and tissues to the mother then yes "life" does begin at conception. When exactly during the process isn't that important as the first cell divisions take place only a few hours after the initial acrosomal and cortical reactions.

It is unclear when exactly a distinct life begins as the whole process of development is a continuum. We've created terms and timeframes to try and break down the process in to step form to make sense of it all but it's hard to pinpoint an exact point at which we can say that the "entity" we're discussing will eventually become a distinct, fully developed human being. Personally, i'd say it's around the time of gastrulation/neurulation but others may disagree (And none of this is really relevant to the thread anyway so please don't reply and take the thread off on a tangent).

It is unclear when exactly a distinct life begins as the whole process of development is a continuum. We've created terms and timeframes to try and break down the process in to step form to make sense of it all but it's hard to pinpoint an exact point at which we can say that the "entity" we're discussing will eventually become a distinct, fully developed human being.

Ok Yes it is a process I would agree.

Personally, i'd say it's around the time of gastrulation/neurulation but others may disagree (And none of this is really relevant to the thread anyway so please don't reply and take the thread off on a tangent)

Yes it is relevant. That is about three weeks in ...so you would have no issues with the abortion pill being made legal until then?? Or the morning after pill??
What is it about this period that gives personhood?

Human tissue is not necessarily valuable or "worth" anything as an entity.

Eggs or Sperm included? An entity is not a person....we don't give rights to entities.

In this context, if we consider "life" to mean a new set of genetically distinct cells and tissues to the mother then yes "life" does begin at conception.

You have just contradicted what you said yourself earlier.

If a newborn baby were to be born in a coma (Which is very rare thankfully) would you consider them to have personage?

It would depend on the doctors opinion. And i would go on that.


http://www.parentdish.co.uk/2012/08/01/judge-rules-baby-in-coma-be-allowed-to-die-against-parents-wishes/

This case no ...probably not

The pediatric Glasgow coma scale is a good tool

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paediatric_Glasgow_Coma_Scale

It really depends on what caused it ..oxygen depravation that has a high surviva rate but severe issues later.
If it is found that the baby has a level 4 brain bleed, it can be brought around.

Doctors also put babies into comas purposefully for months at a time to perform procedures ..place shunts etcc.

Doctors do many brain scans to detect the level of brain activity . I would trust their opinion.

poeticseraphim

later12 wrote: »

Come now. That a foetus is "human in its own right" is not an objectively accepted position nor is it "factual"; not least because it is a clump of cells that often will not, under any circumstances, exist as an individual in its own right.

My position would be that an individual is an individual when it can exist in its own right, i.e. unattached to another individual's body.

Generally the medical profession agree when a baby is viable outside the womb separately of mama it is then a baba:)..currently this is 24 weeks by approved medical standards obvioulsy with medical support....it can get messy earlier..

I would like abortion on demand to have an earlier limit...unless their are special circumstances...if the mother's life is in danger etc but thats me...:)

DrumSteve

later12 wrote: »

Come now. That a foetus is "human in its own right" is not an objectively accepted position nor is it "factual"; not least because it is a clump of cells that often will not, under any circumstances, exist as an individual in its own right.

My position would be that an individual is an individual when it can exist in its own right, i.e. unattached to another individual's body.

Should we start executing all those siamese twins now then?

MagicSean

poeticseraphim wrote: »

You don't accept science?
I wanted to take this separately.

You see this is the problem. It is like people who don't believe in evolution. Science is not something you can except or not logically. It is not your science or mine. It is Science. You can say evolution is MY Science but it makes any further discussion impossible.

And the right of a women's choice over her body outweighs the right of the fetus by the weight of scientific proofs that shows a fetus in the early trimester is not sentient. It lacks personage.



That is not my science ..it is an expert neurologist ...you are using language which indicates ownership 'your' over something that is in fact universal. It is like when anti-choicers interchange the term 'Human' with 'Human Being' a flake of dandruff is human..a group of cells can be human....but a human being???


Back to Science
When you deny or reject 'my science' ...it automatically makes the opposition wonder well then what discapline or doctrine are they basing their stance on? Is it just a feeling an emotion?

When one rejects what is scientific and logical then you cannot blame people for thinking it might be a spiritual belief.

For instance the idea that life begins at conception is now illogical as embryological data shows that conception occurs over time as a process and not in an instant ...it is not an event we now know but a process....of events....

When one introduces the science the anti-choice argument for early trimester seems weak...

You should read Roe vrs Wade...the influence of embryology was a huge factor in the outcome. ...science guided the verdict

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZO.html

The guise of religion runs deep ...many anti-choicers believe abortion actually is the same as the killing of an adult human being...it leads me to believe that they are basing their stance on the idea of 'ensoulment' taught by the church for so long. Which is obviously something we cannot hold a stance about abortion on.

What an incredibly condescending and incorrect post. If you knew anything about science you would know that there are conflicting views on many theories and that universally accepted facts are often disproved.

blacklilly

poeticseraphim wrote: »

They were vocal. Very.

And an abortion rarely causes complications when preformed by a good abortionist but it does on a rare occasion the most common being septicemia I think.

But it is important women should be aware of them.

I could point out a lack of personage in a fetus. And it is estimated that 55% of all conceptions are miscarried without the mother even knowing.

I do not negate the personal grief women go through with miscarriage. But my concern is primarily them and their health as they go through it. This also means their emotional health. It might actually be less traumatic in some cases if they had the option of a termination after a partial miscarriage has begun and the pregnancy is not viable.

I understand that will not be right for every case or every woman though.

But what women go through with a miscarriage is the very topic. And how these women would like us to help them through their grief and their situation should be paramount.


Perhaps we could look at whether it is possible to help improve the above situation that AVSM and Lingua Franca went through . Or offer some counseling or support throughout.

I know it will be different for every woman though. But I want to hear what they think we could do either by law or practise to help them.

I am in NO way negating the emotional impact of a miscarriage ..the opposite.

Do you have any links to them being very vocal on that issue? (Sorry I hate asking for links and feel like a pleb doing so but I didn't hear much from the pro choice side)

Option for a termination after a partial miscarriage, why? Seriously why? Our bodies are amazing and are programmed to allow certain functions happen naturally. If a women is having a miscarraige this is a natural process One in which her body is able to cope with (usually) having a termination before that process is over unless there is medical reason to do so seems ott really.

To answer your question yes I have experienced the grief of losing young and elderly relatives and have witnessed the grief of a wanted pregnancy coming to the end. I have also witnessed the grief of friends who have had terminations. None of these greifs have been similar whatsoever,

wendell borton

The whole case is a tragedy for her family and should never happened. But for the indian goverment to be kicking a fuss up over this is a bit much maybe they should take a look at their own mortality rates.

Roadtrippin

wendell borton wrote: »

The whole case is a tragedy for her family and should never happened. But for the indian goverment to be kicking a fuss up over this is a bit much maybe they should take a look at their own mortality rates.

Agreed.

Only thing I'd add is if this had happened the other way around, as in someone Irish died in similarly tragic circumstances in India, we would be kicking up just as much of a fuzz, I'm pretty sure...

Vicxas

Roadtrippin wrote: »

Agreed.

Only thing I'd add is if this had happened the other way around, as in someone Irish died in similarly tragic circumstances in India, we would be kicking up just as much of a fuzz, I'm pretty sure...

I think its just a smoke screen, to show that India supports its people overseas. Probably all public pressure too, as we've all seen the Irish government step in when an irishman is injured/killed overseas.

jumpguy

I think the most reasonable people of both pro-life and pro-choice opinion here (perhaps not on boards, but definitely on the street) could agree we need legislation on this issue. Legislation allowing for abortion where the death of the foetus/embryo is inevitable to prevent the risk of any injury to the mother should not be too far for either side. Some sort of legislation so doctors don't have to face these kind of decisions with the fear of becoming part of an international media spectacle - as if the job wasn't stressful enough.

For some reason though there seems to be opposition to legislation of any kind in the Dáil. I can't fathom this at all.

I also remember the current government promising to be the most transparent government ever. An Obama-esqu promise, and one I sincerely hoped they'd deliver. Yet they're reluctant to publish the report that James Reilly is struggling to "digest" and on another note, they've decided to follow the rule of their much-chided predecessors and not give us an inkling of what's to come in Budget 2012. I really hope my disillusionment with Irish politics can't reach greater heights - it's almost a feeling of helplessness now.

later12

DrumSteve wrote: »

Should we start executing all those siamese twins now then?

In a case whereby conjoined twins are sharing vital organs like neural tissue, a heart, a liver, then any separation and the resultant death of the marginally weaker twin may well be likely to place the other in mortal danger.

However, yes, I do agree with an hypothetical situation whereby if conjoined twins are in conflict about separation, the (presumably) stronger twin's desire for separation must be respected.

But just to repeat, if separation is mortally dangerous to the point that vital organs are being shared, then it's hard to see how the procedure could be adequately safe for either twin; I'm not sure such clear cut cases can exist in medical science.

franktheplank

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Absolutely. Now you're dragging in more off topic stuff (about which there is plenty of outrage, from all kinds of people).


Any chance you could stay on topic?

You're just deciding which elements of the debate are suiting you're agenda best. I'm sorry but you don't get to decide what's on topic and what's not, leave it to the mods please.

I mean really the topic is medical abortions when the mother is at risk but for a lot of people here thats been co-opted to a pro-choice agenda, imho.

franktheplank

poeticseraphim wrote: »

You don't accept science?
I wanted to take this separately.

You see this is the problem. It is like people who don't believe in evolution. Science is not something you can except or not logically. It is not your science or mine. It is Science. You can say evolution is MY Science but it makes any further discussion impossible.

And the right of a women's choice over her body outweighs the right of the fetus by the weight of scientific proofs that shows a fetus in the early trimester is not sentient. It lacks personage.

Back to Science
When you deny or reject 'my science' ...it automatically makes the opposition wonder well then what discapline or doctrine are they basing their stance on? Is it just a feeling an emotion?

You see this is what happens when you flip flop on arguments, it's very easy to miss the absolute basics.

When i say 'your Science' im pointing out that you clearly don't understand that the abortion debate is an ethical one not a scientific one. Science is not universal, scientific method might approach universality but that does not make science universal.

Why do you think it's medical ethics groups that look at these issues? It's because they are essentially ethical in nature. Science may inform the debate but they are still ethical.

It's about choice right? Science doesn't make choices it informs them.

Just because you don't grasp the basics is no excuse to start suggesting people who aren't even religious are creationists. I think it's pretty clear whose lacking scientific knowledge here :rolleyes:

Shryke

The gardai are seemingly involved now. Assisting the coroner.

MagicSean

Shryke wrote: »

The gardai are seemingly involved now. Assisting the coroner.

The gardai are always involved with coroners inquests.

jill_valentine

franktheplank wrote: »

You're just deciding which elements of the debate are suiting you're agenda best. I'm sorry but you don't get to decide what's on topic and what's not, leave it to the mods please.

I mean really the topic is medical abortions when the mother is at risk but for a lot of people here thats been co-opted to a pro-choice agenda, imho.

When Savita requested the abortion to start with, her life was not immediately at risk. At that point, it would have been, effectively, an elective abortion. She did not want to take the gamble that was enforced on her; the choice was taken out of her hands.

That's why the subject of choice is relevant. The stuff you're bringing, on the other hand, doesn't have any relation to the subject that I can see.

Shryke

MagicSean wrote: »

The gardai are always involved with coroners inquests.

Ya sound, skipping through news stories, not really thinking.

Noreen1

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?

How so?

If the foetus was the source of the infection, then perhaps. On the other hand, if the infection had spread from the foetus to the mothers tissue/bloodstream before it was diagnosed/preventive antibiotics prescribed - then it probably would have made no difference.

If not, and the infection was in the mothers tissue - then, no. Removing healthy tissue has no effect on the remaining infected tissue.
That would equate to amputating the left arm because there was infection present in the right.

What we need to do is obtain the facts, then decide on an appropriate response.
Anything less is disrespectful to Savitas memory - and has the potential to affect the care given to every pregnant woman, and their unborn child.

I'd like to see any decisions made based on fact, and best practice, not as a result of knee-jerk reactions to a very tragic case.

Madam_X

jill_valentine wrote: »

When Savita requested the abortion to start with, her life was not immediately at risk. At that point, it would have been, effectively, an elective abortion. She did not want to take the gamble that was enforced on her; the choice was taken out of her hands.

That's why the subject of choice is relevant. The stuff you're bringing, on the other hand, doesn't have any relation to the subject that I can see.

I think it's something about how the repeated mentions of fanatical pro-life groups (whose power/influence are part of the cause of this atrocity, therefore it is relevant to mention them) is unfair and biased, thus militant feminists (let's face it: feminists full stop) should be critiqued, even though they didn't cause Savita's death and there has been a total of one person posting radical feminist views to this thread. Nevertheless, feminism must be attacked in the interests of balance, because it's an ideology that opposed the pro-life one. And apparently there's a chance people who study women's studies will turn out like crackpots such as Mary Daly and Valerie Solanas.

seb65

Noreen1 wrote: »

How so?

If the foetus was the source of the infection, then perhaps. On the other hand, if the infection had spread from the foetus to the mothers tissue/bloodstream before it was diagnosed/preventive antibiotics prescribed - then it probably would have made no difference.

If not, and the infection was in the mothers tissue - then, no. Removing healthy tissue has no effect on the remaining infected tissue.
That would equate to amputating the left arm because there was infection present in the right.

What we need to do is obtain the facts, then decide on an appropriate response.
Anything less is disrespectful to Savitas memory - and has the potential to affect the care given to every pregnant woman, and their unborn child.

I'd like to see any decisions made based on fact, and best practice, not as a result of knee-jerk reactions to a very tragic case.

You're not making any sense. Do you think that the tissue from her cervix, uterus became infected and skipped the fetal tissue? Her cervix was fully dilated for three days for God's sake, providing a viable pathway for infection, while the fetal tissue was seeping out of her.

Every doctor EVERY doctor outside of Ireland in civilized countries, I would bet all the money in my pockets, would say termination is carried out in these circumstances.

Besides this, the woman was in excruciating pain - per her husband - losing blood and vomiting. Ya think her body being under this strain probably comprised her immune system and let the infection rage inside of her?

If there was no reason to remove the fetus, if it was best left to nature and had no consequence on her health, why did they remove as soon as the heartbeat stopped? They were waiting for the heartbeat to stop and left her in torment for three days. I think that gives a fair indication of what their main concern was.

And don't you, for a second, pontificate on what is honorable to this woman's memory. You did not even know her, you have suffered no loss. Her family will decide what is best to honor her memory and I believe they've been extremely clear on what it is that will be.

Noreen1

mac.in wrote: »

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



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.

I honestly can't answer that, because I'm not sure whether women suffering a miscarriage where there is still a foetal heartbeat are routinely given antibiotics, nowadays.
I can state definitively that women suffering a prolonged miscarriage twenty years ago weren't routinely given antibiotics. I know, because I took 5 days to miscarry, at 15 weeks.

mac.in wrote: »

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).

Someone stated earlier in the thread that she requested induction shortly after presenting at the hospital.
Assuming that's accurate, and there were no reasons to assume anything other than that a miscarriage would occur naturally in a short period of time, then, based on my own experience of induction in two premature births, I'd have refused induction, too, if I were the doctor.
Reason being, induction where the cervical muscles are in optimal condition, and not softened for labour - bl**dy hurts.
The other question, of course, is what purpose induction would have served, if, as stated, she was already fully dilated?

mac.in wrote: »

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

The march in dublin right now is huge, i'd estimate perhaps 10k+

dave3004

this story has hit the papers in Oz

Flier

Noreen, are you a doctor? If you are, please tell me where you have trained/are working so I can avoid. If not:

Noreen1 wrote: »

How so?

If the foetus was the source of the infection, then perhaps. On the other hand, if the infection had spread from the foetus to the mothers tissue/bloodstream before it was diagnosed/preventive antibiotics prescribed - then it probably would have made no difference.

If not, and the infection was in the mothers tissue - then, no. Removing healthy tissue has no effect on the remaining infected tissue.
That would equate to amputating the left arm because there was infection present in the right. [/I]

I actually have nothing to say in response to this as it is a clearly ridiculous analogy, and the 'if....then..' you propose is not based on any background knowledge.

Noreen1 wrote: »

I'd like to see any decisions made based on fact, and best practice, not as a result of knee-jerk reactions to a very tragic case.

Why do you refuse to acknowledge that best practice in cases such as this one is to offer a termination.

Noreen1 wrote: »

I can state definitively that women suffering a prolonged miscarriage twenty years ago weren't routinely given antibiotics. I know, because I took 5 days to miscarry, at 15 weeks.

The only thing that you can state definitively is that you weren't given antibiotics. Your circumstances were unique, and you can have no idea what happened to everybody else.

Noreen1 wrote: »

..... I'd have refused induction, too, if I were the doctor........

You have no idea what you would have done if you were the doctor, since you would be speaking with years of training and experience to draw from, which clearly you have not.

Lingua Franca

franktheplank wrote: »

You're just deciding which elements of the debate are suiting you're agenda best. I'm sorry but you don't get to decide what's on topic and what's not, leave it to the mods please.

I mean really the topic is medical abortions when the mother is at risk but for a lot of people here thats been co-opted to a pro-choice agenda, imho.

Once more: you are the only one babbling about radical feminists. There is no debate from you, just you going way off topic.

And given how many off topic posts anti feminist posts you've made so far, your agenda may as well be written in neon on Times Square.

HeyThereDeliah

Did anyone hear the husband did not want the doctors to carry out a termination in the beginning because of his religion, it was on the radio apparently, did not hear it myself.

If true it might explain why doctors were reluctant to do the termination.

MagicSean

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

Did anyone hear the husband did not want the doctors to carry out a termination in the beginning because of his religion, it was on the radio apparently, did not hear it myself.

If true it might explain why doctors were reluctant to do the termination.

I somehow doubt that will be the last revelation to come out of this. I have a feeling the doctor will have a massive amount of defamation claims to pursue after it's all over.

Nodin

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

Did anyone hear the husband did not want the doctors to carry out a termination in the beginning because of his religion, it was on the radio apparently, did not hear it myself.

If true it might explain why doctors were reluctant to do the termination.

No. You've a source for this?

HeyThereDeliah

MagicSean wrote: »

I somehow doubt that will be the last revelation to come out of this. I have a feeling the doctor will have a massive amount of defamation claims to pursue after it's all over.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/bangalore/city-doctor-defends-irish-counterparts/article4100988.ece

Hard to know if he will sue the hospital or not. This link is interesting.

Nodin wrote: »

No. You've a source for this?

No but it was supposed to be on one of the radio shows, did not hear it myself.

seb65

MagicSean wrote: »

I somehow doubt that will be the last revelation to come out of this. I have a feeling the doctor will have a massive amount of defamation claims to pursue after it's all over.

You mean a doctor that's never been named?

I'd imagine there's more than one that treated her over the course of the week.

seb65

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/bangalore/city-doctor-defends-irish-counterparts/article4100988.ece

Hard to know if he will sue the hospital or not. This link is interesting.



No but it was supposed to be on one of the radio shows, did not hear it myself.

I heard him say in his radio interview that they wanted the baby, but they accepted that it was going to die.

I also heard that the wife presented at A&E, was told there was nothing wrong and was sent home the first time. It was the second time she went and insisted she see a doctor that they confirmed she was having a miscarriage. Pretty sound hospital right there.

noinc

This is a tragic story indeed but why are we getting people in India telling Ireland it must change its laws? It is bad enough we have France and Germany making decisions for us without India getting involved. The Facts are not yet known but I cannot think of anyone I know who would present at a hospital with a pain in her back and the first thought on their mind is to have the pregnancy terminated. I do not want to be disrespectful to this family or to India but why has there not been outcry in Ireland over Irish people who died after hospitals refused to admit people because they were 'not on call'

As usual the pro lifers and bleeding hearts have jumped on this story and people as far away as India, where they still **** in the street are calling us a backward country.

Hitchens

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

The march in dublin right now is huge, i'd estimate perhaps 10k+

Is this Princess Di syndrome?

seb65

noinc wrote: »

As usual the pro lifers and bleeding hearts have jumped on this story and people as far away as India, where they still **** in the street are calling us a backward country.

Well, I'm Canadian and I think this country's views on women's health is backwards....how about that?

Am I from a country that's developed enough for me to have an opinion?

You're right, India is, in many ways, a developing country and Ireland is leagues ahead in its treatment of the vulnerable.

So it's pretty bad when India has to call Ireland out on human rights.

bootybouncer

seb65 wrote: »

Well, I'm Canadian and I think this country's views on women's health is backwards....how about that?

Am I from a country that's developed enough for me to have an opinion?

You're right, India is, in many ways, a developing country and Ireland is leagues ahead in its treatment of the vulnerable.

So it's pretty bad when India has to call Ireland out on human rights.

Well CANADIAN, our Southpark friends have educated us about your lot

India have no place interfering in this

seb65

bootybouncer wrote: »

Well CANADIAN, our Southpark friends have educated us about your lot

India have no place interfering in this

Well, that's mature....

Laneyh

bootybouncer wrote: »

Well CANADIAN, our Southpark friends have educated us about your lot

India have no place interfering in this

Yes we should base all our 'education'on Southpark. You sir are a racist(that's a quote from Southpark the movie btw)

Intensive Care Bear

noinc wrote: »

This is a tragic story indeed but why are we getting people in India telling Ireland it must change its laws? It is bad enough we have France and Germany making decisions for us without India getting involved. The Facts are not yet known but I cannot think of anyone I know who would present at a hospital with a pain in her back and the first thought on their mind is to have the pregnancy terminated. I do not want to be disrespectful to this family or to India but why has there not been outcry in Ireland over Irish people who died after hospitals refused to admit people because they were 'not on call'

As usual the pro lifers and bleeding hearts have jumped on this story and people as far away as India, where they still **** in the street are calling us a backward country.

Coming from a country that has aborted an estimated 12 million babies in the last 30 years just for been female.

Nodin

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

No but it was supposed to be on one of the radio shows, did not hear it myself.

What radio show, what station, and who allegedly said this?

Nodin

noinc wrote: »

This is a tragic story indeed but why are we getting people in India telling Ireland it must change its laws? ...........

Because our legislature won't listen to our own supreme fucking court, maybe?

ASVM

There is a lot of speculation now surronding this case and we do need to see what the medical enquiries will reveal but it is good that people are now having frank and heated discussions about this whole issue which can no longer be swept under the carpet - we are very good at doing that in Ireland!

To those who have read my previous posts I mentioned my miscarriage, it was confirmed at twenty weeks but the scan revealed that the baby was fourteen weeks according to size. The baby had actually been dead for six weeks inside me. I presented at the hospital at twenty weeks with spot bleeding and a scan revealed my baby was dead. A second opinion was needed to confirm this though so I was sent home to return on the Monday. When I returned a second scan confirmed that indeed my baby had died and was 14 weeks in size. I was then induced and gave birth a few days later.I asked for a D&C but was told that the baby was too big and that to do so would be like having an abortion (don't know if this is true or not) Following on from this we brought our little boy home and buried him with a grave side blessing by a priest. I have to be fair to the hospital the level of care I received in terms of counselling was first class, the staff were very professional gave me great attention and treated both my husband and I very well.
A swab of the baby tissue returned from the lab showed ecoli on the side nearest to the umbilical cord. I was then called back to the hospital and give anti - biotics to treat any possible infection.

In hindsight I think I should not have been sent home and a second opinion should have been available there and then. I was absolutely devasted that weekend I felt contaminated and close to death and were it not for the fantastic support of family I don't know what I would have done.Afterwards a midwife said I was lucky I did not develop septicemia but I don't know if this was just speculation or if this could have been possible as I have no medical expertise.

The tragic death of this young woman has just highlighted for me the need for first class care for EVERY pregnant woman in this country. Also we must be aware that a Catholic pro life ethos still exist in Ireland or at least I felt it did in my case i.e I could not have a D&C because it would be like having an abortion, at the time I didn't see how but I was too weak to argue.After the birth of my little boy I received a further shock from the midwives that my husband and I would have to bury our little boy in an unmarked hospital grave or else make our own burial arrangements.Now I am very glad that we have a resting place in a family grave for our little boy but it was such a lot to go through.

ASVM

sorry have re - posted.