Pregnant woman dies in UCHG after being refused a termination

TeaAndCake

Very sad case altogether. I hope the law can be clarified so that in future, the medical staff can act without ambiguity and take the steps necessary to save the life of the mother in the case of a non-viable foetus miscarrying.

It's sad to see both sides of the fence coming out and using this to further agendas, score points politically or to make a name for themselves.

poeticseraphim

opinionated3 wrote: »

poeticseraphim wrote: »

Well duh..we are protesting for pro-choice and we will not stop until we get it.

And yes before you start ..we do have an agenda ....we are pro-choice... that's our agenda .....:)


I have written to many TD's and senators stating that none in my family and many in my locality will give a vote to any politician who is not pro-choice.


Hmmmm..pro murder...that's nice to know. Let us know which politicians vote in favour of that.

You mean SF???? They are not pro-choice though. People still vote for them though.:(....Peadar Tóibin said he would vote pro-life in any bill in the Dáil

I could point out that it is very hypocrytical of the extreme pro-life campaign right now to call pro-choicers murderers...


Claire Daly and Ivana Bacik are pro-choice amongst others


They all eat babies for lunch..............
















Jelly Babies :eek::eek::eek::eek: Pro-lifers are so PISSED OFF....:mad:

Nodin

mikom wrote: »

Pray let's have a look at the life institute......... http://www.thelifeinstitute.net/current-projects/family-matters/

...for a second there I thought you were implying they had some agenda.

poeticseraphim

NODIN SAID:

Nodin wrote: »

...for a second there I thought you were implying they had some agenda.

Everybody has an agenda.....the fetus ...the mother...pro-choicers ..anti-choicers...non plussed people who find anyone with a decided opinion extremist and want it all to go away so they can watch T.V after a hard days work.

Pro-life material always comes from those with a pro-life agenda.

Totally bi-partisan attitudes are not common abortion.

GALWAYRUSH SAID :

I wish fanatics from both sides would **** off. Common sense should prevail.

You can be moderately pro-choice. Let's say abortion on demand up to twelve weeks and only in medical necessity after.

Or moderately pro-life.....allow abortion in cases of rape , incest and where there is medical necessity.

Our pro-lifers are more extreme than Tom Akin unfortunately. He will accept clear legislation where the mother is in danger outright.

And they are all more extreme than the American republican party who will allow for cases of rape or incest or an nonviable fetus.


There are much more extreme pro-choicers than myself..those who would favour a system like they have in the UK where you can (with the consent of two Doctors ) get abortion up to 24 weeks. In Sweden it is 18 weeks ..in Denmark there are more options.

Canada, China (Mainland only) and Vietnam have no legal time limit on abortion.


To me my stance of abortion up to 12 weeks on demand and only in the case of medical emergency after that is moderately pro-choice...for some it is extreme ....for others not far enough.

Biggins

The Sunday Times (England)

A panel of medical experts could be set up to adjudicate on appeals from pregnant women who have been refused a termination in Irish hospitals, under proposals that are to be considered by the government.

It is understood the appeal panel would consist of a small number of people, organised through the Medical Council, and could be capable of meeting at short notice in case of emergency.

The panel would consider only cases where a woman had been refused a termination. It would operate under new regulations on abortion which would be drawn up by James Reilly, the health minister, following advice from an expert group chaired by Justice Seán Ryan

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/ireland/article1165387.ece

Now on top of all the schite that has gone before, the female in Ireland looks like, will STILL have no automatic rights to her own body by default! She has to go before a bloody panel of what will most likely – lets be honest – will be male doctors and be part of a medical inquisition! (The panel that came up with this latest retarded idea headed by a male and will be implemented also by a male by the way!)

Are we serious? Are are bloody politicians so retarded that they will carry through this latest pure crap?

I have NEVER cursed so much and so openly about anyone but the shower of stupid twats that still exist and still persist in their mindless arrogance, is bloody unreal. Bad politicians still not kopping themselves on and still playing homage to religious doctrine – O’ yea, they are passing the buck with a panel to take the blame, its still words to the effect:

“Sorry, you can’t be treated here and now, you have to wait for a panel to convene before we can save your life! You need OUR permission to be allowed live!”

- and at the end of the day (if the unfortunate lives through it while a group of people travel to get to where they have to be to then finally have their inquisition!) the females life is still on hold because of a shower of political **** with no balls cannot still give a woman the right to do with her body as is necessary right there and then to save her very life – where hours and even minutes could mean the difference between her life lost or won!

Fianna Fail, Fine Gael and Labour – I SERIOUSLY wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire.

---

The above is toned down in language and there is more in the Sunday Times articles about this issue.
Yes, there is more than one - and none of them put Ireland in a good light.
One long article is titled "Medieval, barbaric — a woman’s death to shame even the Pope" (LINK)

It includes the following:

Last week Ronan Mullen, an independent Irish senator and delegate to the Council of Europe, said, with a straight face and without dying of shame: “You will have cases like this [Savita’s] in other countries.”

Actually, no, Senator Mullen. You won’t have cases like this in other countries, not even ones we like to think of as unimaginably “backward” when it comes to women’s rights.

Saudi Arabia allows abortion when the woman’s health is at risk, with permission from her husband. Nigeria allows abortion when it is necessary to save the woman’s life. Zimbabwe allows it when the woman’s health is at risk, as well as for cases of rape or incest. And so on.

If you’re Irish and want a termination for whatever reason — rape, incest, medical defects, giving birth to a dead baby — you have to travel to Britain and have the procedure alone in a strange place, hundreds of miles from home. You could, of course, try going to Belfast, where the first Marie Stopes clinic opened last month, but you would have to run the gauntlet of protesters with placards.

Religion is in a class of its own when it comes to brutal savagery in the name of — God? Christian charity? Kindness, compassion, empathy, grace? A young woman died pointlessly, in great pain, because she was carrying a foetus that was also dying. Who would dare stand up and say this made them and their God happy, or that this was righteous? I bet even the Pope didn’t know where to look.

gozunda

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

The Life Institute has discovered that abortion campaigners had been given prior knowledge of the Savita Halappanavar case, and that they planned to use it to proceed with a campaign to have abortion legalised in Ireland.

http://www.thelifeinstitute.net/latest-news/email-leak-reveals-abortion-campaigners-had-prior-knowledge-of-savita-halappanavar-case/

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.

Hey nice try to (1) make out what has happened is actually conspiracy against so called 'pro/lifers' (incredible irony there btw) Perhaps the whole thing was organised by the 'abortion campaigners' to make 'prolife campaigners' look bad!.

Wow - how far would you like to go on this one? Blame the woman who died perhaps?

And (2) Cast unsourced and scurrilous accusations on the husband - a bereaved husband who has quite clearly set out what has happened.

There is no really shame or limit to the depth of depravity to which they will sink. Despite living in the 21st century they continue to insist that a woman's reproductive health is a religious issue that should be under the dominion of the outdated beliefs of the RCC and will do just about anything to achieve this aim.

If I could leave this forsaken hole of a country - I would do it tomorrow...

pablomakaveli

To be fair the story about pro-choice campaigners being made aware of the story early is on the irish independents site where they claim to have seen communications which prove it.

Im on my phone at the moment so cant link to it.

gozunda

pablomakaveli wrote: »

To be fair the story about pro-choice campaigners being made aware of the story early is on the irish independents site where they claim to have seen communications which prove it.

Im on my phone at the moment so cant link to it.

And what in hell does that have relevance to anything that happened???

It's a conspiracy so it is begob! Talking about clutching at straws. A woman died in barbaric circumstances and ( queue irony) 'pro lifers' are getting their knickers in a knot of who found out first???

More importantly I would ask why was this matter which happened at the end of October did not make the news earlier. It took the husband to bring it to the attention of the majority of people in this country.

pablomakaveli

gozunda wrote: »

And what in hell does that have relevance to anything that happened???

It's a conspiracy so it is begob! Talking about clutching at straws. A woman died in barbaric circumstances and ( queue irony) 'pro lifers' are getting their knickers in a knot of who found out first???

More importantly I would ask why was this matter which happened at the end of October did not make the news earlier. It took the husband to bring it to the attention of the majority of people in this country.

Im not saying i agree with it nor that its relevant only that it has also been reported from a source that isnt as biased as the life institute.

ruthloss

What has who knew what and when got to do with anything?.
And why would that poster feel the need to preface it with "to be fair" .

pablomakaveli

ruthloss wrote: »

What has who knew what and when got to do with anything?.
And why would that poster feel the need to preface it with "to be fair" .

Jesus i regret saying anything now. Some people on here have an incessant need to attack anyone or anything that has the misfortune to utter a word they dont approve of.

I only said to be fair because the poster who originally posted the story was belittled and the story dismissed as made up because of the source. I had seen the story on the indendent site and just decided to mention that the story wasnt made up.

Biggins

pablomakaveli wrote: »

To be fair the story about pro-choice campaigners being made aware of the story early is on the irish independents site where they claim to have seen communications which prove it.

Im on my phone at the moment so cant link to it.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/prochoice-activists-got-tipoff-on-tragic-death-3296844.html

strandroad

gozunda wrote: »

And what in hell does that have relevance to anything that happened???

It's a conspiracy so it is begob! Talking about clutching at straws. A woman died in barbaric circumstances and ( queue irony) 'pro lifers' are getting their knickers in a knot of who found out first???

They seem to suggest that the media/institutions gave pro-choicers a head start (The Irish Times, HSE) to mount a campaign:

"The tragic loss of Savita Halappanavar's life should not be exploited by campaigners. The media and the HSE now needs to ask why this information seems to have been given in advance to abortion advocates," she asked. "Was it given to them by the Irish Times who only broke the news days later, or by someone in the HSE? If so, why?" she asked.

But ICN deny that:

However, later in an email response to the Sunday Independent, the ICN said: "Members of the Indian community got in touch with pro-choice groups following Savita's death."

My friend in Galway heard about it before the media too (no details though), the story was making rounds.

billybudd

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.

http://digitaljournal.com/article/274825

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/09/04/shona-holmes-koch-brothers-ad_n_1854773.html


http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1175329--mentally-ill-female-prisoners-treated-cruelly-inhumanly-report-finds

http://rabble.ca/podcasts/shows/redeye/2009/04/un-committee-highly-critical-canadas-treatment-women

http://www.care2.com/news/member/193692282/3471369


http://www.reformtalk.net/2012/07/23/how-could-you-hall-of-shame-allen-charles-davidsoncanada-child-death/


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ottawa-spends-3-million-to-battle-first-nations-child-welfare-case/article4581093/

Quite bad when Syria is looking down on you.

daisybelle2008

mhge wrote: »

They seem to suggest that the media/institutions gave pro-choicers a head start (The Irish Times, HSE) to mount a campaign:
My friend in Galway heard about it before the media too (no details though), the story was making rounds.

It sounds like the story was doing the rounds indiscriminately. Just looks like ICN were evaluating the rumours. Not a big deal. Rumours of breaking news stories are being spun as 'tip-offs' designed to give 'head starts' by the Sindo. I have no doubt that all interested factions had access to these rumours and had same amount of time to evaluate.

What advantage is this 'head start' supposed to give? Campaigners for both sides have a clear agenda to communicate at any time surely. They don't need a head start to get their ideology sorted.

Wacker The Attacker

Wouldnt it be best for everyone involved to wait for the full details of this case to be made known?

Nobody knows for sure what really happened

HeyThereDeliah

gozunda wrote: »

Hey nice try to (1) make out what has happened is actually conspiracy against so called 'pro/lifers' (incredible irony there btw) Perhaps the whole thing was organised by the 'abortion campaigners' to make 'prolife campaigners' look bad!.

Wow - how far would you like to go on this one? Blame the woman who died perhaps?

And (2) Cast unsourced and scurrilous accusations on the husband - a bereaved husband who has quite clearly set out what has happened.

There is no really shame or limit to the depth of depravity to which they will sink. Despite living in the 21st century they continue to insist that a woman's reproductive health is a religious issue that should be under the dominion of the outdated beliefs of the RCC and will do just about anything to achieve this aim.

If I could leave this forsaken hole of a country - I would do it tomorrow...

gozunda wrote: »

And what in hell does that have relevance to anything that happened???

It's a conspiracy so it is begob! Talking about clutching at straws. A woman died in barbaric circumstances and ( queue irony) 'pro lifers' are getting their knickers in a knot of who found out first???

More importantly I would ask why was this matter which happened at the end of October did not make the news earlier. It took the husband to bring it to the attention of the majority of people in this country.

I'd say you love the sound of your own voice, I posted the link, I did not write it.

I asked if anyone heard the husband did not want a termination at first, hardly a crime is it?

For your information I'm neither pro choice or pro life. I would support abortion up to twelve weeks to save the life of the mother.
My personal opinion even if it became a choice of baby or mother the day of the full term birth I would always choose the life of the mother.

Magenta

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.

Right, so because India isn't perfect, they're not allowed a say on anything? Which country is it that's so perfect, that if one of their natives died because the doctors prioritised a dying foetus, that country would be entitled to say something? Ireland isn't perfect, so if an Irish woman died in India over the same circumstances, I assume you think would we not be entitled to say something?

Maggie 2

Wacker The Attacker wrote: »

Wouldnt it be best for everyone involved to wait for the full details of this case to be made known?

Nobody knows for sure what really happened

But why let the truth get in the way of a good story. Terribly sad, but is being hijacked by the pro crowd, which is disgraceful.

Wacker The Attacker

Maggie 2 wrote: »

But why let the truth get in the way of a good story. Terribly sad, but is being hijacked by the pro crowd, which is disgraceful.

It would appear that way at first glance. It would have made far more sense for everyone concerned to find out exactly what happened first.

seb65

billybudd wrote: »

http://digitaljournal.com/article/274825

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/09/04/shona-holmes-koch-brothers-ad_n_1854773.html


http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1175329--mentally-ill-female-prisoners-treated-cruelly-inhumanly-report-finds

http://rabble.ca/podcasts/shows/redeye/2009/04/un-committee-highly-critical-canadas-treatment-women

http://www.care2.com/news/member/193692282/3471369


http://www.reformtalk.net/2012/07/23/how-could-you-hall-of-shame-allen-charles-davidsoncanada-child-death/


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ottawa-spends-3-million-to-battle-first-nations-child-welfare-case/article4581093/

Quite bad when Syria is looking down on you.

Yep Canada has problems. Not quite sure why you put up an anti-obama ad attacking Canada's free healthcare though? Seems lots of Irish people going to Canada are enjoying our free healthcare. My grandparents have had cancer and a quadruple bypass between and received the most excellent care, all for free.

I've advocated for women's rights and aboriginals when at home, volunteered hundreds of hours to assist women living in poverty, so I'm not quite the hypocrite you seem to be calling me.

daisybelle2008

Wacker The Attacker wrote: »

Wouldnt it be best for everyone involved to wait for the full details of this case to be made known?

Nobody knows for sure what really happened

That's true but at least it has opened the discussion on the lack of legislation which is an issue independent of this case. There seems to be very few happy to leave the legislation as it is. I guess people need to think about what kind of legislation would be most acceptable to the majority.

For example I realise that that my views would never be accepted by the majority so it is good to get a feel for what would be majorly accepted. I do feel that it has been 20 years since there has been an opportunity for the electorate to amend the constitution on any aspect of abortion. I would think opinion has changed so much in that time that it needs to be reviewed. Look at the divorce referendum for example? I think the vote would not be that close today as it was in '94.

Nodin

seb65 wrote: »

Yep Canada has problems. Not quite sure why you put up an anti-obama ad attacking Canada's free healthcare though? Seems lots of Irish people going to Canada are enjoying our free healthcare. My grandparents have had cancer and a quadruple bypass between and received the most excellent care, all for free.

I've advocated for women's rights and aboriginals when at home, volunteered hundreds of hours to assist women living in poverty, so I'm not quite the hypocrite you seem to be calling me.

Some people are overly sensitive. I'd pay them little heed, were I you.

LizT

Maggie 2 wrote: »

But why let the truth get in the way of a good story. Terribly sad, but is being hijacked by the pro crowd, which is disgraceful.

Pro choice or pro life?
I know people with either view who marched for savita because they want legislation that protects women like her.

The issue here shouldn't be are you pro choice or pro life but it's unfortunately heading that way.

Nodin

daisybelle2008 wrote: »

That's true but at least it has opened the discussion on the lack of legislation which is an issue independent of this case. There seems to be very few happy to leave the legislation as it is. I guess people need to think about what kind of legislation would be most acceptable to the majority.

For example I realise that that my views would never be accepted by the majority so it is good to get a feel for what would be majorly accepted. I do feel that it has been 20 years since there has been an opportunity for the electorate to amend the constitution on any aspect of abortion. I would think opinion has changed so much in that time that it needs to be reviewed. Look at the divorce referendum for example? I think the vote would not be that close today as it was in '94.

You're still not going to get abortion on demand though. Thats a few bridges away yet. Likewise, its pointless to have a referendum when the sum result of the last 3 has yet to be legislated on....we're effectively still operating under the 1861 offences against the person act.

Wacker The Attacker

daisybelle2008 wrote: »

That's true but at least it has opened the discussion on the lack of legislation which is an issue independent of this case. There seems to be very few happy to leave the legislation as it is. I guess people need to think about what kind of legislation would be most acceptable to the majority.

For example I realise that that my views would never be accepted by the majority so it is good to get a feel for what would be majorly accepted. I do feel that it has been 20 years since there has been an opportunity for the electorate to amend the constitution on any aspect of abortion. I would think opinion has changed so much in that time that it needs to be reviewed. Look at the divorce referendum for example? I think the vote would not be that close today as it was in '94.

Discussing legislation on its own is fine. That's how it should be.

I don't understand why a) A case like this has been used as the conduit for discussion and b) How it hasnt happened before now.

If discussion of legislation is to take place then fine but I just think it is unwise to cite this particular case as a justification one way or the other for the the time being.

strandroad

Wacker The Attacker wrote: »

Discussing legislation on its own is fine. That's how it should be.

I don't understand why a) A case like this has been used as the conduit for discussion and b) How it hasnt happened before now.

If discussion of legislation is to take place then fine but I just think it is unwise to cite this particular case as a justification one way or the other for the the time being.

I don't think it's just this particular case though. Similar stories are emerging now, like the one of a woman who was denied termination and made to carry an unviable foetus for weeks, even though she was bleeding all the time and had hemorrhages.

A dry legislation discussion has been taking place forever but it's these actual examples that make people understand how much is swept under the carpet and exported.

We should wait for reports to establish fully the chain of events in Savita's case but the mechanisms and other cases that were exposed along the way are worth discussion as well. I prefer to be informed about what may happen to me in a hospital - lawfully- if I ever find myself there.

Wacker The Attacker

mhge wrote: »

I don't think it's just this particular case though. Similar stories are emerging now, like the one of a woman who was denied termination and made to carry an unviable foetus for weeks, even though she was bleeding all the time and had hemorrhages.

A dry legislation discussion has been taking place forever but it's these actual examples that make people understand how much is swept under the carpet and exported.

We should wait for reports to establish fully the chain of events in Savita's case but the mechanisms and other cases that were exposed along the way are worth discussion as well. I prefer to be informed about what may happen to me in a hospital - lawfully- if I ever find myself there.

Then shouldnt cases be used where the full facts are known.

strandroad

Wacker The Attacker wrote: »

Then shouldnt cases be used where the full facts are known.

Facts about the law and practice are indeed known and have been for a long time. These cases, confirmed or unconfirmed, only drag them from under the carpet into the light.

Laneyh

Wacker The Attacker wrote: »

Wouldnt it be best for everyone involved to wait for the full details of this case to be made known?

Nobody knows for sure what really happened

She went into hospital, she never came back out
The inquiries will hopefully in time reveal full details of the case.

However, what it has highlighted is the legal uncertainty that exists in relation to medical action which can be taken in circumstances such as this.
In the specific case of Savita her family and interested parties will need to wait for the results of the inquiries before they know what legal recourse they have.

In terms of the law and lack of coherent legislation I don't see the need to wait - a problem has been highlighted the sooner it is addressed the better. The government have never done anything quickly so I wouldn't see this will be any different. They'll be setting up committees and sub-committees and hoping it all dies down and then unanimously voting to break for Christmas holidays

Maggie 2

The very least that should be allowed is where a fetus is incompatible with life, that termination should be an option, after getting 2 opinions.
The issue of suicide is another subject totally and leads to abortion on demand.
What we don't know is -
1 - Was Savitas life was in danger when she requested an abortion?
2 - Did any professional medical person say that as she is now in a Catholic Country, that her request could not be considered.

Wacker The Attacker

mhge wrote: »

Facts about the law and practice are indeed known and have been for a long time. These cases, confirmed or unconfirmed, only drag them from under the carpet into the light.

Then why havent they been acted upon before now.

Besides how can unconfirmed cases of anything drag facts from "under the carpet into the light"

MagicSean

Maggie 2 wrote: »

The very least that should be allowed is where a fetus is incompatible with life, that termination should be an option, after getting 2 opinions.
The issue of suicide is another subject totally and leads to abortion on demand.
What we don't know is -
1 - Was Savitas life was in danger when she requested an abortion?
2 - Did any professional medical person say that as she is now in a Catholic Country, that her request could not be considered.

How exactly does suicide lead to abortion on demand?

Wacker The Attacker

Maggie 2 wrote: »

The very least that should be allowed is where a fetus is incompatible with life, that termination should be an option, after getting 2 opinions.
The issue of suicide is another subject totally and leads to abortion on demand.
What we don't know is -
1 - Was Savitas life was in danger when she requested an abortion?
2 - Did any professional medical person say that as she is now in a Catholic Country, that her request could not be considered.

As was remarked on Vincent Brownes programme the other night, How does abortion relieve suicidal tendencies?

Is there anything to support this?

daisybelle2008

Nodin wrote: »

You're still not going to get abortion on demand though. Thats a few bridges away yet. Likewise, its pointless to have a referendum when the sum result of the last 3 has yet to be legislated on....we're effectively still operating under the 1861 offences against the person act.

But the freedom to travel and freedom of speech aspects of abortion referendums were legislated by being written into the constitution. It is a Supreme Court ruling that has not been legislated on, that is a different matter.
The eighth amendment was a pointless but is still constitutional.

strandroad

Wacker The Attacker wrote: »

Then why havent they been acted upon before now.

Because it's not in the interest of the politicians and most people didn't care enough as long as you could "take the boat". Now they see that the boat is not enough.

Wacker The Attacker wrote: »

Besides how can unconfirmed cases of anything drag facts from "under the carpet into the light"

Even fictional cases can if they highlight existing mechanisms.

Laneyh

LizT wrote: »

Pro choice or pro life?
I know people with either view who marched for savita because they want legislation that protects women like her.

The issue here shouldn't be are you pro choice or pro life but it's unfortunately heading that way.

That will happen once the word abortion is mentioned no matter what the context.
It seems to be the most incendiary word in Ireland

Wacker The Attacker

Laneyh wrote: »

She went into hospital, she never came back out
The inquiries will hopefully in time reveal full details of the case.

However, what it has highlighted is the legal uncertainty that exists in relation to medical action which can be taken in circumstances such as this.
In the specific case of Savita her family and interested parties will need to wait for the results of the inquiries before they know what legal recourse they have.

In terms of the law and lack of coherent legislation I don't see the need to wait - a problem has been highlighted the sooner it is addressed the better. The government have never done anything quickly so I wouldn't see this will be any different. They'll be setting up committees and sub-committees and hoping it all dies down and then unanimously voting to break for Christmas holidays

Men have gone into hospital and never come back out.

This is exactly my point. If people are going to cite medical examples to back up their position, they need to know exactly what the circumstances are\were. Using examples that are unclear is a futile exercise.

You've even said yourself that even the family wont know their position until this situation has been resolved.

daisybelle2008

Wacker The Attacker wrote: »

Discussing legislation on its own is fine. That's how it should be.

I don't understand why a) A case like this has been used as the conduit for discussion and b) How it hasnt happened before now.

If discussion of legislation is to take place then fine but I just think it is unwise to cite this particular case as a justification one way or the other for the the time being.

True there are enough first hand accounts to evidence how the lack of legislation is negatively affecting people. I'm glad we are not happily letting politicians sit on their hands about it.

billybudd

seb65 wrote: »

Yep Canada has problems. Not quite sure why you put up an anti-obama ad attacking Canada's free healthcare though? Seems lots of Irish people going to Canada are enjoying our free healthcare. My grandparents have had cancer and a quadruple bypass between and received the most excellent care, all for free.

I've advocated for women's rights and aboriginals when at home, volunteered hundreds of hours to assist women living in poverty, so I'm not quite the hypocrite you seem to be calling me.

Was not about Obama problems she was told she had to travel out side Canadian jurisdiction to have medical procedure or she would die.

I am not attacking Canada far from it, your attacks countless times have been leveled at Ireland and not the problem.

I applaud you if true that you devote time to a good cause.


My father has had horrific health problems and recieved excellent care in Ireland and for free.


Attack the problem and not the country and i will agree with you 100%.

Nodin nothing to do with being sensitive.

MagicSean

daisybelle2008 wrote: »

But the freedom to travel and freedom of speech aspects of abortion referendums were legislated by being written into the constitution. It is a Supreme Court ruling that has not been legislated on, that is a different matter.
The eighth amendment was a pointless but is still constitutional.

Having something in the constitution does not make it legislated for. The constitution states an abortion is allowed when the mothers life is in danger. The Xcase was about suicide. It's decision really how's no relevance to Savita.

Wacker The Attacker

mhge wrote: »

Because it's not in the interest of the politicians and most people didn't care enough as long as you could "take the boat". Now they see that the boat is not enough.



Even fictional cases can if they highlight existing mechanisms.

It's not so much the interests of politicians, it's more a case of trying to avoid a political hot potato.

Both sides can use "fictional" cases to suit their arguments.

Besides no matter how this is legislated for there'll be legals challenges

Rascasse

MagicSean wrote: »

Having something in the constitution does not make it legislated for. The constitution states an abortion is allowed when the mothers life is in danger. The Xcase was about suicide. It's decision really how's no relevance to Savita.

You keep making the point that the X case was about suicide, but they ruled that the mother has the right to life under 40.3.3. That includes suicide (but not solely) thus the precedent set is relavent. This has been confirmed by the professor at TCD (specialising in constitutional law) and others.

Edit. Justice Egan in the ruling:

In my opinion the true test should be that a pregnancy may be terminated if its continuance as a matter of probability involves a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother. The risk must be to her life but it is irrelevant, in my view, that it should be a risk of self-destruction rather than a risk to life for any other reason. The evidence establishes that such a risk exists in the present case.

Wacker The Attacker

daisybelle2008 wrote: »

True there are enough first hand accounts to evidence how the lack of legislation is negatively affecting people. I'm glad we are not happily letting politicians sit on their hands about it.

The public have had their part in letting politicians get away with the lack of coherent legislation too.

Maggie 2

MagicSean wrote: »

How exactly does suicide lead to abortion on demand?

By claiming to commit suicide unless an abortion is carried out!
I'm not saying abortion on demand is wrong, it just may be too much for the Irish public. Common sense would suggest that the removal of an unviable fetus should be the least available now.

daisybelle2008

MagicSean wrote: »

Having something in the constitution does not make it legislated for. The constitution states an abortion is allowed when the mothers life is in danger. The Xcase was about suicide. It's decision really how's no relevance to Savita.

It is as legislated for as you can get. The problem is the ambiguity of interpretation, which was kind of intentional with the wording of the eighth and has caused a lot of the problems.

Laneyh

Wacker The Attacker wrote: »

Men have gone into hospital and never come back out.

This is exactly my point. If people are going to cite medical examples to back up their position, they need to know exactly what the circumstances are\were. Using examples that are unclear is a futile exercise.

You've even said yourself that even the family wont know their position until this situation has been resolved.

Well obviously men,women and children have gone into hospital and subsequently died there.

In the fullness of time perhaps the inquests will show that Savita's life couldn't have been saved no matter what - I personally would be extremely sceptical of this but I'm not a medical professional and I don't have the case notes / hospital records at my disposal. So in that sense I am not in possession of the full facts.

However, at no point has anyone said that what has been reported thus far is false or misleading. So, it would appear to be a fact that an abortion was requested a number of times and that this was refused owing to legal restrictions.

People are citing this case to highlight the lack of clarity in the law.

People also take issue with what was reportedly said - not just that a termination could not be offered because of the law but because we're a Catholic country. The majority religion of the country should not have any bearing on medical decisions so if this was said it is highly offensive and wrong.

There are many things we don't know about the case - we don't know the nationality of the doctors treating the woman or anything about their beliefs but the point is we shouldn't need to know that. They either know what medical action they can and can't make or they don't

It would appear they don't have a coherent enough framework to hand so they don't know what they can or can't do.

This is what people want to clarify and change.

As to the 'catholic' element to the story - that is a disgrace. If a man or boy from another religion was subject to a botched circumcision, admitted themselves to hospital and requested help would we say sorry we can't help you because we're catholic and don't believe in circumcision

Tinker13

Laneyh wrote: »

So, it would appear to be a fact that an abortion was requested a number of times and that this was refused owing to legal restrictions.

People also take issue with what was reportedly said - not just that a termination could not be offered because of the law but because we're a Catholic country.

I've read some of the international press coverage and they seem to be take the 2nd point above as fact. I believe however that this is not the same as the first point.

gozunda

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

I'd say you love the sound of your own voice, I posted the link, I did not write it.

I'd say you are reverting to personal insults when anyone makes an objective critiscism of your 'information". The link and its contents have about much relevance to this matter as an bicycle on a motorway...

I asked if anyone heard the husband did not want a termination at first, hardly a crime is it?

You quoted an unsourced soundbite that at best is an insult to the bereaved family and husband imo. I pointed this out - is there an issue with that?

For your information I'm neither pro choice or pro life. I would support abortion up to twelve weeks to save the life of the mother.
My personal opinion even if it became a choice of baby or mother the day of the full term birth I would always choose the life of the mother.

Well hit me with a feather hammer...

gozunda

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Jesus i regret saying anything now. Some people on here have an incessant need to attack anyone or anything that has the misfortune to utter a word they dont approve of.

I only said to be fair because the poster who originally posted the story was belittled and the story dismissed as made up because of the source. I had seen the story on the indendent site and just decided to mention that the story wasnt made up.

Incorrect . The relevance of the link in the post was questioned - no one was 'belittled". I asked exactly what does "when" anyone actually found out have to do with the issue of this woman dying in barbaric circumstances? For 'pro-lifers' to then attemp to sieze a moral highground because someone may or maynot found out about this womans death and sought to bring it public or even to demonstrate their disgust at what happened whether as a group or an individual is immaterial to the matter at hand.