Pregnant woman dies in UCHG after being refused a termination

Laneyh

Tinker13 wrote: »

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.

Yeah in the grand scheme of things I don't care that much about how we're being portrayed in the international press but it is being taken as fact

Also it implies that we collectively as an entire nation are staunch Catholics and this serves as a complete explanation for our laws.

Spain and Italy are Catholic countries , England and Holland are Protestant but I couldn't envisage a scenario where a similar event in those counties would be explained away on a faith basis

EmptyTree

daisybelle2008 wrote: »

It is as legislated for as you can get.

There is a difference between what is in the constituition and legislation. What is in the constitution provides the framework for leglislation to be built around.

daisybelle2008 wrote: »

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.

If leglislation was provided (and properly drafted) it would should remove all ambiguity.

daisybelle2008

EmptyTree wrote: »

There is a difference between what is in the constituition and legislation. What is in the constitution provides the framework for leglislation to be built around.



If leglislation was provided (and properly drafted) it would should remove all ambiguity.

You misunderstood my point. How can you have enactable legislation on abortion that is not written into the constitution?

Legislation once drafted needs to be via an amendment to the constitution surely. How do you provide for legislation outside of the constitution that doesn't leave you in the limbo of the Supreme Court ruling? If the legislation isn't written into the constitution how is that going to resolve the issue?

And if not legislated for via a constitutional referendum how do the public get say?

ASVM

ASVM wrote: »

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.

This is my re - post.

gozunda

Mr.S wrote: »

Excellent video from yesterday's march

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5dBy9GZtLs

Thanks for that

Chilling and inspirational....

whatdoicare

ASVM wrote: »

This is my re - post.

I am absolutely shocked by your treatment! I really feel for you, at every step you were treated with no regard to your health physically or mentally!

I can't believe that not only did the people who were supposed to look after you allowed you to go home not fully knowing how sick you were as they only found after the fact that you had ecoli, they made you wait for a second opinion, go through labour for no reason (which I can only imagine was horrific for you) and to add insult to injury your baby was offered an unmarked grave!

Sadly, I know three friends between the ages of 24 to 36,so not a long time ago but recently, who experienced the same horrific treatment. I have one friend who had a complete breakdown after going through a lengthy painful labour to birth her dead baby. The doctor met her before releasing her and started talking about trying for the next baby- she was in shock, just gone through labour and this fool was trying to talk about the next baby! There is no after care offered for the mental health of women after these traumatic experiences, you're expected to just get over it and carry on.

Things badly need to change in this country and now rather than later!

EmptyTree

daisybelle2008 wrote: »

How do you provide for legislation outside of the constitution that doesn't leave you in the limbo of the Supreme Court ruling?

The Supreme Court considered the constitutional provision i.e. the right of the unborn to life, but ruled that while abortion would generally be unlawful, there would be exceptional circumstances where this would not be so i.e. substantial risk to the life of the mother.

So while the constitution does recognise the rights of the unborn, legislation can still be fashioned around this to provide for an exceptional set of circumstances where abortion could be permitted.

In anticipation of the next question - how far legislation can go before it is in contravention of the constitution and an amendment would be required - I don't know.

Because this is such a divisive issue, and because the Government are sailing so close to the wind constitutionally - yes, a referendum may well take place to allow the people have their say even though it may not be required (in the strictest sense)

daisybelle2008 wrote: »

If the legislation isn't written into the constitution how is that going to resolve the issue?

As per my previous post, while legislation and the constitution are inextricably linked, they aren't the same thing. e.g. every time a new drink drive law is made, legislation is written to provide for this, but it does not require a change to the constitution.

But yes, you are correct, without legislation nothing will get resolved.

daisybelle2008

MagicSean wrote: »

The constitution states an abortion is allowed when the mothers life is in danger.

But where in the constitution is that explicitly stated(section/article)?. My understanding is that a ruling on the wording of the eighth amedendment regarding the 'mothers right to life' has been interpreted as above in a court ruling. That gives precedence but not enforceable legislation if I understand correctly. If challenged the same wording could play top trumps with either life.

HeyThereDeliah

whatdoicare wrote: »

I am absolutely shocked by your treatment! I really feel for you, at every step you were treated with no regard to your health physically or mentally!

I can't believe that not only did the people who were supposed to look after you allowed you to go home not fully knowing how sick you were as they only found after the fact that you had ecoli, they made you wait for a second opinion, go through labour for no reason (which I can only imagine was horrific for you) and to add insult to injury your baby was offered an unmarked grave!

Sadly, I know three friends between the ages of 24 to 36,so not a long time ago but recently, who experienced the same horrific treatment. I have one friend who had a complete breakdown after going through a lengthy painful labour to birth her dead baby. The doctor met her before releasing her and started talking about trying for the next baby- she was in shock, just gone through labour and this fool was trying to talk about the next baby! There is no after care offered for the mental health of women after these traumatic experiences, you're expected to just get over it and carry on.

Things badly need to change in this country and now rather than later!

You know even if a woman goes full term and the baby dies she has to deliver it naturally, how would you suggest they take the baby from the womb?

I know I would prefer to deliver it myself rather than have someone scrape away at my insides.

poeticseraphim

Prof Eamon O'Dywer of NUIG himself has stated that Savita should have been given a termination in his opinion.
http://www.independent.ie/national-n...y-3296308.html

Quote:
Prof O'Dwyer said that from the information available to him, he believed that Ms Halappanavar should have been given a termination.
It was in the Irish Independant yesterday.

Bear in mind he is one of the most pro-life medical doctors in the country ...verging on extreme infact.

Infact he is known for very conservative and at times extreme catholic views on many issues. And yes this does have bearing in this case.


He has been a staunch defender of the church and the Christian brothers in particular... http://www.irishsalem.com/religious-...rs-06nov03.php


He has also been involved with Youth Defense...

He wrote in2000

http://www.youthdefence.ie/am_cms_me...ay-leaflet.pdf

Quote:
– There is no conflict of interest between the mother and her unborn
child
– There are no medical indications for abortion
– There is no risk to the mother that can be avoided by abortion
– Prohibition of deliberate intentional abortion will not affect, in any
way, the availability of all necessary care for the pregnant woman.”
Eamon O’Dwyer MB, MAO, LLB, FRCPI, FRCOG
Professor Emeritus, Obstetrics and Gynaecology, NUI Galway

I understand that was 12 yrs ago and people can change a lot in 12 years. But to go from saying a woman never needs a termination to saying that in his opinion a woman should have been given a termination is quite a change.

Quote:
In evidence to the All Party Oireachtas Committee, 2000
“…those who want abortion – and there are people who want abortion,
there are colleagues of mine who want abortion – are masters at muddying
the waters and bringing in things that have no relevance whatsoever
to the discussion, for example, ectopic pregnancy.……There is
not a country in the world that regards the treatment of ectopic pregnancy
as abortion. The only time I ever heard it was from a few people
here in Ireland. It is just nonsense.”
Dr PJK Conway, Consultant and Obstetrician

This groups ethos seems to be..a) A woman never needs an abortion b) and even if she does it is not an abortion.

This is a worrying find. There are doctors who are so pro-life ..yet dedicated doctors....and their is a contradiction that even their great intelligence cannot handle ..and they must lie to themselves...or others to subvert law making.

This makes no sense to me ??? Does it to anyone else????

Also ..Prof Eamon O'Dywer has not PUBLICLY said his opinion is that Savita SHOULD have been given a termination....This is is an adamant pro-lifer here...if he think she should have....well quite frankly that can't be dismissed.

What worries me is the bizzarre logic of these men and the fact that they are men of huge influence in Irish maternal medicine.

Prof Eamon O'Dywer has suggested international experts should investigate as he feels Irish doctors are too close and could not be non biased he has said.


What on earth is going here???



Eamon O'Dwyer, MAO, LLB, FRCPI, FRCOG, was Professor of Gynaecology & Obstetrics at N.U.I., Galway for 35 years. A graduate of University College, Dublin is as a doctor well respected for his opinion.


I think this is weighing heavy on him...understandably.

As regards DR Conway...sorry to bring up the church again...but it considers direct abortion in ectopic pregnancy murder...it allows the tube to be removed ...making the mother infertile and indirectly aborting the fetus...
Compare it with church teaching

Quote:
"the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever". This view was also advocated by Pius XII in a 1953 address to the Italian Association of Urology.[39]

Using the Thomistic Principle of Totality (removal of a pathological part to preserve the life of the person) and the Doctrine of Double Effect, the only moral action in an ectopic pregnancy where a woman's life is directly threatened is the removal of the tube containing the human embryo (salpingectomy). The death of the human embryo is unintended although foreseen.[40]

Dr Conway has a CATHOLIC VIEWPOINT ON THIS IT IS NOT A MEDICAL ONE IT IS CATHOLIC CHURCH TEACHING..HE SAID THIS TO AN OIREACHTAS COMMITEE. OUTRAGEOUS.

I know people do not want to keep bringing in the church but these doctors are forming medical opinions against mainstream medicine. The church seems to be the only institution that says that 'Abortion in times of eptopic pregnancy is not abortion' ..why is DR Conway going against mainstream medical teaching? And is he putting for ward the method of TUBE REMOVAL before direct abortion then??


I am losing faith in Irish medicine...and BS this is not a systematic institutional problem..there is an obvious culture in Irish institutions....it needs to be outed ASAP.

I don't think I am overreacting.

poeticseraphim

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

You know even if a woman goes full term and the baby dies she has to deliver it naturally, how would you suggest they take the baby from the womb?

I know I would prefer to deliver it myself rather than have someone scrape away at my insides.

Savita had requested to be allowed a termination..so she obviously did not want to do it as you would.

We respect your right to do it your way.

It can be physically so much more painful. You might prefer it thats fine..others would not..that should be respected as choice.

Savita did not have her wishes respected.

gozunda

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

You know even if a woman goes full term and the baby dies she has to deliver it naturally, how would you suggest they take the baby from the womb?

As per normal medical procedure. This is well established and not something that is a exceptional medical procedure.

I know I would prefer to deliver it myself rather than have someone scrape away at my insides.

In the cases of certain conditions - encephalopathy etc this is not an option. Having any surgical procedure may involve 'scraping away at (your) insides' (sic) If you have a specific phobia about such a procedure I can understand that. However to do so may well carry an increased risk of infection and also to the life of the mother.

Where the foetus is dead this in effect is no different to any other surgical procedure. Even where there is a heartbeat but the foetus is not viable this is highlighted as best medical practice.

Lingua Franca

poeticseraphim wrote: »

I understand that was 12 yrs ago and people can change a lot in 12 years. But to go from saying a woman never needs a termination to saying that in his opinion a woman should have been given a termination is quite a change.

He was saying it in September. In fact, he gathered a whole bunch of pro-life activists who happen to be medical professionals (or vice versa if you prefer) to say the same thing. Pro life campaigners, lobbyists and just ordinary folk have been touting it as the official last word on the subject.

It's odd to see him do a complete 180 on the subject in just 2 months.

seb65

Lingua Franca wrote: »

He was saying it in September. In fact, he gathered a whole bunch of pro-life activists who happen to be medical professionals (or vice versa if you prefer) to say the same thing. Pro life campaigners, lobbyists and just ordinary folk have been touting it as the official last word on the subject.

It's odd to see him do a complete 180 on the subject in just 2 months.

Another man deciding what women should be allowed to do with their own bodies. Makes me sick!

All doctors that signed this "Dublin Declaration" should have their medical licenses revoked. I've never heard such idiocy.

strandroad

Lingua Franca wrote: »

He was saying it in September. In fact, he gathered a whole bunch of pro-life activists who happen to be medical professionals (or vice versa if you prefer) to say the same thing. Pro life campaigners, lobbyists and just ordinary folk have been touting it as the official last word on the subject.

It's odd to see him do a complete 180 on the subject in just 2 months.

Is he directly involved with the hospital/ward Savita was admitted to?

golden lane

is there more women than men voters in ireland....????

ASVM

whatdoicare wrote: »

I am absolutely shocked by your treatment! I really feel for you, at every step you were treated with no regard to your health physically or mentally!

I can't believe that not only did the people who were supposed to look after you allowed you to go home not fully knowing how sick you were as they only found after the fact that you had ecoli, they made you wait for a second opinion, go through labour for no reason (which I can only imagine was horrific for you) and to add insult to injury your baby was offered an unmarked grave!

Sadly, I know three friends between the ages of 24 to 36,so not a long time ago but recently, who experienced the same horrific treatment. I have one friend who had a complete breakdown after going through a lengthy painful labour to birth her dead baby. The doctor met her before releasing her and started talking about trying for the next baby- she was in shock, just gone through labour and this fool was trying to talk about the next baby! There is no after care offered for the mental health of women after these traumatic experiences, you're expected to just get over it and carry on.

Things badly need to change in this country and now rather than later!

Thank you for your understanding. I just wanted to tell my story so that people can see what is actually going on in maternity hospitals.Apart from being sent home and then having to give birth I am also angry that I was not told till after the birth that we would have to bury the baby. That was very difficult for us we were very ill prepared for it and YES being offered an unmarked grave is absolutely shocking in 21st century Ireland.It is nearly four years ago now and since then we have had another baby healthy and happy thankfully.This whole issue of Savita is very close to my heart and I really hope her death will now mean that people will sit up and take notice.

Solair

There's one thing that's annoying me though:

I keep hearing this line being spouted that Ireland has one of the lowest maternal death rates in the world *because* of our position on abortion when in fact, it should be *despite* our position on abortion.

The two things don't seem to correlate at all.

One can only conclude that the obstetric practices in Ireland are top notch, despite this crazy legal setup and total lack of clarity.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/apr/12/maternal-mortality-rates-millennium-development-goals

You would have to wonder how many Irish women are forced into a situation where they have to have terminations in the UK to prevent their lives being at risk should one be unavailable here.

I don't really see how anyone could argue against legislation based on the outcome of the "x case" regardless of what their position is. That would be an incredibly conservative law on abortion rights! It's only a clarification of the constitutional position.

Women should have a choice in this area and I definitely do think it's time we had an actual referendum on this. Not one with some wishy-washy obscure wording on it.

Something along the lines of :

Option A: Keep status quo (with clarified legislation)
Option B: Step into line with the UK or perhaps some slightly less liberal situation, but a clear set of rules laid out so people know exactly what they are voting for.

and give people a CLEAR choice on the matter.

I think part of the problem with Irish referenda (on lots of issues e.g. the most recent children's rights one) is that they we keep giving people confusing, nuanced constitutional amendments that nobody really apart from the few of us who have studied law, politics or have a major interest in it understand.

A referendum like that will be very divisive and the debates will be hot and heavy, but so is the issue and the debate needs to be clear and the outcome of any referendum decisive.

It would be interesting to see what the people REALLY think in 2012 and not just give them some really vague options.

You can see the mess we end up with by refusing to discuss the matter and passing wishy-washy legislation / no legislation at all!

nicki116

Dodge wrote: »

Well both sides use generalities. There's no doubt in this country the driving force behind anti-choice propaganda is religon based (specifically Roman Catholic)

With the risk of sounding pompous, the greater argument is about freedom to choose. If we (again I'm generalising) didn't allow the catholic church hierarchy to have such a say in the country, and people decided to be anti-choice, then thats their decision

But there's absolutely no doubt that in this country, the vast majority of anti-choice campaigners are doing so because of their Catholicism

Okay I have decided to post to eradicate some of the myths I have found floating around and because people claim as a Catholic I shouldn't be allowed to express my opinion based on it. So what I have to say I support with scientific figures gathered during the recent census. 84% of the country is Catholic but mass attendance has dropped to 33% and below with Atheism and others on the rise among the under 30's. This has shown a massive change in Irish dynamics and corroborates with the 2010 Irish times behavior and social attitudes poll in which a majority of women want abortion to be legislated in Ireland. http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0330/1224314101049.html
http://www.banda.ie/political-social.html

This shows a general turn away from the church while we consider ourselves as still being Catholic, our views may be at odds with them. In this manner I believe that we differ on controversial issues and beliefs. However I would like to see a poll on whether we believe that abortion on demand or in medical reason is needed more or those who disprove of abortion outright.

There will always be extremists on both sides but I hold my beliefs not because the church tells me what to believe but because I have my own sense of what is right and wrong and I will stand up for them because thats who I am.

Solair

the key thing we need in the short term is legislation though to recognise the existing constitution situation and allow doctors to practice safe obstetric medicine!

Women simply cannot have a situation where that is ambiguous.

That is very urgent and cannot wait for a referendum.

The fact that is not there is practically a dereliction of duty by successive legislatures!

We do need further debate and liberalising of this though. It's just not realistic or honest as it stands.

gozunda

nicki116 wrote: »

Okay I have decided to post to eradicate some of the myths I have found floating around and because people claim as a Catholic I shouldn't be allowed to express my opinion based on it. ....

Nobody I know has any issues with individual opinion. However there is a huge difference between religious dogma and personal opinion in relation to the issue of the reproductive health of women. It is a fact that when religion centric dogma becomes enshrined in a countries treatment of its citizens then those with any alternative opinion to this dogma become effectively disenfranchised and discriminated against

nicki116 wrote: »

This shows a general turn away from the church while we consider ourselves as still being Catholic, our views may be at odds with them. In this manner I believe that we differ on controversial issues and beliefs. However I would like to see a poll on whether we believe that abortion on demand or in medical reason is needed more or those who disprove of abortion outright.

I am not catholic so I do not have this world vision. I find it distasteful that any catholic dogma should be fostered upon me as a citizen of this country. Neither do I see accept any argument that a womans reproductive health should be a issue under the dominion of any religious organization.

nicki116 wrote: »

There will always be extremists on both sides but I hold my beliefs not because the church tells me what to believe but because I have my own sense of what is right and wrong and I will stand up for them because thats who I am.

Unfortunately there is a history of the catholic church telling their adherents how to vote through the vehicle of Episcopal direction delivered at mass. This direction may not be taken up by all RC adherents but when the hierarchy of the RCC bring pressure to bear on the governance of the state - then there are very serious concerns of the RCC further exerting influence beyond their remit eg the reproductive rights of all woman whether catholic or otherwise

Again I will repeat there is no apparent issue with opinion however where religous dogma is held in primacy at a state level then there is huge problem.

drkpower

MagicSean wrote: »

The constitution states an abortion is allowed when the mothers life is in danger. .

No it does not.

It allows abortion where there is a substantial risk to the life of the mother. That is a very different thing to allowing abortion where the mothers life is in danger.

And what does 'a substantial risk' mean? Well, we dont know because there are no guidelines out there (legal or medical) explaining what it means.

poeticseraphim

Lingua Franca wrote: »

He was saying it in September. In fact, he gathered a whole bunch of pro-life activists who happen to be medical professionals (or vice versa if you prefer) to say the same thing. Pro life campaigners, lobbyists and just ordinary folk have been touting it as the official last word on the subject.

It's odd to see him do a complete 180 on the subject in just 2 months.

What was disturbing to me the most was that DR CONWAY.


Seemed to be espousing de facto tube removal (which would kill the fetus and affect a woman's fertility) for all ectopic pregnancies or that abortion was not abortion.

I want to know what kind of theraputic treatment DR CONWAY was recommending for the vast majority of ectopic pregnancies.

Either it is abortion or tube removal....and both cannot be suitable for any one case...medically it is one or the other...

If he went to An Oireachtas committee and said abortion is not abortion in ectopic pregnancy...that is outright lying...

If he was suggesting that tube removal might be suitable for all (which is not abortion but is needed in some ectopic pregnancies unfortunately but not all) THAT IS DANGEROUS..even if he is suggesting it to win over a committee.

It would be gross mutilation of a woman.

Perhaps he was saying that direct abortion in ectopic pregnancy is not abortion....but this is way out there from mainstream medicine

seb65

poeticseraphim wrote: »

What was disturbing to me the most was that DR CONWAY.


Seemed to be espousing de facto tube removal (which would kill the fetus and affect a woman's fertility) for all ectopic pregnancies or that abortion was not abortion.

I want to know what kind of theraputic treatment DR CONWAY was recommending for the vast majority of ectopic pregnancies.

Either it is abortion or tube removal....and both cannot be suitable for any one case...medically it is one or the other...

If he went to An Oireachtas committee and said abortion is not abortion in ectopic pregnancy...that is outright lying...

If he was suggesting that tube removal might be suitable for all (which is not abortion but is needed in some ectopic pregnancies unfortunately but not all) THAT IS DANGEROUS..even if he is suggesting it to win over a committee.

It would be gross mutilation of a woman.

Perhaps he was saying that direct abortion in ectopic pregnancy is not abortion....but this is way out there from mainstream medicine

Couldn't agree more. There are two other options without removing the tube, when possible:

http://www.americanpregnancy.org/pregnancycomplications/ectopicpregnancy.html

Butchering women for their own beliefs. Disgraceful.

poeticseraphim

nicki116 wrote: »

Okay I have decided to post to eradicate some of the myths I have found floating around and because people claim as a Catholic I shouldn't be allowed to express my opinion based on it. So what I have to say I support with scientific figures gathered during the recent census. 84% of the country is Catholic but mass attendance has dropped to 33% and below with Atheism and others on the rise among the under 30's. This has shown a massive change in Irish dynamics and corroborates with the 2010 Irish times behavior and social attitudes poll in which a majority of women want abortion to be legislated in Ireland. http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0330/1224314101049.html
http://www.banda.ie/political-social.html

This shows a general turn away from the church while we consider ourselves as still being Catholic, our views may be at odds with them. In this manner I believe that we differ on controversial issues and beliefs. However I would like to see a poll on whether we believe that abortion on demand or in medical reason is needed more or those who disprove of abortion outright.

There will always be extremists on both sides but I hold my beliefs not because the church tells me what to believe but because I have my own sense of what is right and wrong and I will stand up for them because thats who I am.

Hi niki...

I agree

I would like a poll too and a ref

A 2004 Crisis Pregnancy Agency study found 51% stating that women should always have to right to choose an abortion. (abortion on demand)

In 2007, an Irish Times Behaviour and Attitudes Poll found that 54% of women believe the Government should act to permit abortion.

In 2010, an Irish Examiner/Red C Poll found that 60% of people supported legal abortion and three in five people aged 18-35 believed abortion should be legalised.


This is almost three ago now since that last poll.


I would like to see a public poll on the following question...would you support legalizing abortion on demand up to 12 weeks and only times of medical necessity after? Or the current situation.

But there have been polls before that do show majority support specifically for abortion on demand as apposed to simply when the mother's life is at risk.

I realize it is divisive.

I actually believe that the majority of Irish people do support a pro-choice stance. At least in the early trimester.

We need a poll and a ref on it.
Both sides want it.

partyatmygaff

poeticseraphim wrote: »

We need a poll and a ref on it.
Both sides want it.

What is the point of a poll? After Hours and the subset of users who'll actively take part in a poll on abortion won't be at all representative of Irish society as a whole.

And once again, how is abortion on demand relevant?

JP Liz V1

Sorry dont all the facts here but why didnt the lady go to NI or UK to get the abortion or was there no time?

Flier

Noreen1 wrote: »

Of course an abortion is different from an induction.
However, the post I responded to initially said she requested an induction very soon after she first presented at the hospital.

I hope you're not referring to my post - I never said any such thing, and nothing I have read seems to said that Savita said it either. She wanted a termination.

Noreen1 wrote: »

Where I have issues, is when people make sweeping statements that the foetus was the cause of the infection.
Or that induction was the perfect solution.
Since she was already dilated, inducing (starting) labour would have been pretty pointless, would it not?

Then there's the issue of allegations of medical incompetence.
That's an allegation that I personally wouldn't make, unless I had proof.
Since the full facts of the case are not known, that proof is not available.

I never made any allegations of medical negligence. And it's hardly pushing the boundaries to accept that the foetus was the source of infection. Although I never said that it was a certainty. Why would I do that??
Where I have issues, is where people refuse to accept that a termination may have been the right thing to do.

Noreen1 wrote: »

Actually, I can definitively state that there is nothing unique about a prolonged miscarriage. They're not that uncommon. Contrary to some sweeping statements on this thread, a womans cervix isn't a trapdoor that snaps open and shut.
What is uncommon, however, is for a woman to be fully dilated, and not deliver within a couple of hours, (after which the cervix will slowly close.)

My comment to you was regarding antibiotics in misscarraige. It's always good to read the question before answering. And although I haven't read every posting on this thread I've yet to come across the ones where a woman's cervix is likened to a trap door.

Noreen1 wrote: »

Again. Explain how you formed the opinion that a doctor, who can see that a woman is either fully or partially dilated, would choose to induce labour immediately after a woman presents at the hospital, where there is no evidence, at that time, of further complications? Bearing in mind that her labour had already commenced?

Please point out where I made this assertion? I must be having abscence seizures as well as early dementia if I wrote that.


By the way, thanks for your little simplifications and explainations of medical terminology. I think I can manage without.
Still didn't get many of the answers I was looking for though.....

poeticseraphim

seb65 wrote: »

Couldn't agree more. There are two other options without removing the tube, when possible:

http://www.americanpregnancy.org/pregnancycomplications/ectopicpregnancy.html

Butchering women for their own beliefs. Disgraceful.

What I cannot understand is why no one in the Oireachtas siad...'erm hang on a sec...that is completely against current mainstream medical knowledge ethics and practice'..'UM OKAY BOB BYE NOW CRAZY MAN'

Either they were completely scientifically illiterate ..cowardly or...well morally dubious ..insane ...or all of these.

What worries me is that HE WAS a participating doctor ..did he advise women suffering from ectopic pregnancies that this was their only option...I BLOODY HOPE NOT..

This was the KIND of 'information' that was informing people that kept voting no on any legislation....legislation that could have saved Savita potentially

By the way
I just want to say something.

The removal of a fallopian tube being recommended by the church as the only moral option in an ectopic pregnancy is an argument i heard once before years ago.

It was the last abortion ref in a debate in my UNI..a Jesuit acedemic tried this....he suggested also abortion is never needed to save a woman's life...ectopic pregnancy was brought up....he said the same thing ..it is not an abortion....this seemed strange and when we questioned him on it we found out he really was talking about tube removal for every case...it is a round about ay of trying to covince people the only way to treat ectopic pregnancy is tube removal to avoid the fat that abortion is often medically essential....LIARS

We were university students....and WE were able to rip this guy apart then and there ..he lost that debate:):D:) ...and the pro-life side lost the ref

If we could see it was medically incorrect and logically deranged why cannot an oireachtas committee???

But it seems to me that church Doctrine HAS been influencing politics law and medical practice here in a dangerous immoral way.


ProO'Dywer has often leapt to the defense of the church on things like treatment of chidren in the past etc


It is ok to say that the church does not influence your decision..but it influences the information too...on what people think a fetus is or the idea of life from conception?? Where did that originate?...THE CHURCH..

The fact is religion has deeply influenced what people view a fetus as ..and manipulated the understanding of what abortion is

And it has taken a deliberate and clandestine approach.


I think personally it might be the case that we need to look into the beliefs of those who get into obstetrics or gynecology. Or medicine in general.

If it is influencing the way they work ...and even their belief in scientific and medical procedure we need to consider is this proper medical ethics??

I think medical ethics is unique and it should be paramount in medicine. Anyone entering the profession should understand that.

I think most do.

But this whole thing is terrifying..people keep saying Irish 'are safe'..erm no and i wish they would stop patronizing us...we decide when we feel safe..and they were saying we were safe years ago when they were cracking out pelvises open to discourage the use of contraception.

I understand my reaction could seem like hype...but i have seen Jesuits academic use the same logic as DR CONWAY and PRO O' DWYER before..it is chilling and it is a subversive campaign....

I am not feeling safe as a female in Ireland...not MY definition of safe anyway.

poeticseraphim

mhge wrote: »

Is he directly involved with the hospital/ward Savita was admitted to?

Yes
Prof Eamon O'Dwyer
He is HEAD of Obstetrics and Gynecology at University College Hospital Galway...for over 35 yrs

Not only that he would have had influence really nationally..he is /was involved in NUI too

strandroad

poeticseraphim wrote: »

Yes
Prof Eamon O'Dwyer
He is HEAD of Obstetrics and Gynecology at University College Hospital Galway...for over 35 yrs

Not only that he would have had influence really nationally..he is /was involved in NUI too

Thank you. I hope that the investigation will include him as well as his conferences, pledges and the general culture in the hospital under his supervision.

poeticseraphim

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Sorry dont all the facts here but why didnt the lady go to NI or UK to get the abortion or was there no time?

Probably because she was in agony and too sick to go...she was very ill

The point is they would not have known as lay people to go.

They were not going to be told by Irish doctors..you need to go to the UK...

She probably assumed ok I have asked for an abortion..they refused..at least they won't let me die

poeticseraphim

mhge wrote: »

Thank you. I hope that the investigation will include him as well as his conferences, pledges and the general culture in the hospital under his supervision.

He has suggested the investigation should be lead by international experts..not by people in Ireland ...i don't know if this is good or bad.

He himself said in a letter to the Tsaoiseach that Savita SHOULD have been given an abortion.

poeticseraphim

partyatmygaff wrote: »

What is the point of a poll? After Hours and the subset of users who'll actively take part in a poll on abortion won't be at all representative of Irish society as a whole.

And once again, how is abortion on demand relevant?

We need a referendum then.


It is relevant because Savita asked for one..she was denied....gaging medical risk is unclear....a request is not

Prof Eamon O'Dywer himself a pro-lifer (to a ridiculous degree)and Head of obstetrics and gynecology in UHC Galway has written in a letter to the Tsaoiseach she should have receive an abortion in his medical opinion.Obviously he thinks it was in her best health interests.

If we had abortion on demand her request would be enough..we don't and relying on gauging medical 'substantial risk to life ' has proven lethal.

Their have been statements from two Doctors who treated her who said they are certain they did what they could.

She would have gotten the abortion she needed through her own volition retrospectively had we had it on demand.
More than likely it would have saved her life.

O'Dywer has stated unequivocally in his medical opinion she should have had one. ( a bit late doc)
Both sides WANT a referendum for abortion on demand.....if a yes side wins it is clear.if a no side wins ..it is clear

It is absolutely relevant...she ased for one she did not get one ..not getting contributed to her death...gettin one could have saved her

And the Pro-life Prof O'ywer head of Obstetrics of the hospital....has said now she should have had one

Her decision and choice had a good chance of saving her...


It is partly because that choice and request was denied that she died

strandroad

poeticseraphim wrote: »

He himself said in a letter to the Tsaoiseach that Savita SHOULD have been given an abortion.

I would like him asked which one reflects his real opinion - the pledge or the letter; also which one he had trained into his staff.

Red Pepper

I am neary afraid to ask but do people think that the extreme reaction surrounding this desperately sad story is somewhat due to the high level of anger amongst Irish people for various reasons?

Are Irish people using this case to vent their fury at the government, church, HSE, media etc etc??
I mean we had a protest at the Dail within 24 hours of the news breaking and we have many marches and vigils planned.

Aiel

Here's another article you wont find in the Irish Times or on RTE;).

http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=949

daisybelle2008

poeticseraphim wrote: »

Yes
Prof Eamon O'Dwyer
He is HEAD of Obstetrics and Gynecology at University College Hospital Galway...for over 35 yrs

Not only that he would have had influence really nationally..he is /was involved in NUI too

I wonder if this has had any influence on the amount of options for women with ectopic pregnancies. Maybe not but would be interesting to see the stats. It is a relief that no symphysiotomys were performed in the Galway hospital.

LeeHoffmann

if a yes side wins it is clear.if a no side wins ..it is clear

I´m not sure about this. I´m not, for example, 100% clear on my own position re abortion, but I´d probably vote for it up to a point (maybe up to 7-8 weeks) but think the usual 12-week mark is too late. So if there was a referendum that asked ´are you in favour of abortion up to 12 weeks?´, I´d be in a bind. The timing is an important issue for many people considering this so I´m not certain that a no vote would clearly represent the true position of Irish society. Having said that, I totally agree that we need a referendum. I hope that there will be one and if there is, I pray that the wording will allow me (and others) to express our stance on the issue.

obplayer

Red Pepper wrote: »

I am neary afraid to ask but do people think that the extreme reaction surrounding this desperately sad story is somewhat due to the high level of anger amongst Irish people for various reasons.

Are Irish people using this case to vent their fury at the government, church, HSE, media etc etc??
I mean we had a protest at the Dail within 24 hours of the news breaking and we have many marches and vigils planned.

No, it is due to the high level of anger at the totally unnecessary death of a young woman because of adherence to mediaeval religious dogma.

LeeHoffmann

I am neary afraid to ask but do people think that the extreme reaction surrounding this desperately sad story is somewhat due to the high level of anger amongst Irish people for various reasons?

Are Irish people using this case to vent their fury at the government, church, HSE, media etc etc??
I mean we had a protest at the Dail within 24 hours of the news breaking and we have many marches and vigils planned.

If you mean whether the strong reaction is due to people´s anger over the financial crisis, then no I don´t think it is

drkpower

poeticseraphim wrote: »

Their have been statements from two Doctors who treated her who said they are certain they did what they could.

Have these been reported on/published in the media? Intereseted as to where you got this info from?

seb65

Red Pepper wrote: »

I am neary afraid to ask but do people think that the extreme reaction surrounding this desperately sad story is somewhat due to the high level of anger amongst Irish people for various reasons?

Are Irish people using this case to vent their fury at the government, church, HSE, media etc etc??
I mean we had a protest at the Dail within 24 hours of the news breaking and we have many marches and vigils planned.

I would say it's more people's unawareness that such treatment of women (based on the CC) was still occurring. All of the revelations of child abuse, laundries, etc have come out recently, but occurred years ago, so people probably thought "thank God society has moved beyond this". It made people angry and disillusioned with the church, but wasn't a direct threat to them today. However, this incident (and subsequent stories of how doctors have probably inflicted their belief system on women to deny them proper treatment) is a slap in the face to an already angry congregation.

franktheplank

I better post this here as my other thread was closed (fair enough I wasn't sure myself mods)

Sooo, do we now have to acknowledge that the consultant at the center of this case was a whistleblowing hero?

I mean all those people marching (to my knowledge) are laying the blame for this at the government and the constitution, right?

So, doesn't that make the consultant who spoke to Praveen a whistleblowing hero?

I mean he could have said nothing or lied and got on with his job but instead he put his neck on the line and spilt the beans?

franktheplank

Lingua Franca wrote: »

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.

Sush now, don't mention the dang feminists, it's that dang pope and that dang Illuminati what fixed the dang referendum.

mac.in

Noreen1 wrote: »

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

I don't know of which age you are speaking about the induction. But, cervical priming is done before induction for a convenient cervix; does it still hurt after priming? I don't know about it. I should take an opinion from those who have experience it lately.
Anyways what has happened with Savitha is bad if that could have been prevented. Let's hope for the best if there is any.

partyatmygaff

poeticseraphim wrote: »

We need a referendum then.

No we don't. All we need is clear legislation for therapeutic abortion. Abortion on demand is another issue and trying to use this woman's tragic case to benefit a completely different agenda is disingenuous at best.

It is relevant because Savita asked for one..she was denied....gaging medical risk is unclear....a request is not

Being allowed to choose how a miscarriage is managed, be it through an abortion or otherwise is one thing and it's perfectly relevant to this case. Being allowed to abort for any old reason is something completely different and has absolutely nothing to do with this case and to try and latch it on to this case seems a bit opportunistic.

Prof Eamon O'Dywer himself a pro-lifer (to a ridiculous degree)and Head of obstetrics and gynecology in UHC Galway has written in a letter to the Tsaoiseach she should have receive an abortion in his medical opinion.Obviously he thinks it was in her best health interests.

If we had abortion on demand her request would be enough..we don't and relying on gauging medical 'substantial risk to life ' has proven lethal.

She would have gotten the abortion she needed through her own volition retrospectively had we had it on demand.

You don't need abortion on demand for that. All you need is proper legislation for therapeutic abortion.

More than likely it would have saved her life.

More than likely? Why is it more than likely? It's perfectly likely that she would have died even with an abortion. If they missed the infection (Which is very possible) and it progressed to septicaemia she would have died in the exact same way.

O'Dywer has stated unequivocally in his medical opinion she should have had one. ( a bit late doc)
Both sides WANT a referendum for abortion on demand.....if a yes side wins it is clear.if a no side wins ..it is clear

I don't want a referendum on anything and in fact I don't know very many if any people who do. What most people and I want is proper legislation and guidelines for abortions in the course of providing therapy.

It is absolutely relevant...she ased for one she did not get one ..not getting contributed to her death...gettin one could have saved her

How are you certain of that?

And the Pro-life Prof O'ywer head of Obstetrics of the hospital....has said now she should have had one

You've repeated this over and over again. We get the point. You keep repeating things to the point that your posts are becoming incoherent rants.

franktheplank

partyatmygaff wrote: »

You keep repeating things to the point that your posts are becoming incoherent rants.

And flip-flopping between arguments, she started out with 'It's a woman's body' then it was 'Universal scientific fact' and now it's medical ethics.

She also had another poll going on voting to be either completely in favour of abortion or completely against it. Now she's extolling the virtues of being moderately pro-choice.

But what the hell i say, let her at it. Most of this thread is about hysteria and knee-jerk reaction anyway.

drkpower

franktheplank wrote: »

So, doesn't that make the consultant who spoke to Praveen a whistleblowing hero?

I mean he could have said nothing or lied and got on with his job but instead he put his neck on the line and spilt the beans?

Im not sure if answering a question from a patient's relative honestly amounts to being a whistleblowing hero. But i suppose its better than lying.

franktheplank

drkpower wrote: »

Im not sure if answering a question from a patient's relative honestly amounts to being a whistleblowing hero. But i suppose its better than lying.

Well surely he must have known he was dropping himself in it otherwise? I mean he must have known he was risking a woman's life and breaking every code of medical ethics because his hands were tied by the constitution, or why would he have said it?

Are all those thousands of people out marching last night gonna abandon this guy to face a series of investigations and the world's media on his own?

I thought you guys were so certain on this, his hands were tied by the constitution right, that's why Sativa died, not because of a poor individual decision?