Pregnant woman dies in UCHG after being refused a termination

gozunda

partyatmygaff wrote: »

...

This is just disingenuous. This case is about therapeutic abortion (Or any abortion in the course of providing therapy). Not about elective abortion. Trying to latch the two together in the hope of riding on the wave of sensationalism and emotion surrounding this case just screams of opportunism.

And what if the majority of women now wish for the right to self determination in relation to these issues.?

The tragic death of Savita Halappananaver has highlighted the absolute lack of control women have over their own reproductive health.

For such rights to be held under the dominion of religiously biased hierarchies means that women who become pregnant become the victims of circumstance.

Perhaps this tragedy will mark a watershed in women passively allowing such control to go unaccounted.

Change often involves a catalyst. It is indeed sad that it may take an incident such as this to become the catalyst for a positive change in who can control womens reproductive health.

Yes there is emotion, disgust and abhorrence that a woman was left to die without the benefit of what would be considered best practice. If women and men believe that this is the time for change then I for one will welcome such change. We have lived under the thumb of religious dogma for too long.

Yes there are screams - the screams of a woman left to die in barbaric circumstances Screams that should never never be heard again.

Turtwig

franktheplank wrote: »

I mightn't use those terms but i actually don't think this is far from the truth. Approx 200 children (they can't even tell us the exact amount) have died in the care of the HSE in the past ten years. Many others have gone missing a, significant proportion of which it is believed have become sex slaves.

Where's the outrage and protests for this? If all those people out protesting had protested for the other HSE scandels i'd say fair play to them but as it's a mixture of knee-jerk reaction and pushing an agenda.

Yes it's tragic. I'm not denying that but no more tragic than the other major HSE scandals.



And surely the medical profession must have known about this situation beforehand, if it really was the cause of the problem. Why wasn't more done then?

The HSE don't even keep statistics on abortions carried out in the state. We do not simply know if women have in the past died or not. We do not know how many women actually have abortions. We know nothing. The medical profession speak out frequently about this. The ECHR found the state's attitude to abortion to be somewhat chilling. Yet you think the description of the protest people being crazy villagers is accurate?

franktheplank

Jernal wrote: »

The HSE don't even keep statistics on abortions carried out in the state. We do not simply know if women have in the past died or not. We do not know how many women actually have abortions. We know nothing. The medical profession speak out frequently about this. The ECHR found the state's attitude to abortion to be somewhat chilling. Yet you think the description of the protest people being crazy villagers is accurate?

I didn't say crazy villagers but i think the term mob-mentality is certainly fitting and you haven't added anything to show otherwise.

No reasonable person here can say that this scandal is any more tragic than the others that have taken place and what really really makes it irrational is that we don't know the facts!

We don't know the facts, or even have a very clear idea as to what happened, there's still a very plausible explanation of just individual medical negligence.

I think the medical profession would have been well capable of and even compelled to take stronger action if they felt this situation would occur.
And the ECHR says lots of things about Ireland that don't get protested about either but im sure you know that right?

Turtwig

franktheplank wrote: »

I didn't say crazy villagers but i think the term mob-mentality is certainly fitting and you haven't added anything to show otherwise.

No reasonable person here can say that this scandal is any more tragic than the others that have taken place and what really really makes it irrational is that we don't know the facts!

We don't know the facts, or even have a very clear idea as to what happened, there's still a very plausible explanation of just individual medical negligence.

I think the medical profession would have been well capable of and even compelled to take stronger action if they felt this situation would occur.
And the ECHR says lots of things about Ireland that don't get protested about either but im sure you know that right?

Yes we don't know the facts, I suspect also that it was negligence, but the idea that it's plausible that our legislation killed this woman is enough justification for people to protest. Yes, some believe it was the legislation, others don't. The fact remain that it's plausible the lack of legislation actually killed someone. That needs to be fixed. Probably never will be but now people have been awoken to our vague and vacuous the State's attitude to abortion actually is.

franktheplank

Jernal wrote: »

Yes we don't know the facts, I suspect also that it was negligence, but the idea that it's plausible that our legislation killed this woman is enough justification for people to protest. Yes, some believe it was the legislation, others don't. The fact remain that it's plausible the lack of legislation actually killed someone. That needs to be fixed. Probably never will be but now people have been awoken to our vague and vacuous the State's attitude to abortion actually is.

I see where you're coming from but it still doesn't add up for me. I really just think a lot of the protesting is about shoehorning in an abortion on demand agenda and just buying into this convenient moral outrage that the church still runs the country (it doesn't and im not religious, I have to keep saying!).

If legislation played a significant part in this it still no worse than say the lack of legislation on disability rights, which is horrific and nobody protests.

It's those things that makes be sceptical. I've seen how unwilling the Irish public is to state wrongdoing unless a particular sector has something to gain.

poeticseraphim

franktheplank wrote: »

I see where you're coming from but it still doesn't add up for me. I really just think a lot of the protesting is about shoehorning in an abortion on demand agenda and just buying into this convenient moral outrage that the church still runs the country (it doesn't and im not religious, I have to keep saying!).

If legislation played a significant part in this it still no worse than say the lack of legislation on disability rights, which is horrific and nobody protests.

It's those things that makes be sceptical. I've seen how unwilling the Irish public is to state wrongdoing unless a particular sector has something to gain.

Frank.. If you are pro-choice , as I am , that is my upfront agenda. The rally yesterday was for pro-choice. Months ago before this happened women made a presentation to the oireachtas. Galway Pro-choice has been around ages. We are not hiding it.

Praveen Halappanavar has said he wants to fight to change the law too.
Savita requested an abortion...and was denied..it is also about there abortion on demand.
It is worse because it has (if lack of legislation is the cause) killed a woman....and it is possible legislation on X is not enough to prevent more deaths.

I have seen this a lot...the puzzlement at the level of distress...

You seem like a man that is well disposed to and understanding of women's rights and human rights in general.

But this is possibly the most or one of the most important issues for the health of women in Ireland.
Most women will go through pregnancy.....20% of pregnancies end in miscarriage.

Thousands of women are forced to 'travel' ..teenagers ...rape victims.

And that does not mean people do not care about disability rights.

Infact giving birth for disabled women and support needs desperately to be looked at.

This is genuinely a vital issue to women and to be honest it just takes women to get anything done in this country.;) I am joking.

This 'puzzlment' leads me to believe some are detached from what is most important to the female demographic.

But also to men......the husbands of those women....the fathers of those teens...who 'travelled'

They never speak.

She died in agony.

Don't doubt the honesty and determination of people on this issue.

franktheplank

poeticseraphim wrote: »

Frank.. If you are pro-choice , as I am , that is my upfront agenda. The rally yesterday was for pro-choice. Months ago before this happened women made a presentation to the oireachtas. Galway Pro-choice has been around ages. We are not hiding it.

Praveen Halappanavar has said he wants to fight to change the law too.
Savita requested an abortion...and was denied..it is also about there abortion on demand.
It is worse because it has (if lack of legislation is the cause) killed a woman....and it is possible legislation on X is not enough to prevent more deaths.

I have seen this a lot...the puzzlement at the level of distress...

You seem like a man that is well disposed to and understanding of women's rights and human rights in general.

But this is possibly the most or one of the most important issues for the health of women in Ireland.
Most women will go through pregnancy.....20% of pregnancies end in miscarriage.

Thousands of women are forced to 'travel' ..teenagers ...rape victims.

And that does not mean people do not care about disability rights.

Infact giving birth for disabled women and support needs desperately to be looked at.

This is genuinely a vital issue to women and to be honest it just takes women to get anything done in this country.;) I am joking.

This 'puzzlment' leads me to believe some are detached from what is most important to the female demographic.

But also to men......the husbands of those women....the fathers of those teens...who 'travelled'

They never speak.

She died in agony.

Don't doubt the honesty and determination of people on this issue.

I think it's very much up for debate whether the public is genuine on this issue. There's no consistency whatsoever towards people who die in the health service. The fact it seems that the only people that we're not going to let die screaming the suffering of the marginalized and oppressed are those that fit a pro-choice agenda.

By simply looking at the numbers of people who protested on this compared to other health scandals it seems to me that people are quite ok with some people dying suffering and not others and also, that that message has been sent to government.

Yet even with all this outrage nobody is going to back the consultant? If what you're saying is true that this woman died because of the lack of abortion on demand in this country then surely you got to back the consultant thats stood up and told the truth? You gotta admit they we're very brave right and look at all the pressure there under now, no support, nobody?

franktheplank

poeticseraphim wrote: »

And that does not mean people do not care about disability rights.

Infact giving birth for disabled women and support needs desperately to be looked at.

Jeez are you that quick to frame every debate?

Flier

franktheplank wrote: »

Ok, Im no expert on constitutional law but the term serious risk of life is vague. There's plenty of room for argument there. Surely, you would save the woman first and argue later? It's not like you won't have support.

Also, can somebody tell me whether abortions have been carried out before in miscarriage situations in Ireland?


Well, it's pretty clear their is a degree of tolerance towards abortion, right to travel, right to information, risk to life. Coupled with the particulars of this case, it was an unviable miscarriage anyway and the support of the medical council and i think there would have been a pretty solid argument (assuming the unlikelihood that a case would have been allowed to proceed)

Again, it just doesn't add up that you would allow a woman to die and be honest and brave enough to tell her grieving husband the truth but not to actually fight her case in the first place.

The fact that the foetus was unviable, that the Medical Council may have supported the action, and any tolerance towards abortion, right to travel etc is irrelevant. The courts only job is to decide if the action of aborting the foetus in the situation was lawful. If there was no substancial risk to the mother at the time an abortion was performed, then according to the letter of the law as I understand it, then it would have been unlawful, and the doctor would have been subject to the rigors of the law. I can understand why s/he might have been reluctant to act first and argue later.

I think it's been answered before, but Ireland doesn't keep records of abortions. Which the cynic in me suggests suits certain quarters since cases where an abortion have been done in grey area such as this, where there might have been a less than substantial risk, aren't documented and therefore aren't scrutinised. The status quo remains.

franktheplank wrote: »

Ok Drkpower, well i've read back over your arguments just to see if i've missed anything, and nope my point still stands.

You're arguing that the consultant would have chosen the course of action they did because they were constrained by the law. Admittedly you're arguing the constraint posed by the vagueness of the law which in essence is the same.

If that's the case I think they still have to be held up as a whistleblowing hero. No sweeping it under the carpet, openly blowing the lid on the whole situation with scant regard for their own career and the reputations of their colleagues.

They had no choice but to let that woman die but were not afraid to let people know and face the consequences. Great to see so many thousands out in support right?

I'm not sure where the whistleblowing hero bit comes from. My understanding is it's in relation to the 'it's a Catholic country.....' quote? That might be true if 'They had no choice but to let that woman die' but if s/he knew the woman was going to die, s/he would have been legally allowed to do an abortion, an would have been negligent not to have done so if that was what was medically indicated. The point is the grey area between risk to health / life / substancial risk.

franktheplank wrote: »

I think the medical profession would have been well capable of and even compelled to take stronger action if they felt this situation would occur.
And the ECHR says lots of things about Ireland that don't get protested about either but im sure you know that right?

The 'medical profession' have been saying for years that something like this might happen and have been calling for legislation to clarify. The Medical council have done their best to come up with guidelines to help medics. But the guidelines are based on a vague sentence in the constitution, and so - guess what - the're vague. What else do you expect them to do?

StudentDad

galwayrush wrote: »

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

Good luck finding that on this issue.

SD

franktheplank

Flier wrote: »

I'm not sure where the whistleblowing hero bit comes from. My understanding is it's in relation to the 'it's a Catholic country.....' quote? That might be true if 'They had no choice but to let that woman die' but if s/he knew the woman was going to die, s/he would have been legally allowed to do an abortion, an would have been negligent not to have done so if that was what was medically indicated. The point is the grey area between risk to health / life / substancial risk.

But to me grey areas denotes that there is room for argument. The church or the state didn't explicitly specify that this woman couldn't have an abortion. But if that's the case has this woman died to make that point?

A helluva lot of people are making this out to be the failure of the church or the state. If that's the case i still think the consultant has to be whistleblowing hero? You can't deny there going to face a massive amount of scrutiny and pressure because of this?

But how can people be so quick to blame the church and state and so slow to support the consultant. It doesn't add up.

Flier wrote: »

The 'medical profession' have been saying for years that something like this might happen and have been calling for legislation to clarify. The Medical council have done their best to come up with guidelines to help medics. But the guidelines are based on a vague sentence in the constitution, and so - guess what - the're vague. What else do you expect them to do?

I didn't realize the medical council's ethics were dictated by the state. News to me, is that the case around the world?

franktheplank

I still can't get that this is a pro-choice issue.

In essence that's saying a person's ethical beliefs and decisions should come before a doctor's decisions.

Do people realise that's also allowing woman to refuse a medically necessary abortion and Jehovah's Witnesses to refuse blood transfusions?

Flier

franktheplank wrote: »

The church or the state didn't explicitly specify that this woman couldn't have an abortion.

'... the state didn't explicitly specify that this woman couldn't have an abortion.' is absolutely not the same thing as saying she was entitled to one.

franktheplank wrote: »

But how can people be so quick to blame the church and state and so slow to support the consultant. It doesn't add up.

Personally, I would support a consultant who finds himself in a legal minefield. If it turns out the facts of the case were such that his decision should have been easily clear, then he will be the subject of a fitness to practice hearing. That's for another day. As for the state, regardless of the facts and outcome of this particular case, it remains that it is a legal grey area and the state I believe has an urgent (for the last 20 years) obligation for legislate for it. I think they are very reluctant to , and this is probably where the church comes into it. My opinion personally.

franktheplank wrote: »

I didn't realize the medical council's ethics were dictated by the state. News to me, is that the case around the world?

The Medical council have an ethics committee who debate on issues according to, well ethics. But I think it would be rather foolish for the medical council to publish guidelines that were contrary to Irish law, don't you?

kunst nugget

franktheplank wrote: »

Do people realise that's also allowing woman to refuse a medically necessary abortion and Jehovah's Witnesses to refuse blood transfusions?

Where's the issue in that? If it is a decision made by an adult what's wrong with that. The problems start to occur, in my eyes, when children are involved as in this case:

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/high-court-grants-hospital-permission-to-give-blood-to-jehovahs-witness-child-525342.html

kunst nugget

franktheplank wrote: »

I didn't realize the medical council's ethics were dictated by the state. News to me, is that the case around the world?

That's a foolish statement. Of course the medical council's ethics are dictated by the law of the land, that's why you can have a DNR but a doctor can't perform euthanasia.

MrCreosote

franktheplank wrote: »

I still can't get that this is a pro-choice issue.

In essence that's saying a person's ethical beliefs and decisions should come before a doctor's decisions.

Er....they do. A doctor performing a treatment on a person if they've declined consent would be guilty of a battery.

An capable adult can make an informed decision about a treatment offered for themselves. That's the problem with this case- the patient's expressed decision was overruled for religious/lack of legislation reasons.

Flier

franktheplank wrote: »

In essence that's saying a person's ethical beliefs and decisions should come before a doctor's decisions.

I'm not going to comment on that since I presume you got it backwards in error.

franktheplank

Flier wrote: »

I'm not going to comment on that since I presume you got it backwards in error.

Fair call cheers, I'm not always at my best on a monday morning.

Some would say it doesn't improve much during the week

Annabella1

I think the majority of people in this country have a reasoned opinion on this debate.I wonder who on this discussion group would object to the following to be legislated;
(1) A tragic rare scenario where a mother is carrying an unviable fetus who has no chance of living after birth.Currently mothers are forced to travel to the UK.Why can't this country humanely offer to end the pregnancy here if she so chooses
(2) Another tragic scenario such as the X case where a young teenager was raped and was deemed to be suicidal.Why can't a panel containing a Psychiatrist and Obstetrician rule that the mothers life is at imminent risk and allow her to end the pregnancy in this juristiction
It is difficult to comment on the Galway case as we don't have all the facts but it must be difficult for a doctor to diagnose when a mother is at 'imminent' risk where they are allowed perform a termination.Maybe an 'ethics' panel in a hospital could ensure best practice??

General Zod

Annabella1 wrote: »

I think the majority of people in this country have a reasoned opinion on this debate.I wonder who on this discussion group would object to the following to be legislated;
(1) A tragic rare scenario where a mother is carrying an unviable fetus who has no chance of living after birth.Currently mothers are forced to travel to the UK.Why can't this country humanely offer to end the pregnancy here if she so chooses

this is the "D" case, another where governments have failed to legislate for, and if it had been would have given clear grounds for Savita to be treated when she requested originally that the foetus be aborted.

this is why we need legislation to go beyond the terms of the X case alone.

Galwayguy35

I think the Taoiseach is stalling because of his personal beliefs on abortion.

There is nothing wrong with having a pro life view and personally this is the side I would be on but Kenny is the leader of the country now and he must listen to what the majority of the people want and act accordingly ASAP.

gozunda

At several weeks remove from this tragedy I remain absolutely dumbfounded that a non viable fetus was given preference over the health and ultimately the life of the mother

If the consultant/doctor truly believed he could not in good conscience offer the mother medical intervention normally considered best practice then he should have stood aside. He did not.

Instead the consultant/doctor allowed Savita Halappanavar health and ultimately her life to be put in danger by reason of a non viable fetus's heartbeat because as he stated this is a "Catholic Country"

It makes me me sick to my stomach what this woman had to endure at the hands of so called health profesionals...

poeticseraphim

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I think the Taoiseach is stalling because of his personal beliefs on abortion.

There is nothing wrong with having a pro life view and personally this is the side I would be on but Kenny is the leader of the country now and he must listen to what the majority of the people want and act accordingly ASAP.

In 2007 he made comments about never legislating for abortion or allowing it if he was in Govt....

jasonmcco

I think if a woman decides she wants to end her pregnancy before 12 weeks she should be allowed.
If we tell her she cant she will just travel to England causing her more distress.
Legalising abortion doesnt make people have them just means when they decide to have one it can be done in hygenic and safe environment.
Is morning after pill not a form of abortion already?

seb65

jasonmcco wrote: »

I think if a woman decides she wants to end her pregnancy before 12 weeks she should be allowed.
If we tell her she cant she will just travel to England causing her more distress.
Legalising abortion doesnt make people have them just means when they decide to have one it can be done in hygenic and safe environment.
Is morning after pill not a form of abortion already?

The morning after pill is not a form of abortion. It prevents an egg from traveling to the uterus. If the egg is already there and becomes fertilized, it prevents it from implanting.

The pill offered in the new Maries Stopes clinic in Northern Ireland is an abortion pill.

jasonmcco

poeticseraphim wrote: »

In 2007 he made comments about never legislating for abortion or allowing it if he was in Govt....

I think any minister for health serving after the 92 referendum who didn't bring in the legislation should be tried for not implementing the will of the people.If there is no existing law we need to make one. If government are allowed to ignore referendum results what's the point in having them.

Also where has the independent judiciary been while the Irish peoples will has not been recognised. Should there not be a time limit both for when a referendum result should be acted upon and when the decision of supreme court should be adhered to.

Only reason we are having this debate is coz the woman wasn't Irish, as it stands to reason this can't be the first time this situation has arose.

Irish women obviously have lesser value than a foreign woman.

Hopefully this womans death will not be in vain and her family can take maybe a little comfort from the changes that happen due to her tragic death. We as a nation are a disgrace and Enda is the leader of that nation.

Endas opinion is not allowed count in the face of 92 referendum results and if he acts based on his opinion well that makes him a dictator.

up for anything

gozunda wrote: »

If the consultant/doctor truly believed he could not in good conscience offer the mother medical intervention normally considered best practice then he should have stood aside. He did not.

The problem with good conscience is that if it doesn't allow you do something against it, it should/would also prevent you from allowing someone else to do that something that you can't do in your place.

Back in 1980 I took myself off to a doctor in Kilkee to get a prescription for the pill. He sat there and refused to prescribe it for me because it was against his conscience and beliefs (his words). I thought he was ancient at the time but looking back he was probably only about 50. As I was slunk out of the front door (it had taken mega courage for me to go in there in the first place) I heard a low "pssst" and turned around to see a young man beckoning me into the adjoining room. He asked me whether I'd been in there to get the pill and when I replied in the affirmative, he said that in all conscience he couldn't let me leave without it and he pressed a ready prepared prescription into my hand and ushered me out front door quickly.

I wish I could remember his name so that I could find him now and thank him properly. He must have made a habit of watching for young girls going into his partner's office and coming out again post haste. I wonder much anguish and how many unwanted babies he prevented in his time.

HeyThereDeliah

up for anything wrote: »

The problem with good conscience is that if it doesn't allow you do something against it, it should/would also prevent you from allowing someone else to do that something that you can't do in your place.

Back in 1980 I took myself off to a doctor in Kilkee to get a prescription for the pill. He sat there and refused to prescribe it for me because it was against his conscience and beliefs (his words). I thought he was ancient at the time but looking back he was probably only about 50. As I was slunk out of the front door (it had taken mega courage for me to go in there in the first place) I heard a low "pssst" and turned around to see a young man beckoning me into the adjoining room. He asked me whether I'd been in there to get the pill and when I replied in the affirmative, he said that in all conscience he couldn't let me leave without it and he pressed a ready prepared prescription into my hand and ushered me out front door quickly.

I wish I could remember his name so that I could find him now and thank him properly. He must have made a habit of watching for young girls going into his partner's office and coming out again post haste. I wonder much anguish and how many unwanted babies he prevented in his time.

He also prescribed medication without first examining you or getting your history, imagine if something happened to you, how would you feel about him then.?

sparky42

jasonmcco wrote: »

I think any minister for health serving after the 92 referendum who didn't bring in the legislation should be tried for not implementing the will of the people.If there is no existing law we need to make one. If government are allowed to ignore referendum results what's the point in having them.

Also where has the independent judiciary been while the Irish peoples will has not been recognised. Should there not be a time limit both for when a referendum result should be acted upon and when the decision of supreme court should be adhered to.

Only reason we are having this debate is coz the woman wasn't Irish, as it stands to reason this can't be the first time this situation has arose.

Irish women obviously have lesser value than a foreign woman.

Hopefully this womans death will not be in vain and her family can take maybe a little comfort from the changes that happen due to her tragic death. We as a nation are a disgrace and Enda is the leader of that nation.

Endas opinion is not allowed count in the face of 92 referendum results and if he acts based on his opinion well that makes him a dictator.

Whatever the personal views of Kenny on this matter, this is politics.

First he can't just jump into this issue and bring forward legislation without even waiting for the interim results of an investigation that was just set up today.

And second there's what 3-4 cabinet meetings before the budget, a budget that will cost them politically anyway.

After Christmas some form of Legislation will come forward, finally dealing with the 20 years of moral cowardice of the Daíl and all parties and provide for the X case at least, and most likely putting together better guidelines for the current situations.

To expect anything before Christmas is unrealistic across the board.

up for anything

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

He also prescribed medication without first examining you or getting your history, imagine if something happened to you, how would you feel about him then.?

Pregnancy would have been a fate worse than death for me back then and I would have probably headed to the nearest cliff and jumped if I'd found myself pregnant. The most examination I ever had in nearly 20 years on the pill was having my blood pressure checked before being prescribed it so I don't think he was that negligent.

seb65

sparky42 wrote: »

Whatever the personal views of Kenny on this matter, this is politics.

First he can't just jump into this issue and bring forward legislation without even waiting for the interim results of an investigation that was just set up today.

And second there's what 3-4 cabinet meetings before the budget, a budget that will cost them politically anyway.

After Christmas some form of Legislation will come forward, finally dealing with the 20 years of moral cowardice of the Daíl and all parties and provide for the X case at least, and most likely putting together better guidelines for the current situations.

To expect anything before Christmas is unrealistic across the board.

It is politics. Here's the thing that perplexes me. I've never seen an Irish politician (in power) actually attempt to ingratiate themselves with the public. I actually see them as being quite arrogant. They all rotate from power to opposition to power anyways. They have the best job security of any politicians I've ever seen.

It just doesn't seem like they care whether anyone likes them or not, so why refrain from introducing this legislation?

gozunda

up for anything wrote: »

The problem with good conscience is that if it doesn't allow you do something against it, it should/would also prevent you from allowing someone else to do that something that you can't do in your place.

Back in 1980 I took myself off to a doctor in Kilkee to get a prescription for the pill. He sat there and refused to prescribe it for me because it was against his conscience and beliefs (his words). I thought he was ancient at the time but looking back he was probably only about 50. As I was slunk out of the front door (it had taken mega courage for me to go in there in the first place) I heard a low "pssst" and turned around to see a young man beckoning me into the adjoining room. He asked me whether I'd been in there to get the pill and when I replied in the affirmative, he said that in all conscience he couldn't let me leave without it and he pressed a ready prepared prescription into my hand and ushered me out front door quickly.

...

Sad that you had to go thru that to achieve basic birth control. That doctor should have been reported and struck off for his behaviour towards you imo.

However the difference in this case was that the doctor held the life of this woman in his hands. An unviable foetus was given preeminence over the health and ultimately the life of Savita Halappananaver.

The doctor had the choice to stand away - to allow another doctor to provide this lady with the necessary care. He did not. I cannot even comprehend how he believed he was right in playing god with this woman's life...

kunst nugget

gozunda wrote: »

However the difference in this case was that the doctor held the life of this woman in his hands. An unviable foetus was given preeminence over the health and ultimately the life of Savita Halappananaver.

The doctor had the choice to stand away - to allow another doctor to provide this lady with the necessary care. He did not. I cannot even comprehend how he believed he was right in playing god with this woman's life...

We don't know anything beyond the barest details of the case so to say what the doctor did, thought or believed is complete conjecture. I don't think it helps the debate to make statements like this as if they were fact.

Panrich

The problem with the Bishops statement yesterday and the debate around abortion in the first place is the moral/biological gap that exists. While a bishop or pro-life advocate can raise the moral value of the life of an unborn foetus to equal that of the mother, nature and biology do not agree. A foetus is not viable without it's mother and is fully dependent until it reaches a stage where it can exist outside the womb. It is therefore nonsense from a biological point of view to give them equal status, until a point where independent viability is possible at the very least. In the current case, the fact that a non viable pregnancy was prolonged at the expense of the wellbeing and wishes of the mother is a clear case of this flawed moral logic.

opinion guy

I have to say something here.

Praveen Halappanavar is a total hero. His unwillingness to accept bull**** and to honour the memory of his wife would seem to achieving more for Irish maternal care and health care in general than 20 years of failed politics. At what must be the most difficult of times for him. I admire him.

My name is URL

opinion guy wrote: »

I have to say something here.

Praveen Halappanavar is a total hero. His unwillingness to accept bull**** and to honour the memory of his wife would seem to achieving more for Irish maternal care and health care in general than 20 years of failed politics. At what must be the most difficult of times for him. I admire him.

It's a bit prejudgemental though is it not? He has said that he won't comply in any way with the investigation, or give permission to the HSE to hand over records. How is that honoring the memory of his wife?

If no investigation can be carried out then the whole thing may as well just be swept aside now.

jaykay74

My name is URL wrote: »

It's a bit prejudgemental though is it not? He has said that he won't comply in any way with the investigation, or give permission to the HSE to hand over records. How is that honoring the memory of his wife?

If no investigation can be carried out then the whole thing may as well just be swept aside now.

He doesn't want his name associated with the HSE investigating the HSE which is surely understandable. If its not independent whats the point.

Mervyn Crawford

I believe the ejection of religious control from all aspects of civic life is a fundamental democratic demand; and is revolutionary.

The capitalists cannot concede such a demand.

The call for legislation is being approached from two sides:

- by the population it is implicitly driven by the thrust for secularisation in public life

-by the politicos it is a diversion to be fought over twixt the religious fanatics and the liberals; but the liberals will never demand full-blown secularism, and not only do they concede ground and give time to religious fundamentalism, but in that they also refuse to expose the thoroughgoing religious control there is throughout civil society, in the whole island.

The nationalists are manoevuring also around the legislation demand. Sophistry! The National Catholic Party (aka Sinn Fein) are intimately entwined with the zealots and their priests.

My name is URL

jaykay74 wrote: »

He doesn't want his name associated with the HSE investigating the HSE which is surely understandable. If its not independent whats the point.

The HSE would have to carry out its own internal inquiry in any case. Nobody has stated that a separate independent one is off the cards, have they? If people were only to cooperate with investigations that they themselves have decided are fair or ones in which they choose the people involved, then there'd be no point in conducting any investigation at all.

Mervyn Crawford

The courageous and principled position that Praveen Halappanavar has taken in refusing to co-operate with the HSE enquiry is to be applauded. He should be given complete support.

As is broadly understood by most people so-called 'Enquiries' are in fact methods to cover the truth, muddy the waters, slander the injured and innocent.

That the enquiry was to be stacked with three consultants from the very hospital that killed Praveen Halppanavar's wife tells those who have any doubts what the true role of Reilly's Enquiry is

Death and Taxes

My name is URL wrote: »

It's a bit prejudgemental though is it not? He has said that he won't comply in any way with the investigation, or give permission to the HSE to hand over records. How is that honoring the memory of his wife?

If no investigation can be carried out then the whole thing may as well just be swept aside now.

No investigation is preferable thatn an investigation which has a panel top loaded with staff from the hospital in which the death occured and no legal experts or medic ethic experts on it, despite issues of law and medical ethic seemingly having a crucial part to play.
The Widgery tribunal wouldn't get a look in at this shameful whitewash.
Fair play to her husband for refusing to be party to this charade.

Death and Taxes

My name is URL wrote: »

The HSE would have to carry out its own internal inquiry in any case. Nobody has stated that a separate independent one is off the cards, have they? If people were only to cooperate with investigations that they themselves have decided are fair or ones in which they choose the people involved, then there'd be no point in conducting any investigation at all.

The difference is this one is blatently unfair, containing as it does three staff members from the hospital being investigated, its like letting Larry Murphy investigate a rape complaint against himself!

jaykay74

My name is URL wrote: »

The HSE would have to carry out its own internal inquiry in any case. Nobody has stated that a separate independent one is off the cards, have they? If people were only to cooperate with investigations that they themselves have decided are fair or ones in which they choose the people involved, then there'd be no point in conducting any investigation at all.

Investigating yourself is no investigation and by taking part in such a process he would be legitimising it.

Whitewash.

ProudDUB

Since when do family members have or control access to a dead persons medical records? I thought that they would remain the property of the hospital in question, to do with as they wish, no?

Fair play to the hubby for insisting on an independent enquiry. Getting the hospital/medical authority that is at the center of this clusterfcuk to do a fair and unbiased investigation into itself, is like asking turkeys to vote for Christmas !

seb65

My name is URL wrote: »

The HSE would have to carry out its own internal inquiry in any case. Nobody has stated that a separate independent one is off the cards, have they? If people were only to cooperate with investigations that they themselves have decided are fair or ones in which they choose the people involved, then there'd be no point in conducting any investigation at all.

People who have studied the law (and therefore fair procedures for inquiries) know that one cannot investigate himself.

In this instance, it's not the husband who is deciding what is a fair investigation. It's decades of precedent setting case law.

It's like the Catholic Church investigating its own priests for possible sexual abuse.......oh wait

My name is URL

seb65 wrote: »

People who have studied the law (and therefore fair procedures for inquiries) know that one cannot investigate himself.

In this instance, it's not the husband who is deciding what is a fair investigation. It's decades of precedent setting case law.

It's like the Catholic Church investigating its own priests for possible sexual abuse.......oh wait

Isn't it just an internal inquiry on the part of the HSE? The outcome is not going to prejudice any subsequent independent investigation, and nobody has ruled out that an independent investigation will also be held. Internal inquiries are conducted all the time by the HSE and other public services. They don't have the last word in what ultimately happens.

seb65

My name is URL wrote: »

Isn't it just an internal inquiry on the part of the HSE? The outcome is not going to prejudice any subsequent independent investigation, and nobody has ruled out that an independent investigation will also be held. Internal inquiries are conducted all the time by the HSE and other public services. They don't have the last word in what ultimately happens.

I thought it was more extensive than that. They have pulled in the Chair from outside the country, so I would say this is the "independent inquiry". There's nothing to stop them (the government?) on doing as many inquiries as they wish, but I don't really see the point in doing two. One is going to cost enough in time/money. Unfortunately, if the team finds that Galway did nothing wrong and followed proper procedure, this result will always be questioned on the basis of impartiality, even if it is true. Wouldn't it be better to just have the members completely independent in the first place?

That's not to say you're wrong though.

HeyThereDeliah

opinion guy wrote: »

I have to say something here.

Praveen Halappanavar is a total hero. His unwillingness to accept bull**** and to honour the memory of his wife would seem to achieving more for Irish maternal care and health care in general than 20 years of failed politics. At what must be the most difficult of times for him. I admire him.

I think his attitude may well cause some people to turn against him tbh, it's unfair to say the outside consultant will side with the hospital.

I would hope the investigation will reveal what happened and who is to blame. Will it be a case of the husband will not believe anything unless it favours him?

efb

HSE investigation- can anyone say whitewash...

jaja321

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

I think his attitude may well cause some people to turn against him tbh, it's unfair to say the outside consultant will side with the hospital.

I would hope the investigation will reveal what happened and who is to blame. Will it be a case of the husband will not believe anything unless it favours him?

Unless it favours him? What does that mean?