Pregnant woman dies in UCHG after being refused a termination

Rodin

old hippy wrote: »

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain....

That Alzhemier's is getting worse, Mr Pratchett

Knasher

old hippy wrote: »

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain....

Time to die.

HellFireClub

Knasher wrote: »

The typical failure rate of the pill and the condom is 8% and 15% respectively (though 0.3% and 2% under ideal circumstances) so a combined failure rate of 1.2% (or 1.2 in a 100 will get pregnant while using both), hardly effectively zero. Additionally not every woman can use the pill as there are some serious potential side effects to it.

Is that line of reasoning only for abortion or do you use it consistently. Lung cancer is a known risk of smoking, should people have to take responsibility for their own actions and be refused medical help for those that get lung cancer?

Nope, but a consequence of smoking is probable lung cancer, just as sure as liver failure is caused by excess drinking. In the UK, where abortion is permissible, they won't give you an NHS liver transplant if you are still an alcoholic which undermines the point you are trying to make there.

And by the way your figures there for contraception failure, where in the name of Christ are you getting those from?

Rodin

Rodin wrote: »

Yeah. And the morning after pill just happens to be out of stock after this unlucky event? Ill woman, split condom, and the morning after pill out of stock.
That's some run of bad luck.

There could be very slight damage to the condom that goes unnoticed, so the woman doesn't think there's any need for the morning after pill.

Why so judgemental?

Death and Taxes

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

I'm not misrepresenting you, I'm asking you would you recommend more than one abortion or do you think there should be some guidelines or time frame between abortions?

If abortion is on demand do you have rules or is it a free for all ?

The only rules I can think of are that the person desiring the abortion be competent to make that decision, that it is safe to perform it, and that it is performed up to a specified time e.g. 14 weeks.
After that it is soley the choice the woman involved, not my business or your business, or anyone else damm business.
We dont limit the number of times a person can avail of contraception why should we limit or ration the availability of abortion?

HellFireClub

WileyCoyote wrote: »

The only rules I can think of are that the person desiring the abortion be competent to make that decision, that it is safe to perform it, and that it is performed up to a specified time e.g. 14 weeks.
After that it is soley the choice the woman involved, not my business or your business, or anyone else damm business.
We dont limit the number of times a person can avail of contraception why should we limit or ration the availability of abortion?

Of course it's everyone else's business. Say you were being conceived today, and your parents are going through a bit of a hard time financially and decide to abort you, what then???

Rodin

Flying Fox wrote: »

There could be very slight damage to the condom that goes unnoticed, so the woman doesn't think there's any need for the morning after pill.

Why so judgemental?

People don't take responsibility for their decisions, or lack of and expect someone else to clear up their mess. It bugs me, whether it's smokers, the obese etc. It'a always someone/something else's fault.

Death and Taxes

Rodin wrote: »

Yeah. And the morning after pill just happens to be out of stock after this unlucky event? Ill woman, split condom, and the morning after pill out of stock.
That's some run of bad luck.

Even the manufacturers of the morning after pill accept that it is not a reliable way to prevent pregnancy, in fact is all but totally ineffective with some women.

old hippy

Rodin wrote: »

That Alzhemier's is getting worse, Mr Pratchett

Then I claim the right for euthanasia. But I guess ye are all against that, as well :rolleyes:

old hippy

Rodin wrote: »

People don't take responsibility for their decisions, or lack of and expect someone else to clear up their mess. It bugs me, whether it's smokers, the obese etc. It'a always someone/something else's fault.

Abortion is not about clearing up a mess. It's a fecking difficult decision and a nightmare for women in Ireland.

Soon, we'll be out of that nightmare but until then, the fight continues.

Knasher

HellFireClub wrote: »

Nope, but a consequence of smoking is probable lung cancer, just as sure as liver failure is caused by excess drinking. In the UK, where abortion is permissible, they won't give you an NHS liver transplant if you are still an alcoholic which undermines the point you are trying to make there.

They won't give you a liver transplant because livers are a scarce resource and they prioritize people who have the best prognosis, including lifestyle. As you well know. If we ever get to the stage where we can grow livers on demand using stem cells do you still think they will refuse alcoholics? If not then my point isn't undermined, abortions aren't a scarce resource.

HellFireClub wrote: »

And by the way your figures there for contraception failure, where in the name of Christ are you getting those from?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_birth_control_methods#Effectiveness_of_various_methods

Rodin

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Even the manufacturers of the morning after pill accept that it is not a reliable way to prevent pregnancy, in fact is all but totally ineffective with some women.

Always someone else's fault.

Rodin

Rodin wrote: »

People don't take responsibility for their decisions, or lack of and expect someone else to clear up their mess. It bugs me, whether it's smokers, the obese etc. It'a always someone/something else's fault.

How is a woman who falls pregnant expecting anyone else to 'clear up her mess'? She's faced with a decision and she has to accept the consequences whichever way she goes.

Is it really better to bring an unwanted child into the world?

Death and Taxes

HellFireClub wrote: »

Of course it's everyone else's business. Say you were being conceived today, and your parents are going through a bit of a hard time financially and decide to abort you, what then???

Then i wouldn't be here but that still wouldn't be your business!

kunst nugget

Rodin wrote: »

Yeah. And the morning after pill just happens to be out of stock after this unlucky event? Ill woman, split condom, and the morning after pill out of stock.
That's some run of bad luck.

You know what? You're right. And you know what? I've just being having pointless hypothetical arguments about when abortion can be acceptable when I think it should be acceptable for whatever personal reasons the woman or couple have up to a set time limit of around twenty weeks. If you don't agree with that it's of no concern to me but I fail to see why people shouldn't be allowed to avail of abortion services in this country. If you don't agree with them, don't use them.

Death and Taxes

Rodin wrote: »

Always someone else's fault.

Childish and trite response especially from one who mistakenly thought it was the answer to all unprotected sex.

Rodin

Flying Fox wrote: »

How is a woman who falls pregnant expecting anyone else to 'clear up her mess'? She's faced with a decision and she has to accept the consequences whichever way she goes.

Is it really better to bring an unwanted child into the world?

It's better to not get knocked up by being irresponsible in the first instance. Prevention is always better than cure.

In the example of the women in the US, 50% of who were going for their 2nd abortion, are those women simply unlucky or irresponsible. I say they're irresponsible.

Rodin

kunst nugget wrote: »

You know what? You're right. And you know what? I've just being having pointless hypothetical arguments about when abortion can be acceptable when I think it should be acceptable for whatever personal reasons the woman or couple have up to a set time limit of around twenty weeks. If you don't agree with that it's of no concern to me but I fail to see why people shouldn't be allowed to avail of abortion services in this country. If you don't agree with them, don't use them.

Why set the limit at 20 weeks?

Knasher

HellFireClub wrote: »

Of course it's everyone else's business. Say you were being conceived today, and your parents are going through a bit of a hard time financially and decide to abort you, what then???

Now who is making stupid arguments?

I'd rather my parent chose to keep me rather than being forced to. If they had the right to choose differently and had availed of that right, then I wouldn't give a sh*t either way, I wouldn't have been alive to.

I also wouldn't be alive if my mother and father hadn't fallen in love in the first place, or hadn't felt a little frisky 27 odd years ago or whatever other decisions that if they had made differently wouldn't have led to my conception. I don't lay awake at night bemoaning that they had such choices to make and I doubt I would if they had one more.

Death and Taxes

Rodin wrote: »

It's better to not get knocked up by being irresponsible in the first instance. Prevention is always better than cure.

In the example of the women in the US, 50% of who were going for their 2nd abortion, are those women simply unlucky or irresponsible. I say they're irresponsible.

I say its their own business!

kunst nugget

Rodin wrote: »

Why set the limit at 20 weeks?

I'd set it at 20 weeks because biologically the baby would still not be viable and it would give time for the woman to undergo mandatory pre-abortion counselling and arrive at a non-rushed decision before having the termination. This is how I would like to see the service run if it was introduced into this country.

Rodin

kunst nugget wrote: »

I'd set it at 20 weeks because biologically the baby would still not be viable and it would give time for the woman to undergo mandatory pre-abortion counselling and arrive at a non-rushed decision before having the termination. This is how I would like to see the service run if it was introduced into this country.

30 years ago babies few if any babies were surviving very early prematurity at around 24/25 weeks.

Do we shift the goalposts along with medical advances?

Rodin

WileyCoyote wrote: »

I say its their own business!

Should elective abortion be available in a public healthcare system?

Because if you think it should, then it's everyone's business.

Death and Taxes

Rodin wrote: »

30 years ago babies few if any babies were surviving very early prematurity at around 24/25 weeks.

Do we shift the goalposts along with medical advances?

It is the nature of humanity and society that we shift the goalposts.
600 years ago the world was officially flat and the sun revolved around the earth...guess what?...
we shifted dem der goalposts too!

kunst nugget

Rodin wrote: »

30 years ago babies few if any babies were surviving very early prematurity at around 24/25 weeks.

Do we shift the goalposts along with medical advances?

Medical advances aren't going to stop a baby being profoundly handicapped if they are born at 23 weeks. The netherlands won't let a premature baby be born before 26 weeks because of the certainty of severe disability.

Rodin

kunst nugget wrote: »

Medical advances are going to stop a baby being profoundly handicapped if they are born at 23 weeks. The netherlands won't let a premature baby be born before 26 weeks because of the certainty of severe disability.

How do they predict who's going to pop out at 26 weeks?

Death and Taxes

Rodin wrote: »

Should elective abortion be available in a public healthcare system?

Because if you think it should, then it's everyone's business.

In certain cases it should be, yes. After all viagra is!:D
However many elective procedures are legally available privatley but not covered in the public healtcare system .

kunst nugget

Rodin wrote: »

How do they predict who's going to pop out at 26 weeks?

They can't but that's the threshold they've put in place based on their medical knowledge.

Rodin

WileyCoyote wrote: »

In certain cases it should be, yes. After all viagra is!:D
However many elective procedures are legally available privatley but not covered in the public healtcare system .

So if you believe that in some cases it should be available in the public system, then it is no longer just the couple's business. I rest my case.

Death and Taxes

Rodin wrote: »

So if you believe that in some cases it should be available in the public system, then it is no longer just the couple's business. I rest my case.

You dont have a case to rest, other than trying to drag us all back to the valley of the squinting windows and the good ol days of the Magdelen Laundries.
When the civil right of all women to choose not carry an pregnacy are vindicated then I will happily discuss who should pay. for the moment i will concentrate on the fact that their civil right is being denied by a few pulpit chewing bigots.

poeticseraphim

Look when does that blob thing become a person with a right ???

Thats the question not who is getting smexy with who.

The earlier an abortion is the healthier it is for the woman too....

The govt allows embryonic research.

So embryos are not protected by the constitution.

When ?

K-9

HellFireClub wrote: »

The people have stated that they do not want abortion on demand in this state, as a means of retrospectively fixing a situation for people who in the majority of cases, are too scabby or stupid to take proper responsibility for their own sexual behaviour and use contraception.

HellFireClub wrote: »

I didn't say all men, I said a lot of men or most men or words to that effect.

You seem to be convinced that most abortions are because people are careless and most men would want an abortion after a one night stand, you like your generalisations. I'm not sure if that is the case as married women are a big section of the women who go abroad, unplanned pregnancies in marriages and relationships. Your stereotypical teenage mum is less likely to get pregnant these days.

As for men, many take the male abortion route and just play no act or part in the pregnancy or after.

poeticseraphim

I support abortion on demand up to 12 weeks ...then after due to medical necessity to be decided in favour of the health of the woman or no viablity of the fetus

It is still 24 weeks...and doctors find that it is still usually profoundly handicapped...and it is doubtful it will ever be earlier

you can't really allow a birth in Ireland earlier than 24 weeks i think...it is the same everywhere else...and even then people have ethical concerns about doing that

jill_valentine

Rodin wrote: »

It's better to not get knocked up by being irresponsible in the first instance. Prevention is always better than cure.

What a dunderheaded thing to say.

How about you start up a crisis pregnancy service along those lines, where you stand behind a desk and tell every woman who walks through the door that it's good enough for her, one after another. See how much use that is.

When somebody's already pregnant - and there are a million reasons why it might happen, from irresponsibility, to an accident, to pill failure or rape - then preaching about the morality of the situation is of no value to anybody. It's just born of the vague idea that if people have casual sex, there should be a mechanism to make sure they're punished for it. That there should be consequences, even if we have the capacity to prevent them.

If you believe that women should have access to elective abortion - and I'm blue in the face from pointing this out, but elective abortion is what would have made a difference in the Halappanavar case - then it's absolutely none of your business why they require it. It's completely immaterial. Abortion isn't a convenient first resort for anybody, ever. It's a failsafe.

old hippy

Rodin wrote: »

It's better to not get knocked up by being irresponsible in the first instance. Prevention is always better than cure.

In the example of the women in the US, 50% of who were going for their 2nd abortion, are those women simply unlucky or irresponsible. I say they're irresponsible.

You'd probably say they are sluts, too, given half the chance.

seb65

old hippy wrote: »

You'd probably say they are sluts, too, given half the chance.

Wouldn't even need half a chance I'd say.

Funny, no one ever talks about the males who are getting all these women pregnant....If all women withheld sex until they wanted to get pregnant, we'd have state of the art abortion facilities in the morning.

rainbow kirby

Rodin wrote: »

In the example of the women in the US, 50% of who were going for their 2nd abortion, are those women simply unlucky or irresponsible. I say they're irresponsible.

Sometimes abortion *is* the responsible choice.

poeticseraphim

seb65 wrote: »

Wouldn't even need half a chance I'd say.

Funny, no one ever talks about the males who are getting all these women pregnant....If all women withheld sex until they wanted to get pregnant, we'd have state of the art abortion facilities in the morning.

If women witheld sex until abortion was granted..there would be state of the abortion facilties....or no need for abortion....
Abstinence does work

Ban Sex...it is equal and fair

seb65

Rodin wrote: »

It's better to not get knocked up by being irresponsible in the first instance. Prevention is always better than cure.

In the example of the women in the US, 50% of who were going for their 2nd abortion, are those women simply unlucky or irresponsible. I say they're irresponsible.

And the men in those situations? Is birth control only the woman's responsibility?

seb65

poeticseraphim wrote: »

If women witheld sex until abortion was granted..there would be state of the abortion facilties....or no need for abortion....
Abstinence does work

Ban Sex...it is equal and fair

I'll agree with that. Ban sex completely in the state. Sex is for reproduction purposes only, just like the church said 30 years ago.

HeyThereDeliah

seb65 wrote: »

I'll agree with that. Ban sex completely in the state. Sex is for reproduction purposes only, just like the church said 30 years ago.

Lets not get carried away now. Practice safe sex and remember practise makes perfect.

MagicSean

poeticseraphim wrote: »

Look when does that blob thing become a person with a right ???

Thats the question not who is getting smexy with who.

The earlier an abortion is the healthier it is for the woman too....

The govt allows embryonic research.

So embryos are not protected by the constitution.

When ?

Personally I think 7 weeks would be a safe cut off for optional terminations.

up for anything

HellFireClub wrote: »

Would I want my parents to have had that option available to me if they happened to be poor and decided that I wouldn't have an opportunity to live, post conception?!? NO! Would any person on their high and mighty pro-abortion horse on the thread here wish they had been aborted at 12 or 14 weeks because they might have been some sort of an inconvenience?!?

If any of us had been aborted we wouldn't have an opinion on it.

blacklilly wrote: »

And maybe the potential mother should have her tubes tide...stupid logic

Not stupid logic or even logic at all on my part - although your's is a good idea. Are we allowed do have that done now without the permission of our husbands if married?

HeyThereDeliah

up for anything wrote: »

Not stupid logic or even logic at all on my part - although your's is a good idea. Are we allowed do have that done now without the permission of our husbands if married?

Permission of husband, are you serious ? You might want to inform him but his permission, no.

blacklilly

up for anything wrote: »

If any of us had been aborted we wouldn't have an opinion on it.



Not stupid logic or even logic at all on my part - although your's is a good idea. Are we allowed do have that done now without the permission of our husbands if married?

What relevance does your question above have to this debate? I was merely trying to point out that your suggestion that men get snip if they do not want an unwanted pregnancy is ridiculous.
How about men wear condoms, women use birth control and act responsibly?
This is not only a women's issue , we live in a democracy and men are just as entitled to hold an opinion. I'm guessing you noted the number of men at the pro choice protests, their opinion counts doesn't it? Oh yes of course it does because they hold the same opinion as you.

dr.bollocko

My name is URL wrote: »

How is that designed to rile people? It's a genuine concern for many people who don't fully agree with relaxed abortion laws.

In the US, 50% of women who have an abortion in any given year; have had at least one prior to that, so it's understandable that some would arrive at a conclusion that a growing number of people see it as a fallback for their own lack of precaution.

I personally don't see that as being the case, but the argument itself shouldn't be scoffed at or brushed aside as some sort of conspiracy crap. That doesn't go towards helping anyone change their mind or look at things in a different way.

Well I have a number of problems with the phrasing of the argument. It's an interesting one for me because it's always difficult to phrase why I bawk whenever I hear it.

The most straight forward is that it is not a form of contraception for a start because of how we define contraception.

It also implies a certain level of ease to the act of abortion. That it is physically or psychologically simple and straight forward. That there are no moral arguments behind it no matter what end of the spectrum you fall on in the larger argument. This, must be surely accepted as an absolute wrong.

It immediately asks many further questions. How do we define what is a legitimate reason for an abortion? Who gets to decide that?
Societal norms of right now dictate what is or what is not abortion as a form of contraception. This shifts with the sand. What is OK now, what was ok 10, 20, 30 years ago etc.

It implies that each abortion should be morally acceptable according to our personal ideals whilst also implying a logical extreme. Even in the context of your counter-argument, the extreme version of a person having multiple abortions because, hell, it's easier than taking precautions is conjured easily.
That's why I think it's designed purely to rile people. As an argument it doesn't actually add anything to the table because it doesn't change what we are talking about at all. Yet we have our junior health minister on air refusing to accept that this country could ever have it.

K-9

The thing about the US and the UK is they tend to be outliers in regards to staistics. Most European countries show drops in the number of abortions. When abortion is introduced the numbers tend to rise for a few years, then drop and stabilise. The UK seems to be the main exception in Europe in that regard and I suppose most people look to there as the best example of it in operation. Tbh the social stigma here would make repeat abortions unlikely and a very small percentage if it were to be legalised.

asherbassad

I've been thinking about the whole Savita tragedy....and something just doesn't sit right.

Something else has happened here that isn't coming to light. I know many nurses and doctors and they have a similar doubt and sense of trepidation.

A woman is dead. A man is widowed. These are facts.
The widower refuses to have anything to do with a HSE inquiry. Why?

What was said and what was done during this episode? People state that the law is unclear.

From what I can gather, the law is very clear in this situation. Why wasn't it adhered to?

To those who would scream "Conspiracy Theorist" I would say "Back the fcuk off for a minute"

After the dust settles from marches and editorials and phone-in shows and the usual knee-jerk pantomime that accompanies such things.

Did they wait too long to give her antibiotic dosage to retard infection? Her cervix was dilated for a dangerous length of time during this disaster. Did they panic? She wasn't administered anti-biotics until 3 FULL days had passed after her admission.

This is in no way...NO WAY a judgement call based on socio-politico-religious grounds.

whatdoicare

asherbassad wrote: »

Did they wait too long to give her antibiotic dosage to retard infection? Her cervix was dilated for a dangerous length of time during this disaster. Did they panic? She wasn't administered anti-biotics until 3 FULL days had passed after her admission.

It said in the newspaper account from the husband that she was given antibiotics on arrival to the hospital on day one - I believe this is standard procedure. No good to a woman who's cervix was dilated for so long as it's similar to having an open head wound for three days and the type of septecemia or Ecoli, not sure which one, she eventually contracted was resistant to antibiotics.

amc1977

Knasher wrote: »

The typical failure rate of the pill and the condom is 8% and 15% respectively (though 0.3% and 2% under ideal circumstances) so a combined failure rate of 1.2% (or 1.2 in a 100 will get pregnant while using both), hardly effectively zero. Additionally not every woman can use the pill as there are some serious potential side effects to it.

Is that line of reasoning only for abortion or do you use it consistently. Lung cancer is a known risk of smoking, should people have to take responsibility for their own actions and be refused medical help for those that get lung cancer?

The pill if taken properly is over 99% safe, Forgetting to take a tablet, vomiting or diarrhoea after taking one and taking certain other prescription medicines can all reduce your protection from the Contraceptive Pill! There are also longer term option which some say are more effective. Depo Provera contains a progestogen hormone which is similar to the natural progesterone that women produce in their ovaries. It acts to turn off your egg release from the ovary and so is as safe as the Pill if not safer at preventing pregnancy.
As it contains no oestrogen it is safe to be used by women who have health issues that make the pill unacceptable and is popular among women who are breastfeeding.
The injection is given with a small needle in either the arm or the thigh and lasts 12 weeks. It is over 99 % effective and often used by women who want very reliable contraception without the worry of taking tablets. There is no harm also in having the guy use a condom also in conjunction with ones own form of contraception.