Pregnant woman dies in UCHG after being refused a termination

asherbassad

whatdoicare wrote: »

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.

Again, I'll withold judgement...except that if she was given antibiotics upon arrival, wasn't she also swabbed? This would have yielded the level of infection, no? I'm no physician...I'm a humble engineer so my knowledge of the body is below rudimentary. I am, however, scientifically educated and inquisitive by nature.
If the law states that in Ireland an abortion can be facilitated under the exact circumstances that surround this case then why wasn't it effected? The husband states that someone said "This is a Catholic country".

I can't envisage ANY doctor spitting out such a trite and banal quip. The Hypocratic Oath be damned?

I am not pointing fingers at state-sponsored dogma under the guise of religious strictures....but I am smelling a cover-up using the aforementioned as a smokescreen. And my instinct smells negligence.

Noreen1

seb65 wrote: »

Well since she asked for a termination, going on about why an induction wouldn't have been done is quite moot.

I believe the subject of the inquiry is whether the pregnancy should have been terminated, not labour induced. Labour being induced or even c-sections is what some anti-woman proponents on here are suggesting should have been done - simply as a means of avoiding an abortion - to end the miscarriage process. You're right, only sadists would suggest such things.

There is nothing moot about clarifying facts where people are either confused, or choose to muddy the waters, as applicable.
As I already stated, I was responding to a poster who stated that Savita had asked for induction.
It was perfectly valid to make the point that induction was pointless, as Savita was already dilated.
Incidently, if memory serves me correctly, the poster who initially mentioned induction was pro-choice.

I don't remember any posts about c-sections being suggested, but it's an interesting question in the broader debate - and not one that a one size fits all approach is appropriate for.
For example, what are the safest options for the mother in various situations, say, cancer, or septicaemia? (or a host of others, where different methods are more appropriate?

How can this be managed, with a view to the issue of foetal pain?
According to this link,( which is basically the first one that came up when I searched):

http://news.discovery.com/human/fetus-pain-abortion-law.html

There is some debate about when a foetus experiences pain.

Be that as it may, the point is, that at some stage, the foetus does feel pain.
I don't think there is any question that intervention is sometimes necessary at a point where the foetus is capable of experiencing pain.

Where intervention is required to save the life of a mother - and where other risk factors allow a choice in the method of termination - should minimising foetal pain play a part in the method of termination?

Should the doctor decide?
Or should the mother decide?

asherbassad

From where I stand, from what I've listened to and to whom I've listened, it would appear that the ones who defend against abortion, no matter what the circumstances, are also au fait with the termination of life in even less "cut and dried" circumstances. They are quite flippantly in agreement that should this woman have been working behind a counter in a shop or pub and someone brandished a knife.....POSSIBLY threatening her life, but most likely threatening her health, then that perpetrator ought to be shot dead in the midst of said incident. Yet a foetus that is killing her is off limits.
This is where the term "pro-life" utterly baffles me.

Again the "all life is sacred" canard is trotted out....then why kill a parasite that requires a human to live...such as worms or skin fungus?

The arguments are clear....VERY clear. Those who rail against abortion cannot bring themselves to accept that death could be delivered upon an entity upon whom they can't apportion some modicum of blame, whether it be upon the victim or at least on someone close-by. Kill a criminal....there's someone to blame...namely the criminal. Bomb a town full of toddlers...easy to find someone to blame...i.e. the loudmouth who caused the town to be levelled., and so it goes. Kill a zygote though .... Mental breakdown. Cognitive Dissonance. Can't find someone to blame......except maybe call the mother a whore or a selfish pig. Or ....when neither of these pass muster, then quote an ancient text which also demands casting no stones.

Amazing.

Noreen1

Flier wrote: »

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.

I never said I was referring to your post.

Flier wrote: »

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??

I never said you made any allegations of medical negligence, either.
The foetus may, or may not, have been the source of the infection.
What you said was:

Flier wrote: »

Noreen1 wrote: »

I
The question is, was Savita already suffering from septicaemia when she requested the termination?
If so, then the termination would have made no difference to the tragic outcome.


Sepsis is survivable. But only with treatment. And treatment includes removing the source of infection. So I think it's reasonable to say the termination may have made every difference to the outcome. I'm not saying she definitely would have survived, but once there were any signs or symptoms of infection, a termination should have been part of the treatment. And given that the foetus was not viable, it should be a no brainer.

Other posters were more emphatic.
The reason I quoted your post, was for your statement that "once there were any signs of infection, a termination should have been part of the treatment".
Why?
Most infections are treatable with antibiotics. Sepsis is also treatable, but only if the source of the infection is removed - also as you say.
But if the foetus wasn't the source of the infection, then how would removing it make a difference?

Flier wrote: »

Where I have issues, is where people refuse to accept that a termination may have been the right thing to do.

But I don't refuse to accept that termination may have been the right thing to do.
I don't agree that she should have been granted a termination within hours of first presenting at the hospital. That doesn't mean that I think a termination would never have been the best thing to do.
If a termination could have saved her life, and it was her choice to have one, then that's what should have happened.
But without more detail, I'm reluctant to make any definitive assertions about this case.
I'm also very wary of knee jerk reactions to this case affecting legislation that will have very real consequences for women in this Country for generations to come.

Flier wrote: »

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.....

Please point out where I quoted you as saying that?
I'm delighted that you can manage without my little simplifications. Other posters may not be so well informed - indeed, some of the ones with the most vehement posts, where the whole issue is oversimplified, appear to be remarkably ill-informed, pushing one side of an agenda, or appear not to have given any thought to the fact that any legislative changes will have an effect on the treatment of other women.
That's why I question sweeping statements - not to have a go at you.

This thread was over 100 pages when I started reading.
That's why my post didn't quote specific posters. Apologies if I gave the impression that my comments were in response to your posts alone.
That wasn't my intention.

Noreen1

mac.in wrote: »

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.

But cervical priming takes time, since it doesn't always work at the first attempt.:)
Savita didn't have time for cervical priming, or Prostaglandin, so, had induction been applicable, it is probable that Syntocinon would have been used.
Syntocinon is still used, (as you know:D:D) and, where the cervix isn't convenient, say, in 34 week pregnancies, - especially where there is a need to deliver quickly, hence higher dosage - I'm pretty sure it still hurts. Moreso at 34 weeks that at 36.:D:D

On the other hand, at 39-40 weeks, where priming has taken place, it wasn't a great deal more painful. (And I did just ask someone who'd just been through it, in case my experience 9 years ago was unique. No harm in double-checking:p)

What happened Savita is so sad.
Let's hope that some good can come out of it, and that there's honest debate, for the good of every other unfortunate woman who finds herself in a difficult position - and for their families, too.

efb

Good to see Rónán Mullen with all his self proclaimed knowledge of the female uterus object to the inquiry char

kraggy

HellFireClub wrote: »

The X case is irrelevant, we already know that this poor woman was entitled to a termination on the basis of the facts as we currently understand them. Someone charged with her care, unlawfully deprived her of that essential medical care that she needed and that she was legally entitled to, nothing to do with the X case, nothing to do with the Catholic Church.

Please stop selfishly using the tragedy of this woman's death to usher in abortion on demand in this country.

I thought the whole point of this tragedy is that the legislation has never been written therefore making it makes it too risky for doctors to act.

Thus, you can't say the doctors are at fault.

Furthermore, even if it was written, the threat to her life didn't come til after the foetus had died anyway so the doctors weren't in a position to terminate regardless.

Thus, again, the doctors weren't at fault. The lack of choice for the woman is.

Death and Taxes

According to todays Irish Times Praveen is still refusing to co-operate with the HSE whitwash.
Fair play to him, hopefully international pressure will be brought to bear so that a full, independent and public inquirey is held.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1121/1224326898622.html

whatdoicare

asherbassad wrote: »

Again, I'll withold judgement...except that if she was given antibiotics upon arrival, wasn't she also swabbed? This would have yielded the level of infection, no? I'm no physician...I'm a humble engineer so my knowledge of the body is below rudimentary. I am, however, scientifically educated and inquisitive by nature.
If the law states that in Ireland an abortion can be facilitated under the exact circumstances that surround this case then why wasn't it effected? The husband states that someone said "This is a Catholic country".

I can't envisage ANY doctor spitting out such a trite and banal quip. The Hypocratic Oath be damned?

I am not pointing fingers at state-sponsored dogma under the guise of religious strictures....but I am smelling a cover-up using the aforementioned as a smokescreen. And my instinct smells negligence.

I can only tell you what I myself have researched and I was only answering a question you were confused on. No judgement necessary. This is the grey area that doctors are asking for clarification on. If savita had presented with all her symptoms and no fetal heartbeat she
would have been treated immediately but the fetus still had a heart beat for nearly three days and treatment was witheld as it would have been considered an abortion, which is illegal.

From what I gather, swabs aren't done until the fetus and placenta have been flushed from the uterus to make sure no infection remains and to guage if further D&C is required.
The issue here is that the fetus still had a heart beat and the doctor refused to perform a D&C on this basis, waiting until the heart beat stopped before doing what was necessary. This is what left savita in a risky situation for the prolonged time and was also probably why the doctor informed the couple that this is a catholic country, to somehow explain his reasoning for waiting.

MagicSean

asherbassad wrote: »

From where I stand, from what I've listened to and to whom I've listened, it would appear that the ones who defend against abortion, no matter what the circumstances, are also au fait with the termination of life in even less "cut and dried" circumstances. They are quite flippantly in agreement that should this woman have been working behind a counter in a shop or pub and someone brandished a knife.....POSSIBLY threatening her life, but most likely threatening her health, then that perpetrator ought to be shot dead in the midst of said incident. Yet a foetus that is killing her is off limits.
This is where the term "pro-life" utterly baffles me.

That's one of the stupidest arguments I've heard to date. Your comparing a helpless and dependent unborn child to a guy brandishing a knife while committing a robbery. Did you even think that one through? Do be honest, if you thinkg of a pregnancy as a parasitic infection where your child is out to get you then perhaps you should stay away from the whole debate.

The abortion debate is all about one thing. It's the question of when a bundle of cells becomes a person. The majority of people who argue about abortion do so on the basis of their own belief of when a life is actually formed. Some people don't care either way, I find these to be the more distressing views.

You can try throw in terms like equality, religion, control all you want but at the end of the day and person with an ounce of empathy will not agree with the unnecessary termination of a life. That is "pro-life". As to the question as to when a life is formed there is very little consensus and barring some medical discovery it is unlikely we will all agree one anytime soon.

Personally I think a functioning brain and nervous system are what makes a life. My understanding is that this happens in week 8-9 which is why I have no problem with contraceptive methods, morning after pills or early abortion. Some might agree and some might disagree but without scientific or medical evidence to prove otherwise I doubt I'll budge very much on that view. And if a vulnerable life is in danger I see it as my duty to do what I can to protect it.

HeyThereDeliah

WileyCoyote wrote: »

According to todays Irish Times Praveen is still refusing to co-operate with the HSE whitwash.
Fair play to him, hopefully international pressure will be brought to bear so that a full, independent and public inquirey is held.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1121/1224326898622.html

All this is just stopping the enquiry from taking place, now it looks like prof Arulkumaran might be replaced. Should an outside panel be got instead?

Maybe that Canadian doctor that was mentioned here and the Indian doctor I Linked, would the husband be happy to help with the enquiry then?

"But fresh questions have also been raised about the independence of inquiry head Professor Sabaratnam Arulkumaran.

He's been accused of being pro-abortion after medical literature he co-authored came to light, which advocated a "liberal" approach to abortion."

whatdoicare

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

All this is just stopping the enquiry from taking place, now it looks like prof Arulkumaran might be replaced. Should an outside panel be got instead?

Maybe that Canadian doctor that was mentioned here and the Indian doctor I Linked, would the husband be happy to help with the enquiry then?

"But fresh questions have also been raised about the independence of inquiry head Professor Sabaratnam Arulkumaran.

He's been accused of being pro-abortion after medical literature he co-authored came to light, which advocated a "liberal" approach to abortion."

I think he's right to refuse, the hse making enquiries into themselves makes no sense, he wants a public enquiry and if there's nothing for the hse to hide then they should give him what he wants and bring the whole thing out in the public.

If the doctor acted within the law and did his best then there's no problem and it's a problem with the law needing to be clarified or changed but if he is found to have been negligent then he should be held accountable.

The government is basing all their decisions on this enquiry so praveen is damn right to be making sure none of it is swept under the carpet or fudged.

Oliver_Ahern

Saw that they are staging a mass protest in Edinburgh: http://bit.ly/USD5kt

The world is outraged by current Irish legislation surrounding abortion, and so should we be. Things are never so black and white and exceptions to the rule or law will always be a factor! Time for change.

Noreen1

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

All this is just stopping the enquiry from taking place, now it looks like prof Arulkumaran might be replaced. Should an outside panel be got instead?

Maybe that Canadian doctor that was mentioned here and the Indian doctor I Linked, would the husband be happy to help with the enquiry then?

"But fresh questions have also been raised about the independence of inquiry head Professor Sabaratnam Arulkumaran.

He's been accused of being pro-abortion after medical literature he co-authored came to light, which advocated a "liberal" approach to abortion."

In fairness, if I were Savitas husband, I would refuse to co-operate with any body that was investigating itself or it's staff. But there also comes a point when one person cannot dictate to a sovereign nation how they should conduct an enquiry.
I'm in favour of an independent enquiry. I'm even in favour of Savitas family having input into who conducts the enquiry, but not to the extent where future legislation is decided by a panel of experts chosen by one family.


I'd appreciate a link to the source regarding Professor Arulkumaran, and his views on abortion. It's disturbing, if true.
On the other hand, how do we ensure that someone with the necessary expertise has fairly neutral opinions on such an emotive issue?
I'd suggest that the best we can achieve, is equal voting rights on any recommendations, by a panel of equally divided pro choice, and pro-life experts? The end result should then be neutral, hopefully.

Surely Savitas family could accept that that would be fair?

Never mind. I found the source for Prof. Arulkumaran. It's here:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1121/howlin-halappanavar.html

seb65

Noreen1 wrote: »

In fairness, if I were Savitas husband, I would refuse to co-operate with any body that was investigating itself or it's staff. But there also comes a point when one person cannot dictate to a sovereign nation how they should conduct an enquiry.
I'm in favour of an independent enquiry. I'm even in favour of Savitas family having input into who conducts the enquiry, but not to the extent where future legislation is decided by a panel of experts chosen by one family.


I'd appreciate a link to the source regarding Professor Arulkumaran, and his views on abortion. It's disturbing, if true.
On the other hand, how do we ensure that someone with the necessary expertise has fairly neutral opinions on such an emotive issue?
I'd suggest that the best we can achieve, is equal voting rights on any recommendations, by a panel of equally divided pro choice, and pro-life experts? The end result should then be neutral, hopefully.

Surely Savitas family could accept that that would be fair?

Never mind. I found the source for Prof. Arulkumaran. It's here:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1121/howlin-halappanavar.html

It's an investigation. What is there to vote on? Even if they did make recommendations, the government refused to respect its own Supreme Court, the European Court of Justice and the wishes of the people through a referendum, why on earth do you think it will act on the wishes of a mere investigatory panel?

Just because the husband happens to be a different nationality doesn't have any affect on Ireland's sovereignty. He is a husband proclaiming how he wants the investigation into his wife's death handled. This is not an issue of an Indian directing Ireland how to act. India has had views on this matter for sure, but any country would act similarly. If it was an Irish husband, would it be okay for him to advocate for his wife after her death?

From the stories that have come out after this woman's death, seems this sort of treatment has happened before to miscarrying women. Perhaps it simply took an outsider to bring the matter to light.

Noreen1

seb65 wrote: »

It's an investigation. What is there to vote on? Even if they did make recommendations, the government refused to respect its own Supreme Court, the European Court of Justice and the wishes of the people through a referendum, why on earth do you think it will act on the wishes of a mere investigatory panel?

I think it would be unrealistic to suggest that an enquiry is being conducted, with no view to making changes, in view of the various statements by Government ministers stating that this is relevant to the health and safety of every pregnant woman in Ireland.

seb65 wrote: »

Just because the husband happens to be a different nationality doesn't have any affect on Ireland's sovereignty. He is a husband proclaiming how he wants the investigation into his wife's death handled. This is not an issue of an Indian directing Ireland how to act. India has had views on this matter for sure, but any country would act similarly. If it was an Irish husband, would it be okay for him to advocate for his wife after her death?

From the stories that have come out after this woman's death, seems this sort of treatment has happened before to miscarrying women. Perhaps it simply took an outsider to bring the matter to light.

What on earth has the husband being Indian to do with any of this?
I said one family should not be able to dictate how a nation decides to conduct an enquiry, while acknowledging their right to an input.
Whether that family is Indian, Irish, or any other nationality has nothing to do with it.

Or are you saying that you do not want an impartial report, only the result that Savitas family want, iyo?

kunst nugget

https://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2012/11/20/how-sick-must-a-pregnant-woman-be-in-ireland-for-her-doctor-to-say-her-life-is-at-risk/

seb65

http://www.nwlc.org/resource/below-radar-health-care-providers-religious-refusals-can-endanger-womens-lives-and-health

seb65

Noreen1 wrote: »

I think it would be unrealistic to suggest that an enquiry is being conducted, with no view to making changes, in view of the various statements by Government ministers stating that this is relevant to the health and safety of every pregnant woman in Ireland.



What on earth has the husband being Indian to do with any of this?
I said one family should not be able to dictate how a nation decides to conduct an enquiry, while acknowledging their right to an input.
Whether that family is Indian, Irish, or any other nationality has nothing to do with it.

Or are you saying that you do not want an impartial report, only the result that Savitas family want, iyo?

Your use of the word "sovereign" nation shows to you this is an issue of an outside nationality dictating terms. Freudian slip perhaps.

By the way, a state is sovereign, not a nation, but that is besides the point.

I think a family advocating for their dead loved one is more than appropriate. Disagreeing with how an investigation is conducted, how justice is served, happens ALL the time.

But hey, simply discredit rational points by an irrational accusation that I want one finding only. Yes, I certainly want the panel to determine this woman died needlessly because some hick doctor couldn't separate his/her biology book from his/her bible .

opinion guy

It seems these issues aren't restricted to Ireland:

http://www.dailylife.com.au/news-and-views/news-features/would-savitas-plight-have-been-different-in-australia-20121120-29ntw.html

bbam

I think it was good that his input was taken on board regarding the three consultants from Galway.

However, I don't think he should be let dictate further who what type of enquiry happens.

It's an insult to all Irish health professionals to say that none of them can be impartial to the facts and it very much seems that "we don't want any Irish involved as they might find that no wrong was done".

It would be a bad precedent to set that the only way an investigation into an unexpected death in hospital is through public enquiry. It's in un-necessary and excessive spending.

The patient records are the property of the HSE, surely they can sanction the release of the records to the inquiry team, if this man doesn't want to co operate then fine, but he needs to understand that he's then compromising the enquiry.

Penny Dreadful

bbam wrote: »

I think it was good that his input was taken on board regarding the three consultants from Galway.

However, I don't think he should be let dictate further who what type of enquiry happens.

It's an insult to all Irish health professionals to say that none of them can be impartial to the facts and it very much seems that "we don't want any Irish involved as they might find that no wrong was done".

It would be a bad precedent to set that the only way an investigation into an unexpected death in hospital is through public enquiry. It's in un-necessary and excessive spending.

The patient records are the property of the HSE, surely they can sanction the release of the records to the inquiry team, if this man doesn't want to co operate then fine, but he needs to understand that he's then compromising the enquiry.

The records can be reviewed by UCHG by means of a review and/or audit into its practice but they cannot be released beyone that without consent of the patient or in this case next of kin.

I agree that a public enquiry is not the right way to go about this investigation. The information will be revealed in dribs and drabs and given this be open to misinterpretation and confusion and ultimately do more harm that good. It may also set a precedent for anyone who dies in the care of the State in any way to be the subject of a public enquiry unnecessarily.

My name is URL

I say let him choose the people involved himself. That's obviously what he wants... he'll perceive any inquiry to be biased if it doesn't reach the conclusion that he wants to see.

Annabella1

bbam wrote: »

I think it was good that his input was taken on board regarding the three consultants from Galway.

However, I don't think he should be let dictate further who what type of enquiry happens.

It's an insult to all Irish health professionals to say that none of them can be impartial to the facts and it very much seems that "we don't want any Irish involved as they might find that no wrong was done".

It would be a bad precedent to set that the only way an investigation into an unexpected death in hospital is through public enquiry. It's in un-necessary and excessive spending.

The patient records are the property of the HSE, surely they can sanction the release of the records to the inquiry team, if this man doesn't want to co operate then fine, but he needs to understand that he's then compromising the enquiry.

I am beginning to agree with this stance...

The concern I have here is that a public inquiry will become a prolonged and expensive disaster with no conclusions similar to our tribunals.
What is most important here is that the facts are established asap and a public inquiry where all sides are 'lawyered up' won't do this
I think we should trust the integrity of our doctors/midwives to produce an accurate report

opinion guy

Have you guys and gals seen the video interview with Praveen - half way down this page - sound is a bit **** - but he gives context for the its a Catholic country comment:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/1121/breaking13.html

General Zod

My name is URL wrote: »

I say let him choose the people involved himself. That's obviously what he wants... he'll perceive any inquiry to be biased if it doesn't reach the conclusion that he wants to see.

He wants on outside investigation into his wife's death and I can understand why.

Personally I have no problem with a HSE investigation provided it is not composed of Galway hospital staff investigating themselves.

asherbassad

MagicSean wrote: »

That's one of the stupidest arguments I've heard to date. Your comparing a helpless and dependent unborn child to a guy brandishing a knife while committing a robbery. Did you even think that one through? Do be honest, if you thinkg of a pregnancy as a parasitic infection where your child is out to get you then perhaps you should stay away from the whole debate.

The abortion debate is all about one thing. It's the question of when a bundle of cells becomes a person. The majority of people who argue about abortion do so on the basis of their own belief of when a life is actually formed. Some people don't care either way, I find these to be the more distressing views.

You can try throw in terms like equality, religion, control all you want but at the end of the day and person with an ounce of empathy will not agree with the unnecessary termination of a life. That is "pro-life". As to the question as to when a life is formed there is very little consensus and barring some medical discovery it is unlikely we will all agree one anytime soon.

Personally I think a functioning brain and nervous system are what makes a life. My understanding is that this happens in week 8-9 which is why I have no problem with contraceptive methods, morning after pills or early abortion. Some might agree and some might disagree but without scientific or medical evidence to prove otherwise I doubt I'll budge very much on that view. And if a vulnerable life is in danger I see it as my duty to do what I can to protect it.

I am not comparing the two. YOU stated that I am and that right there shows you've utterly missed the point. I'm comparing a life with another life. As for the rest of your drivel...I'm not going to waste my time in responding to it.

asherbassad

Noreen1 wrote: »

In fairness, if I were Savitas husband, I would refuse to co-operate with any body that was investigating itself or it's staff. But there also comes a point when one person cannot dictate to a sovereign nation how they should conduct an enquiry.
I'm in favour of an independent enquiry. I'm even in favour of Savitas family having input into who conducts the enquiry, but not to the extent where future legislation is decided by a panel of experts chosen by one family.


I'd appreciate a link to the source regarding Professor Arulkumaran, and his views on abortion. It's disturbing, if true.
On the other hand, how do we ensure that someone with the necessary expertise has fairly neutral opinions on such an emotive issue?
I'd suggest that the best we can achieve, is equal voting rights on any recommendations, by a panel of equally divided pro choice, and pro-life experts? The end result should then be neutral, hopefully.

Surely Savitas family could accept that that would be fair?

Never mind. I found the source for Prof. Arulkumaran. It's here:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1121/howlin-halappanavar.html

To be honest I don't think future legislation is even on Praveen's or his/her family's radar. He wants a completely independent inquiry into the death of his wife. After that he wants results and accountability.

I'd say after that he couldn't give a fcuk about Ireland and its future legislation.

bbam

asherbassad wrote: »

To be honest I don't think future legislation is even on Praveen's or his/her family's radar. He wants a completely independent inquiry into the death of his wife. After that he wants results and accountability.

I'd say after that he couldn't give a fcuk about Ireland and its future legislation.

You say he wants results and accountability?
That's like saying he wants an enquiry as long as it finds what he wants. Do you think he'll be sadisified if they come back am say that bar some insensitivity that no wrong was done?
This man is grieving for the loss of his whole family, I'm wondering if hell be happy with anything other than HSE employees heads rolling into a basket.

asherbassad

Noreen1 wrote: »

I think it would be unrealistic to suggest that an enquiry is being conducted, with no view to making changes, in view of the various statements by Government ministers stating that this is relevant to the health and safety of every pregnant woman in Ireland.



What on earth has the husband being Indian to do with any of this?
I said one family should not be able to dictate how a nation decides to conduct an enquiry, while acknowledging their right to an input.
Whether that family is Indian, Irish, or any other nationality has nothing to do with it.

Or are you saying that you do not want an impartial report, only the result that Savitas family want, iyo?

What do you mean "how a nation decides to conduct and enquiry"?

WTF does that mean? An independent, non-partisan, unbiased, unaffiliated panel is called for to investigate this tragedy.

What has that got to do with "nation" ?
Are the facts of the case to be sent to every home in the land for their feedback?

Noreen1

seb65 wrote: »

Your use of the word "sovereign" nation shows to you this is an issue of an outside nationality dictating terms. Freudian slip perhaps.

By the way, a state is sovereign, not a nation, but that is besides the point.

I think a family advocating for their dead loved one is more than appropriate. Disagreeing with how an investigation is conducted, how justice is served, happens ALL the time.

But hey, simply discredit rational points by an irrational accusation that I want one finding only. Yes, I certainly want the panel to determine this woman died needlessly because some hick doctor couldn't separate his/her biology book from his/her bible .

No freudian slip, whatsoever.
I just happen to believe in the ideal of Democracy, and I don't believe that Democracy is best served by letting one family dictate the terms of reference of an enquiry that will affect the treatment of many other women in the future.

There is a difference between a family advocating for their dead loved ones, and dictating who carries out an enquiry.
It is perfectly reasonable to voice concerns where there is a valid reason, it is not, however, reasonable to refuse to co-operate with an enquiry unless every member of the Board of enquiry has the explicit approval of the family.
That would obviously affect the impartiality of those involved, and allow the family to disproportionally weigh the results in favour of their own position/beliefs.

Thanks for confirming your own bias, though. You obviously don't want an impartial enquiry to determine the full facts.
You've clearly decided that a; The doctor is a hick. B: He acted out of religious belief, rather than any legal constraints, or clinical problems.

It must be nice to be so convinced that your moral position is so superior that mere facts shouldn't be allowed to get in the way of your convictions.:rolleyes:
Personally, I prefer to get the facts first, before forming an opinion on what the best possible options are for both mothers and unborn children.
Savitas child may have been unviable. That doesn't mean that every woman who suffers a miscarriage will be in the same position.
Those women and children will have their treatment determined by the outcome of this enquiry.
Unlike you, I want the best treatment for every woman and child, and the best way to obtain that is by starting with an impartial enquiry.

asherbassad

Annabella1 wrote: »

I am beginning to agree with this stance...

The concern I have here is that a public inquiry will become a prolonged and expensive disaster with no conclusions similar to our tribunals.
What is most important here is that the facts are established asap and a public inquiry where all sides are 'lawyered up' won't do this
I think we should trust the integrity of our doctors/midwives to produce an accurate report

If our doctors feared for their careers prior to Savita's death what makes you think they'll all of a sudden be immune from pressure and intimidation post-mortem?

Bullseye1

This whole tragic case has been handled so badly by the HSE, Department of Health and now Kenny making that dreadful public appeal to the womans husband is as low as you can get. Its no wonder the man wants nothing to do with a HSE inquiry. It should be a public inquiry.

positron

I think Praveen is absolutely within his rights to ask for an impartial public inquiry - I would too if I were in his position, because I wouldn't trust HSE to do a completely honest and unbiased enquiry, whatever the credentials of the person leading the team. However I wonder if Praveen is asking for a 'open inquiry' where facts are available to everyone, and if his solicitors are guiding him in a direction that he doesn't fully understand - I hope not.

Noreen1

asherbassad wrote: »

To be honest I don't think future legislation is even on Praveen's or his/her family's radar. He wants a completely independent inquiry into the death of his wife. After that he wants results and accountability.

I'd say after that he couldn't give a fcuk about Ireland and its future legislation.

He probably hasn't given a second thought to Irelands future legislation, poor man.
The trouble is, if something comes up as a result of this enquiry that requires a referendum, the rest of us are going to have to give some very serious thought to some very hard questions.
I would also hope that our legislators are giving the matter some very serious thought.

asherbassad wrote: »

What do you mean "how a nation decides to conduct and enquiry"?

WTF does that mean? An independent, non-partisan, unbiased, unaffiliated panel is called for to investigate this tragedy.

What has that got to do with "nation" ?
Are the facts of the case to be sent to every home in the land for their feedback?

It has everything to do with "nation" when the results will be viewed with the objective of changing National legislation.

HeyThereDeliah

http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/national-news/kenny-calls-for-talks-with-widower-3301719.html

Prime time have interviewed the husband and he is adamant he will not have anything to do with the HSE, how long will a public enquiry go on for? Years probably.

Im not sure if Enda Kenny should have said anything today but the fact this has put Ireland in the news maybe it's right he should say something, I'm undecided.

For other politicians who were in government for the last twenty years now criticising this government is a bit stupid seeing as they should have legislated for this scenario.

asherbassad

bbam wrote: »

You say he wants results and accountability?
That's like saying he wants an enquiry as long as it finds what he wants. Do you think he'll be sadisified if they come back am say that bar some insensitivity that no wrong was done?
This man is grieving for the loss of his whole family, I'm wondering if hell be happy with anything other than HSE employees heads rolling into a basket.

That is NOT like saying he wants and enquiry as long as it finds what he wants.

But are you suggesting that the guy wants an enquiry that finds someone culpable even if there is nobody to blame? Because that's a fairly sleazy accusation to make.
I'd say that he most definitely wants an enquiry that finds what he wants. What is it he wants?? I would hazard a guess that he wants the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. He doesn't have any faith in the HSE investigating itself and I don't blame him.
Why shouldn't he demand to have an enquiry that will scrupulously dig out the truth rather than a farcical whitewash?

It seems to me that you are as afraid of transparency as the HSE and therefore try to throw the ball back in his court by accusing him of wanting something rigged in his favour. Shabby, bbam, very shabby.

bbam

We have to remember folks it's not as smile as she should have been given a termination to save her life.
I agree a termination seems to have been obvious here. But be clear that it would have been no guarantee that she would have been saved.

This needs to be about concluding if the appropriate patient care was given or not, some seem to think its about finding out who we find guilty of denying the termination. There are so many more factors in this case which rightly haven't been made public so far.

A full public enquiry could last years and cost tens of millions, it will open up the notion of public enquiry for every unexpected death in hospitals and the cold facts are that we don't need it and can't afford it.

The government need to grow some balls, push on with the enquiry, let the family co operate or not. They've been given their input And it has been taken on board where practical.

asherbassad

bbam wrote: »

I think it was good that his input was taken on board regarding the three consultants from Galway.

However, I don't think he should be let dictate further who what type of enquiry happens.

It's an insult to all Irish health professionals to say that none of them can be impartial to the facts and it very much seems that "we don't want any Irish involved as they might find that no wrong was done".

It would be a bad precedent to set that the only way an investigation into an unexpected death in hospital is through public enquiry. It's in un-necessary and excessive spending.

The patient records are the property of the HSE, surely they can sanction the release of the records to the inquiry team, if this man doesn't want to co operate then fine, but he needs to understand that he's then compromising the enquiry.

Listen to this crap....Christ Almighty.

Can we have a bit of clarity here. Here you go dragging all kinds of tangential rubbish into the issue. "An insult to Irish health professionals" .. so now you try to make this a national pride thing and sway people with this emotional blackmail mumbo-jumbo. And you now speak for ALL IRISH health professionals, do you? It isn't an insult to the many that I know. And then you have the audacity to bleat on about cost and precedent.

I half expected you to trot out the "no wonder da country's rooooned" horseshit

My name is URL

asherbassad wrote: »

That is NOT like saying he wants and enquiry as long as it finds what he wants.

But are you suggesting that the guy wants an enquiry that finds someone culpable even if there is nobody to blame? Because that's a fairly sleazy accusation to make.
I'd say that he most definitely wants an enquiry that finds what he wants. What is it he wants?? I would hazard a guess that he wants the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. He doesn't have any faith in the HSE investigating itself and I don't blame him.
Why shouldn't he demand to have an enquiry that will scrupulously dig out the truth rather than a farcical whitewash?

It seems to me that you are as afraid of transparency as the HSE and therefore try to throw the ball back in his court by accusing him of wanting something rigged in his favour. Shabby, bbam, very shabby.

It's fairly sleazy that people are prejudging any HSE inquiry to be a whitewash or biased too.. grossly unfair to the many decent people involved with the organisation.

It's been said countless times already that an internal inquiry would not affect any subsequent independent investigation. The HSE have to conduct an internal investigation in any case.

I wonder if other involved parties would show such disdain and unwillingness to cooperate with an external inquiry. The man has had his way regarding the removal of hospital staff from the inquiry, which was his original gripe.

HeyThereDeliah

I said yesterday that the husband will lose public support if he refuses to cooperate with the enquiry and I believe it's starting to happen. He cannot expect to dictate how the enquiry is carried out and whether we like it or not a public enquiry would last years and cost millions.

asherbassad

Noreen1 wrote: »

He probably hasn't given a second thought to Irelands future legislation, poor man.
The trouble is, if something comes up as a result of this enquiry that requires a referendum, the rest of us are going to have to give some very serious thought to some very hard questions.
I would also hope that our legislators are giving the matter some very serious thought.




It has everything to do with "nation" when the results will be viewed with the objective of changing National legislation.

That's completely unrelated. People here are screaming that the future of Ireland is about to be put in the hands of Praveen and the deceased's family and that's utter bullsh!t.

He wants an enquiry into his wife's death. After that enquiry is completed and the result published it's immaterial what the rest of the nation does.

What's all this fear about the bloody constitution?
The man wants a truthful enquiry. Why are you even talking about future national legislation? Have a damn referendum now if you want to make Mickey Mouse the patron saint of Ireland for all I care. This guy, Praveen, doesn't care either and his enquiry has nothing to do with it.

opinion guy

I have to say I do think he is pushing it too far - he got the Galway people off the board and that I agree with. I think Enda or James need to step up now and say look dude this is how it needs to be to get this done quickly.

Whilst I don't trust the HSE in general, in this case there is too much attention on it for them to try anything shifty - the repercussions would be too big

StudentDad

It's fairly clear that the husband in this case wants nothing to do with the HSE and wants a full public inquiry and I agree with him. Self regulation is no regulation. This entire case needs to be taken out of the hands of the HSE and given to the courts to investigate, with the power to compel witnesses and compel the handing over of all relevant documentation. With the results then published for all to see.

SD

HeyThereDeliah

StudentDad wrote: »

It's fairly clear that the husband in this case wants nothing to do with the HSE and wants a full public inquiry and I agree with him. Self regulation is no regulation. This entire case needs to be taken out of the hands of the HSE and given to the courts to investigate, with the power to compel witnesses and compel the handing over of all relevant documentation. With the results then published for all to see.

SD

Have you any idea how a public enquiry works?
I think the sooner it's investigated the better for everyone involved, dragging it out for the next few years will benefit no one.

StudentDad

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

Have you any idea how a public enquiry works?
I think the sooner it's investigated the better for everyone involved, dragging it out for the next few years will benefit no one.

A private in house whitewash is preferable? That will be the perception no matter how 'quick' it would be.

SD

HeyThereDeliah

StudentDad wrote: »

A private in house whitewash is preferable? That will be the perception no matter how 'quick' it would be.

SD

It was not private and we have to trust someone to have some ethics and reveal the truth regardless of who it hurts privately or professionally.

StudentDad

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

It was not private and we have to trust someone to have some ethics and reveal the truth regardless of who it hurts privately or professionally.

Good luck with that. This is why it needs to be decided independently of the HSE. That way there can be no inference of self interest.

SD

Noreen1

asherbassad wrote: »

That's completely unrelated. People here are screaming that the future of Ireland is about to be put in the hands of Praveen and the deceased's family and that's utter bullsh!t.

He wants an enquiry into his wife's death. After that enquiry is completed and the result published it's immaterial what the rest of the nation does.

What's all this fear about the bloody constitution?
The man wants a truthful enquiry. Why are you even talking about future national legislation? Have a damn referendum now if you want to make Mickey Mouse the patron saint of Ireland for all I care. This guy, Praveen, doesn't care either and his enquiry has nothing to do with it.

I certainly haven't screamed about any such thing. Actually, i haven't screamed at all.

The facts are that the Government is under pressure, from various sources, to legislate.
The facts are also that various government ministers have said that they want this enquiry concluded ASAP so that women are reassured about maternal health issues. Hence, it's obvious that the results of this enquiry will have some bearing on this legislation.

I also want a truthful enquiry. I don't presume to know what Praveen wants.

There is, however, no question that where one party, be that Praveen, or the HSE, has total control over who carries out the enquiry, then the possibility of bias has to be considered.
Hence the need for an impartial enquiry, to establish the facts, and present any conclusions/recommendations without bias towards either side.

I don't see why you seem to have such a problem with impartiality.
Unless people have an agenda to push, they usually value impartiality when trying to establish facts.

opinion guy

StudentDad wrote: »

Good luck with that. This is why it needs to be decided independently of the HSE. That way there can be no inference of self interest.

SD

I'm curious.
What is it you think the HSE would find in terms of self interest ???

I don't really think there is any possible outcome here that favours them.