Pregnant woman dies in UCHG after being refused a termination

Morag

This might throw some light on things

http://www.fiamc.org/fiamc/03events/0209seoul/texts3/01odwyer/odwyer.htm

AN ABORTION SAGA FROM AN OLD CHRISTIAN COUNTRY
Eamon O'DWYER, LLB, FRCPI, FRCOG
Professor, emeritus, of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
National University of Ireland, Galway

...................

Unfortunately, not so --- Nine years later, a girl of 14, pregnant after consensual intercourse with a grown man, a case of unlawful carnal knowledge, was injuncted by the High Court against travelling to the United Kingdom for an abortion. An appeal to the Supreme Court, on the grounds of threatened suicide, was upheld, the Court by a majority of four to one, lifting the injunction and, in a judgment (since known as the X-case judgement), which most legal experts consider to be flawed, holding that abortion was lawful in the State where it was probable that continuation of the pregnancy posed a real and substantial risk to the life, as distinct from the health, of the mother. Suicide, it held, was such a risk. Nor did the Court place any limit on the stage in pregnancy at which an abortion might be carried out.

This decision, described by the Catholic Hierarchy as a "miscarriage of justice" was greeted with dismay, and almost disbelief by pro-life people throughout the country who rightly believed that the Constitution, as amended, gave complete protection to the unborn.

What the fcuk a 14 year old can't consent, thats the kid from the X case, she was groomed and abused by a friend of the family and this deluded arse says it was consensual and he was a Consultant and a teaching professor.

HeyThereDeliah

K-9 wrote: »

That's where the debate over health/life comes in and why people saying just legislate for the X case and it''l be grand, don't get it.

As far as I can see and I haven't heard anything otherwise, they can't "abort" a baby that is going to do die if there is no threat to the life of the mother, even if forcing the miscarriage is an exercise in futility.

The mothers life must be in danger for a termination to be carried out. Are you saying that if the baby is going to die they should just speed it up and terminate it?

Nodin

K-9 wrote: »

That's where the debate over health/life comes in and why people saying just legislate for the X case and it''l be grand, don't get it.

As far as I can see and I haven't heard anything otherwise, they can't "abort" a baby that is going to do die if there is no threat to the life of the mother, even if forcing the miscarriage is an exercise in futility.

...thats the impression I now have. I've heard a few anecdotes over the years as regards women having to carry on with pregnancies that weren't viable, but it never dawned on me there was anything more to it that some obscure medical nessecity (being male, theres a limit to the detail I was going to get, and these all seemed to be second and third hand stories).

HeyThereDeliah wrote:

Are you saying that if the baby is going to die they should just speed it up and terminate it?

If the mother is suffering, whats the point of not either terminating it or delivering it?

HeyThereDeliah

Nodin wrote: »

If the mother is suffering, whats the point of not either terminating it or delivering it?

Is this just an issue when there is still a heartbeat?

Mothers suffer during childbirth as well but some doctors let nature take its course sometimes for days before they will intervene.

Nodin

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

Is this just an issue when there is still a heartbeat?
......

Presumably. It seems to be what happened here. What I can't understand is - as she was reportedly in agony - the pregnancy wasn't induced/terminated, as it was never going to have a successful outcome.

HeyThereDeliah

Nodin wrote: »

Presumably. It seems to be what happened here. What I can't understand is - as she was reportedly in agony - the pregnancy wasn't induced/terminated, as it was never going to have a successful outcome.

I'm presuming its because her life was not in danger at the time so it would have been abortion which as we know is illegal.
I think it all boils down to when her life was at risk, was it before or after they done the D&C.

Nodin

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

I'm presuming its because her life was not in danger at the time so it would have been abortion which as we know is illegal.
I think it all boils down to when her life was at risk, was it before or after they done the D&C.

Yes, but a lot of people would presume (much as I had) that the abortion law applied to a viable foetus. It never occurred to me there would be a problem with non-viable pregnancies.

K-9

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

The mothers life must be in danger for a termination to be carried out. Are you saying that if the baby is going to die they should just speed it up and terminate it?

Yes. Why not?

MagicSean

K-9 wrote: »

Yes. Why not?

I suppose it's the same thinking behind a ban on assisted suicide.

ASVM

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

I'm presuming its because her life was not in danger at the time so it would have been abortion which as we know is illegal.
I think it all boils down to when her life was at risk, was it before or after they done the D&C.

As far as I know she delivered the baby. That is what I understood from the husband's interview as the sex of the baby was determined to be a girl.

HeyThereDeliah

K-9 wrote: »

Yes. Why not?

There usually is no need because miscarriage happens without intervention.

@nodin, if that were the case we would have abortion here, it was always if there was a threat to the mothers life.

K-9

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

There usually is no need because miscarriage happens without intervention.

Obviously. So in Saveeta's case, there was no initial risk to her health assuming everybody acted properly, she wanted an "abortion" of a dead baby.

You think there is something wrong with "aborting" a baby that is going to die? Let nature take its course and be damned with medical opinion.

My name is URL

K-9 wrote: »

He doesn't have to co-operate with the inquiry, its really just an exercise in bureaucracy anyway. The time has come for a public inquiry into this case and if it takes a year, well it will be worth it. Expediency isn't important now.

Have a full public debate over it. If the doctors thought her life wasn't in danger initially and I've no reason to think otherwise, we need to change our laws to allow abortions when a woman is going to miscarry, but her life isn't in danger.

The public debate is already underway, but it should not determine what course of action is to be taken. He doesn't have to cooperate with the internal inquiry (does anyone?), but that doesn't mean he should not do so.

An exercise in democracy is pandering to populist opinion; and building a case around that. People just want to fight for what they want to be said.

I hope there is a fully public inquiry, but not if it means that a departmental review is disallowed. One potentially unfit physician does not require a fully fledged rewriting of a single piece of legislation.

HeyThereDeliah

K-9 wrote: »

Obviously. So in Saveeta's case, there was no initial risk to her health assuming everybody acted properly, she wanted an "abortion" of a dead baby.

You think there is something wrong with "aborting" a baby that is going to die? Let nature take its course and be damned with medical opinion.

No I don't think there is anything wrong with aborting a baby that is going to die but I would probably let nature take its course if my life was not at risk.

I have stated all ready I would always choose mother over baby regardless of how near the birth was.

seb65

Sharrow wrote: »

This might throw some light on things

http://www.fiamc.org/fiamc/03events/0209seoul/texts3/01odwyer/odwyer.htm




What the fcuk a 14 year old can't consent, thats the kid from the X case, she was groomed and abused by a friend of the family and this deluded arse says it was consensual and he was a Consultant and a teaching professor.

Totally sick. I thought it was well known in the facts that she was raped (not just statutorily, but against her will). This fossil is also against birth control pills. I mean, he has no place in women's health.

K-9

My name is URL wrote: »

I hope there is a fully public inquiry, but not if it means that a departmental review is disallowed. One potentially unfit physician does not require a fully fledged rewriting of a single piece of legislation.

That'll come out in the public inquiry anyway. The HSE inquiry is just rubber stamping.

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

No I don't think there is anything wrong with aborting a baby that is going to die but I would probably let nature take its course if my life was not at risk.

Grand, its just your personal opinion but you see nothing wrong with it, fine.

seb65

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

Is this just an issue when there is still a heartbeat?

Mothers suffer during childbirth as well but some doctors let nature take its course sometimes for days before they will intervene.

I don't think this was just an instance of dr.'s letting mother nature take its course. They continuously checked for the baby's heartbeat over the three days. As soon as there was no heartbeat, they removed the fetus. Why didn't they just wait for her to expel it. Why monitor the heartbeat?

I know women that have miscarried that have just gone home to do so. That's letting nature take its course. In this instance they checked her in.

opinion guy

And so it seems the plot thickens......
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1122/1224326951325.html

It seems he has good reason not to trust the HSE enquiry.

jill_valentine

Mr O’Donnell also said yesterday “crucial elements” of Ms Halappanavar’s medical notes had been withheld from Mr Halappanavar. He said Mr Halappanavar had requested his wife’s notes for the week she spent at the Galway hospital.

“To my layman’s eyes I could see crucial parts were missing,” said Mr O’Donnell. “I had a doctor friend look over them and he agreed there were crucial notes were missing.

“It is impossible to have faith in the HSE and this inquiry at this point,” he said.

Bloody hell.

poeticseraphim

http://www.fiamc.org/fiamc/03events/...yer/odwyer.htm

By Prof Eamon O'Dwyer retired head of Obstetrics at Galway Hospital.

Read it.
Quote:

Unfortunately, not so --- Nine years later, a girl of 14, pregnant after consensual intercourse with a grown man, a case of unlawful carnal knowledge, was injuncted by the High Court.

??Oh WOW.....Besides the fact that legally a 14 yr old cannot consent ..it was a well known case of rape. And what kind of person writes that?

He is also against contraception for women.

Quote:

This decision of the Supreme Court opened the flood gates, as it were, to the widespread use of the contraceptive pill in Ireland. I stated earlier that Ireland was a Catholic country, with 94 per cent of the population in a recent census describing themselves as Roman Catholic. Unfortunately, we appear to lack the fortitude which enabled our ancestors steadfastly to remain Catholic in word and deed; many nowadays are what might be called al a carte Catholics. While the Country has never been so affluent, with more people gainfully employed than ever before in our history, there has been a significant increase in drug addiction, crimes of violence, suicide, especially among young men, and at the same time a decline in religious observance.

This guy is crazy!!!

And he was head of obstetrics and gynecology at Galway hospital. Where Savita died. How can someone with those beliefs provide adequate medical care.

He has no place in medicine.

Not only does he not believe in contraception, he believes a 14 yr old is capable of giving consent to having sex with a grown man and he does not believe in contraception.

SICK. Should be struck off.

DISGUSTING AND FROM A RETIRED OBSTETRICIAN AND GYNECOLOGIST OBVIOUSLY NO CONCERN FOR FEMALE HEALTH PHYSICAL OR EMOTIONAL.

Death and Taxes

poeticseraphim wrote: »

http://www.fiamc.org/fiamc/03events/...yer/odwyer.htm

By Prof Eamon O'Dwyer head of Obstetrics at Galway Hospital.

Read it.
Quote:
Unfortunately, not so --- Nine years later, a girl of 14, pregnant after consensual intercourse with a grown man, a case of unlawful carnal knowledge, was injuncted by the High Court.
??Oh WOW.....Besides the fact that legally a 14 yr old cannot consent ..it was a well known case of rape. And what kind of person writes that?

He is also against contraception for women.

Quote:
This decision of the Supreme Court opened the flood gates, as it were, to the widespread use of the contraceptive pill in Ireland. I stated earlier that Ireland was a Catholic country, with 94 per cent of the population in a recent census describing themselves as Roman Catholic. Unfortunately, we appear to lack the fortitude which enabled our ancestors steadfastly to remain Catholic in word and deed; many nowadays are what might be called al a carte Catholics. While the Country has never been so affluent, with more people gainfully employed than ever before in our history, there has been a significant increase in drug addiction, crimes of violence, suicide, especially among young men, and at the same time a decline in religious observance.
This guy is crazy!!!

And he is head of obstetrics and gynecology at Galway hospital. Where Savita died. How can someone with those beliefs provide adequate medical care.

He has no place in medicine.

Not only does he not believe in contraception, he believes a 14 yr old is capable of giving consent to having sex with a grown man and he does not believe in contraception.

SICK. Should be struck off.

DISGUSTING AND FROM AN OBSTETRICIAN AND GYNECOLOGIST OBVIOUSLY NO CONCERN FOR FEMALE HEALTH PHYSICAL OR EMOTIONAL.

As the obstetrician in the hospital tols the Hallapanavars "This is a catholic country, we cannot terminate the pregnancy"
President Higgins is right we need an inquiry that meets the publics needs, the family's needs and the the States needs".

Death and Taxes

MagicSean wrote: »

The public certainly need their scapegoat.

No the public need the truth and the family deserve justice.
Despite your occupation you must have basic understanding of the truth and justice, or do you just arrest scapegoats?

Death and Taxes

The HSE have given the Chairman of the Savita whitewash permission to go to court this week to obtain her medical records against the express wishes of her husband.
Talk about adding insult to injury. The behaviour of Enda and the HSE in this case reminds me of the behaviour of the Roman Catholic Hierarchy when the first claims of sexual abuse were made!

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/savita-inquiry-chairman-given-authority-to-seek-medical-records-575103.html

MagicSean

WileyCoyote wrote: »

No the public need the truth and the family deserve justice.

That's what a coroners inquest is for. And once again I'll ask you to stop with the personal attacks. They are getting pretty pathetic.

Death and Taxes

MagicSean wrote: »

That's what a coroners inquest is for. And once again I'll ask you to stop with the personal attacks. They are getting pretty pathetic.

Actually that is not what the inquest is for, the issues in this and similar cases go much deeper than can be dealt with by a Coroners inquest.
With regards to personal attacks, I made none . I merely responded to a trite and dismissive comment with a question of my own.

MagicSean

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Actually that is not what the inquest is for, the issues in this and similar cases go much deeper than can be dealt with by a Coroners inquest.
With regards to personal attacks, I made none . I merely responded to a trite and dismissive comment with a question of my own.

An inquest is held to establish the facts surrounding a persons death. Once that has been established it would give a much clearer view of what went on.

And you can try disguise your personal attacks all you want. I've no idea why you are so obsessed with what I do for a living or why you try and bring it up in every thread you quote me in.

kraggy

Can someone please tell me, is it actually written into law that termination is permitted if the mothers life is in danger or was there just a court ruling saying as such but they never bothered writing the legislation for it?

I'm also confused by the medical councils guidelines. They state a doctor can terminate if the woman's life is in danger but many people are saying that it's not been put down in law but surely it wouldn't be written in medical council guidelines if it wasn't law?

Clarification anyone?

MagicSean

kraggy wrote: »

Can someone please tell me, is it actually written into law that termination is permitted if the mothers life is in danger or was there just a court ruling saying as such but they never bothered writing the legislation for it?

I'm also confused by the medical councils guidelines. They state a doctor can terminate if the woman's life is in danger but many people are saying that it's not been put down in law but surely it wouldn't be written in medical council guidelines if it wasn't law?

Clarification anyone?

It is not written into law. The medical council guidelines merely state what's in the constitution as far as I know. Not much help to a doctor trying to make a decision unfortunately. There is also no protection from prosecution or civil liability for a doctor who performs a termination.

Death and Taxes

MagicSean wrote: »

It is not written into law. The medical council guidelines merely state what's in the constitution as far as I know. Not much help to a doctor trying to make a decision unfortunately. There is also no protection from prosecution or civil liability for a doctor who performs a termination.

Surely that depends on the circumstances since the X Case judgement clearly states that termination is legal under certain limited circumstances, ie where there is a real and substantial risk to the life , as opposed to the health of the mother.

MagicSean

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Surely that depends on the circumstances since the X Case judgement clearly states that termination is legal under certain limited circumstances, ie where there is a real and substantial risk to the life , as opposed to the health of the mother.

The Xcase merely interprets the constitutional provision already in existence. It does not alter the law at all. As far as i can see the system basically works on a look the other way basis. Doctors stay within the vague bounds of the constitution and the dpp doesn't prosecute them under a law from the 1800s.

Death and Taxes

MagicSean wrote: »

The Xcase merely interprets the constitutional provision already in existence. It does not alter the law at all. As far as i can see the system basically works on a look the other way basis. Doctors stay within the vague bounds of the constitution and the dpp doesn't prosecute them under a law from the 1800s.

But since the Constitution trumps (if that is the right expression) statute law, then so long as a termination was carried out in accordance with the X Case ruling, no successful prosecution would be possible.
However that aside , it is always preferable that the legislature make laws which clarify the actual legal position, instead of leaving the leagl hiatus that exists in this situation.

gozunda

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Surely that depends on the circumstances since the X Case judgement clearly states that termination is legal under certain limited circumstances, ie where there is a real and substantial risk to the life , as opposed to the health of the mother.

I would agree - the fact that it hasn't been passed into law is more a reflection of the interference and influence of the anti brigade including the powerful lobby's of the RCC and individuals / politicians with an agenda of a right wing ideology under the guise of "protecting the unborn' (sic) & fec the mother...

It always amuses me when this trite shye is trotted out as if the purporters of this agenda were some kinda of Superheros that don their underpants over the tights to tackle the evil of woman ever being allowed to make decisions on their own reproductive health. I reckon the underpants have become firmly lodged over the head at this stage as they are apparently blind to any sense of justice or reasonable argument that the woman's health and life take precedence in all circumstances as per best practice....as long as we have this medieval mindset we are banging our heads against a proverbial wall.

General Zod

kraggy wrote: »

Can someone please tell me, is it actually written into law that termination is permitted if the mothers life is in danger or was there just a court ruling saying as such but they never bothered writing the legislation for it?

It's in the Irish constitution that abortion is allowed when there is a threat to the life of the mother.

However, there is no legal framework for determining what constitutes a threat to the life of the mother, so Doctors are generally in a very grey area, and governments have avoided legislating on this issue for 20 years.


What needs to happen is a repealing of the 8th Ammendment as this is a constitutional block to any correct legislation regarding treatment for women in the event of a pregnancy being incompatible with the life of the mother.

suicide_circus

MagicSean wrote: »

That's what a coroners inquest is for.

Indeed .
For hundreds of years the coroner has had the task of performing an investigation into any death which is deemed to be less than straight forward

The Coroner's Amendment Act 2005 included the following:

Certain deaths must be reported to the Coroner. These deaths include the following:....
....Deaths occurring in hospitals.

Why has the coroner not been allowed conduct the usual dignified review of this death? Is it because the death of Savita has been turned into a media and political football?

I am neither bible basher nor anti choicer. I just think the way this woman's death is being abused, by all sides, is sick and sad.

General Zod

suicide_circus wrote: »

Indeed .
For hundreds of years the coroner has had the task of performing an investigation into any death which is deemed to be less than straight forward

The Coroner's Amendment Act 2005 included the following:

Certain deaths must be reported to the Coroner. These deaths include the following:....
....Deaths occurring in hospitals.

Why has the coroner not been allowed conduct the usual dignified review of this death? Is it because the death of Savita has been turned into a media and political football?

I am neither bible basher nor anti choicer. I just think the way this woman's death is being abused, by all sides, is sick and sad.

Yes, let's just sweep it all under the carpet for another 20 years, or until another woman dies.

suicide_circus

General Zod wrote: »

Yes, let's just sweep it all under the carpet for another 20 years, or until another woman dies.

Sigh....where did i say that?

K-9

suicide_circus wrote: »

Indeed .
For hundreds of years the coroner has had the task of performing an investigation into any death which is deemed to be less than straight forward

The Coroner's Amendment Act 2005 included the following:

Certain deaths must be reported to the Coroner. These deaths include the following:....
....Deaths occurring in hospitals.

Why has the coroner not been allowed conduct the usual dignified review of this death? Is it because the death of Savita has been turned into a media and political football?

I am neither bible basher nor anti choicer. I just think the way this woman's death is being abused, by all sides, is sick and sad.

The coroners court is usually a good while after a death, I'm sure nobody is interfering in that process at all.

Unless you've some evidence to say it is being obstructed or is it some "controversial" speculation

suicide_circus

K-9 wrote: »

The coroners court is usually a good while after a death, I'm sure nobody is interfering in that process at all.

Unless you've some evidence to say it is being obstructed or is it some "controversial" speculation

not trying to be controversial - the opposite in fact. i find the mass hysteria and media circus surrounding her death to be at odds with a rational establishing of the facts.

HeyThereDeliah

WileyCoyote wrote: »

The HSE have given the Chairman of the Savita whitewash permission to go to court this week to obtain her medical records against the express wishes of her husband.
Talk about adding insult to injury. The behaviour of Enda and the HSE in this case reminds me of the behaviour of the Roman Catholic Hierarchy when the first claims of sexual abuse were made!

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/savita-inquiry-chairman-given-authority-to-seek-medical-records-575103.html

It's not about Savita anymore, it's a media circus with both sides scoring points of each other. I think her husband wants justice for his wife but he is now caught up in the politics of it.

RIP to her and I do hope we find out the truth of what happened.

K-9

suicide_circus wrote: »

not trying to be controversial - the opposite in fact. i find the mass hysteria and media circus surrounding her death to be at odds with a rational establishing of the facts.

So there was nothing to it at all, fair enough. What's important is it is carried out correctly and transparently and we can see if any laws need changed to avoid it happening again.

Death and Taxes

suicide_circus wrote: »

Indeed .
For hundreds of years the coroner has had the task of performing an investigation into any death which is deemed to be less than straight forward

The Coroner's Amendment Act 2005 included the following:

Certain deaths must be reported to the Coroner. These deaths include the following:....
....Deaths occurring in hospitals.

Why has the coroner not been allowed conduct the usual dignified review of this death? Is it because the death of Savita has been turned into a media and political football?

I am neither bible basher nor anti choicer. I just think the way this woman's death is being abused, by all sides, is sick and sad.

Again that is NOt what the Coroners Inquest is for.
The Coroners Inquest has four functions, to established :
Who Died
Where they died
When they died,
and the proximate medical cause of death.
All of the above are already known, the inquest will not by law be able to expand on what we already know.
What is needed now is a fully independent sworn public inquiry.

ASVM

For people interested in miscarriage St Mary's hospital in London has the biggest recurrent miscarriage clinic in the world and a website.

Also I think some people posting may not realise that there is a difference between a first and a second trimester miscarriage. Second trimester miscarriage and are much rarer than the first kind and as such are taken more seriously( from a medical point of view )in hospitals. Also what people may not realise is that there are several different types of miscarriage ie complete, incomplete, missed and others I am not sure of the names of, and depending on the type different treatments - evacuation procedures are used.I know this because I have had both a first and a second trimester one.

opinion guy

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

It's not about Savita anymore, it's a media circus with both sides scoring points of each other. I think her husband wants justice for his wife but he is now caught up in the politics of it.

RIP to her and I do hope we find out the truth of what happened.

I don't think he is caught up in the politics - I think the amoral HSE has been forcing his hand:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1122/1224326951325.html

Leftist

this will all dissipate and the country will remain in the cold grip of the fundamentalists.

ASVM

And so what if this is a media circus? It's an area in which there is a lack of clarity and if it takes the media to highlight this well then I'm all for that.

People are interested in this case they have a right it to be. What are we supposed to do not talk about it and hope it will go away. Well it's not going anywhere it has to be dealt. It concerns not only women but Irish society as a whole.

HellFireClub

I know of a case (a mates father), where a man was suffering from an Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm, he was rushed to hospital by his son, brought into the A & E, (very much alive but deteriorating by the minute), he couldn't get anyone in A & E to triage his father and his father died in the A & E waiting room while his son pleaded with the receptionist to get a doctor out to his father. All the receptionist wanted to know was whether or not the father had private health insurance.

The point I'm making is that there are what are probably completely avoidable deaths in our health system all the time. We have a health system that is creaking at the seams, if you present at A & E, you will probably end up on a trolley in the A & E corridor. Do we really expect the best care to be delivered when we all know that this is the order of the day?

Mr. Halappanaver is dead right not to trust the HSE with an enquiry, because this is the same HSE that can't deliver a fit for purpose health service in this country in 2012 within budget time and time again. It refuses to send a spokesperson out into the public domain to explain decisions it makes (for example PrimeTime have said that they have given up trying to get a spokesperson onto the show to debate a health topic, they just refuse to engage, point blank), and this is the same mindset that Mr. Halappanaver ran into after his wife's death, but before the story broke in the media, the HSE were clearly hoping it would be just not picked up on or whatever.

HeyThereDeliah

ASVM wrote: »

And so what if this is a media circus? It's an area in which there is a lack of clarity and if it takes the media to highlight this well then I'm all for that.

People are interested in this case they have a right it to be. What are we supposed to do not talk about it and hope it will go away. Well it's not going anywhere it has to be dealt. It concerns not only women but Irish society as a whole.

Where is the lack of clarity?

A termination could have been carried out if the mothers life was at risk.

Why didn't the media highlight it before the tragedy occurred?

If legislation were in place would it have made a difference in this case ?

What do we need clarify and /or change?

Death and Taxes

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

Where is the lack of clarity?

A termination could have been carried out if the mothers life was at risk.

Why didn't the media highlight it before the tragedy occurred?

If legislation were in place would it have made a difference in this case ?

What do we need clarify and /or change?

Since the woman is dead clearly her life was at risk, she did ask repeatedly for a termination but was refused, according to her husband who was present, because Ireland is a Catholic country!
If legislation were in place it very well might have made a difference.
We need to clarify if the law was followed as per the X case, or if the deluded superstitious beliefs of some , led to the denial of life saving medical intervention for a woman who needed it.

HeyThereDeliah

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Since the woman is dead clearly her life was at risk, she did ask repeatedly for a termination but was refused, according to her husband who was present, because Ireland is a Catholic country!
If legislation were in place it very well might have made a difference.
We need to clarify if the law was followed as per the X case, or if the deluded superstitious beliefs of some , led to the denial of life saving medical intervention for a woman who needed it.

When did the risk to her life begin, before of after the termination ? It's not clear when this happened so you can't say because she is dead she was at risk.

Repeatedly asking for a termination means what, do we not all listen to the advice of our doctor?

If she was refused because some doctor is catholic then that doctor needs to be removed.

seb65

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

Where is the lack of clarity?

A termination could have been carried out if the mothers life was at risk.

Why didn't the media highlight it before the tragedy occurred?

If legislation were in place would it have made a difference in this case ?

What do we need clarify and /or change?

The lack of clarity is where a woman's life is not probably at risk (at the moment), but possibly at risk, or could become at risk.

It is well known in legal circles that there is a lack of certainty. Anyone who's studied constitutional law is aware there is a lack of legal certainty.

This issue has been highlighted. In the discussion of the ABC case. It has been highlighted by a number of Fine Gael TDs swearing they would not legislate for the x case (as recently as Lucinda Creighton and others in June 2012). It has been highlighted by a woman who was refused a termination in Ireland while she was dying of malignant melanoma and even though the pregnancy stopped her chemo treatments because it was deemed not a threat to her life (what little she had left of it).

What do we need to change? Women who are miscarrying and suffering should be given the option of having their pregnancy terminated. Where there is any threat to the woman's life she should be given an option of terminating the pregnancy. Full stop.