Pregnant woman dies in UCHG after being refused a termination

Death and Taxes

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

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.

Bearing in mind the number of question marks you used above, I presume you are now accepting that there is a need for some clarity, despite your earlier posts!

And by the way way no, were are not all sheeple , some of us with sense do question our doctors advice!

HeyThereDeliah

seb65 wrote: »

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.

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.

If there is a threat to the woman's life she can have a termination.

We would need a referendum to change it to allowing a termination if the baby is unviable regardless of whether the mother is at risk or not.

seb65

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

If there is a threat to the woman's life she can have a termination.

We would need a referendum to change it to allowing a termination if the baby is unviable regardless of whether the mother is at risk or not.

No, only if there is a real and substantial risk.

I think another referendum is necessary so. Unless, there was a wink wink allowance for a woman in miscarriage saying if you do not terminate this pregnancy I will throw myself from a bridge to stop the pain.

Knasher

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?

Just my limited understanding, but as far as I know it works like this.

When doctors determine a woman is having a miscarriage, in most countries she would be offered an abortion at this point. The reasoning for this is that even though her life wouldn't normally be in immediate danger, the level of risk in letting the miscarriage continue is higher than the risk in aborting it immediately, and there is little reason to take the higher risk path as the fetus isn't viable.

In Ireland, when a woman comes in with a miscarriage she doesn't have the legal right to an abortion because her life isn't in immediate danger. Most of the time the miscarriage will continue uneventfully, in the rare cases it doesn't and the doctors determine that the woman's life is in danger, they can then proceed with the abortion to protect her life. There are two problems with this however, firstly some complications, like septicemia, by the time the determination can be made it can already be too late, there is about a 50% chance of death depending on the type of infection. And secondly there is the question whether it is worth exposing the woman to the extra risks involved in waiting when there is no medical benefit of doing so. So at the very least there needs to be extra clarity on whether an abortion can be performed when the alternative is pointlessly extra risky.

Red_Wake

Has it been medically established that an abortion would have saved her life?

Lingua Franca

Red_Wake wrote: »

Has it been medically established that an abortion would have saved her life?

No. Nor has it been established that she would have died anyway.

Red_Wake

Lingua Franca wrote: »

No. Nor has it been established that she would have died anyway.

I suspected as much.

Knasher

Red_Wake wrote: »

Has it been medically established that an abortion would have saved her life?

You can never establish something like that. The most you can ask is if statistically would she have had a lower mortality risk if she was offered an abortion like in other countries.

You could also establish that an abortion wouldn't have saved her life, if for example the incubation period for the infection meant it happened prior to her hospital admission. I don't really know how long or even if that can be established though. Either way though, that is just kicking the problem down the road until the next time.

My name is URL

So HIQA (health service watchdog) have been asked to conduct an inquiry. Will people accept that as a fair and unbiased one? I wonder if the husband will agree to cooperate with it... probably not since it's the HSE that requested it.

Death and Taxes

My name is URL wrote: »

So HIQA (health service watchdog) have been asked to conduct an inquiry. Will people accept that as a fair and unbiased one? I wonder if the husband will agree to cooperate with it... probably not since it's the HSE that requested it.

If it is held in public and takes sworn evidence.
An inquiry held in secret is not worth having.

poeticseraphim

WileyCoyote wrote: »

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.

Yeah and this is the kind of thought process going on in a Doctors head in an emergency situation.

ASVM

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?

I think other posters have answered your questions very thoroughly so I do not need to do so again.

Also if you do not fully grasp where the lack of clarity is then you obviously haven't been very engaged in what's going on around you for the last week. Then again you call it a media circus so you probably haven't it

MagicSean

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?

For example, who should make the decision on the abortion? The doctor treating her? Her GP? A senior figure in the hospital? A specialist in that area? The hospital legal team maybe.

HeyThereDeliah

MagicSean wrote: »

For example, who should make the decision on the abortion? The doctor treating her? Her GP? A senior figure in the hospital? A specialist in that area? The hospital legal team maybe.

We are agreed a termination is possible right now if there is a threat to the mothers life.

I would say the woman should be offered the choices available to her and she decides.

You think we should have a referendum to add a line allowing termination of unviable pregnancy regardless of the threat to the mother?

MagicSean

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

We are agreed a termination is possible right now if there is a threat to the mothers life.

I would say the woman should be offered the choices available to her and she decides.

You think we should have a referendum to add a line allowing termination of unviable pregnancy regardless of the threat to the mother?

But again i ask you, who makes the decision on wether her life is in danger?

I think we should add a line allowing for the government to legislate on what constitutes an unborn child. This would allow the government to set an upper limit on unnecessary abortions and allow for the termination of non-viable pregnancies later in the pregnancy.

HeyThereDeliah

MagicSean wrote: »

But again i ask you, who makes the decision on wether her life is in danger?

I think we should add a line allowing for the government to legislate on what constitutes an unborn child. This would allow the government to set an upper limit on unnecessary abortions and allow for the termination of non-viable pregnancies later in the pregnancy.

Sorry misunderstood, I would trust the doctor to make that decision.

I agree non viable pregnancies should be terminated if the mother wants it.

opinion guy

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

Sorry misunderstood, I would trust the doctor to make that decision.

I agree non viable pregnancies should be terminated if the mother wants it.

And what happens if the doctor in question is a bible thumping Catholic ? Or the hospital he/she works in bans the procedure due to their 'Catholic' 'Ethos' ?

It needs to be legislated for

bbam

MagicSean wrote: »

allow for the termination of non-viable pregnancies later in the pregnancy.

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

I agree non viable pregnancies should be terminated if the mother wants it.

I was talking with the missus about this point a few nights ago..
Its something I wouldn't be really in favour of.. Terminating a pregnancy because the child might only live an hour or day or week is not too much different from termination on demand or even euthanasia, poor granddad is non-viable so we'll terminate him now as we cant bare to put up with him for the next nine months because he's going to die, and he's going to die anyway..

I feel where there is a real threat to the life of the mother it surely has to be an option..

Then how is the case where the mother claims she'll kill herself unless her unwanted pregnancy is terminated... how is this decided or could it be legislated for..

Its a complex issue and difficult to get people to discuss without emotion bearing to the front..

Death and Taxes

MagicSean wrote: »

But again i ask you, who makes the decision on wether her life is in danger?

I think we should add a line allowing for the government to legislate on what constitutes an unborn child. This would allow the government to set an upper limit on unnecessary abortions and allow for the termination of non-viable pregnancies later in the pregnancy.

Like we havn't seen what happened the last time we did that!

eyescreamcone

The more I study the issue the more I realise how hard it will be to legislate given the existing constraints.
If someone is "suicidal" will they be able to terminate at 30 to 35 weeks???
Yes, I think.

The anti-abortionists won't like this but they are afraid to push for another referendum because they'll be slaughtered.

I think we need to tear up all previous abortion referenda and start over in a more logical women centred manner.

eyescreamcone

When Savita asked for a termination and it was refused because her life wasn't yet at risk - could she have said "I'm suicidal, get it sorted?".
After all, it's in the constitution.

daisybelle2008

bbam wrote: »

I was talking with the missus about this point a few nights ago..
Its something I wouldn't be really in favour of.. Terminating a pregnancy because the child might only live an hour or day or week is not too much different from termination on demand or even euthanasia, poor granddad is non-viable so we'll terminate him now as we cant bare to put up with him for the next nine months because he's going to die, and he's going to die anyway..

..

Seriously your understanding of euthanasia is absolutely astonishing. When you have watched a parent or grandparent die slowly in agonising pain with absolutely no quality of life, believe me you wouldn't do let a dog go through it, it is so in humane. Nobody considers euthanasia to get rid if the inconvenience of caring for someone. Nobody. I hope you never have to go through that, you would have a different view.

Stereomaniac

I couldn't agree with you more, Daisy. Euthanasia, in an ideal world occurs when someone is, for lack of a better term, being put out of their misery. It happens. I would like to think that it would be an option for me should I ever lead a life of agony in old age.

K-9

My name is URL wrote: »

So HIQA (health service watchdog) have been asked to conduct an inquiry. Will people accept that as a fair and unbiased one? I wonder if the husband will agree to cooperate with it... probably not since it's the HSE that requested it.

The Irish Patients Association initially recommended it and according to Prime Time, he seemed amenable to it.

poeticseraphim

bbam wrote: »

I was talking with the missus about this point a few nights ago..
Its something I wouldn't be really in favour of.. Terminating a pregnancy because the child might only live an hour or day or week is not too much different from termination on demand or even euthanasia, poor granddad is non-viable so we'll terminate him now as we cant bare to put up with him for the next nine months because he's going to die, and he's going to die anyway..

I feel where there is a real threat to the life of the mother it surely has to be an option..

Then how is the case where the mother claims she'll kill herself unless her unwanted pregnancy is terminated... how is this decided or could it be legislated for..

Its a complex issue and difficult to get people to discuss without emotion bearing to the front..

I am not picking on you but i just want to use this post to make a wider point.

We need to stop making silly analogies.

There is a legal limit on the viability of a child of 25-26 weeks in the Netherlands in Ireland it is 24 i think...

Neonates are not'little people' they have different needs and if we treat them as 'little people' we risk causing them harm or pain.

Currently the limit of viability is considered to be around 24 weeks although the incidence of major disabilities remains high at this point.[6][7] Neonatologists generally would not provide intensive care at 23 weeks, but would from 26 weeks.

It is illegal to resuscitate earlier than 25 weeks in the netherlands.

When preterm babies are born, the main causes of perinatal mortality is that the respiratory system and the central nervous system are not completely differentiated

Neonates are incapable of feeling pain or emotion or sentience before 16-20 weeks....but if you allow extreme early births at lets say 24 weeks they can...and will definitely die anyway with extreme abnormalities and perhaps pain.

Why make them go through this because a kinder alternative makes you queasy?


Giving a neonate the rights of a human person is inappropriate and not fair to them or the woman. They are different and have different needs.

I think we need a referendum.

kylith

bbam wrote: »

I was talking with the missus about this point a few nights ago..
Its something I wouldn't be really in favour of.. Terminating a pregnancy because the child might only live an hour or day or week is not too much different from termination on demand or even euthanasia, poor granddad is non-viable so we'll terminate him now as we cant bare to put up with him for the next nine months because he's going to die, and he's going to die anyway..

If find it very strange that you would be willing to let an infant live, even for only a few hours, in pain because they are non viable, rather than to spare them that pain by ending the pregnancy. We're not talking about 'gently going into the light', these are children born without brains, without kidneys, or without other organs. Theses children will not die well, they will die slowly, in agony, and I find it quite disquieting that you would be willing to let them do so.

poeticseraphim wrote: »

Neonates are incapable of feeling pain or emotion or sentience before 16-20 weeks....but if you allow extreme early births at lets say 24 weeks they can...and will definitely die anyway with extreme abnormalities and perhaps pain.

Why make them go through this because a kinder alternative makes you queasy?


Giving a neonate the rights of a human person is inappropriate and not fair to them or the woman. They are different and have different needs.

I think we need a referendum.

I think you may be mixing up your terms. A neonate refers to a newborn, and while their capacity for conciousness or emotion is debatable, they can most definitely feel pain. Current best guess has the capacity to feel pain starting at about 20 weeks gestation, which is before ex-utero viability.

Other than that I agree with your points.

Am I the only one sick of the near constant coverage of this case, especially the manner in which papers such as the Independent are me ruining it in every article about the HSE. Looking back through Wednesdays Independent and there's an article on a consultant with Hepatitis C who worked in Galway Hospital and the third paragraph reads. "However, he had finished his placement there before the tragic death of Savita Halappanabar."

Absolutely no need to include the paragraph and it comes across as a desperate attemp to be topical.

HeyThereDeliah

Deleted User wrote: »

Am I the only one sick of the near constant coverage of this case, especially the manner in which papers such as the Independent are me ruining it in every article about the HSE. Looking back through Wednesdays Independent and there's an article on a consultant with Hepatitis C who worked in Galway Hospital and the third paragraph reads. "However, he had finished his placement there before the tragic death of Savita Halappanabar."

Absolutely no need to include the paragraph and it comes across as a desperate attemp to be topical.

Careful now don't mention the words "media circus" it seems to offend some people.

The papers are making money that's all they care about, the reporters are
upping their own profile as well.

K-9

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

Careful now don't mention the words "media circus" it seems to offend some people.

The papers are making money that's all they care about, the reporters are
upping their own profile as well.

What doesn't turn into a media circus these days?

Something like this was going to happen given the inaction on the issue.

bbam

daisybelle2008 wrote: »

Seriously your understanding of euthanasia is absolutely astonishing. When you have watched a parent or grandparent die slowly in agonising pain with absolutely no quality of life, believe me you wouldn't do let a dog go through it, it is so in humane. Nobody considers euthanasia to get rid if the inconvenience of caring for someone. Nobody. I hope you never have to go through that, you would have a different view.

Fair enough I was exagerating my point to the extreme case and didn't mean to offend you.. and you have no idea what i've been through or not.

kylith wrote: »

If find it very strange that you would be willing to let an infant live, even for only a few hours, in pain because they are non viable, rather than to spare them that pain by ending the pregnancy. We're not talking about 'gently going into the light', these are children born without brains, without kidneys, or without other organs. Theses children will not die well, they will die slowly, in agony, and I find it quite disquieting that you would be willing to let them do so.

I think you are underestimating both the care that can be afforded these newborns and the comfort parents have for holding their live babies even for a short time..I personally and my wife would have given anything for that chance. If you had ever spoken to anyone who had done it you would realise that no matter how short, it was a life, as real and with as many rights as you or me.

kylith

bbam wrote: »

I think you are underestimating both the care that can be afforded these newborns and the comfort parents have for holding their live babies even for a short time..I personally and my wife would have given anything for that chance. If you had ever spoken to anyone who had done it you would realise that no matter how short, it was a life, as real and with as many rights as you or me.

I have had family member miscarry, so I am very aware of the heartbreak it causes, but it is still allowing a child to feel pain so that you can get a sense of closure. I feel very sorry for neonates whose parents make them suffer like that.

Biggins

I wonder what excuse will be found to explain her missing medical notes now and discovery of inserted ones too after her death?
Link

Very strange goings on is all I can see!

bbam

kylith wrote: »

I have had family member miscarry, so I am very aware of the heartbreak it causes, but it is still allowing a child to feel pain so that you can get a sense of closure. I feel very sorry for neonates whose parents make them suffer like that.

Well, you ask a million different people and they will have many different experiences and opinions.. Its a difocult topic to debate without people making judgments on others, if nothing else this thread proves that...

kylith

bbam wrote: »

Well, you ask a million different people and they will have many different experiences and opinions.. Its a difocult topic to debate without people making judgments on others, if nothing else this thread proves that...

Very true. I think the only thing we can all agree on is the hope that it's never a choice we'll have to make.

Solair

daisybelle2008 wrote: »

Seriously your understanding of euthanasia is absolutely astonishing. When you have watched a parent or grandparent die slowly in agonising pain with absolutely no quality of life, believe me you wouldn't do let a dog go through it, it is so in humane. Nobody considers euthanasia to get rid if the inconvenience of caring for someone. Nobody. I hope you never have to go through that, you would have a different view.

+1

Saw my own gran go through what I would describe as an absolutely awful, horrendous painful death due to cancer where her bones literally collapsed due to untreatable secondaries. She died due to an inability to absorb food. It was just awful to see a very capable, intelligent, entertaining, active woman just spend months doped up to her eye balls basically starving to death. She was about 4 stone when she passed away and she was actually openly stating that she wished she were dead.

It's horrific to see and honestly the debates that go around issues like this are utterly facile. When you actually see stuff like this happen to someone you know, believe me your attitudes change.

There are no absolutes in an issue like that.

Lingua Franca

If you allow abortions no one will have kids for financial and social reasons and population growth will stop. If you allow euthanasia then everyone will be bumping off all the elderly folk for financial and social reasons and soon there will be no one left at all. This is exactly what's happened in those countries which allow such things.

Solair

Lingua Franca wrote: »

If you allow abortions no one will have kids for financial and social reasons and population growth will stop. If you allow euthanasia then everyone will be bumping off all the elderly folk for financial and social reasons and soon there will be no one left at all. This is exactly what's happened in those countries which allow such things.

Australia, Belgium, The Netherlands and two US states in terms of voluntary euthanasia ?
Eh, I don't think they've been bumping off anyone for financial reasons, nor is there any issue with tiny populations. In fact, they're actually pretty decent places to live with very strong stances on human rights in most cases (some aspects of which are far more developed than ours).

As for abortion, that's most of the developed world and while there are certain countries with population growth in decline, that's not down to abortion it's down to people making choices not to have kids which has more to do with work/life balance, social policies, education costs etc etc etc..

People in Ireland already make choices about whether to have kids or not.

Are you seriously suggesting we move to a situation where we ban contraception again?!

Not very many people would use abortion as a form of contraception btw... it's usually an absolutely last resort scenario where there's a really serious issue.

If you're worried about shrinking populations - maybe take a look at issues like hugely inflated costs of living, access to child care, maternity/paternity leave, work/life balance issues, many employers are totally inflexible about giving parent's the kind of arrangements they might need to cope with having kids. So, all those kinds of things would probably be some of the deciding factors as to why someone might / might not have kids, not access to abortion!

Anyway, we're MASSIVELY off topic here, considering that the issue at hand in Ireland at the moment is why a woman who was miscarrying apparently could not be allowed to terminate her pregnancy.

Flier

I think the post was heavily laced with sarcasm!

Lord Trollington

Lingua Franca wrote: »

If you allow abortions no one will have kids for financial and social reasons and population growth will stop. If you allow euthanasia then everyone will be bumping off all the elderly folk for financial and social reasons and soon there will be no one left at all. This is exactly what's happened in those countries which allow such things.

Seriously? :eek:

Ellsbells

At 17 weeks how do they terminate a fetus? I mean what is the method? Do they feel pain at that stage?

JupiterKid

Ellsbells wrote: »

At 17 weeks how do they terminate a fetus? I mean what is the method? Do they feel pain at that stage?

Stop trolling this thread.

Israel_Dagg

I'd like the title of the thread changed, it gives the impression that she died because she wasn't allowed an abortion. She may well have died anyways.

Also the husband, only a few weeks ago his wife died. No tears to be seen. Seeking money I'd say.

Mod: post red carded.

Ellsbells

JupiterKid wrote: »

Stop trolling this thread.

Excuse me? It was a valid query but have just done my research and now know the answer

Israel_Dagg

Also if you're not prepared to not have an abortion than you shouldn't be in the country. The law is the law until it is changed.

I think abortion should be allowed btw.

mikom

Israel_Dagg wrote: »

I'd like the title of the thread changed, it gives the impression that she died because she wasn't allowed an abortion. She may well have died anyways.

Also the husband, only a few weeks ago his wife died. No tears to be seen. Seeking money I'd say.

Hey two post jimmy, try PMing the mods and see how far you get.

JupiterKid

Israel_Dagg wrote: »

I'd like the title of the thread changed, it gives the impression that she died because she wasn't allowed an abortion. She may well have died anyways.

Also the husband, only a few weeks ago his wife died. No tears to be seen. Seeking money I'd say.

What a callous, disgusting and vile comment to make.:mad:

Looks like the "Pro Life" brigade are coming on to hijack this thread.

Israel_Dagg

JupiterKid wrote: »

What a callous, disgusting and vile comment to make.:mad:

Looks like the "Pro Life" brigade are coming on to hijack this thread.

Just said I'd prefer abortion to be allowed. Not legal at the minute though.

Berlin at night

Anti-abortionists are living in the dark ages. If they don't like, then they don't have to have one, do they? They should just f**k off and mind their own business and let women who want an abortion to get on with it.


Abortion is the only way to go in all cases, whether it be endagering the life of the mother, rape, unwanted -- bottom line, if a chick doesn't want something growing in her woumb she should be able to pop into her local abortion clinic within the time period legislated in enlightened countries and get it over and done with. Why go through the horror of carrying something for nine months she doesn't flipping well want. Its a NO BRAINER.


Whether these poxy rights for life lunatics like it or not, abortion clinics are coming in the near future. The pressure is too great for this useless government to resist the will of the people for much longer.

All my friends are pro abortion, and the stats I read say over 80% of the population want abortion clinics brought in. Only a matter of time before we join the real world.

Berlin at night

Lingua Franca wrote: »

If you allow abortions no one will have kids for financial and social reasons and population growth will stop. If you allow euthanasia then everyone will be bumping off all the elderly folk for financial and social reasons and soon there will be no one left at all. This is exactly what's happened in those countries which allow such things.

What planet are u living on? The lower classes are popping them out at a rate of knots - its always been like that - you think financial reasons would stop the lower classes having kids - don't make me laugh!!!!!

Biggins

Israel_Dagg wrote: »

I'd like the title of the thread changed, it gives the impression that she died because she wasn't allowed an abortion. She may well have died anyways.

Also the husband, only a few weeks ago his wife died. No tears to be seen. Seeking money I'd say.

Disgusting, vile comment.
Thats all I can say about the above.