Pregnant woman dies in UCHG after being refused a termination

seb65

larry_duff wrote: »

the pro choice lobby have been rubbing their hands with glee since this tragedy occured , all their christmas,s came early

You're disgusting.

Death and Taxes

larry_duff wrote: »

the pro choice lobby have been rubbing their hands with glee since this tragedy occured , all their christmas,s came early

That post is beneath contempt!:mad:

gozunda

MagicSean wrote: »

I did assume your account was accurate. It still doesn't show anything at all. Unfortunately we are being kept in the dark by the decision of Savitas husband to keep the medical records as confidential. While it is his right to do so, I do not believe it is right to release little snippets of the records here and there. A few sentances out of context can be very misleading.

Of course its all one big conspiracy by those that would choose to attempt to seek jutice. He must of coure be making the whole thing up :rolleyes:

seb65

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

We still don't know if after an immediate termination she would have lived.
The catholic country bit is taken out of context and overplayed IMO.

I think the case is only getting this much attention because of the abortion issue, if she died during childbirth there would be no attention given to it.

It doesn't appear that you understand what "taken out of context" means. The husband has repeatedly told the story, from start to finish. There is plenty of context given for the statement.

I don't think it can be overplayed enough if the catholic ethics (by the way, catholic ethics also came into play for the woman who was dying of cancer and who was subsequently denied a termination.) are preventing women from receiving the best medical care available.

gozunda

MagicSean wrote: »

Sure why have a public enquiry? Can you not just tell them? You appear to have all the facts.

As you said yourelf - A few sentances out of context can be very misleading...

Death and Taxes

larry_duff wrote: »

its pure hearsay the notion that praveen was told " this is a catholic country "

No its not, do you know what hearsay is?

seb65

MagicSean wrote: »

I did assume your account was accurate. It still doesn't show anything at all. Unfortunately we are being kept in the dark by the decision of Savitas husband to keep the medical records as confidential. While it is his right to do so, I do not believe it is right to release little snippets of the records here and there. A few sentances out of context can be very misleading.

Do you mean all of her medical records, or the incomplete set the HSE gave her husband?

It seems the HSE is keeping any mention of the snippet of her request for termination out of the public domain.

gozunda

larry_duff wrote: »

the pro choice lobby have been rubbing their hands with glee since this tragedy occured , all their christmas,s came early

larry_duff wrote: »

its pure hearsay the notion that praveen was told " this is a catholic country "

As I said previously - Of course its all one big conspiracy by those that would choose to attempt to seek jutice. He must of coure be making the whole thing. :rolleyes:

Chain_reaction

larry_duff wrote: »

the european court of human rights make noise on a lot of things , i believe they have called on the goverment to grant ethnic status to travellers , we dont have to take heed of everything they say , id perfer if we witheld judgement until the investigation is complte , the whole thing has turned very sinister with many different agenda pushing movements siezing their chance

Even though the Irish people have voted on it twice?

Is your problem here democracy? preferential treatment? a woman's right to chose?

opinion guy

Lads, don't feed the trolls

HeyThereDeliah

seb65 wrote: »

It doesn't appear that you understand what "taken out of context" means. The husband has repeatedly told the story, from start to finish. There is plenty of context given for the statement.

I don't think it can be overplayed enough if the catholic ethics (by the way, catholic ethics also came into play for the woman who was dying of cancer and who was subsequently denied a termination.) are preventing women from receiving the best medical care available.

I understand the word "patronising"

This is a catholic country, some people disagree I know.

The doctor could be stating the reason they cannot provide a termination. It's not to say the doctors agree with it.

HeyThereDeliah

opinion guy wrote: »

Lads, don't feed the trolls

Hard to tell who the trolls are in this thread.

seb65

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

I understand the word "patronising"

This is a catholic country, some people disagree I know.

The doctor could be stating the reason they cannot provide a termination. It's not to say the doctors agree with it.

Actually, it's a christian country, not a catholic one, as found in Ryan v AG.

Who cares if the doctors agree, it's showing how catholic ethos may have interfered with this woman's right to proper medical treatment.

MagicSean

WileyCoyote wrote: »

The HSE have already established that they own the medical records , so where you get the idea that it Savitas husbad who is keeping us in the dark by keeping the medical records confidential is beyond me.
Really dont get the mentality of those (not necessarily you sean) who keep having a pop ar Praveen when he is the victim here!

I'm not having a go. I think he's making a mistake is all. The more people investigating the better and the more open the process the better. The HSE may own the records but they cannot disclose them to third parties without his consent.

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

The HSE own the records, I think this solicitor Wants to keep this story in the news, you would think he would know the law.

http://www.google.ie/url?q=http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1123/1224327010396.html&sa=U&ei=DeCwUL3oLdK4hAeo44CQBQ&ved=0CB4QFjAC&usg=AFQjCNHJaRejiLUR_s0gXKuTdfwVOq2d2w

Depends on what area he specialises in and what area of law you are tlaking about. Anyway, as i said above it doesn't matter who owns them, it matters who can read them.

gozunda wrote: »

He must of coure be making the whole thing up

That's a very serious accusation. What makes you think he's making it up?

gozunda wrote: »

As you said yourelf - A few sentances out of context can be very misleading...

Indeed.

seb65 wrote: »

Do you mean all of her medical records, or the incomplete set the HSE gave her husband?

It seems the HSE is keeping any mention of the snippet of her request for termination out of the public domain.

I understood that the record isn't missing but that the requests were never recorded. Is this not right? Is there an actual physical record missing?

MagicSean

larry_duff wrote: »

its inaccurate ( and biggoted ) to link irelands abortion laws directly with catholicism , no bishop sits in parliament or on the supreme court

bans would be handed out if someone suggested that honour killings in the uk among the pakistani community were linked with islam

Nearly all of our laws and out constitution are rooted in Christianity

drkpower

MagicSean wrote: »

The HSE may own the records but they cannot disclose them to third parties without his consent.

Where are you getting that idea from?

gozunda

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

I understand the word "patronising"
This is a catholic country, some people disagree I know.
The doctor could be stating the reason they cannot provide a termination. It's not to say the doctors agree with it.

A country is the territory of a nation or state - it does not "have" a religion.
The citizens of that state may have a preference for a particular religion but that does not make it a 'catholic state' either. There is no religious head of government (well not that would be official anyway) in Ireland - we do not live by the edicts of the catholic hierarchy.

A doctor who cannot because of his own religious convictions offer a patient the best medical treatment (where this is allowed for) for recovery must stand aside so that that patient is given the best possible chance of recovery.

No religion is beyond question. One persons beliefs cannot be used as a method to brutalise others in a democratic system even in the 'name' of any one autonomous religious belief system.

seb65

MagicSean wrote: »

I understood that the record isn't missing but that the requests were never recorded. Is this not right? Is there an actual physical record missing?

Unfortunately, no. It seems that the HSE did not hand over all of the medical records. This claim was made by the solicitor, who had also gotten a Doctor to look over the records. The doctor confirmed records were missing.

That the termination request was not recorded is a separate issue.

dr.bollocko

Larry_duff re-reg troll banned.

HeyThereDeliah

gozunda wrote: »

A doctor who cannot because of his own religous convictions offer a patient the best treatment for recovery must stand aside so that that patient is given the best possible chance of revovery.

What has this got to do with anything?
Do you know for a fact this is what happened in galway hospital ?

Have you read anywhere that the doctor refused because he/she was catholic?
Has the husband said this?

Death and Taxes

larry_duff wrote: »

which is the case in the uk and many other european countries , i find it obnoxious however how so many people are using this issue as a stick to beat the catholic church , they wouldnt do it with islam

That would be the same Catholic Church whose special place was inshrined in our constitution until the 1970's, the same Catholic Church who used their power and influence to oppose all legislation which was in conflict with RCC teaching?
You will find that most of us who oppose the actions past and present of the abomination that is the RCC also oppose the actions of other religions which attack the human and civil rights of others.

opinion guy

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

Hard to tell who the trolls are in this thread.

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Larry_duff re-reg troll banned.

Sometimes...just sometimes....it is possible to tell

HeyThereDeliah

seb65 wrote: »

Unfortunately, no. It seems that the HSE did not hand over all of the medical records. This claim was made by the solicitor, who had also gotten a Doctor to look over the records. The doctor confirmed records were missing.

That the termination request was not recorded is a separate issue.

I read this and can't see how the doctor confirmed records were missing unless he seen the originals, which he didn't.

This solicitor seems to me to be saying stuff without all the facts.

seb65

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

I read this and can't see how the doctor confirmed records were missing unless he seen the originals, which he didn't.

This solicitor seems to me to be saying stuff without all the facts.

How much familiarity do you have with medical records?

gozunda

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

What has this got to do with anything?
Do you know for a fact this is what happened in galway hospital ?

Have you read anywhere that the doctor refused because he/she was catholic...?

What you said Deliah.....I am using the same tense btw.

You said....

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

....

This is a catholic country, some people disagree I know.

The doctor could be stating the reason they cannot provide a termination. It's not to say the doctors agree with it.

I said....

gozunda wrote: »

...
A doctor who cannot because of his own religious convictions offer a patient the best medical treatment (where this is allowed for) for recovery must stand aside so that that patient is given the best possible chance of recovery...

Noreen1

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

A source for what exactly? She had two consultants?

Yes. Not doubting your word, just wondering where you read it.:)

HeyThereDeliah

Noreen1 wrote: »

Yes. Not doubting your word, just wondering where you read it.:)

http://www.google.ie/url?q=http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/irishsun/irishsunnews/4650562/Docs-in-Savita-case-insist-We-did-NOTHING-wrong.html&sa=U&ei=B-ywUOGvAcKQhQeKuYHADQ&ved=0CBoQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNEa_31_bL_x48voDs0eG0Lj-mav-Q


http://www.google.ie/url?q=http://www.sundayworld.com/columnists/index.php&sa=U&ei=yuywUKiOHIOGhQf2qoHQCA&ved=0CBkQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNEwNwY-SX9SfYySUCUGs3Bu-QQmeg


"A post-mortem examination found she had septicaemia, a form of blood poisoning, and an E.coli infection. Her husband has said doctors refused the termination on the grounds that the foetal heartbeat was still present and being a Catholic country it is not permitted.

He said: "I tried to plead with the doctors that I am not Irish or a Catholic. I hope they change the law and make it more people-friendly [rather] than on the basis of religious beliefs.

"If it had happened in the UK or India, the thing would have been over in a few hours."

It is believed that there were two consultants overseeing Savita's case - as well as a registrar doctor. A highly-qualified obstetrician who recently moved to Galway was the lead doctor assigned to look after Savita. The female doctor is a hugely respected professional and has published a number of research papers for medical journals."

gozunda

MagicSean wrote: »

I did assume your account was accurate. It still doesn't show anything at all. Unfortunately we are being kept in the dark by the decision of Savitas husband to keep the medical records as confidential. While it is his right to do so, I do not believe it is right to release little snippets of the records here and there. A few sentances out of context can be very misleading.

gozunda wrote:

Of course its all one big conspiracy by those that would choose to attempt to seek jutice. He must of coure be making the whole thing up :rolleyes:

MagicSean wrote: »

That's a very serious accusation. What makes you think he's making it up?

Well sean - i dunno - thats what you are appear to be implying above imo so maybe you can tell the rest of us?

MagicSean wrote: »

Sure why have a public enquiry? Can you not just tell them? You appear to have all the facts.

gozunda wrote:

As you said yourelf - A few sentances out of context can be very misleading...

MagicSean wrote: »

....Indeed...

So glad that you agree with yourself....;)

MagicSean

drkpower wrote: »

Where are you getting that idea from?

The Times article

"Mr Mills said the physical records of a patient belonged to the hospital, but the person had a right of confidentiality over the records"

drkpower

MagicSean wrote: »

The Times article

"Mr Mills said the physical records of a patient belonged to the hospital, but the person had a right of confidentiality over the records"

The patient is dead.

Flier

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

http://www.google.ie/url?q=http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/irishsun/irishsunnews/4650562/Docs-in-Savita-case-insist-We-did-NOTHING-wrong.html&sa=U&ei=B-ywUOGvAcKQhQeKuYHADQ&ved=0CBoQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNEa_31_bL_x48voDs0eG0Lj-mav-Q


http://www.google.ie/url?q=http://www.sundayworld.com/columnists/index.php&sa=U&ei=yuywUKiOHIOGhQf2qoHQCA&ved=0CBkQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNEwNwY-SX9SfYySUCUGs3Bu-QQmeg


"A post-mortem examination found she had septicaemia, a form of blood poisoning, and an E.coli infection. Her husband has said doctors refused the termination on the grounds that the foetal heartbeat was still present and being a Catholic country it is not permitted.

He said: "I tried to plead with the doctors that I am not Irish or a Catholic. I hope they change the law and make it more people-friendly [rather] than on the basis of religious beliefs.

"If it had happened in the UK or India, the thing would have been over in a few hours."

It is believed that there were two consultants overseeing Savita's case - as well as a registrar doctor. A highly-qualified obstetrician who recently moved to Galway was the lead doctor assigned to look after Savita. The female doctor is a hugely respected professional and has published a number of research papers for medical journals."

Early on, he may have been referring to the team of doctors - all working under the same consultant. There wold have been no reason for a consultant for the baby as it was not viable, so a neonatal paediatritian would have had no involvement. Later, after she was transferred to the HDU/ICU she would have had an Intensivist (anesthetist) consultant assigned to her too - that might be where the reference to the second consultant came in.

Noreen1

Flier wrote: »

Early on, he may have been referring to the team of doctors - all working under the same consultant. There wold have been no reason for a consultant for the baby as it was not viable, so a neonatal paediatritian would have had no involvement. Later, after she was transferred to the HDU/ICU she would have had an Intensivist (anesthetist) consultant assigned to her too - that might be where the reference to the second consultant came in.

That makes more sense.
Unless, of course, there was a second consultant called in after septicaemia or e-coli was diagnosed, or there were other medical considerations that we don't know about.
It's impossible to make even an educated guess considering how little information we actually have, beyond a timeline of when she first presented at the hospital, when she was started on antibiotics, and when she became seriously ill, etc.

mac.in

Noreen1 wrote: »

But cervical priming takes time, since it doesn't always work at the first attempt.:)

It doesn't work always. But, it does work; it may have worked for Savita.:D:D

Noreen1 wrote: »

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

No time?? Big joke. She suffered for nearly 3 days before termination.:( That suffering was undoubtedly 100 times more painful than the cervical hurt if she had termination without priming.

Noreen1 wrote: »

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)

So, let's take it into some journal about ur findings.:P

opinion guy

Why the discussion about cervical priming, dilation etc ? According to the reports she was fully dilated at her first exam - none of this stuff was relevant

mac.in

opinion guy wrote: »

Why the discussion about cervical priming, dilation etc ? According to the reports she was fully dilated at her first exam - none of this stuff was relevant

Thank you for your intervention. The discussion about dilation and priming is to just nullify some wrong and irrational comments. Your info may also help in that. Could you please tell where did you get the info so that I could refer it if required.

opinion guy

mac.in wrote: »

Thank you for your intervention. There are some people who just speak for the sake of speaking. Just to answer them is the discussion about dilation and priming. Your info may also make their mouth fastened. Could you please tell where did you get the info so that I could use it to defend my stand.

Here:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1124/1224327042133.html

The couple return to St Monica’s. Again, says Praveen, following examination by a midwife, she is told everything is okay. Savita insists on a further opinion. A registrar in obstetrics is called and he carries out an internal examination, finding her to be fully dilated.

Ok this is all in husbands words but it should be readily verifiable once the official version comes out

Lingua Franca

Timeline of events here.

tiny timy

Was it confirmed that she died from not having an abortion?

opinion guy

tiny timy wrote: »

Was it confirmed that she died from not having an abortion?

No. Doubtful they can ever say that. They can at most only say she should have had one or should not have had one.

tiny timy

opinion guy wrote: »

No. Doubtful they can ever say that. They can at most only say she should have had one or should not have had one.

At the end of the day nobody from the hospital will be held responsible for not doing an abortion (if the test results came back clear for her) because of current law. But if its as clear as that the child would not survive then the poor woman should have had a termination, but it comes back to the question, did she die from the result of not having an abortion?

Also, i'm not a bit racist, but would there be half as much about this if it was one of our own (irish woman) that died under these circumstancesm

o1s1n

tiny timy wrote: »

Also, i'm not a bit racist, but would there be half as much about this if it was one of our own (irish woman) that died under these circumstancesm

Yes.

Noreen1

mac.in wrote: »

It doesn't work always. But, it does work; it may have worked for Savita.:D:D



No time?? Big joke. She suffered for nearly 3 days before termination.:( That suffering was undoubtedly 100 times more painful than the cervical hurt if she had termination without priming.



So, let's take it into some journal about ur findings.:P

A: How would cervical priming work for someone who was already fully dilated?

B: She asked for a termination on Monday. Had induction been a requirement, which it wasn't, do you seriously believe that priming would have been the most suitable option, given the length of time she had already been in labour?

C: What on earth is your problem?
I posted originally in response to a claim that Savita had requested induction repeatedly after admission. That claim was factually incorrect.
This is a discussion forum. Where posts are factually incorrect, other posters are free to disagree with them.

Posters here are also free to give their opinion. I gave mine, based on personal experience.
You chose to pseudo jokingly infer that those experiences were invalid.
They weren't. That treatment is still in use.
Hence, your inference is invalid. (and, frankly, a cheap shot!)

Noreen1

mac.in wrote: »

Thank you for your intervention. There are some people who just speak for the sake of speaking. Just to answer them is the discussion about dilation and priming. Your info may also make their mouth fastened. Could you please tell where did you get the info so that I could use it to defend my stand.

Ah, if that's directed at me, I'm not the one who brought up the subject of induction.
I'm actually aware that induction is not an option when someone is fully dilated.
That's why I responded to the original post.

You might find it helpful to read back over the thread, rather than take a post out of context, and use it to attempt to discredit me - or to "make my mouth fastened" for that matter.

mac.in

Noreen1 wrote: »

A: How would cervical priming work for someone who was already fully dilated?

So you ask yourself why did you say that an unprepared cervix would cause pain, when we were speaking about Savita. Why did you say that Savita didn't have time for priming, when you agree yourself that she was fully dilated. Please refer back your replies. You are contradicting your own statements.

Noreen1 wrote: »

B: She asked for a termination on Monday. Had induction been a requirement, which it wasn't, do you seriously believe that priming would have been the most suitable option, given the length of time she had already been in labour?

As the cervix is fully dilated (which is as per your statement), no question of priming. Again, you are contradicting your own statements.

Noreen1 wrote: »

C: What on earth is your problem?

Please ask the same to yourself

Noreen1 wrote: »

I posted originally in response to a claim that Savita had requested induction repeatedly after admission. That claim was factually incorrect.

You mean she didn't make repeated requests at all? A poor joke and a cheap shot.

Noreen1 wrote: »

This is a discussion forum. Where posts are factually incorrect, other posters are free to disagree with them. Posters here are also free to give their opinion.

So, I am giving my opinion too.

Noreen1 wrote: »

I gave mine, based on personal experience. You chose to pseudo jokingly infer that those experiences were invalid.

I never felt it's invalid. Why do you feel so?

MagicSean

mac.in wrote: »

So you ask yourself why did you say that an unprepared cervix would cause pain, when we were speaking about Savita. Why did you say that Savita didn't have time for priming, when you agree yourself that she was fully dilated. Please refer back your replies. You are contradicting your own statements.



As the cervix is fully dilated (which is as per your statement), no question of priming. Again, you are contradicting your own statements.



Please ask the same to yourself



You mean she didn't make repeated requests at all? A poor joke and a cheap shot.



So, I am giving my opinion too.



I never felt it's invalid. Why do you feel so?

Either you are confused or attempting to stir up an argument. Your ridiculous and inappropriate use of smileys would tell me it's the latter. This is a long thread and their are very few actual facts about the case of Savita. It's inevidable that related issues would be discussed. The topic of abortion is a major and complex one.

Alice1

tiny timy wrote: »

At the end of the day nobody from the hospital will be held responsible for not doing an abortion (if the test results came back clear for her) because of current law. But if its as clear as that the child would not survive then the poor woman should have had a termination, but it comes back to the question, did she die from the result of not having an abortion?

Also, i'm not a bit racist, but would there be half as much about this if it was one of our own (irish woman) that died under these circumstancesm

Have to say I wonder about this too. Two ladies died in the Coombe recently within 48 hours of each other. The cases have been referred to the City Coroner for investigation, but we haven't heard much about it. I think Savita's case is receiving so much attention because her husband chose to contact the media

Death and Taxes

Alice1 wrote: »

Have to say I wonder about this too. Two ladies died in the Coombe recently within 48 hours of each other. The cases have been referred to the City Coroner for investigation, but we haven't heard much about it. I think Savita's case is receiving so much attention because her husband chose to contact the media

Actually if you done a little research you would know that Praveen didn't contact the media, he was contacted by Katy Holland of the Irish Times while he was in India.
She had been tipped off by an Irish source.

seb65

Alice1 wrote: »

Have to say I wonder about this too. Two ladies died in the Coombe recently within 48 hours of each other. The cases have been referred to the City Coroner for investigation, but we haven't heard much about it. I think Savita's case is receiving so much attention because her husband chose to contact the media

Once Savita's story came out, am I correct that other, Irish women began discussing their own horrific experiences?

I think it has more to do with a culture of not discussing such topics publicly. It took someone from outside that culture to give a voice to the issue.

Alice1

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Actually if you done a little research you would know that Praveen didn't contact the media, he was contacted by Katy Holland of the Irish Times while he was in India.
She had been tipped off by an Irish source.

Of course, you are quite right. My apologies. What I should have said was that Savita's husband chose to speak with the media.

drkpower

Alice1 wrote: »

Have to say I wonder about this too. Two ladies died in the Coombe recently within 48 hours of each other. The cases have been referred to the City Coroner for investigation, but we haven't heard much about it. I think Savita's case is receiving so much attention because her husband chose to contact the media

Obviously the (apparent) abortion angle is why this case is attracting enormous attention. Presumably the Coombe deaths did not involve the possibility of, and refusal of, an abortion.