Pregnant woman dies in UCHG after being refused a termination

Death and Taxes

Alice1 wrote: »

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

Once the media got hold of the story it was going to be huge, with or without Praveen. People at the hospital were talking about what happened and it was always going to get out because of the abortion angle.

mac.in

MagicSean wrote: »

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.

Thanks for your advice. I am just responding the way how I'm responded to. You could just refer back. So, do you feel it's appropriate to stop this thread?

otto_26

I'm confused what has abortion got to do with writing into the law that doctors can intervene if the women's life is at risk?

Lingua Franca

drkpower wrote: »

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.

I recall reading that both of the Coombe deaths were women who'd had caesarean sections.

Morag

otto_26 wrote: »

I'm confused what has abortion got to do with writing into the law that doctors can intervene if the women's life is at risk?

Abortion is a medical or surgical treatment which ends a pregnancy.
Some times ending the pregnancy is what is needed when a woman's life is at risk, currently outside of ectopic pregnancies there not clear guildlines for when a dr can do this.

Cavehill Red

Savita died of a hospital acquired infection. Is there any evidence that an abortion actually would have definitively saved her life? I can't see how further invasive treatment would resolve a HAI. Surely antibiotics is the answer there (which she did receive for three days, to no avail.)

Morag

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Savita died of a hospital acquired infection. Is there any evidence that an abortion actually would have definitively saved her life? I can't see how further invasive treatment would resolve a HAI. Surely antibiotics is the answer there (which she did receive for three days, to no avail.)

If we had legislation to allow a woman who is miscarrying slowly and painfully
to speed up the process and have the pregnancy ended (ie to abort, have an abortion preformed) then she would not have been left for 3 days with her cervix open.

The abortion could have happened, the womb emptied and the cervix stitched closed, which would have considerably reduced the risk of infection.

If a woman can be delivered of her baby, which would result in the baby living then she is not left for more then 24 hours with her cervix full open due to the risk of infection, intervention happens to bring about labour or a C section is preformed and the cervix closed.

Where preforming a C section or inducing labour or speeding up labour results in the baby dying as it's not viable outside of the womb, that is considered abortion.

Which is why women who find out that the baby they are carrying has zero chance once born of living they are left to continue the pregnancy until the baby insides them dies, until the fetoal heart beat stops, and then intervention happens.

Same as Savita, they could not intervene and left her with her cervix open for too long, for to do anything to end the pregnancy would have been considered abortion.

otto_26

Sharrow wrote: »

Abortion is a medical or surgical treatment which ends a pregnancy.
Some times ending the pregnancy is what is needed when a woman's life is at risk, currently outside of ectopic pregnancies there not clear guildlines for when a dr can do this.

OK cool so why are people on about allowing abortion in Ireland, I thought this was about writing that doctors can intervene if the woman's life is at risk into law? That's not abortion that intervention if her life is at risk.

Morag

otto_26 wrote: »

OK cool so why are people on about allowing abortion in Ireland, I thought this was about writing that doctors can intervene if the woman's life is at risk into law? That's not abortion that intervention if her life is at risk.

Medically and legally it is still an abortion, even if it is done as an intervention due to the risk to the life or health of the woman.

So it is about legislating for drs to preform abortions, to end the pregnancy.

Cavehill Red

Sharrow wrote: »

If we had legislation to allow a woman who is miscarrying slowly and painfully
to speed up the process and have the pregnancy ended (ie to abort, have an abortion preformed) then she would not have been left for 3 days with her cervix open.

The abortion could have happened, the womb emptied and the cervix stitched closed, which would have considerably reduced the risk of infection.

If a woman can be delivered of her baby, which would result in the baby living then she is not left for more then 24 hours with her cervix full open due to the risk of infection, intervention happens to bring about labour or a C section is preformed and the cervix closed.

Where preforming a C section or inducing labour or speeding up labour results in the baby dying as it's not viable outside of the womb, that is considered abortion.

Which is why women who find out that the baby they are carrying has zero chance once born of living they are left to continue the pregnancy until the baby insides them dies, until the fetoal heart beat stops, and then intervention happens.

Same as Savita, they could not intervene and left her with her cervix open for too long, for to do anything to end the pregnancy would have been considered abortion.

I'm no medic, but I don't see the relevance of what you wrote. The cervix is inside the body. It's very unlikely that was the route by which the HAI took hold. I can see it might hold relevance for the sepsis she also suffered, but not the HAI which killed her.

Morag

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I'm no medic, but I don't see the relevance of what you wrote. The cervix is inside the body. It's very unlikely that was the route by which the HAI took hold. I can see it might hold relevance for the sepsis she also suffered, but not the HAI which killed her.

The cervix is not inside the body like your liver is, it is inside an opening of the body, like tonsils are or ear canals.

When the cervix is open it is like a wound which leads to the womb and the womb of a pregnant woman is a very good breeding ground for bacteria as it is rich in nutrients, and has a direct access into the circulation system(blood supply); and then there is the fact that due to the fact they are growing a life form which is genetically different from themselves, they are in a naturally occurring state of having their immune system suppressed.

If abortion was legal and preformed when she and her husband asked after being told she was miscarrying and there was no hope for the child they both wanted, then she would not have been left with her cervix opened and at such great risk of infection.

Cavehill Red

Sharrow wrote: »

The cervix is not inside the body like your liver is, it is inside an opening of the body, like tonsils are or ear canals.

When the cervix is open it is like a wound which leads to the womb and the womb of a pregnant woman is a very good breeding ground for bacteria as it is rich in nutrients, and has a direct access into the circulation system(blood supply); and then there is the fact that due to the fact they are growing a life form which is genetically different from themselves, they are in a naturally occurring state of having their immune system suppressed.

If abortion was legal and preformed when she and her husband asked after being told she was miscarrying and there was no hope for the child they both wanted, then she would not have been left with her cervix opened and at such great risk of infection.

I guess we're going to have to wait for the investigations to conclude to establish what happened. But I have to say that I have never heard of an HAI acquired via the cervix in my entire life, and I highly suspect that it was not the route of transmission on this occasion either.

Flier

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I guess we're going to have to wait for the investigations to conclude to establish what happened. But I have to say that I have never heard of an HAI acquired via the cervix in my entire life, and I highly suspect that it was not the route of transmission on this occasion either.

I wasn't aware that the e coli in this case was a hospital acquired infection. And for women with ruptured membranes and a dilated cervix it's not unreasonable at all to expect that to be the route of infection. In fact I would go so far as to say, in the abscence for another obvious source (which afaik hasn't been inferred) that the GU tract is the most likely source of infection and sepsis. But that's just my opinion.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I'm no medic, but I don't see the relevance of what you wrote. The cervix is inside the body. It's very unlikely that was the route by which the HAI took hold. I can see it might hold relevance for the sepsis she also suffered, but not the HAI which killed her.

I'm confused on your thinking here. Even if we assume it was a HAI, do you think it was a different infection that caused the sepsis? And what killed her? I thought we heard she died of multi organ failure as a result of sepsis.

MagicSean

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I guess we're going to have to wait for the investigations to conclude to establish what happened. But I have to say that I have never heard of an HAI acquired via the cervix in my entire life, and I highly suspect that it was not the route of transmission on this occasion either.

We might never know for sure. Even if the abortion had been given on her request, had the infection already taken hold? Would it have made a difference?

Death and Taxes

MagicSean wrote: »

We might never know for sure. Even if the abortion had been given on her request, had the infection already taken hold? Would it have made a difference?

Perhaps so. But we might find out if international best practise was followed and if either the current law or a particular religious ethos prevented a course of action being taken that otherwise would have occured.

drkpower

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I guess we're going to have to wait for the investigations to conclude to establish what happened. But I have to say that I have never heard of an HAI acquired via the cervix in my entire life, and I highly suspect that it was not the route of transmission on this occasion either.

Yes, but you also thought that the cervix being 'inside the body' meant that it was a very unlikely to be the route of transmission.......:) So Im not sure we should take your medical pronouncements too seriously.

As it happens, the cervix is, on the face of it, ridiculously prone to infection. It is barely 'inside the body' - im sure you have touched a few in your time....! Both of the body's primary waste products pass very close by, with all of the infective possibilities that throws up. It frequently has an object from a foreign body banging away with it, bringing with it numerous other infective risks. And when it gets cancer, whats the cause? Yes, a virus, another infective agent. It really is a crossroads of infection.

The reality is we dont know what the route of infection was. We dont know if it was a hospital or community acquired infection. We dont know when the infection was contracted, or when it was symptomatic. We dont know when the doctors should have known the nature of the infection, and if that was a different date to when they did know. We dont know loads of things; so maybe people should hold their fire on making conclusions on this specific case until we do.

gozunda

MagicSean wrote: »

We might never know for sure. Even if the abortion had been given on her request, had the infection already taken hold? Would it have made a difference?

Once again there is the same ignorance of the basic facts. This has been explained medically already a thousand times...

Sharrow has excellently fully explained why this treatment should have been performed just a few posts back

What we do know is that treatment that would have offered her the Best Chance of recovery and Minimised the risk of infectionas per best practice was not undertaken.

We will never know if it would have made a difference because she was never given the option one way or the other.

And now she is dead...great healthcare methodology ....

IvyTheTerrible

drkpower wrote: »

Yes, but you also thought that the cervix being 'inside the body' meant that it was a very unlikely to be the route of transmission.......:) So Im not sure we should take your medical pronouncements too seriously.

As it happens, the cervix is, on the face of it, ridiculously prone to infection. It is barely 'inside the body' - im sure you have touched a few in your time....! Both of the body's primary waste products pass very close by, with all of the infective possibilities that throws up. It frequently has an object from a foreign body banging away with it, bringing with it numerous other infective risks. And when it gets cancer, whats the cause? Yes, a virus, another infective agent. It really is a crossroads of infection.

The reality is we dont know what the route of infection was. We dont know if it was a hospital or community acquired infection. We dont know when the infection was contracted, or when it was symptomatic. We dont know when the doctors should have known the nature of the infection, and if that was a different date to when they did know. We dont know loads of things; so maybe people should hold their fire on making conclusions on this specific case until we do.

I agree, the cervix is of course a route of infection. Sure, before I had my baby the midwife said if the waters break (at the end of the pregnancy), and you don't have the baby within 48 hours, you have to have to be pumped with antibiotics to prevent infection harming the baby.

Noreen1

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.

You have clearly ignored my suggestion that you read back over the thread, to check the context of what I said.

I responded to this post:

From the articles, she showed signs of septicaemia on her third day in. She presented herself originally due to back pain and learnt that she is miscarrying. They asked for induction back then.

I responded with this:

Noreen1 wrote: »

Someone stated earlier in the thread that she requested induction shortly after presenting at the hospital.
Assuming that's accurate, and there were no reasons to assume anything other than that a miscarriage would occur naturally in a short period of time, then, based on my own experience of induction in two premature births, I'd have refused induction, too, if I were the doctor.
Reason being, induction where the cervical muscles are in optimal condition, and not softened for labour - bl**dy hurts.
The other question, of course, is what purpose induction would have served, if, as stated, she was already fully dilated?

There is no contradiction there. That post was made several days ago, when fewer facts were known, with certainty.
There is a clear question as to the purpose of induction if she was already fully dilated.

There is also a statement that if there was nothing to indicate that events wouldn't progress normally, and a full miscarriage take place within a short period of time - then induction (had it been required) would have been painful.

My comment with regard to Savita not having time for priming was made at a time when it was known that she had requested termination on Monday.
I assumed that you had read my earlier post in it's entirety, were aware that of the fact that Savita was dilated, (since it was clearly referred to in the post you took issue with) and chose to question whether induction was painful in premature labours.

mac.in wrote: »

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

No. You simply haven't bothered to read the statements I made, and understand them in the context and timeframe in which they were written.
Neither do you have appeared to bother to check the basic facts of either when Savita was dilated, or requested a termination, before making uninformed statements.

mac.in wrote: »

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

She made requests for a termination from Monday. At no point did I say, or even suggest, that she did not make repeated requests.The induction issue had been discussed, and resolved, before you decided to resurrect it, complete with inaccurate assumptions and allegations of what I did or didn't say.

mac.in wrote: »

So, I am giving my opinion too.

That's an interesting interpretation of "opinion".

mac.in wrote: »

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

Because of this:

Originally Posted by mac.in
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.

Frankly, I've rarely read posts that are either so misinformed about the meaning of another persons posts, quite so rude and offensive in how they respond, or so utterly unwilling to either check the facts when invited to do so, and acknowledge when they are wrong in their assumptions.

mac.in

Noreen1 wrote: »

You have clearly ignored my suggestion that you read back over the thread, to check the context of what I said.

I responded to this post:

I responded with this:



There is no contradiction there. That post was made several days ago, when fewer facts were known, with certainty.
There is a clear question as to the purpose of induction if she was already fully dilated.

There is also a statement that if there was nothing to indicate that events wouldn't progress normally, and a full miscarriage take place within a short period of time - then induction (had it been required) would have been painful.

My comment with regard to Savita not having time for priming was made at a time when it was known that she had requested termination on Monday.
I assumed that you had read my earlier post in it's entirety, were aware that of the fact that Savita was dilated, (since it was clearly referred to in the post you took issue with) and chose to question whether induction was painful in premature labours.





No. You simply haven't bothered to read the statements I made, and understand them in the context and timeframe in which they were written.
Neither do you have appeared to bother to check the basic facts of either when Savita was dilated, or requested a termination, before making uninformed statements.




She made requests for a termination from Monday. At no point did I say, or even suggest, that she did not make repeated requests.The induction issue had been discussed, and resolved, before you decided to resurrect it, complete with inaccurate assumptions and allegations of what I did or didn't say.





That's an interesting interpretation of "opinion".



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

Because of this:
Frankly, I've rarely read posts that are either so misinformed about the meaning of another persons posts, quite so rude and offensive in how they respond, or so utterly unwilling to either check the facts when invited to do so, and acknowledge when they are wrong in their assumptions.

The discussion is going out of track and out of context. May be the limited scope of communication in this way (posting in the forum) is the reason. But, I just want to conclude that I could feel myself (at least to some extent) in Savita's and her husband's shoes. I strongly feel she should have given an option of her choice when she requested for it without the doctor quoting religious reasons.

Noreen1

mac.in wrote: »

The discussion is going out of track and out of context. May be the limited scope of communication in this way (posting in the forum) is the reason. But, I just want to conclude that I could feel myself (at least to some extent) in Savita's and her husband's shoes. I strongly feel she should have given an option of her choice when she requested for it without the doctor quoting religious reasons.

I have every sympathy with Savitas husband and family. I also have tremendous respect for Praveen Hallapanaver.
I think he has behaved with enormous dignity in his loss, and tremendous courage in seeking the full truth about Savitas death.
I fully support him in this objective.

I suspect that abortion might very well have been the best option for Savita - but I cannot, in all conscience, state that is definitely the case, until the full facts of the case are known.

I do not approve on this case being hijacked, by anyone, to further their own agenda.
I am acutely aware of the fact that there are calls for legislation on abortion.
I want this legislation to ensure the best possible treatment for all mothers and their babies - I don't want to see any mother die, if she can be saved. Neither do I want to see a single baby die, who can be saved.

The best means of achieving that, imo, is for an impartial enquiry to take place, to determine the full facts of what went wrong, and why.
Followed by an open, and honest, debate - about the risks associated with pregnancy, and miscarriage, and how best to manage them with a view to saving lives, both women and babies, where that is possible.

Only then can we decide how best to try and ensure that the risks of a tragedy like this are lessened.

drquirky

You guys do realise the rest of the world (except a few cathaholic theocracies) are laughing at you on this. The amount of silliness and immaturity of the posturing here merely speaks to an inadequate education system- when will people here cop on to the fact that your real oppressors and colonisers weren't in Britain but in Rome lol.

Noreen1

drkpower wrote: »

The reality is we dont know what the route of infection was. We dont know if it was a hospital or community acquired infection. We dont know when the infection was contracted, or when it was symptomatic. We dont know when the doctors should have known the nature of the infection, and if that was a different date to when they did know. We dont know loads of things; so maybe people should hold their fire on making conclusions on this specific case until we do.

This. x 1000

drquirky

All you really need to know about this issue- is that condoms and divorce were only very recently mad legal here....I love living here but what a joke

mikom

drquirky wrote: »

All you really need to know about this issue- is that condoms and divorce were only very recently mad legal here....I love living here but what a joke

Whereas suicide was illegal up until 1993.
Fucking dark ages stuff.

drquirky

Also- as a man- I find it completely embarrassing to see members of my gender try and tell women what to do with their bodies

tolosenc

drquirky wrote: »

All you really need to know about this issue- is that condoms and divorce were only very recently mad legal here....I love living here but what a joke

And initially only for married couples, an on prescription. Ireland, socially, was and still is one of the more backward countries in the world. Better than parts of the Middle East, but only marginally.

gozunda

Noreen1 wrote: »

I have every sympathy with Savitas husband and family. I also have tremendous respect for Praveen Hallapanaver.
I think he has behaved with enormous dignity in his loss, and tremendous courage in seeking the full truth about Savitas death.
I fully support him in this objective.
I suspect that abortion might very well have been the best option for Savita - but I cannot, in all conscience, state that is definitely the case, until the full facts of the case are known.
I do not approve on this case being hijacked, by anyone, to further their own agenda.
I am acutely aware of the fact that there are calls for legislation on abortion.
I want this legislation to ensure the best possible treatment for all mothers and their babies - I don't want to see any mother die, if she can be saved. Neither do I want to see a single baby die, who can be saved.
The best means of achieving that, imo, is for an impartial enquiry to take place, to determine the full facts of what went wrong, and why.
Followed by an open, and honest, debate - about the risks associated with pregnancy, and miscarriage, and how best to manage them with a view to saving lives, both women and babies, where that is possible.

Only then can we decide how best to try and ensure that the risks of a tragedy like this are lessened.

Noreen - ignoring the hyperbole - what we know is that:

A woman died whilst diagnosed as having a miscarriage

That Best Practice in relation to the minimisation of infection and best chance of recovery was NOT followed.

No one here has an Agenda or is hijacking anything unless it is those whose current barbaric mind trap resulted in this woman's death. I can see that there are those that do not wish for change - only that the same religious orientated ideology be maintained as the status quo.

And guess what it looks like people are saying no enough is enough.

No more excuses, no more hiding behind a catholic Ireland ideology and avoiding growing up as a country and actually doing what is necessary in safeguarding the lives and health of women which have been subjugated by the imposition of rights on a collection of cells that may or may not be viable.

Yes people want the right to full medical care including terminations / abortions where necessary.

Don't like that? Tough....

Morag

Noreen1 wrote: »

I do not approve on this case being hijacked, by anyone, to further their own agenda.

Savita's friends on the behalf of her Husband approached Galway Pro Choice not the other way around.

drkpower

gozunda wrote: »

No one herehas an Agenda or is hijacking anything unless it is those whose current barbaric mind trap resulted in this woman's death.

But you dont know this.

The refusal of a termination may have caused her death. It may not have caused her death. It may have been one contributory factor amongst many. We dont know (yet).

drquirky

I actually think that people are allowing the "anti abortion" crowd too much legitimacy. There is no point in listening to their arguments as they are the equivalent of a pack of stone age Taliban. Fine if they want to live their own lives in the Old Testament but their bulls*&t has no place in a modern republic

To the Cathaholics posting- ever watched Life of Brian? It pretty much explains your particular mania

Death and Taxes

Sharrow wrote: »

Savita's husband and friend approached Galway Pro Choice not the other way around.

According to the Journalist who broke the story , Praveen didnt contact anone, she (Katy Holland rang him in India).
So do you have a link to evidence that Praveen contacted Pro Choice groups?

drkpower

drquirky wrote: »

I actually think that people are allowing the "anti abortion" crowd too much legitimacy. There is no point in listening to their arguments as they are the equivalent of a pack of stone age Taliban.

That is as helpful as those of a pro-life disposition calling pro-choicers baby-killers (ie. not very).

The 'anti-abortion' lobby comes in various different flavours. Where we have a constitutional ban on intervening where a mother has a threat to her health, or a threat to her life short of substantial, I would suggest engaging with the anti-abortion lobby. The votes of their moderate wing is vital to at least curing that problem.

Or you could just write them all off as the 'taliban', pat yourself on the back and watch while women continue to be at risk.

gozunda

drkpower wrote: »

But you dont know this.

The refusal of a termination may have caused her death. It may not have caused her death. It may have been one contributory factor amongst many. We dont know (yet).

Which bit did you not get???

She was not given that treatment which would have given her the Best change of recovery and Minimised the risk of Infection as per best practice . This is the issue.

How many times do you need to see it explained?

The mindset that allowed this to happen is evident in the refusal to legislate for the ruling of the X case in relation to the existing constitution.

What don't you get - that you don't know this? Only if you refuse to accept that which is evident.

I have seen many examples of facultative hearing where a person may or may not hear something but the use of facultative logic here is mind blowing imo.

Morag

WileyCoyote wrote: »

According to the Journalist who broke the story , Praveen didnt contact anone, she (Katy Holland rang him in India).
So do you have a link to evidence that Praveen contacted Pro Choice groups?

http://www.irishchoicenetwork.com/1/post/2012/11/galway-pro-choice-were-approached-by-savitas-friends.html

For Release: Galway Pro Choice Were Approached by Savita’s Friends

As was made clear by Sarah McCarthy of Galway Pro Choice on last night’s Prime Time programme on RTE, Galway Pro Choice were approached by the friends of Savita Praveen Halapannavar on 3rd November 2012. They came to us before going public with her story. Their only wish was to try to make sure that what happened to Savita would never happen to another woman again in Ireland.

After an initial phone call on 3rd November from a friend of Savita and Praveen’s, Savita’s friends sent Galway Pro Choice an email containing more details of the case. A meeting between Galway Pro Choice and approximately ten of Savita’s friends then took place, during which they explained the facts of the case as they saw them. They believed that a termination may have saved Savita's life. They requested the assistance of Galway Pro Choice in deciding how to proceed.

Galway Pro Choice presented Savita’s friends with a number of options, including the option of not releasing the story at all. The option of releasing the story anonymously, without a name or place being mentioned, was also discussed. However, Savita’s friends and her husband Praveen felt that going fully public with the tragic story of Savita’s death was what they wanted to do in order to bring home to the public how Ireland's abortion laws can place pregnant women in danger. A phone call between Galway Pro Choice and Savita's husband Praveen, in India, also occurred, in which Praveen reiterated his desire to go public with the story.

Galway Pro Choice then put Praveen and his friends in touch with the Irish Times. We explicitly made clear to Praveen and his friends that if they were uncomfortable in any way, at any stage, with any of our activities they should just say so and we would immediately do what they wished. We have informed them in advance of all of our planned activities so far, and they have been supportive of all of them. Savita's friends were present at the candlelit vigil we held on Saturday in Galway, and expressed their amazement that anyone could say that we were 'taking advantage of' or 'hijacking' the tragedy of Savita's death.

Now that these facts have been made clear, any and all implications by anti-choice campaigners or politicians to the effect that Pro-Choice groups are taking advantage of this tragedy should stop. If they do not, they must be interpreted as deliberately misleading statements. As well as being false, they are offensive and potentially upsetting to Savita's family and friends.

drkpower

gozunda wrote: »

Which bit did you not get???

She was not given that treatment which would have given her the Best change of recovery and Minimised the risk of Infection. This is the issue.

How many times do you need to see it explained?

The mindset that allowed this to happen is evident in the refusal to legislate for the ruling of the X case in relation to the existing constitution.

What don't you get - that you don't know this? Only if you refuse to accept that which is evident.

I have seen many examples of facultative hearing where a person may or may not hear something but the use of facultative logic here is mind blowing imo.

Easy there tigress......

You stated that the current legal position vis-a-vis abortion resulted in this woman's death. That is far from clear.

We dont know if the infection had anything to do with her foetus/miscarriage. We dont know if a termination would have made any difference to her ultimate outcome. Of course, it may have, but right now, we dont know. So to claim that the legal position did, in fact, result in her death is premature. It may turn out to be the case, but we dont know that yet.

Wompa1

I'm going with my first assumption and it is just that. I don't think the abortion argument has anything to do with this case, I believe with the precarious positioning of the baby it would have been labelled a miscarriage and the pregnancy would have been terminated. I believe in this case it will come down to gross incompetence on the part of the hospital and the fact the debate is around abortion is sickening because it actually helps the hospital to hide behind it and allow it to play out on a bigger issue rather than highlight how sh!tty they are.

Irish hospitals are horrible. Let's try and focus on that rather than this tunnel vision about abortion....

Death and Taxes

Sharrow wrote: »

http://www.irishchoicenetwork.com/1/post/2012/11/galway-pro-choice-were-approached-by-savitas-friends.html

So your original claim the it was Savitas HUSBAND and friends was inaccurate, thanks for clarifying that Praveen did NOT indeed contact the Galway Pro Choice movement.

Death and Taxes

Sharrow wrote: »

Savita's husband and friends approached Galway Pro Choice not the other way around.

Post fixed

Morag

WileyCoyote wrote: »

So your original claim the it was Savitas HUSBAND and friends was inaccurate, thanks for clarifying that Praveen did NOT indeed contact the Galway Pro Choice movement.

:rolleyes:

Seriously you gonna nit pick that. pfff

Fixed it myself, ta all the same.

gozunda

drkpower wrote: »

You stated that the current legal position vis-a-vis abortion resulted in this woman's death. That is far from clear.

We dont know if the infection had anything to do with her foetus/miscarriage. We dont know if a termination would have made any difference to her ultimate outcome. Of course, it may have, but right now, we dont know. So to claim that the legal position did, in fact, result in her death is premature. It may turn out to be the case, but we dont know that yet.

You are putting the cart before the horse. I stated it was the current mind trap that had prevented legislation on the X case and the availability of proper treatment and in this case - yes the woman died without access to recognised best practice. This impasse has led the use of treatment of miscarriage to be at best a grey area. Not the same thing at all.

So for the benefit of those that are not seeing that which is evident - once again she was not given the treatment that would have given her the best change of recovery and that would have minimised infection.

Refusal to operate on a person who has an inflamed appendix and then claiming oh well they might have recovered but we really cant tell would not be excused. This woman was not provided with best medical practice in relation to her condition. End of story.

Cavehill Red

drkpower wrote: »

Yes, but you also thought that the cervix being 'inside the body' meant that it was a very unlikely to be the route of transmission.......:) So Im not sure we should take your medical pronouncements too seriously.

I did say I wasn't a medic, but I do know quite a few and have discussed this case with them, as no doubt the whole country has discussed it. Most of those I spoke to found it highly unlikely that the cervix would have been a likely route for the HAI. I didn't press them on why they thought that, but I will make a point to when I next see any of them.

drkpower wrote: »

As it happens, the cervix is, on the face of it, ridiculously prone to infection. It is barely 'inside the body' - im sure you have touched a few in your time....! Both of the body's primary waste products pass very close by, with all of the infective possibilities that throws up. It frequently has an object from a foreign body banging away with it, bringing with it numerous other infective risks. And when it gets cancer, whats the cause? Yes, a virus, another infective agent. It really is a crossroads of infection.

Infection, yes. HAI? I'm not so sure.

drkpower wrote: »

The reality is we dont know what the route of infection was. We dont know if it was a hospital or community acquired infection. We dont know when the infection was contracted, or when it was symptomatic. We dont know when the doctors should have known the nature of the infection, and if that was a different date to when they did know. We dont know loads of things; so maybe people should hold their fire on making conclusions on this specific case until we do.

I entirely concur. A lot of the country has been quick to jump to judgement without sufficient information, I believe. Investigations are underway, and I'll be awaiting those before coming to any definitive conclusions myself.

Death and Taxes

Sharrow wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Seriously you gonna nit pick that. pfff

Fixed it myself, ta all the same.

Nowhere in you linked statement does it state that his "friends" were acting on hiis behalf.
Secondly Katy Holland has stated that she contacted Praveen after she googled and facebooked members of the Indian community in Galway, none of his friends was the initial contact.
http://www.rte.ie/radio/radioplayer/rteradiowebpage.html#type=radio&rii=9%3A20115954%3A70%3A25%2D11%2D2012%3A


But sure dont let the fact get in your way!

drkpower

gozunda wrote: »

You are putting the cart before the horse. I stated it was the current mind trap that had prevented legislation on the X case. Which has caused the use of best practice to be at best a grey area. Not the same thing at all. .

Exactly; that the current legal position vis-a-vis abortion resulted in this woman's death.

gozunda wrote: »

So for the benefit of those that are not seeing that which is evident - once again she was not given the treatment that would have given her the best change of recovery and that would have minimised infection.

Refusal to operate on a person who has an inflamed appendix and then claiming oh well they might have recovered would not be excused. This woman was not provided with best medical practice in relation to her condition. End of story.

You are getting ahead of yourself again. There is no evidence yet to suggest that a termination would have minimised infection. We do not know the source or focus of the infection.

drkpower

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Infection, yes. HAI? I'm not so sure. .

Im not so sure why a HAI could not enter the body through such a route but in any case, iots a bit of a side issue.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I entirely concur. A lot of the country has been quick to jump to judgement without sufficient information, I believe. Investigations are underway, and I'll be awaiting those before coming to any definitive conclusions myself.

Amen!

Noreen1

gozunda wrote: »

Noreen - ignoring the hyperbole - what we know is that:

A woman died whilst diagnosed as having a miscarriage

That Best Practice in relation to the minimisation of infection and best chance of recovery was NOT followed.

No one here has an Agenda or is hijacking anything unless it is those whose current barbaric mind trap resulted in this woman's death. I can see that there are those that do not wish for change - only that the same religious orientated ideology be maintained as the status quo.

And guess what it looks like people are saying no enough is enough.

No more excuses, no more hiding behind a catholic Ireland ideology and avoiding growing up as a country and actually doing what is necessary in safeguarding the lives and health of women which have been subjugated by the imposition of rights on a collection of cells that may or may not be viable.

Yes people want the right to full medical care including terminations / abortions where necessary.

Don't like that? Tough....

Those whose current barbaric mind trap resulted in her death?
Really? I thought she died of organ failure as a result of sepsis.
It has been stated so many times.
She was legally entitled to an termination if her life was at risk.
Catholic theology has no objection to termination as a medical treatment where a mothers life is at risk.
I have no idea why she wasn't granted the termination, because the doctors cannot give their version. On that basis, I'll hold fire until I hear whether there was a valid medical reason not to terminate.

Where necessary is a very subjective term.

What if a woman is diagnosed with a life threatening illness, where the foetus is viable?
Should that child be delivered safely to safeguard the life of the mother?
Or aborted, if requested?

No-one on the pro-life side is suggesting that mothers should die so their babies can live, to my knowledge.
Certainly, what I am saying, is that when legislation is introduced, every effort should also be made to save the child, if possible.
Where it isn't possible, where a foetus is capable of feeling pain, consideration should be given to that when choosing the method of termination.

Consider that barbaric? Or don't like it?
Tough!

Cavehill Red

drkpower wrote: »

Im not so sure why a HAI could not enter the body through such a route but in any case, iots a bit of a side issue.

I'm not saying it couldn't. But the vast, vast majority of HAI's are not contracted via that route.
It ceases to become a side issue if it transpires that the HAI was acquired by another route. It could potentially lead to a conclusion of negligence on behalf of the caregivers, or it could completely exonerate them, depending on the route, origin, nature and severity of the infection.
This is why I, like you, am awaiting the results of the investigations before coming to any hard and fast conclusions.

Morag

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Nowhere in you linked statement does it state that his "friends" were acting on hiis behalf.
Secondly Katy Holland has stated that she contacted Praveen after she googled and facebooked members of the Indian community in Galway, none of his friends was the initial contact.
http://www.rte.ie/radio/radioplayer/rteradiowebpage.html#type=radio&rii=9%3A20115954%3A70%3A25%2D11%2D2012%3A


But sure dont let the fact get in your way!

I have my fact straight I was talking with one of the members of Galway Pro Choice last night. But don't let that stop your agenda or attempt to bemirch people.

gozunda

drkpower wrote: »

Exactly; that the current legal position vis-a-vis abortion resulted in this woman's death.

You are getting ahead of yourself again. There is no evidence yet to suggest that a termination would have minimised infection. We do not know the source or focus of the infection.

If you wish to not to fully comprehend that which was written - go ahead. I suggest you read up on international best practice in relation to the treatment of miscarriage - you clearly have no knowledge in this area. The source or focus of the infection is immaterial at this juncture - she should have been offered best practice to minimise the risk of infection and to maximise her chances of recovery - she was not offered this. This is gross negligence in its own right.

drkpower

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I'm not saying it couldn't. But the vast, vast majority of HAI's are not contracted via that route.
It ceases to become a side issue if it transpires that the HAI was acquired by another route. It could potentially lead to a conclusion of negligence on behalf of the caregivers, or it could completely exonerate them, depending on the route, origin, nature and severity of the infection.
This is why I, like you, am awaiting the results of the investigations before coming to any hard and fast conclusions.

I wonder is that true of the majority of HAIs contracted in obstetric Hospitals.
I wonder is it also true of the majority of HAIs contracted in a younger population; bear in mind that the majority of HAIs are contracted by an older population.

And by 'side issue', I meant that as long as the facts are not known, debating the precise source of the HAI (nevermind whether that HAI actually caused her death, or whether it was related to the miscarriage) are side issues.

In any case, i think we are in the same page here.