Pregnant woman dies in UCHG after being refused a termination

Death and Taxes

Sharrow wrote: »

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.

Im just going on what the Jounalist who broke the story says, as oppossed to one group with a particular agenda.
I would repeat that you have posted a highly misleading statement as nowhere in the press release does it state the those who contacted the Galway Pro Choice were acting on Praveens behalf.
That you lack the integrity to admit your post remains inaccurate is not my fault!
That Galway Pro Choices claims are refuted by the account of the Journalist who broke the story is not my fault.
But I think it is indecently low down to be totally unsubstansiated claims regarding Praveen simply to drive a particular agenda.

drkpower

gozunda wrote: »

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.

Repeating something does not make it so.

First, the source and focus of the infection is, of course, material to her cause of death. To say otherwise is just silly.

Second, and most important, we do not know yet whether a termination would have minimised her risk of infection. If you want to assert that, produce the evidence. If you have no evidence, stop asserting it as if it were fact. It is unhelpful.

gozunda

Noreen1 wrote: »

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!

Excuse my French but Fuc Catholic Theology in this particular instance...

The right wingers in the first referendum wanted to advocate that the Foetus had an absolute right to life over that of any concern of the mother. Is that extreme enough for you or are women to remain child bearing vessels for procreation purposes only?

You think allowing a foetus to die slowly over days as its mother life is placed at risk is not barbaric?

This is a pox ridden country ruled by bogmen and priests...

The Time for change is now - don't like it? Get used to it...

Cavehill Red

drkpower wrote: »

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.

The HPSC does not collect such data, or if they do, they don't publish it:
http://www.hpsc.ie/hpsc/A-Z/Gastroenteric/GastroenteritisorIID/Publications/IIDandZoonoticDiseaseQuarterlyReports/2012/File,13686,en.pdf

drkpower wrote: »

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.

They are for now. We must await the findings of the investigations. A lot of people are jumping to various conclusions and to my mind appear to have lost the run of themselves. I don't include you in that cohort.

drkpower wrote: »

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

Certainly. There is currently insufficient information to come to any hard and fast conclusions, and people should quit trying to do so until the full evidence comes to light.

kunst nugget

Noreen1 wrote: »

Catholic theology has no objection to termination as a medical treatment where a mothers life is at risk.

According to Catholic doctrine a termination can only occur as an indirect result of a treatment and can not be the treatment itself.

Consider this for Ectopic Pregnancy:

Using the Thomistic Principle of Totality (removal of a pathological part to preserve the life of the person) and the Doctrine of Double Effect, the only moral action in an ectopic pregnancy where a woman's life is directly threatened is the removal of the tube containing the human embryo (salpingectomy). The death of the human embryo is unintended although foreseen.[40]

In Catholic theology, it is never permissible to evacuate the fetus using methotrexate or to incise the Fallopian tube to extract the fetus (salpingostomy), as these procedures are considered to be direct abortions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_abortion

gozunda

drkpower wrote: »

Repeating something does not make it so.

First, the source and focus of the infection is, of course, material to her cause of death. To say otherwise is just silly.

Second, and most important, we do not know yet whether a termination would have minimised her risk of infection. If you want to assert that, produce the evidence. If you have no evidence, stop asserting it as if it were fact. It is unhelpful.

I observe that you continue to misquote. I clearly stated that the source of infection at this juncture is not an issue. The fact remains that treatment allowing for the minimisation for the risk of infection as per best practice was not provided.
The treatment of miscarriage calls for a termination at the earliest possible opportunity.

Have you a problem with the women being offered best practice? Maybe leeches and bloodletting would have been a good idea in your opinion?. I have no agenda to be helpful or otherwise. I am stating it as it is.

seb65

Noreen1 wrote: »

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!

What mother would choose to carry her baby to viability and then. if her life was in danger, ask for an abortion instead of early delivery?

Morag

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Im just going on what the Jounalist who broke the story says, as oppossed to one group with a particular agenda.
I would repeat that you have posted a highly misleading statement as nowhere in the press release does it state the those who contacted the Galway Pro Choice were acting on Praveens behalf.
That you lack the integrity to admit your post remains inaccurate is not my fault!
That Galway Pro Choices claims are refuted by the account of the Journalist who broke the story is not my fault.
But I think it is indecently low down to be totally unsubstansiated claims regarding Praveen simply to drive a particular agenda.

Seems you are going to believe what you want fair enough.

drkpower

gozunda wrote: »

The fact remains that treatment allowing for the minimisation for the risk of infection as per best practice was not provided.

.
And still you continue to state that a termination would have minimised her risk of infection. We do not know that currently. If you want to assert that, produce the evidence. If you have no evidence, stop asserting it as if it were fact.

gozunda wrote: »

Have you a problem with the women being offered best practice? Maybe leeches and bloodletting would have been a good idea in your opinion?. I have no agenda to be helpful or otherwise. I am stating it as it is.

I never said you had an agenda. Nor did I ever say that women should not be offered best practice, far from it. How about we stick to what we are actually saying, rather than inventing other stuff.

seb65

kunst nugget wrote: »

According to Catholic doctrine a termination can only occur as an indirect result of a treatment and can not be the treatment itself.

Consider this for Ectopic Pregnancy:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_abortion

Truly barbaric. This nonsense of abortion vs termination and never a need to perform an "abortion" is foolishness at best and gross negligence at worst. This ideological argument rates right up there with "straight camp" and "dinosaurs were on Noah's Ark because Noah took them aboard as eggs".

How can we listen to these people anymore?

seb65

drkpower wrote: »

.
And still you continue to state that a termination would have minimised her risk of infection. We do not know that currently. If you want to assert that, produce the evidence. If you have no evidence, stop asserting it as if it were fact.

I never said you had an agenda. Nor did I ever say that women should not be offered best practice, far from it. How about we stick to what we are actually saying, rather than inventing other stuff.

At the very least, termination would have eased her emotional distress. At the very least, she shouldn't have been left to suffer for three days. I can't imagine having your baby dying inside of you and fluids seeping out of you for a week had a positive effect on her immune system if it was trying to combat an infection? I'd imagine after such a prolonged trauma your body/mind might not be up to fighting in an invasive bacteria.

gozunda

drkpower wrote: »

.
And still you continue to state that a termination would have minimised her risk of infection. We do not know that currently. If you want to assert that, produce the evidence. If you have no evidence, stop asserting it as if it were fact.

I never said you had an agenda. Nor did I ever say that women should not be offered best practice, far from it. How about we stick to what we are actually saying, rather than inventing other stuff.

Yes we do know that currently as per best practice for the minimisation of infection in the case of miscarriage. Go and look it up and stop whinging about it if you don't know.

Best practice is to offer a termination in this type of miscarriage.

As per the example if an appendix - do you seriously believe doctors should really sit around and await an outcome without treatment based on your premiss that the person might get better all by themselves -

I just love the lack of logic there....

drkpower

gozunda wrote: »

Yes we do know that currently as per best practice for the minimisation of infection in the case of miscarriage. Go and look it up and stop whinging about it if you don't know.

Best practice is to offer a termination in this type of miscarriage.

As per the example if an appendix - do you seriously believe doctors should really sit around and await an outcome without treatment based on your premiss that the person might get better all by themselves -

I just love the lack of logic there....

?

I never questioned whether it was best practice. I questioned whether a termination would have minimised her risk of infection. If you want to assert that, produce the evidence. If you have no evidence, stop asserting it as if it were fact.

Slow down and read the point I am making.

drkpower

seb65 wrote: »

At the very least, termination would have eased her emotional distress. At the very least, she shouldn't have been left to suffer for three days. I can't imagine having your baby dying inside of you and fluids seeping out of you for a week had a positive effect on her immune system if it was trying to combat an infection? I'd imagine after such a prolonged trauma your body/mind might not be up to fighting in an invasive bacteria.

There are quite a few 'ifs and maybes' in there; but even if all true, it doesnt necessarily mean that a lack of termination caused her death.

Ultimately, the facts may reveal that a lack of a termination caused her death. But we are not there yet and all of the idle speculation isnt helping.

gozunda

drkpower wrote: »

?

I never questioned whether it was best practice. I questioned whether a termination would have minimised her risk of infection. If you want to assert that, produce the evidence. If you have no evidence, stop asserting it as if it were fact.

Slow down and read the point I am making.

Hello Best practice in this scenario to minimise infection is Termination

It is fact.

I will now stop having to repeat myself as the use of such facultative logic as exhibited above is quite tiresome

drkpower

gozunda wrote: »

Hello Best practice in this scenario to minimise infection is Termination

It is fact.

I will now stop having to repeat myself as the use of such facultative logic as exhibited above is quite tiresome

But we dont know if that is the infection that caused her death. Therefore we do not know if a termination would have prevented her death. So stop speculating to that effect.

seb65

drkpower wrote: »

But we dont know if that is the infection that caused her death. Therefore we do not know if a termination would have prevented her death. So stop speculating to that effect.

If you want to argue on the ever difficult to prove issue of causation and medical negligence so be it. That will be the underlying problem in this whole investigation. Much like a doctor determining a mole is normal and it later turns out to have been cancerous, there's no way to definitively say that earlier treatment may have prevented someone's death because every individual's physiological response to disease and treatment is different.

However, best practice and needless suffering must be taken into account when determining proper treatment. This is where Catholic ethos should have no bearing on medicine and science.

The fine point of where refusal to provide a course of treatment may not have actually caused Savita's death, if found, will be used by pro-birth proponents to flame their "abortion is never necessary to save the life of the mother" argument.

At the same time, completely barbaric treatment of pregnant women will be ignored.

MagicSean

gozunda wrote: »

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 ....

Quite an argumentative and aggressive post considering you are agreeing with me.

Noreen1

seb65 wrote: »

What mother would choose to carry her baby to viability and then. if her life was in danger, ask for an abortion instead of early delivery?

I actually met a woman who travelled all the way from America to Britain to have a perfectly viable baby aborted just before the (then) 28 week limit.
So, yes, some women would make that call.

drkpower

seb65 wrote: »

If you want to argue on the ever difficult to prove issue of causation and medical negligence so be it. That will be the underlying problem in this whole investigation. Much like a doctor determining a mole is normal and it later turns out to have been cancerous, there's no way to definitively say that earlier treatment may have prevented someone's death because every individual's physiological response to disease and treatment is different.

However, best practice and needless suffering must be taken into account when determining proper treatment. This is where Catholic ethos should have no bearing on medicine and science.

The fine point of where refusal to provide a course of treatment may not have actually caused Savita's death, if found, will be used by pro-birth proponents to flame their "abortion is never necessary to save the life of the mother" argument.

At the same time, completely barbaric treatment of pregnant women will be ignored.

I agree with all of that.

However, those who assert, in the absence of fact, that a termination would have saved Savita's life will actually do more harm to their case especially if it transpires that it would not have saved her life. Those on the other side of the debate will deride the pro-choice side's attempt to hijack the Savita case (and such criticism will not be without some merit). The echoes of 'I told you so' will be deafening. Such an eventuality may do a lot to discredit the arguments being made on the pro-choice side. Better to argue the matter without reference to this case (for the moment).

Sadly, those like Gozunda appear too short-sighted to see that they risk damaging the outcome they want, because they cant resist the temptation to over-egg the pudding now.

seb65

Noreen1 wrote: »

I actually met a woman who travelled all the way from America to Britain to have a perfectly viable baby aborted just before the (then) 28 week limit.
So, yes, some women would make that call.

Yes, but you're talking about a pregnant woman whose life is suddenly in danger, who has carried her baby almost to term, is faced with the decision to deliver early or abort. There's two factors in your scenario, not just a woman who would carry their baby past the point of viability and then abort. The odds of having a woman, who wants to abort her baby, but who carries it to viability, but then also encounters a life threatening situation - almost negligible.

I find it odd that a woman would travel from America to Britain just to terminate a pregnancy, when she could just go to Canada - Canada has no limit on when an abortion may be done. I also would like to know if there were any other factors - was their some inherent defect with the baby?

Wompa1

seb65 wrote: »

Yes, but you're talking about a pregnant woman whose life is suddenly in danger, who has carried her baby almost to term, is faced with the decision to deliver early or abort. There's two factors in your scenario, not just a woman who would carry their baby past the point of viability and then abort. The odds of having a woman, who wants to abort her baby, but who carries it to viability, but then also encounters a life threatening situation - almost negligible.

I find it odd that a woman would travel from America to Britain just to terminate a pregnancy, when she could just go to Canada - Canada has no limit on when an abortion may be done. I also would like to know if there were any other factors - was their some inherent defect with the baby?

She could have gone to Canada but it was also Fashion week in London so she figured she could take in a few shows while she was there....

Flier

For what it's worth I think people need to take a deep breath and stand back a bit. No, none of us have the answers in this case. So far it seems all we have to go on is the testimony of her husband. While I am not doubting his honesty, it is after all only his view of things, and AFAIK, eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. Trying to second guess the facts of the case, the outcome of the various enquiries, and getting dragged down tangents that are not relevant to the 'big picture' is just folly.
What we do know is that the best practice for cases of prolonged inevitable miscarriage includes consideration of a termination of pregnancy. We also know that the law, and the constitution in this country does not allow that as an option, except in the rare and, according to many practicing obstetricians, difficult to define, case of there also being a 'real and substantial risk' to the mother's life. Frankly, whatever the outcome of the various enquiries, this situation is intolerable, in my opinion and I would guess, in most other compassionate and logical thinking peoples' opinion. So it seems that the law, and the constitution have to change before pregnant women in this country are able to avail of all the options considered as best practice in other countries as well as this country.

otto_26

Sharrow wrote: »

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.

I guess what i'm trying to say is why are people talking about abortion for all in Ireland what's that got to do with this case? why is there an expert group talking about abortion for all what has that got to do with this case?

Isn't this case about writing in to law about intervention if there is a risk to the woman's life and a full stop after that?

gozunda

drkpower wrote: »

I agree with all of that.

However, those who assert, in the absence of fact, that a termination would have saved Savita's life will actually do more harm to their case especially if it transpires that it would not have saved her life. Those on the other side of the debate will deride the pro-choice side's attempt to hijack the Savita case (and such criticism will not be without some merit). The echoes of 'I told you so' will be deafening. Such an eventuality may do a lot to discredit the arguments being made on the pro-choice side. Better to argue the matter without reference to this case (for the moment).

Sadly, those like Gozunda appear too short-sighted to see that they risk damaging the outcome they want, because they cant resist the temptation to over-egg the pudding now.

Jeez its like a long playing broken record...

I and other relevant posters have NOT asserted that definitely a termination would save her life. What we have been saying and you are deliberately ignoring that she was DENIED best treatment which would have Minimised the risk of infection and given the Best chance of recovery to this lady.

If you wish to deliberately twist and distort what others have said then your ideology is as twisted as any of the most extreme anti women zealots out there.

Best of luck with that pudding of twisted logic .... Does it taste better that a woman had to endure such barbaric treatment to arrive at such illogical conclusions ?

gozunda

drkpower wrote: »

But we dont know if that is the infection that caused her death. Therefore we do not know if a termination would have prevented her death. So stop speculating to that effect.

I did not say it did
She was denied best practice that would have minimised the risk of any such infection and gave her the best chance of recovery.
That treatment includes Termination in such cases

You would apparently deny a woman best treatment on the logic of ' of well she could of died of anything'


SHE WAS STILL DENIED TREATMENT THAT IS CONSIDERED THE BEST IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES

What is the problem?

gozunda

MagicSean wrote: »

Quite an argumentative and aggressive post considering you are agreeing with me.

Not too sure what you are talking about tbh but if you believe you are in agreement
Thanks

gozunda

Wompa1 wrote: »

She could have gone to Canada but it was also Fashion week in London so she figured she could take in a few shows while she was there....

Like all such heartless unnatural woman out there she probably went dancing, drinking and whoring down Soho afterwards.....

Jeez ... I just love such urban myths written by the anti-women zealot brigade.

drkpower

gozunda wrote: »

I and other relevant posters have NOT asserted that definitely a termination would save her life.

Troll.

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.

Flier

otto_26 wrote: »

I guess what i'm trying to say is why are people talking about abortion for all in Ireland what's that got to do with this case? why is there an expert group talking about abortion for all what has that got to do with this case?

Isn't this case about writing in to law about intervention if there is a risk to the woman's life and a full stop after that?

I wasn't aware that there is an expert group talking about abortion for all (or even abortion on demand if that's what you mean).
This case is about one woman's outcome following a specific situation. I guess that it has sparked all sorts of debates about abortion.

Lingua Franca

Flier wrote: »

I wasn't aware that there is an expert group talking about abortion for all (or even abortion on demand if that's what you mean).
This case is about one woman's outcome following a specific situation. I guess that it has sparked all sorts of debates about abortion.

The expert review on abortion was commisioned by the state after the ECHR ruling on A, B and C and was not sparked by this case.

Flier

Lingua Franca wrote: »

The expert review on abortion was commisioned by the state after the ECHR ruling on A, B and C and was not sparked by this case.

Now that one I am aware of. Unfortunately it seems that some people who believe themselves to be well informed are incorrect in that assumption. I suggest that, as this is such an important issue, people should make the effort to inform themselves properly before adding their tupence.

gozunda

drkpower wrote: »

Troll.

Well reasoned argument definitely has gone out the window....

Is that really the best example of me supposedly stating that a termination would have saved her life?

The two quotes are not even related fcs - would you like me to spell it out in words of just one syllable or something?

I really can't explain any simpler than I have at least a dozen times in response to your misquoting out of context.

I think I will just resort to blowing raspberries - it might make a more profound impact....

drkpower

gozunda wrote: »

Is that really the best example of me supposedly stating that a termination would have saved her life?

If you can rationalise the two statements, I'm all ears.

Lingua Franca

Flier wrote: »

Now that one I am aware of. Unfortunately it seems that some people who believe themselves to be well informed are incorrect in that assumption. I suggest that, as this is such an important issue, people should make the effort to inform themselves properly before adding their tupence.

Ah yeah. My head's a mess today, I should have quoted otto and not you. I have no idea what expert group talking about abortion for all otto is on about.

gozunda

drkpower wrote: »

If you can rationalise the two statements, I'm all ears.

I already have...just go back and read in context of the original posts

Thanks

nagirrac

The term HAI has been used frequently in the discussion which I would assume means that the infection originated while Savita was in the hospital. In the Irish Times article on the timeline as relayed by family and friends there is mention of an ESBL producing E.Coli infection (an antibiotic resistant E.Coli that can lead to septacemia).

Don't know if anyone has the answer to this but how likely is this type of infection to originate in Irish hospitals like MSRA for example? From what I have read it is highly transmissable so it would seem logical it would show up in hospitals. Alternatively it could have been contracted earlier and was the cause of the miscarriage before Savita even entered the hospital.

It may well be that the pregnancy was a side issue here. If Savita contracted an ESBL E.Coli infection and it was diagnosed too late, then unfortunately the infection may have taken hold and no amount of antibiotics could have saved her.

All of the above speculation does not excuse the fact that the medical profession in Ireland are prevented under existing law from carrying out best practice in the case of an inevitable abortion, which appears to have been the case here. Surely Irish people would not have a problem entrusting their medical professionals to do what is universal practice in most developed countries? All of the pro and anti abortion hysteria seems to be taking center stage and confusing what should be a simple medical decision given that the fetus is unviable anyway. Are people confused by the fact that there was a heartbeat and thus think the fetus was viable?

drkpower

gozunda wrote: »

I already have...just go back and read in context of the original posts

Thanks

Im afraid you haven't.

gozunda

drkpower wrote: »

Im afraid you haven't.

Its S I M P L E

Read the orinial posts....end of

Thanks

Lingua Franca

nagirrac wrote: »

Are people confused by the fact that there was a heartbeat and thus think the fetus was viable?

No. The anti abortion lobby are saying she might have died anyway and therefore there was no need for an abortion, or else that she should have been given one and the doctor messed up. Apart from the odd loon posting on Youth Defence's facebook page no one believes that the foetus was viable.

drkpower

nagirrac wrote: »

It may well be that the pregnancy was a side issue here. If Savita contracted an ESBL E.Coli infection and it was diagnosed too late, then unfortunately the infection may have taken hold and no amount of antibiotics could have saved her.

That is precisely the point. It may be that antibiotics and a termination would have done no good. Or it may be that a termination would have saved her life. It is too early to come to a conclusion either way as to her life was lost as a consequence of not receiving a temination, or as a consequence of not providing any other form of treatment.

nagirrac wrote: »

All of the above speculation does not excuse the fact that the medical profession in Ireland are prevented under existing law from carrying out best practice in the case of an inevitable abortion, which appears to have been the case here. Surely Irish people would not have a problem entrusting their medical professionals to do what is universal practice in most developed countries? All of the pro and anti abortion hysteria seems to be taking center stage and confusing what should be a simple medical decision given that the fetus is unviable anyway. Are people confused by the fact that there was a heartbeat and thus think the fetus was viable?

The problem is that the (standard interpretation of the) constitution does not permit termination of even an unviable foetus unless there is a substantial threat to the life of the mother. Therefore, even if legislation is introduced, it may not resolve this particular issue.

gozunda

drkpower wrote: »

That is precisely the point. It may be that antibiotics and a termination would have done no good. Or it may be that a termination would have saved her life. It is too early to come to a conclusion either way as to her life was lost as a consequence of not receiving a temination, or as a consequence of not providing any other form of treatment.


The problem is that the (standard interpretation of the) constitution does not permit termination of even an unviable foetus unless there is a substantial threat to the life of the mother. Therefore, even if legislation is introduced, it may not resolve this particular issue.

*Face palm:*

drkpower

gozunda wrote: »

Face palm: :-€

Elaboration would be nice!

gozunda

drkpower wrote: »

Elaboration would be nice!

Here you go...


. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ,.-‘”. . . . . . . . . .``~.,
. . . . . . . .. . . . . .,.-”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .“-.,
. . . . .. . . . . . ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ”:,
. . . . . . . .. .,?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\,
. . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,}
. . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^`.}
. . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:”. . . ./
. . . . . . .?. . . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`. . . ./
. . . . . . . /__.(. . .“~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . .. ./
. . . . . . /(_. . ”~,_. . . ..“~,_. . . . . . . . . .,:`. . . . _/
. . . .. .{.._$;_. . .”=,_. . . .“-,_. . . ,.-~-,}, .~”; /. .. .}
. . .. . .((. . .*~_. . . .”=-._. . .“;,,./`. . /” . . . ./. .. ../
. . . .. . .\`~,. . ..“~.,. . . . . . . . . ..`. . .}. . . . . . ../
. . . . . .(. ..`=-,,. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . ..(. . . ;_,,-”
. . . . . ../.`~,. . ..`-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..\. . /\
. . . . . . \`~.*-,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..|,./.....\,__
,,_. . . . . }.>-._\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . ..`=~-,
. .. `=~-,_\_. . . `\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . `\. . . . . . ..__
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`=-,. . . . . . . . . .,%`>--

Morag

drkpower wrote: »

The problem is that the (standard interpretation of the) constitution does not permit termination of even an unviable foetus unless there is a substantial threat to the life of the mother. Therefore, even if legislation is introduced, it may not resolve this particular issue.

Which is why legislating for just the X case high court ruling is not enough.
The expert group has to consider the EU court of human rights ruling on the A, B, C cases as well and even then that may not cover the women of the 'Termination For Medical Reason' group.

Really the 8th amendment needs to be repealed from the constitution and proper legislation put in place which considers the health of women.

drkpower

Sharrow wrote: »

Which is why legislating for just the X case high court ruling is not enough.
The expert group has to consider the EU court of human rights ruling on the A, B, C cases as well and even then that may not cover the women of the 'Termination For Medical Reason' group.

Really the 8th amendment needs to be repealed from the constitution and proper legislation put in place which considers the health of women.

I agree with you but whatever about legislation, I really cant see the government going near a referendum at the moment.

Even if they do, the other problem is how they come up with a wording that ensures that a genuine risk to the health of the mother is covered whilst not leading to abortion on demand. Or more accurately perhaps, ensuring that the pro-life campaign dont succeed in painting the wording as permitting abortion on demand. The pro-life campaign might be concerned (perhaps accurately) that wording designed to protect the health of the mother might lead to abortion on demand (as happened in the UK).

gozunda

drkpower wrote: »

I agree with you but whatever about legislation, I really cant see the government going near a referendum at the moment.

Even if they do, the other problem is how they come up with a wording that ensures that a genuine risk to the health of the mother is covered whilst not leading to abortion on demand. Or more accurately perhaps, ensuring that the pro-life campaign dont succeed in painting the wording as permitting abortion on demand. The pro-life campaign might be concerned (perhaps accurately) that wording designed to protect the health of the mother might lead to abortion on demand (as happened in the UK).

And exactly what is wrong with women having control over their own reproductive health? As you would call it "abortion on demand" even though there is no such thing in any comparable country including the UK. You cant trust these damn woman - they are sneaky! How about some pictures of dead foetuses on placards for added effect?

Its pathetic that the anti women brigade are still out even when such change has been called for. And they accuse others as having "agendas"....

Wompa1

gozunda wrote: »

Like all such heartless unnatural woman out there she probably went dancing, drinking and whoring down Soho afterwards.....

Jeez ... I just love such urban myths written by the anti-women zealot brigade.

A little bit touchy for After Hours aren't ya? It's ok to be dismissive of one being but not the other? That doesn't seem fair, can't we mock both equally?

drkpower

gozunda wrote: »

And exactly what is wrong with women having control over their own reproductive health? As you would call it "abortion on demand" even though there is no such thing in any comparable country including the UK. You cant trust these damn woman - they are sneaky! How about some pictures of dead foetuses on placards for added effect?

Its pathetic that the anti women brigade are still out even when such change has been called for. And they accuse others as having "agendas"....

Is there a question for me in there or are you just having a rant?

gozunda

drkpower wrote: »

Is there a question for me in there or are you just having a rant?

"And exactly what is wrong with woman having control over their own reproductive health?"



Your call...