Pregnant woman dies in UCHG after being refused a termination

joydivision

K-9 wrote: »

That apply to the media and politicians as well?

Think the polititians enjoyed not being the ones getting all the flack what with the budget coming up and stuff

Lingua Franca

I thought the politicians were getting all the flack. One thing that all sides are agreed upon is that the onus is on the government to make the law clear so that doctors can make medical decisions without being in fear for their liberty. No one, except for a few misguided internet keyboard warriors, blames her medical team for acting within what they believed to be their legal boundaries. At least, I hope not.

Lingua Franca

joydivision wrote: »

This is an outrage that poor doctor . Hope he gets a full apology from all parties involved if this is the case .
Awaiting kneejerk reaction from everyone demanding all doctors get an apology a day .

Which poor doctor? An apology for what?

joydivision

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Which poor doctor? An apology for what?

The one that was being called negligent .

Lingua Franca

I wonder at you posting things like that after getting digs in about other's kneejerk reactions.

How can you say things like "that poor doctor, I hope he gets an apology" which it's obvious that you haven't been following the story and have no idea what is going on, and no one had even mentioned the doctors?

The inquiries have not yet begun. They'll need the results of those inquiries as evidence. Litigation is far off.


What makes you so sure Praveen and his legal team are going after a specific doctor for negligence rather than, say, the hospital board or the HSE or even the government?

It looks like a kneejerk reaction from here.

padd b1975

K-9 wrote: »

That apply to the media and politicians as well?

It applys to all bullsh1tters.

joydivision

Cian92 wrote: »

Terrible, she asked for a medical induced abortion a few times but as the foetus still had a heartbeat she was refused and told that "this is a catholic country".

Heresa post on the first page blaming the medical staff .

K-9

padd b1975 wrote: »

It applys to all bullsh1tters.

Odd. Nobody is forcing you to read the thread but you seem to take an active interest anyway.

Lingua Franca

joydivision wrote: »

Heresa post on the first page blaming the medical staff .

No, that is a post on the first page restating what was reported at the time. It is neither accusing a particular doctor of negligence nor blaming the medical staff.

Is it just Cian92 you think should apologise to this doctor, or absolutely everyone who wondered aloud at what happened?

joydivision

He wasnt the only person in the country blaming the medical staff . There was talk of how some abortions are carried out and why this doctor didnt do it .
The second post thanked over a hundred times blames pro life . Blood on its hands I think was the phrase used .
I think these people should find some way of apologising if its found to be a case of she would have died anyway .
Maybe an annonymous donation to a childrens hospital or something .

kunst nugget

joydivision wrote: »

I think these people should find some way of apologising if its found to be a case of she would have died anyway. Maybe an annonymous donation to a childrens hospital or something .

Schure they can't be doing that. They want to kill all children don't you know. Children and grandparents.

Lingua Franca

joydivision wrote: »

He wasnt the only person in the country blaming the medical staff . There was talk of how some abortions are carried out and why this doctor didnt do it .

He wasn't even blaming the medical staff. You're just making stuff up now.

The second post thanked over a hundred times blames pro life . Blood on its hands I think was the phrase used .

Yeah, and I'm one of them. I still believe they have blood on their hands, what with them working to ensure that no doctor can ever perform a termination here.

I think these people should find some way of apologising if its found to be a case of she would have died anyway .
Maybe an annonymous donation to a childrens hospital or something .

Apologise for what? Who was hurt?

Tell me, who are you going to apologise to if it's found that medical staff were indeed negligent? Will you donate to Boards?

joydivision

I havnt blamed anyone . I will wait for the outcome of the enquiry .

Lingua Franca

joydivision wrote: »

I havnt blamed anyone .

Neither did the poster you quoted, but you said that he did. I think he deserves an apology.

I will wait for the outcome of the enquiry .... before saying things like "poor doctor" and demanding apologies on his behalf.

You missed a bit.

joydivision

How do they still have blood on their hands for what they hope will happen . Rediculous .

joydivision

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Neither did the poster you quoted, but you said that he did. I think he deserves an apology.



You missed a bit.

yes poor doctor . he is innocent til proven guilty is he not .

Lingua Franca

joydivision wrote: »

yes poor doctor . he is innocent til proven guilty is he not .

I don't even know if "he" is in fact a "he". Do you? It could be a she, it could be a they. She had a whole team helping her, you know.

What I'm saying is you're not waiting for the outcome anymore than anyone else here, and your reactions are just as kneejerk as anyone else's if not more so because as you admitted, you're finding it "hard to understand" and then filling in a lot of blanks by yourself.

gozunda

OldNotWIse wrote: »

lol dont know why I bother posting - you're clearly just gonna re-write my posts for me.

I believe it to be strange that this guy was shouting about claiming so soon after his world fell apart.

I believe it to be obvious that so many people are expressing solidarity for a woman whose tragedy just happens to support their agenda.

Will you all be marching outside the Dail tonight to show support for the family of the poor man who lost his life yesterday on Dawson Street? Demanding safer roads/pedestrian awareness? Didn't think so....:(

If my beliefs (and I hope its ok with you that I express those here) make me a cynic in your eyes so be it - I wont be losing any sleep over it

Ahh nah really no need. Your posts say absolutely everything there is to say about an obviously bizarre and cynical attack on the heartfelt response to the death of this women for the apparent reason it doesn't suit your own agenda....

....

As you say it's clearly a a huge conspiracy by baby killing groups who set the whole thing up to discredit the absolutely fantastic way women are treated in regard to their reproductive health in this wonderfully fair and ethically correct state.

The man lost his wife in barbaric circumstances - but of course you are right - he should shut up and behave as he is told!

Nobody should show any sympathy or 'solidarity' as you put it because it does not suit the status quo ...

Get real...

You compare a case of street violence / pedestrian safety with this womans death and insist that is somehow the same as the barbaric treatment of women by the instruments of the state?

I would add that the above reply is not only cynical but it is grossly offensive to those here who have expressed genuine concern over what has happened but also those who also understand the fact that this is a matter that potentially effects all women and their families.

This is why this issue has caused such genuine concern. Deny it and claim it is some big conspiracy all you like - it does not lessen what happened and the outcry that it has brought about.

Noreen1

Warning:

It's a long post, which I haven't had time to respond to all week, so bear with me!

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.

gozunda wrote: »

*Edited*

OP - Personal Preferences et al....


I apologies now for the necessary length of this reply...

Noreen1 - You have somehow managed to misquote, misunderstand and take out of context nearly everything I have posted to far. For your benefit I have gathered all the relevant posts to point out Where and How this has been the case. However even after reviewing all for your comments the Why remains a complete mystery to me ....

This is the sequence of posts (other posters included so it makes Sense)













In the reply above I added to this relative aside an obvious ironic statement that the woman (& not 'it' btw) was 'Heartless'. ie I dont believe she was "Heartless". This statement was ironic in its phrasing... Btw neither am I attempting to 'discredit someone who asks difficult questions' - you related an uncorroborated story. Excuse me if I put on my "ya right shades" for a moment....I do not have to believe this take solely on the basis you have related it - OK! I also said that such stories appaer to have their origins in groups (aka anti-women) with extreme views (zealots). I did not question your gender or state your membership of such a group. But that is where this type of story originates from ..I also take it you are a 'Noreen' as well....

You then posted the following:


Ehh? What??? How in hades does my Post which related to the supposed story of some mystery woman equate in your mind with your reply of 'Ah! So now Savitas baby did suffer? a baby at 17 weeks gestation was incapable of feeling pain?' ??????????????????????????????? How would a child 'with half a head' not suffer one way or the other? Foetus that have severe non viable development issues may well be terminated prior to birth - quite often biology steps in and does the work iteslf in the form of miscarriage - should we rescue these miscarriages and keep them in a bucket until they are fully gestated?

I dont get any of your logic ? Perhaps there is some mysterious subtext in there I dont observe - But nope dont get your reply - Your reply has NOTHING to do with what I posted whatsoever!



Noreen -no offence but I dont know you from Adam (:rolleyes:) You can relate any 'personal' story's you wish - but as I said I take all such revelations with a bucket of sodium chloride. I not know who you represent but on reflection your views on the rights of woman to control their reproductive health appear to be closely aligned with these groups.

And finally in response to another poster - you quoted the following post from me...




Where exactly did I post that collection of cobblers??? You yourself satated that a Foetus of 17 weeks doesnt feel pain - then how in hades can you state that someone (Me?) is saying that I want de little babbies to suffer?

You then add that in relation to my quote above re the candaian model that...



A child? what are we talking here - toddlers, pre-schoolers, what??

Do you know anything of the Canadian model? Have you actually looked up how it is actually administered?

Believe what you like but it is one of the most enlightened regimes in the world - where both the life of the mother and fetus are taken into consideration in a balanced and rational way. Another poster has already posted details about this in this Thread - so I suggest you look that up at least...

This endless banging on about 'the suffering of little children' fcs - give me a break. You really appear to have absolutrly no concern whatsoever for the life and health of the mother - the person who must have precedence as a full human being without whom there would be no 'little babies' in any state of gestation...Its like something straight out of some 1950's convent school tbh..

I dont know if you have perhaps just taken umbrage at what I have said in this Thread but please do reply without putting words in my mouth or at least without taking what I have said out of context.

Thanks

If you respond to a post of mine, in which you refer to the "anti-women zealot brigade" - then who do you think people believe you are referring to?
Since I have stated quite clearly that I am not a member of Youth Defence (nor any other pro-life movement, for that matter) - I fail to see who else you were referring to.

As to the rest of your post. I've no idea why you are dragging other posts into a response to this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by gozunda
From your previous post you were advocating restricting what women could control regarding their own reproductive health and talking about something referred to as 'abortion on demand' - which is something that only exists in the minds of anti- women interests imo Personally I would not support individuals advocating any 'restrictions' on women. No person that is not medically qualified and following best medical practice should be able to impose their personal beliefs or mores on anyone's health or life or the medical treatment that they may avail of. As to 'Restrictions' as you call them being universal - hardly realistic eh? I advocate That which allows for woman to have control of their own reproductive with regard to best medical practice. I quite like the Canadian model tbh - it appears to work well. Pity Ireland is such a backward country in this regard. But hey guess what looks like change is coming - about time imo
I believe the Taliban are quite found of advocating 'restrictions' on women ...

I will refer you to this site:

http://www.canadiansforchoice.ca/hottopic01.html

Note that it is a pro-choice site.
Then note the highlights:

Many anti-choice and misinformed individuals would have Canadians believe that a woman in Canada can access abortion services at any point during the nine months of pregnancy. This belief is hugely inaccurate and serves only to appeal to the emotional response of people in trying to prevent the acceptance of abortion as a critical reproductive health service. In Canada, a woman cannot have an elective abortion past 24 weeks gestation. There are simply no doctors and no facilities that will allow for an elective termination at that point. In fact, there are only a few doctors in the entire country who are willing to perform abortions past 20 weeks. As there are different methods of abortion, each woman’s pregnancy is individually assessed by a doctor to help decide which method is safest and best for her. However, since abortion services after 20 weeks are not easily available in Canada, many women who seek an abortion at this point must either travel to another province or to the United States, or must continue to carry the pregnancy to term.

We have already established that, according to current medical belief, a foetus feels pain at between 18-20 weeks gestation.
In Canada, a woman can have an elective abortion up to 24 weeks, well past the point where a foetus is capable of feeling pain.

Note also that I have underlined that the method of abortion is decided according to what is best and safest for the mother. There is no mention whatsoever of what pain the foetus may undergo during the abortion.

I have stated repeatedly during this thread that I want the best possible outcome for mothers and babies. I want both mothers and babies to suffer as little as possible.
I have offered no opinion on Savita Hallapanaver, other than to state that I would wait for the full facts to emerge.

In response, you post either references to anti-women zealots, or this:

This endless banging on about 'the suffering of little children' fcs - give me a break. You really appear to have absolutrly no concern whatsoever for the life and health of the mother - the person who must have precedence as a full human being without whom there would be no 'little babies' in any state of gestation...Its like something straight out of some 1950's convent school tbh..

You post that you admire a system that allows elective abortion up to 24weeks, where the foetus is capable of suffering, then post about how babies who are born with physical deformities shouldn't be allowed to suffer.
Forgive me if I'm somewhat puzzled by the inconsistency!
Not to mention offended by the slurs.

So, I'll ask you, again:

Why is it acceptable for unborn babies to suffer, but not acceptable for mothers to suffer?

Sixtus

Noreen1 wrote: »

Why is it acceptable for unborn babies to suffer, but not acceptable for mothers to suffer?

Before 24 weeks the foetus, not baby will not under any circumstances survive outside of the womb. Basic medical ignorance won't help your case.

K-9

Noreen1 wrote: »

Warning:

It's a long post, which I haven't had time to respond to all week, so bear with me!

If you respond to a post of mine, in which you refer to the "anti-women zealot brigade" - then who do you think people believe you are referring to?
Since I have stated quite clearly that I am not a member of Youth Defence (nor any other pro-life movement, for that matter) - I fail to see who else you were referring to.

As to the rest of your post. I've no idea why you are dragging other posts into a response to this:

I will refer you to this site:

http://www.canadiansforchoice.ca/hottopic01.html

Note that it is a pro-choice site.
Then note the highlights:
We have already established that, according to current medical belief, a foetus feels pain at between 18-20 weeks gestation.
In Canada, a woman can have an elective abortion up to 24 weeks, well past the point where a foetus is capable of feeling pain.

Note also that I have underlined that the method of abortion is decided according to what is best and safest for the mother. There is no mention whatsoever of what pain the foetus may undergo during the abortion.

I have stated repeatedly during this thread that I want the best possible outcome for mothers and babies. I want both mothers and babies to suffer as little as possible.
I have offered no opinion on Savita Hallapanaver, other than to state that I would wait for the full facts to emerge.

In response, you post either references to anti-women zealots, or this:

You post that you admire a system that allows elective abortion up to 24weeks, where the foetus is capable of suffering, then post about how babies who are born with physical deformities shouldn't be allowed to suffer.
Forgive me if I'm somewhat puzzled by the inconsistency!
Not to mention offended by the slurs.

So, I'll ask you, again:

Why is it acceptable for unborn babies to suffer, but not acceptable for mothers to suffer?

Noreen, I keep getting the impression that you value an unviable baby as somehow equal to a mothers life or health. I have no doubt you don't believe that, but your concern at the pain of an unviable baby is causing me concern at the risk to a mothers health and life.

An unviable baby is well an unviable baby, the pain it feels is concerning but at the tiniest risk of a viable, breathing human being?

I know you as a poster, a decent, compassionate poster, but My God, you are coming across as hugely uncompassionate to me.

gozunda

Noreen1 wrote: »

Warning:

It's a long post, which I haven't had time to respond to all week, so bear with me!

If you respond to a post of mine, in which you refer to the "anti-women zealot brigade" - then who do you think people believe you are referring to?
Since I have stated quite clearly that I am not a member of Youth Defence (nor any other pro-life movement, for that matter) - I fail to see who else you were referring to.

Well obviously you must have thought I was referring to you. I referred as I explained to the state supported and fossilised attitudes to womens reproductive health that appear to have led us to a situation that pregnant women are left carrying dead and dying foetuses to miscarry at great risk to their health and life,


As I explained in my previous post! the views you have expressed on these matters appears to be closely aligned to such groups. Hence the comparison to these views - surely that is not too difficult concept to grasp.

As to the rest of your post. I've no idea why you are dragging other posts into a response to this:
I will refer you to this site:

http://www.canadiansforchoice.ca/hottopic01.html

It's called 'context' - you rather bizarrely quoted me out of context from a post in a sequence of posts. - your reply to this post was out of context and therefore made no sense whatsoever - therefore I quoted them to show the logical sequence that actually occurred and what was Actually said.

Note that it is a pro-choice site.
Then note the highlights:
We have already established that, according to current medical belief, a foetus feels pain at between 18-20 weeks gestation.
In Canada, a woman can have an elective abortion up to 24 weeks, well past the point where a foetus is capable of feeling pain.

Note also that I have underlined that the method of abortion is decided according to what is best and safest for the mother. There is no mention whatsoever of what pain the foetus may undergo during the abortion.

I would suggest you also reread your own quote about the Canadian System not just the bit you underlined. You appear to have not taken account any of the rest of the information. ie that abortions are rately carried out after 20 weeks. I see no issue here with what is posted there tbh. I see no mention of any context in your reply as the medical determination for abortion. I would suggest you read more on how the system in Canada actually works.

I have stated repeatedly during this thread that I want the best possible outcome for mothers and babies. I want both mothers and babies to suffer as little as possible.
I have offered no opinion on Savita Hallapanaver, other than to state that I would wait for the full facts to emerge.

Well it is evident from what did happen - that both the mother and foetus did suffer from to a refusal to intervene at a earliest possible point. What is not debatable is that both died

....

You post that you admire a system that allows elective abortion up to 24weeks, where the foetus is capable of suffering, then post about how babies who are born with physical deformities shouldn't be allowed to suffer.Forgive me if I'm somewhat puzzled by the inconsistency!
Not to mention offended by the slurs.
So, I'll ask you, again:
Why is it acceptable for unborn babies to suffer, but not acceptable for mothers to suffer?

The timeline is given in terms of viability. This system attempts to achieve a balance for the health of both the mother and foetus up to a defined time frame. I believe you originally referred to a foetus being born without a head and no suffering! A mothers health must be paramount. Terminations paradoxically will often allow foetuses to forgoe what we would perceive as such suffering. By the same mechanisms women may also be allowed to minimise the risks of infection and maximise their changes of recovery following pregnancy complication and in utero death. There is no inconsistency in adopting a system that works according to best medical practice and not a blanket approach based o. some semi autonomous quasi personal belief system.

Noreen1

Sixtus wrote: »

Before 24 weeks the foetus, not baby will not under any circumstances survive outside of the womb. Basic medical ignorance won't help your case.

Ignorance of the English language won't help yours, either.
What part of "elective" abortion did you not understand?

K-9 wrote: »

Noreen, I keep getting the impression that you value an unviable baby as somehow equal to a mothers life or health. I have no doubt you don't believe that, but your concern at the pain of an unviable baby is causing me concern at the risk to a mothers health and life.

An unviable baby is well an unviable baby, the pain it feels is concerning but at the tiniest risk of a viable, breathing human being?

I know you as a poster, a decent, compassionate poster, but My God, you are coming across as hugely uncompassionate to me.

No, I don't value an unviable baby as equal to the mothers life, or health.

I do, however, consider it a very difficult choice that should be made by the parents of that child. Health is a very tricky one to legislate for, in particular.

Where the baby is viable, I do regard it as equal. And, the truth is, where suicide, or, even worse, ruptured membranes are used as a reason to justify abortion, viable babies will die through abortion.

If I (and God knows how many other women - it's not that I'm any great hero!) had the same attitude as some posters here, then the minute I had ruptured membranes, (not once, twice) then there was a risk of infection. Was that grounds for abortion because there was a risk to my health?
Clearly not, because neither I, nor either of my two children, suffered any ill-effects, whatsoever.

So, how do we define "health".
Significant risk? What's "significant? Infection? But that can lead to septicaemia. Which can be fatal. The risk doesn't mean it's going to happen, though.
What about if a woman genuinely does have a life threatening illness, say, cancer, and decides to opt for termination. Do we legislate to minimise the suffering of the unborn child, assuming it's capable of feeling pain? Or should we not talk about that? Does concern for the suffering of an unborn baby mean I don't care about the mother? Certainly not!
Nor have I ever said anything of the sort.
I think the whole issue needs to be debated, not just the case of Savita Hallapanaver. It needs to be debated so that whatever legislation is passed will not be in response to one tragedy, but will be an attempt to deal with the issue in the most humane way possible. For every woman, and every unborn child, so that we do the very best we can.

Another thing that really riles me about some of the language used in pro-choice posts is the emotive language used. eg. Her baby leaking out of her. Pardon my french, but Bulls**t. A 17week old foetus doesn't "leak". It gets delivered, after a labour which can be extremely painful, but isn't always so, although it's true that second trimester miscarriages are generally more painful than first trimester miscarriages.

Another confident assertion I've read on this thread, and others, is that women would welcome being offered an abortion, to spare them the trauma of suffering the miscarriage.
I've had three miscarriages. The physical pain is nothing compared to the emotional trauma. The grief leaves you an emotional wreck. And a nice, convenient "termination" could not possibly make that grief any less. Despite what some people would have you believe.

Actually, had I been offered an abortion, it would have added to the trauma.
A miscarriage is a bereavement. I've yet to meet a mother or father who said "I/We lost a foetus" It doesn't happen. It's always "I/We lost the baby".
Grief's a funny thing. It affects people differently, but there is generally a phase when people know a loved one is going to die, where they hope against hope that the doctors are wrong, gradually followed by acceptance, or the miscarriage being completed. Other women might be different, but the doctor who approached me offering an abortion while I was hoping against hope that my baby would survive would have got an earful - and I can guarantee you that I wasn't the only woman on that ward who would have reacted that way!


So, no. I don't value the life of an unviable foetus above that of the mother.
I just don't believe for one second that every woman who suffers a prolonged miscarriage is necessarily in a life-threatening situation, or that every woman suffering a miscarriage who has a life threatening condition, or significant risk to her health, is necessarily carrying a non-viable foetus, or one that's incapable of feeling pain.
That's why I want to know why it's not acceptable for a mother to suffer, but apparently entirely acceptable if it's an unborn baby.

Savita Hallapanaver is a very convenient case for ardent pro-choicers.
Unviable foetus. Apparently incapable of feeling pain.(I'm still not convinced of that, personally, but it is medical opinion)

The trouble is, this case will have an influence on whatever legislation ends up being passed. And not every case that this legislation will have a bearing on in the future will be anywhere near as clear-cut.

We can't help Savita. Or her child.
But we most certainly have a duty to do the best we can for other women who find themselves in traumatic situations. And their unborn babies, too.

That is the only point I have been trying to get across from the beginning.
If that means I have no compassion for women, or that I'm a zealot, a member of youth defence, or anti-woman - I'm darned if I can see how.
Unless wanting to save a life where possible, and minimise suffering where that's not possible makes me any, or all of the above.

In which case, I'd welcome the allegations, and be proud of them. Because to me, compassion is about doing the best you can for everyone concerned - not advocating the rights of women, and ignoring any questions about the possible suffering of the unborn, (where applicable) - or casting doubt on the veracity of (pro-life) posts, while merrily making unfounded accusations about the pro-life poster. Hypocrisy, much?

Noreen1

gozunda wrote: »

Well obviously you must have thought I was regering to you. I referred as I explained to the state supported and fossilised attitudes to womens reproductive health that appear to have led us to a situation that pregnant women are left carrying dead and dying foetuses to miscarry at great risk to their health and life,


As I explained in my previous post! the views you have expressed on these matters appears to be closely aligned to such groups. Hence the comparison to these views - surely that is not too difficult concept to grasp.

Again the aggressive, insulting reply.
I'm perfectly capable of grasping concepts.
You, on the other hand, seem entirely incapable of recognising the fact I am perfectly capable of forming my own opinions, and they are pro-life views, therefore would obviously have some elements in common with these groups.
However, I'm sure you're capable of answering my posts, without reference to these groups, since you're aware I'm not a member of any pro-life group.
Thanks.

gozunda wrote: »

It's called 'context' - you rather bizarrely quoted me out of context from a post in a sequence of posts. - your reply to this post was out of context and therefore made no sense whatsoever - therefore I quoted them to show the logical sequence that actually occurred and what was Actually said..

Since that post had already been clarifed, I suggest you had no need whatsoever to go to the trouble of digging up a lot of unrelated posts, no?

gozunda wrote: »

I would suggest you reread your own quote about the Canadian System not just the bit you underlined. You appear to have not taken account any of the rest of the information. ie that abortions are rately carried out after 20 weeks. I see no issue here with what is posted there tbh. I see no mention of any context in your reply as the medical determination for abortion. I would suggest you read more on how the system in Canada actually works.

Did it occur to you that I did actually read it, since I quoted it?
Are you saying that you find it acceptable that a healthy foetus, capable of feeling pain, can be electively aborted, by a healthy mother - just so long as abortions are "rarely" carried out after 20 weeks?
We've established that the foetus feels pain, at that point.
Why is it acceptable for the "foetus" to endure pain, but not the mother?

gozunda wrote: »

Well it is evident from what did happen - that both the mother and foetus did suffer from to a refusal to intervene at a earliest possible point. What is not debatable is that both died

....



The timeline is given in terms of viability. This system attempts to achieve a balance for the health of both the mother and foetus up to a defined time frame. I believe you originally referred to a foetus being born without a head and no suffering! A mothers health must be paramount. Terminations paradoxically will often allow foetuses to forgoe what we would perceive as such suffering. By the same mechanisms women may also be allowed to minimise the risks of infection and maximise their changes of recovery following pregnancy complication and in utero death. There is no inconsistency in adopting a system that works according to best medical practice and not a blanket approach based o. some semi autonomous quasi personal belief system.

You refer to viabilty outside the uterus.
That's biased in favour of the mother, since given another couple of weeks, the foetus would be viable outside the womb.
Therefore, it is not objectively balanced.
Nor did I refer to a foetus being born without a head being born without suffering. I suggest you might want to re-check what I did post, rather than misrepresenting what I did actually say.


You talk about the risk of infection as if every infection were either life-threatening, or poses a serious risk to the health of the mother?
Can you quantify these risks that you keep referring to?
What percentage of women develop an infection after a miscarriage?
How many of these infections have a longterm effect on the health of the mother? How many prove fatal?
Since you favour science over "some semi autonomous quasi personal belief system" - how about producing some scientific facts?

drkpower

gozunda wrote: »

The timeline is given in terms of viability. This system attempts to achieve a balance for the health of both the mother and foetus up to a defined time frame.

So, you do favour imposing restrictions on maternal choice up to a certain timeframe, then.

gozunda

Noreen1 wrote: »

Again the aggressive, insulting reply.
I'm perfectly capable of grasping concepts.You, on the other hand, seem entirely incapable of recognising the fact I am perfectly capable of forming my own opinions, and they are pro-life views, therefore would obviously have some elements in common with these groups.
However, I'm sure you're capable of answering my posts, without reference to these groups, since you're aware I'm not a member of any pro-life group.
Thanks.Since that post had already been clarifed, I suggest you had no need whatsoever to go to the trouble of digging up a lot of unrelated posts, no?
Did it occur to you that I did actually read it, since I quoted it?
Are you saying that you find it acceptable that a healthy foetus, capable of feeling pain, can be electively aborted, by a healthy mother - just so long as abortions are "rarely" carried out after 20 weeks?
We've established that the foetus feels pain, at that point.
Why is it acceptable for the "foetus" to endure pain, but not the mother?You refer to viabilty outside the uterus.
That's biased in favour of the mother, since given another couple of weeks, the foetus would be viable outside the womb.
Therefore, it is not objectively balanced.
Nor did I refer to a foetus being born without a head being born without suffering. I suggest you might want to re-check what I did post, rather than misrepresenting what I did actually say.
You talk about the risk of infection as if every infection were either life-threatening, or poses a serious risk to the health of the mother?
Can you quantify these risks that you keep referring to?
What percentage of women develop an infection after a miscarriage?
How many of these infections have a longterm effect on the health of the mother? How many prove fatal?
Since you favour science over "some semi autonomous quasi personal belief system" - how about producing some scientific facts?

Noreen once again your post appears to have completely missed the basic tenet of the Canadian system and what I actually said.. I once again respectfully suggest you read it in its totality and not just abstract the bits you wish to use to portray your own views


Noreen I do not know you from Adam (sic) I do not what groups - pro life or otherwise you are a member of. I really do not care tbh.But you cannot continue to accuse others of an agenda and use formulated anti women and anti choice arguments that are the mainstay of such groups without similar comparisons being made.

Btw my post was neither aggressive nor insulting. I have explained my views in detail and took time to quote and refer back to the content of your post. I would suggest you do not take constructive criticism of your views so personally. Ok?

How so that post was clarified as you claim? Ballderdash! You used the post completely out of context - I demonstrated this was the case . Is there a problem with that?

Without going into pointless furthers discussion on illogical arguments about headless babies etc the essential problem remains. A problem that encapsulates everything that is wrong with the endless parade of suffering 'babies' I see used to deny that there are significant poblems in terms of maternal medical care in this country

The Canadian system is based on best medical practice for both the mother and foetus. It is not based (as I explained previously) on some semi autonomous quasi personal belief system promoted for ideological grounds over the reproductive health of the mother.

Where you choose to ignore a system based on best medical practice and medical knowledge and substitute it for something from your own personal belief system well you of course are entitled to do so. Best of luck with that.

gozunda

drkpower wrote: »

So, you do favour imposing restrictions on maternal choice up to a certain timeframe, then.

Do not attempt to place words in my mouth.I would respectfully suggest that you go and read the detail. It is perfectly understandable. However If you are again attempting to start an intractable argument - sod it.

drkpower

gozunda wrote: »

Do not attempt to place words in my mouth.

When you won't answer the question, its hard not to.

feel free to use your own words by answering the question. Do you believe that a womans right to choose should be restricted by the use of time limits.it appears you do but its hard to be certain when you dont clarify your position.

K-9

Noreen1 wrote: »

Where the baby is viable, I do regard it as equal. And, the truth is, where suicide, or, even worse, ruptured membranes are used as a reason to justify abortion, viable babies will die through abortion.

If I (and God knows how many other women - it's not that I'm any great hero!) had the same attitude as some posters here, then the minute I had ruptured membranes, (not once, twice) then there was a risk of infection. Was that grounds for abortion because there was a risk to my health?
Clearly not, because neither I, nor either of my two children, suffered any ill-effects, whatsoever.

Well you'll have extreme opinions on both sides, I don't tend to give them too much credence.

Another confident assertion I've read on this thread, and others, is that women would welcome being offered an abortion, to spare them the trauma of suffering the miscarriage.
I've had three miscarriages. The physical pain is nothing compared to the emotional trauma. The grief leaves you an emotional wreck. And a nice, convenient "termination" could not possibly make that grief any less. Despite what some people would have you believe.

Actually, had I been offered an abortion, it would have added to the trauma.
A miscarriage is a bereavement. I've yet to meet a mother or father who said "I/We lost a foetus" It doesn't happen. It's always "I/We lost the baby".

I don't think a doctor should just go ahead and abort against the mothers wishes, but a doctor faces a problem if he perceives a real danger and she will not give consent. Also while you may feel like that in tough cases like that. does not mean other women might feel differently and want to abort the unviable baby, that's the point I'm making. A doctor should respect your wishes as long as it does not endanger your life, other women may have different wishes.

The rest of your post is more of a general abortion debate and tbh I'm not getting into that.

gozunda

drkpower wrote: »

When you won't answer the question, its hard not to feel free to use your own words by answering the question. Do you believe that a womans right to choose should be restricted by the use of time limits.it appears you do but its hard to be certain when you dont clarify your position.

Your discussion appears to rely largely and uselessly haranguing other posters with meaningless posts for no other reason than perpetrating a devisive argument.

I believe you have already attempted to do this to death previously. (see earlier posts) I now notice you have hitched onto the skirts of this post in a vain attempt to start up an argument on the exact same pretence....

You have already attempted many times to claim that 'your questions' deserve answers and then when this ploy has failed - you answer it yourself claiming that is what has been stated. Excellent use of logic there

Just on the off chance - you havnt understood what I have said already many times - I have already explained how such 'personal beliefs' should have no place in the management of an effective reproductive health care system. You can ' believe' what you wish, and make whatever bizarre claims you like - your posts show an obvious derision and bias against an equitable system for maternal healthcare based on best practice and medical knowledge.

drkpower

gozunda wrote: »

Just on the off chance - you havnt understood what I have said already many times - I have already explained how such 'personal beliefs' should have no place in the management of an effective reproductive health care system.

I'm still a little unsure as to your position; perhaps you can help.

You say that "such 'personal beliefs' should have no place in the management of an effective reproductive health care system"; do you mean, therefore, that the right to an abortion should be unrestricted by law?

Noreen1

gozunda wrote: »

Noreen once again your post appears to have completely missed the basic tenet of the Canadian system and what I actually said.. I once again respectfully suggest you read it in its totality and not just abstract the bits you wish to use to portray your own views


Noreen I do not know you from Adam (sic) I do not what groups - pro life or otherwise you are a member of. I really do not care tbh.But you cannot continue to accuse others of an agenda and use formulated anti women and anti choice arguments that are the mainstay of such groups without similar comparisons being made.

Btw my post was neither aggressive nor insulting. I have explained my views in detail and took time to quote and refer back to the content of your post. I would suggest you do not take constructive criticism of your views so personally. Ok?

How so that post was clarified as you claim? Ballderdash! You used the post completely out of context - I demonstrated this was the case . Is there a problem with that?

Without going into pointless furthers discussion on illogical arguments about headless babies etc the essential problem remains. A problem that encapsulates everything that is wrong with the endless parade of suffering 'babies' I see used to deny that there are significant poblems in terms of maternal medical care in this country

The Canadian system is based on best medical practice for both the mother and foetus. It is not based (as I explained previously) on some semi autonomous quasi personal belief system promoted for ideological grounds over the reproductive health of the mother.

Where you choose to ignore a system based on best medical practice and medical knowledge and substitute it for something from your own personal belief system well you of course are entitled to do so. Best of luck with that.

Can you explain to me how elective termination, at a point where a baby is capable of feeling pain, and, more rarely, capable of surviving outside the womb, can possibly be in the best interests of the baby?

Can you assert that no aborted foetus feels pain under the Canadian system?
If not, then I will repeat the question:

Why is it unacceptable for a woman to endure pain, but acceptable for a foetus to suffer?
Should compassion not demand that society tries to minimise suffering?
It's a simple question. Why do you refuse to give a direct answer?

K-9 wrote: »

Well you'll have extreme opinions on both sides, I don't tend to give them too much credence.




I don't think a doctor should just go ahead and abort against the mothers wishes, but a doctor faces a problem if he perceives a real danger and she will not give consent. Also while you may feel like that in tough cases like that. does not mean other women might feel differently and want to abort the unviable baby, that's the point I'm making. A doctor should respect your wishes as long as it does not endanger your life, other women may have different wishes.

The rest of your post is more of a general abortion debate and tbh I'm not getting into that.

Agreed, there are indeed extreme views on both sides.
I also tend to give them little credence, generally.
But assertions that anyone who dares to disagree with those extreme views are women-haters etc. need to be challenged, imo.

I don't think a doctor should go ahead and abort against a womans wishes, either.

I'm not so sure on cases where she refuses consent. Surely if she signs a document confirming the advice she was given, and releasing the doctor from any legal liability, then the doctor should accept her wishes?

It's a tough one. It comes back to whether the foetus is viable. If not, then it's a no-brainer, assuming the mother is mentally competent, and all possible measures are taken to minimise suffering to both mother and child - then I have no problem with abortion being offered.

The reason I have a problem with a doctor making the decision is in cases where treatment for cancer, for example, would result in the death of the baby. That's a horrendous decision for any family. I wouldn't dream of criticising a woman who opted for the treatment, knowing what the end result would be.
But I would be very uneasy at the thought that a woman who chose to postpone treatment, would have abortion forced on her.
Different people would come to different decisions, depending on their own personal circumstances. I would have nothing but sympathy for these women, whatever decision they made.

If the mother is not mentally competent, then it gets even more complicated.
Should a doctor make the decision, or the next of kin?
I've heard of cases, in childbirth situations, when it comes down to a choice between saving the mother, or the baby, where the mother is unfit to make the decision for whatever reason , the next of kin are asked to choose.
I suppose I could live with that.
I'm not sure the doctors would want to make the decision, anyway.

eyescreamcone

Could any of the anti abortion brigades explain how or why all the other countries (including countries where Catholics are in a majoriry) have gotten things so wrong on this issue??

In the UK - abortion is accepted generally and there is no real debate on outlawing abortions.

Could you imagine the sh1tstorm you'd create if you tried to ban abortion in the UK or Europe.

We should be looking to countries where women's health is respected in deed and word and adopt similar rules.

Why are the anti abortion gang so noisy here???
Could it be that these fundamentalist religious groups are being funded to a level way beyond what their small size would normally collect??

mikom

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Why are the anti abortion gang so noisy here???
Could it be that these fundamentalist religious groups are being funded to a level way beyond what their small size would normally collect??

They need a steady stream of kids to fiddle with.............. and nothing's gonna stop them.

Chain_reaction

Noreen1 wrote: »

Should compassion not demand that society tries to minimise suffering?

But society doesn't always work like that, look at the many euthanasia court cases that have been taken against governments around the world. In a perfect world alright maybe, but in a perfect world we'd probably have no unwanted or crisis pregnancies.

jill_valentine

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Could you imagine the sh1tstorm you'd create if you tried to ban abortion in the UK or Europe.

We should be looking to countries where women's health is respected in deed and word and adopt similar rules.

Why are the anti abortion gang so noisy here???
Could it be that these fundamentalist religious groups are being funded to a level way beyond what their small size would normally collect??

You know, I wouldn't be surprised. International religious lobby groups tend to focus on investing money and effort in places where they feel like they can prevent the idea of those rights ever taking root. I'm thinking in particular of all the anti-gay organisations in Russia which turned out to be funded by American superchurches...

The Aussie

mikom wrote: »

They need a steady stream of kids to fiddle with.............. and nothing's gonna stop them.

Man, that gave me laugh, partly because I can see a hint of truth in there as well as a great sledge. Kudos.

snubbleste

Praveen's account of what happened from scan to death
DailyMail - How Irish law against abortion condemned my wife to a cruel death: Searing account of pregnant wife's desperate decline after surgeons refused to remove her dying baby

Min

snubbleste wrote: »

Praveen's account of what happened from scan to death
DailyMail - How Irish law against abortion condemned my wife to a cruel death: Searing account of pregnant wife's desperate decline after surgeons refused to remove her dying baby

Has praveen talked about how being an immigrant from India, or people who visit India are in danger of picking up E Coli ESBL, which is not common in Ireland and which normal antibiotics will not kill?

Praveen will not look at the likelyhood that his wife was a carrier of this form of E Coli and even if she had her unborn removed straight away, it would not have stopped the E Coli from spreading.

It was in the Mail on Sunday a two to three weeks back, from a senior obstetrician that it would have taken at least two days for the infection to be cultured and identified in the laboratory. That the normal treatment of antibiotics would have in fact made her condition worse, as ESBL reacts negatively towards the standard course of antibiotics that would be used.

The removal of her unborn child would not have made any difference when they wouldn't have known straight away what infection she had - which does have a high mortality rate.

Praveen is too busy looking for someone to blame when he doesn't have all the facts and just concentrates on abortion as a cure for E Coli ESBL.

Show Time

Why did they not simply hop over the boarder to Northern Ireland for the operation??

seb65

Min wrote: »

Has praveen talked about how being an immigrant from India, or people who visit India are in danger of picking up E Coli ESBL, which is not common in Ireland and which normal antibiotics will not kill?

Praveen will not look at the likelyhood that his wife was a carrier of this form of E Coli and even if she had her unborn removed straight away, it would not have stopped the E Coli from spreading.

It was in the Mail on Sunday a two to three weeks back, from a senior obstetrician that it would have taken at least two days for the infection to be cultured and identified in the laboratory. That the normal treatment of antibiotics would have in fact made her condition worse, as ESBL reacts negatively towards the standard course of antibiotics that would be used.

The removal of her unborn child would not have made any difference when they wouldn't have known straight away what infection she had - which does have a high mortality rate.

Praveen is too busy looking for someone to blame when he doesn't have all the facts and just concentrates on abortion as a cure for E Coli ESBL.

But the removal of a miscarrying fetus would have prevented her from suffering for a week before she died, right?
I can't imagine a prolonged miscarriage was good for the immune system, either.

seb65

Show Time wrote: »

Why did they not simply hop over the boarder to Northern Ireland for the operation??

Yes because it's so easy for a critically ill woman to hop a few hundred miles.

MadYaker

Min wrote: »

Has praveen talked about how being an immigrant from India, or people who visit India are in danger of picking up E Coli ESBL, which is not common in Ireland and which normal antibiotics will not kill?

Praveen will not look at the likelyhood that his wife was a carrier of this form of E Coli and even if she had her unborn removed straight away, it would not have stopped the E Coli from spreading.

It was in the Mail on Sunday a two to three weeks back, from a senior obstetrician that it would have taken at least two days for the infection to be cultured and identified in the laboratory. That the normal treatment of antibiotics would have in fact made her condition worse, as ESBL reacts negatively towards the standard course of antibiotics that would be used.

The removal of her unborn child would not have made any difference when they wouldn't have known straight away what infection she had - which does have a high mortality rate.

Praveen is too busy looking for someone to blame when he doesn't have all the facts and just concentrates on abortion as a cure for E Coli ESBL.

Is it certain that she was infected with this strain of E. coli? Because if not then you are also jumping to conclusions without all the facts.

Lingua Franca

No, for you see Min would know more about this than her husband because...

Show Time

seb65 wrote: »

Yes because it's so easy for a critically ill woman to hop a few hundred miles.

A well stocked ambulance with a garda escort would have been in Belfast in no time.:rolleyes:

Cosmicfox

Show Time wrote: »

A well stocked ambulance with a garda escort would have been in Belfast in no time.:rolleyes:

Women at death's door shouldn't have to travel up North for medical treatment. She was in agony as well, probably not fit enough to make the journey.

Show Time

Cosmicfox wrote: »

Women at death's door shouldn't have to travel up North for medical treatment. She was in agony as well, probably not fit enough to make the journey.

How long was she in hospital in Galway?

gozunda

Min wrote: »

Has praveen talked about how being an immigrant from India, or people who visit India are in danger of picking up E Coli ESBL, which is not common in Ireland and which normal antibiotics will not kill?

Praveen will not look at the likelyhood that his wife was a carrier of this form of E Coli and even if she had her unborn removed straight away, it would not have stopped the E Coli from spreading.

It was in the Mail on Sunday a two to three weeks back, from a senior obstetrician that it would have taken at least two days for the infection to be cultured and identified in the laboratory. That the normal treatment of antibiotics would have in fact made her condition worse, as ESBL reacts negatively towards the standard course of antibiotics that would be used.

The removal of her unborn child would not have made any difference when they wouldn't have known straight away what infection she had - which does have a high mortality rate.

Praveen is too busy looking for someone to blame when he doesn't have all the facts and just concentrates on abortion as a cure for E Coli ESBL.

I see YD type ideology is still being used in pathetic attacks against this man as if the death of his wife was his own fault.

Imo these type of opinions are tantamount to hate crime. I just don't believe that anyone would ascribe such misinformation to the barbaric death of Savita Halappananaver

This post talks about the Halappananavers as if they were some peasants from a third world village

Both mr Halappananaver and his wife are educated professionals living and working in Ireland

In India - a termination would have been provided where the foetus was not viable and the miscarriage had commenced.

Instead this third world country refused Savita the treatment (ie a termination) that is considered international best medical practice and would have minimised the risk of infection and given the best chance of recovery

As for 'Removing her unborn baby'
Wtf - the foetus was not viable, was in the process of dying and was not going to be born alive one way or the other. Why would best practice - which is to remove the foetus not be carried out?

As with all medical treatment there are of course no absolute guarantees but this treatment would have provided her with the best medical treatment and minimised the risk of infection spreading.

As far as i am aware Ecoli ESBL has been found in Irish hospitals

I noticed this week that Youth Defence have gone on the defensive - taking out 1/2 page newspaper adverts again attacking those who have been outraged at what has happened and who believe that this should never happen again.

I sometimes despair of the dark age mindset that is still prevalent in this country.

Death and Taxes

Show Time wrote: »

Why did they not simply hop over the boarder to Northern Ireland for the operation??

Why should they have to?

joydivision

Im finding this thread hard to follow .
We dont know an abortion would have saved her . Now she should have just got one anyway because she wanted one ?
Is this whats being discussed now ?
The whole north thing has confused me.