Pregnant woman dies in UCHG after being refused a termination

awec

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20780136

The Bishop can say what he wants but his opinion should hold no more sway than mine or yours. The Catholic Church should have no input here, they are an irrelevance in this situation.

This is of course ignoring the obvious irony of a lecture on morality from the church. Sean Brady can stick his criticism up his arse quite frankly.

MagicMarker

Noreen1 wrote: »

What has that to do with you inferring that miscarriage was the sole cause of her pain?

I haven't questioned whether Savita wanted to end the pregnancy, or whether her pain was severe. I've merely said, truthfully, that there are not enough facts available to assume that miscarriage was the sole cause of Savitas pain.
Ergo, there are not enough facts available to assume that a termination would have resolved her pain. It's that simple.

A woman is admitted to hospital in tremendous pain and is told she is having a miscarriage. The pain she is feeling is also symptomatic of a miscarriage, those are the facts we have. It doesn't take a genius to add 2 and 2 together and get 4. The best practice in this scenario in any developed country that doesn't have archaic laws regarding abortion is to expedite the pregnancy, not to leave the patient waiting for days because a fetal heartbeat is still present.

The fact you're even trying to argue about this is pitiful. If someone was admitted to hospital with a broken leg would you argue that the pain they feel could be caused by something else?

Flier

Noreen et al, not wanting to speculate, but...
Savita presented to the hospital in pain, and was miscarrying - that much is not in doubt. You can argue over how much pain she was in, and after all, it's very subjective. So not really something to be hanging your hat on. As far as we know, there were no other symptoms or signs of infection, at least for a couple more days. Now granted, there may have been subtle signs that were missed, or the facts not relayed to the family, but I think it's reasonable to suppose that infection was not a factor at this stage. As far as we know, and her husband has not alluded to any other conditions, she was otherwise in good health. So 99% of sane persons, weather medically qualified or not, would rightly diagnose her pain and her miscarraige to be related. (It is a duck!) I really have no idea why you seem to want to ascribe her symptoms to something else.
In any case, given that she was having an inevitable miscarraige, the option to comple the abortion is international best practice, and something that could not be done in this country due to our constitution as it stands. And her pain, degree, or lack of has no bearing on the care that should have been afforded to her and that every woman deserves.

snubbleste

Report leaked to UK media - DailyMail

Tragic string of errors which led to death of pregnant dentist 'refused an abortion because Ireland was a Catholic country'
• Termination of pregnancy could have saved her from fatal blood infection
• Husband begged doctors to terminate pregnancy but they refused
• Blood pressure, temperature or pulse not tested for three days
• Report into her death made public before her husband saw it
• Doctors took three days to follow up on crucial blood tests

And it is claimed that the inquest into the Indian national’s death in a Galway hospital may not go ahead on April 8 as planned because requests for key documents from the HSE on behalf of Mr Halappanavar have allegedly been ignored.

They even have a photograph of a bitter-looking widow with the mighty dome of the catholic cathedral behind him (unintentional probably)

opinion guy

snubbleste wrote: »

Report leaked to UK media - DailyMail
They even have a photograph of a bitter-looking widow with the mighty dome of the catholic cathedral behind him (unintentional probably)

You have either misquoted this, or they have changed it

• Blood pressure, temperature or pulse not tested for three days

It says this just now:

Blood pressure, temperature or pulse not tested on second day in hospital

snubbleste

I quoted it verbatim, C&P'd
DailyMail changed it.

tomasocarthaigh

Its a tragedy all round, the fact it emerged that its standard medical practice to remove the baby in cases such as this in Ireland - and there are 30 every year - should now set medical precedent, so legislation is not needed.

Its going beyond church teaching what them stupid staff did.

Lingua Franca

tomasocarthaigh wrote: »

Its a tragedy all round, the fact it emerged that its standard medical practice to remove the baby in cases such as this in Ireland - and there are 30 every year - should now set medical precedent, so legislation is not needed.

Its going beyond church teaching what them stupid staff did.

The simple truth, although legislation IS needed, to protect doctors and because the people voted for it 20 years ago, and because our lawmakers are making a laughing stock of themselves and a mockery of the people.

Flier

tomasocarthaigh wrote: »

Its a tragedy all round, the fact it emerged that its standard medical practice to remove the baby in cases such as this in Ireland - and there are 30 every year - should now set medical precedent, so legislation is not needed.

Its going beyond church teaching what them stupid staff did.

This from the guy who advocated doing Caesarian sections on all misscarring pregnant women at 17 weeks to try to save the life of the baby? Now you are advocating for abortion?
That's quite a turn around!
And it's not standard practice, because doctors are unsure of their legal standing. precisely why we need legislation to clarify the position.
And frankly your assertion that they are 'Stupid staff' on the basis of a partially leaked report is astounding.
But you're right about one thing. It is a tragedy.

tomasocarthaigh

Flier wrote: »

This from the guy who advocated doing Caesarian sections on all misscarring pregnant women at 17 weeks to try to save the life of the baby? Now you are advocating for abortion?
That's quite a turn around!
And it's not standard practice, because doctors are unsure of their legal standing. precisely why we need legislation to clarify the position.
And frankly your assertion that they are 'Stupid staff' on the basis of a partially leaked report is astounding.
But you're right about one thing. It is a tragedy.

At 17 weeks a section would not be the appropriate approach I have found from reading up on it, hence my change of opinion to agree with the removal of the baby to save the mothers life.

Is it abortion per se? While removal of the fetus technically is abortion of a kind, it is not abortion as such as the object is not to kill the child, that is a side effect in doing it to save the mothers life.

The churches hardline position - and SPUC's as well if I remember right - that the child must come first even if the mothers life is sacrificed seems to have mollified since the 1980's and thank God for that.

Youth Defence, for all of their faults, were spot on on the issue from the word go, and correclty stated the mothers life should have been saved, the baby should have been removed, that ethically its not abortion even though technically it may be a form of abortion, and it is within the already explained guidelines from the church - for those who care about such things - that even if the baby is maimed or killed by treatment given to the mother to save her life, the mother must come first.

Opposing that goes beyond the requirements of the Church if that's what one cares about - as I outlined in my verse "The Shepherd, the Wolf, the Ewe and the Lamb" - even if it is within what SPUC hardliners sputed in the 1980's.

The reason for opposition to the legislation is that where such was legislated for - as in the UK - its used as a gateway for free for all abortion, and THAT is what is opposed.

In the likes of the Savita case, common sense should prevail. Legislation or none, the process of removing the baby should have gone ahead as it was doomed, the mothers life was in danger and even if it was outside the law, a blind eye should have been turned.

The law exists to stop the targeted killing of the unborn, because they are unwanted. Its inflexible to have maximum effect in that regard. Its actually a UK law, inspired by Protestants not by the Catholic church, a legacy of the Empire. It can and does be flouted as shown in the 30 a year cases where babies are intentionally taken from the mother resulting in their death to save the mothers life. There are NO prosecutions, even though all who have an intimate interest in such issues know of it, including the Catholic Church.

To summarise what happened... a common situation occured where a baby was dead allbeit with a heartbeat still. Doctors and nurses cared more about their careers than about the welfare of their patients. I say the plural as I believe both to be patients, both to be people, but one was doomed so the mother had to be saved.

I know doctors put a lot of effort into their jobs, but the patient must alwas come first. I work at security, in a hospital. I have been in situations where my actions to control a patient could put their life in danger. If I hold them and they get a heart attack, I'm liable. If I let them free and they attack someone else, I'm liable and I'm fired. But when Im in such a situation. I judge it on the facts presented, and take guidelines from those of medical expertise around me. They say hold, I hold, they say let go, I let go. Thankfully no one died around me (yet!!!) but Ill twll you two things.... there is NO law to protect me, there will be none, and as security we are always wrong.

Do I need that stress for a measly €10.75 an hour I earn? I dont, but the job comes first, not my so called career, even though we put a lot less into ours than a doctor does to theirs.

Its called having spunk, balls, gumption. And thats whats lacking in the Savita case.

Its medical malpractice, open and shut case. Lets hope this investigation will give clear medical guidelines on what to do in such cases for future reference.

Apologise to the widower and their families. Pay all compensations due, no quibble. They dont sue for the money, it wont bring back the dead.

Its my taxes as much as anyones, and Id be happier seeing them getitng the money than damned bankers.

One thing pro life and pro choice are united on is that this should never have happened. R.I.P. Savita.

Lingua Franca

tomasocarthaigh wrote: »

At 17 weeks a section would not be the appropriate approach I have found from reading up on it, hence my change of opinion to agree with the removal of the baby to save the mothers life.

It is rare and pleasant to see someone admit that they were completely wrong. Kudos.

Is it abortion per se? While removal of the fetus technically is abortion of a kind, it is not abortion as such as the object is not to kill the child, that is a side effect in doing it to save the mothers life.

Practically? Yes. In medical terms? Yes. Youth Defence etc would say no, but then they would say anything.

Youth Defence, for all of their faults, were spot on on the issue from the word go, and correclty stated the mothers life should have been saved, the baby should have been removed, that ethically its not abortion even though technically it may be a form of abortion, and it is within the already explained guidelines from the church - for those who care about such things - that even if the baby is maimed or killed by treatment given to the mother to save her life, the mother must come first.

And here you're wrong again. Youth Defence have paid lip service to saving the life of the mother, but they have leapt on every single opportunity to go "HA! She never needed an abortion/it wouldn't have saved her anyway".

The reason for opposition to the legislation is that where such was legislated for - as in the UK - its used as a gateway for free for all abortion, and THAT is what is opposed.

Kinda true, but then this screws over women who require abortions for medical reasons. Also, they're opposing the legislation that the majority of people actually want and have voted for several times.

In the likes of the Savita case, common sense should prevail. Legislation or none, the process of removing the baby should have gone ahead as it was doomed, the mothers life was in danger and even if it was outside the law, a blind eye should have been turned.

And yet if Youth Defence had their way it still wouldn't go ahead, because it couldn't be proved that Savita's life wasn't in immediate danger from her miscarriage.

The law exists to stop the targeted killing of the unborn, because they are unwanted. Its inflexible to have maximum effect in that regard. Its actually a UK law, inspired by Protestants not by the Catholic church, a legacy of the Empire. It can and does be flouted as shown in the 30 a year cases where babies are intentionally taken from the mother resulting in their death to save the mothers life. There are NO prosecutions, even though all who have an intimate interest in such issues know of it, including the Catholic Church.

Not true, abortion doctors have been prosecuted in the UK.

To summarise what happened... a common situation occured where a baby was dead allbeit with a heartbeat still. Doctors and nurses cared more about their careers than about the welfare of their patients. I say the plural as I believe both to be patients, both to be people, but one was doomed so the mother had to be saved.

You don't know that. Perhaps they cared more about their pro choice views or what their church demanded of them.

Its medical malpractice, open and shut case. Lets hope this investigation will give clear medical guidelines on what to do in such cases for future reference.

It could also have been considered medical malpractice to perform the abortion. Doctors could be jailed. There is a massive debate about it.Tthere are several inquiries going on. Some people are saying one thing and others the exact opposite. Hardly open and shut.

One thing pro life and pro choice are united on is that this should never have happened. R.I.P. Savita.

Would that it were so. The first post on the Youth Defence page after her death was announced simply stated "BABIES BEFORE MOTHERS!" They would let it happen again, and again, and again.

Aquarius34

Is Ireland going backwards? This is pretty reeling to read I must say. Where are the morals here? Wonder what the pro lifers will have to say about this, that is what will interest me on this issue.

I feel and hear nails scraping on chalkboard whenever the church and die hard religious people talk about this pro life issue, But on this one, I'd like to see how they would respond to this.

TwoShedsJackson

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Is Ireland going backwards? This is pretty reeling to read I must say. Where are the morals here? Wonder what the pro lifers will have to say about this, that is what will interest me on this issue.

I feel and hear nails scraping on chalkboard whenever the church and die hard religious people talk about this pro life issue, But on this one, I'd like to see how they would respond to this.

You can probably have a pretty good guess. I'm going with 'they'll ignore the bits that dno't support their position, and twist anything else they can so that it does'.

Flier

tomasocarthaigh wrote: »

At 17 weeks a section would not be the appropriate approach I have found from reading up on it, hence my change of opinion to agree with the removal of the baby to save the mothers life.

Is it abortion per se? While removal of the fetus technically is abortion of a kind, it is not abortion as such as the object is not to kill the child, that is a side effect in doing it to save the mothers life.

The churches hardline position - and SPUC's as well if I remember right - that the child must come first even if the mothers life is sacrificed seems to have mollified since the 1980's and thank God for that.

Youth Defence, for all of their faults, were spot on on the issue from the word go, and correclty stated the mothers life should have been saved, the baby should have been removed, that ethically its not abortion even though technically it may be a form of abortion, and it is within the already explained guidelines from the church - for those who care about such things - that even if the baby is maimed or killed by treatment given to the mother to save her life, the mother must come first.

Opposing that goes beyond the requirements of the Church if that's what one cares about - as I outlined in my verse "The Shepherd, the Wolf, the Ewe and the Lamb" - even if it is within what SPUC hardliners sputed in the 1980's.

The reason for opposition to the legislation is that where such was legislated for - as in the UK - its used as a gateway for free for all abortion, and THAT is what is opposed.

In the likes of the Savita case, common sense should prevail. Legislation or none, the process of removing the baby should have gone ahead as it was doomed, the mothers life was in danger and even if it was outside the law, a blind eye should have been turned.

The law exists to stop the targeted killing of the unborn, because they are unwanted. Its inflexible to have maximum effect in that regard. Its actually a UK law, inspired by Protestants not by the Catholic church, a legacy of the Empire. It can and does be flouted as shown in the 30 a year cases where babies are intentionally taken from the mother resulting in their death to save the mothers life. There are NO prosecutions, even though all who have an intimate interest in such issues know of it, including the Catholic Church.

To summarise what happened... a common situation occured where a baby was dead allbeit with a heartbeat still. Doctors and nurses cared more about their careers than about the welfare of their patients. I say the plural as I believe both to be patients, both to be people, but one was doomed so the mother had to be saved.

I know doctors put a lot of effort into their jobs, but the patient must alwas come first. I work at security, in a hospital. I have been in situations where my actions to control a patient could put their life in danger. If I hold them and they get a heart attack, I'm liable. If I let them free and they attack someone else, I'm liable and I'm fired. But when Im in such a situation. I judge it on the facts presented, and take guidelines from those of medical expertise around me. They say hold, I hold, they say let go, I let go. Thankfully no one died around me (yet!!!) but Ill twll you two things.... there is NO law to protect me, there will be none, and as security we are always wrong.

Do I need that stress for a measly €10.75 an hour I earn? I dont, but the job comes first, not my so called career, even though we put a lot less into ours than a doctor does to theirs.

Its called having spunk, balls, gumption. And thats whats lacking in the Savita case.

Its medical malpractice, open and shut case. Lets hope this investigation will give clear medical guidelines on what to do in such cases for future reference.

Apologise to the widower and their families. Pay all compensations due, no quibble. They dont sue for the money, it wont bring back the dead.

Its my taxes as much as anyones, and Id be happier seeing them getitng the money than damned bankers.

One thing pro life and pro choice are united on is that this should never have happened. R.I.P. Savita.

Firstly, I'm glad that you went and read up on the subject and educated yourself on what might be appropriate or not. Things are rarely as clear cut as they seem.


Your question regarding weather it would have been abortion is interesting. While some might argue that it wouldn't have been an abortion, because the intention was to save the life of the mother, there is no such comfort in being compelled to follow the law of the land. the procedure to remove the fetus is abortion, and in Ireland, abortion is illegal in almost all circumstances. So while some people can assure themselves that it would have been acceptable to abort the fetus because ethically and morally it was warranted, legally it may not have been, and that is the situation that doctors practicing in this country find themselves in.


With regard to the churches teaching, and I am no expert in Cannon Law, I am not so sure that an abortion in this circumstance would have been sanctioned. According to the law of double effect, the only way I can see that abortion would have been acceptable, would have been to conclude that the uterus and its contents were the source of life threatening infection, and a hysterectomy is therefore justified, much in the way that removal of the Fallopian tube in ectopic pregnancy is justified, but not the less destructive procedure of opening the tube and removing the pregnancy, thus saving the tube and the woman's future fertility. Equally, it is clear that a hysterectomy in this circumstance was not the appropriate medical treatment.


While I can understand how some may be concerned that abortion might become commonplace in Ireland in the future, and that the 'floodgates will be opened', we are in a very different position to the UK. Our constitution gives equal right to life to the mother and the unborn. There is no reference to protecting the health of the mother, or any inference that a 'doomed' fetus, with no prospect of survival such as in this case, has any less right to life than it's mother. Therefore, so long as there was a heartbeat, it was certainly not and open and shut case. The consultant had to satisfy him/herself that there was a real and substantive risk to the mothers life, regardless of the fact that the fetus had no chance of survival, and abortion in the circumstances should have been considered as international best practice dictates. We know that mistakes are made everyday in our hospitals, that is human nature. And I am absolutely sure that mistakes will be found to have been made in this case. A committee of people retrospectively trawling through any case file will find mistakes. But that does not change the very restrictive circumstances that this medical team found themselves in. Weather they were guided by their own ethics, religious thinking, or what they understand to be the law remains to be seen, but it is grossly unfair to label them as 'stupid staff' at this point.

We certainly do need legislation to clarify the position for medical staff, we have guidelines already, but they have no standing in law so are clearly not sufficient. However we must remember that legislation to reflect article 40.3.3 will not reference a situation where the fetus is not viable such as in this case, and for that reason I do think we need to go one further. No matter what one's personal view is on abortion, and I do understand there are people with reasonable views on either end of the spectrum, I can not understand why anyone would refuse a woman treatment or an abortion where the fetus is unviable.