Pregnant woman dies in UCHG after being refused a termination

OldNotWIse

Vicxas wrote: »

Christ i couldnt watch the god channel, would bash my head off a wall....

I figure it has some sort of sublime brainwashing thing going on...you know like images etc popping up just long enough to register at a subconscious level. They want us all walking around like morons saying how great god is. :mad:

Shryke

It's made the English papers.

http://m.guardian.co.uk/ms/p/gnm/op/s90JVYykBVUn5iLRAfqL-dQ/view.m?id=15&gid=world/2012/nov/14/ireland-woman-dies-after-abortion-refusal&cat=top-stories

Gyalist

Fuinseog wrote: »

the x case was a classic text book example of when abortion would be condoned, yet was there ever a real person behind it? i am sure she is not under the brainwashing influence of the evil roman catholic church so where is she? why did she never come forward and reveal herself? even Twink revealed how she wanted to commit suicide and take her daughters with her.

Well was this man convicted for imaginary crimes?

X case man jailed for sexual assault

by Deborah Condon

The man at the centre of the X case has been sentenced to three-and-a-half years for the kidnap and sexual assault of a 15-year-old girl in 1999.

The 52-year-old was found guilty of sexual assault and false imprisonment of the teenager last Friday in the Dublin Central Criminal Court and sentence was passed today.

The man had been working as a taxi driver when he picked up the teenager at Donnycarney Church in Dublin in August 1999. He sexually assaulted her twice and held her against her will. The teenager memorised his taxi badge number and following the attack, contacted the Gardai.

In 1994, the man was convicted of unlawful carnage knowledge and the sexual assault of a 14-year-old girl. She became pregnant as a result and the case became known as the X case.

At the time the man was sentenced to 14 years imprisonment, however this was reduced to four years following an appeal. He subsequently applied for and was granted a taxi licence.

In sentencing, Judge Pat McCartan queried how the man had been granted a taxi license given his previous conviction. As well as the prison term, the man was also banned from driving for 10 years.

LINK

So he was sentenced to only four years for the X case and was thereafter free to attack another young girl. SMH.

Morag

FrogMarch wrote: »

While so many others are behind their computer screens are using this poor woman and her child to preach pro-choice or militant feminist views.

Until the facts of this case are revealed in full, almost every single person on this thread is guilty of dishonouring this woman by getting on their soapbox for a good old, self-righteous rant. Shame on you.

John Waters, is that you?

Her husband choose to break this story, he choose to make it public and has given statements on this. He wants people to know what happened, how his wife's human rights were ignored.

lazygal

I just donated to prochoice Ireland. Very easy to do via paypal on their website.

As someone who's recently had a baby daughter this case makes me sick.

Will me or my daughter suffer the same fate? Women of Ireland, THIS COULD BE YOU.

OldNotWIse

Dodge wrote: »

can you point me in the direction of any secular anti-choice bodies in Ireland?

Bodies? No. Mostly because religious fanatics seek safety in numbers and need to rely on each oter for validation. Separate them from the pack and they will not survive.

A lot of pro life people are simply pro life because of their own moral standards.

gozunda

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Sorry but I'm not your friend, I dont make friends that easily with strangers on the internet
He was acting within the law, not within his "stated religious stance".
He cannot be found guilty of negligence through omission as there was no legal obligation imposed on him to carry out a termination.

Don't worry it is an expression and was not a statement of intent! Appologies if you thought otherwise.

The doctor was not ' acting within the law' legislation states there is a right of termination where there is a risk to the life if the mother

By withholding necessary medical intervention this doctor actions resulted in the death of this women

If he did not have the moral fibre to do what was right both legally and ethically then he is at fault imo

The doctor clearly stated his 'religious' stance in relation to the termination

The family have a I believe a good case in taking this doctor and / or institution to law

Yakult

Once I saw the doctors were detecting a faint heartbeat it didn't surprise me that they wouldn't abort. Medically, I have no clue as to what was showing on the results of tests that were undertook, they obviously thought they might be able to save the baby. But I dont think they are to blame solely for this, the whole health system is to blame. The fact that religion is still having a influence over something it should not. She should have been able to make the decision or not. Her choice and hers only. Feel for her family. Very sad thing to happen.

upstairs for coffee

Do I think Abortion should be legalised? Yes.

Do I think Ireland is ready for abortion to legalised? No. The Irish government is incompetence personified and would make muck of any attempt to legislate abortion. Similarly the Catholic church still has a grasp over alot of people in Ireland, so a yes vote wouldn't go through.

eviltwin

Does anyone know when the famous "expert group" are due to report back to the Government?

Dodge

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Bodies? No. Mostly because religious fanatics seek safety in numbers and need to rely on each oter for validation. Separate them from the pack and they will not survive.

A lot of pro life people are simply pro life because of their own moral standards.

Well then you didn't read my post. Here it is again

Dodge wrote: »

Well both sides use generalities. There's no doubt in this country the driving force behind anti-choice propaganda is religon based (specifically Roman Catholic)

With the risk of sounding pompous, the greater argument is about freedom to choose. If we (again I'm generalising) didn't allow the catholic church hierarchy to have such a say in the country, and people decided to be anti-choice, then thats their decision

But there's absolutely no doubt that in this country, the vast majority of anti-choice campaigners are doing so because of their Catholicism

I never said individual atheists/agnostics couldn't be anti-choice. I said the driving force in this country behind their "movement" was religon based.

It appears you're now agreeing with me

OldNotWIse

gozunda wrote: »

Don't worry it is an expression and was not a statement of intent! Appologies if you thought otherwise.

The doctor was not ' acting within the law' legislation states there is a right of termination where there is a risk to the life if the mother

By withholding necessary medical intervention this doctor actions resulted in the death of this women

If he did not have the moral fibre to do what was right both legally and ethically then he is at fault imo

The doctor clearly stated his 'religious' stance in relation to the termination

The family have a I believe a good case in taking this doctor and / or institution to law

Funny, I thought he said "this is a catholic country"

She may be entitled to one but he was not legally obliged to perform one. Therefore he cannot be held liable.

Lets just wait and see if they have a case shall we??

Zulu

gozunda wrote: »

So dO you believe that doctors or other medical staff cannot be found guilty of manslaughter or murder?

No, and I don't appreciate you supposing the contrary.

The woman was...

Do you work in the hospital in question? Do you know the doctor? If you've answered no to either of these, is it safe to say you don't know all the facts?

Do you know all the facts? ...because you are appearing VERY quick to judge and condemn. If you don't know all the facts (which I suspect to be the case), I would draw to your attention the definition of ignorant?

Benny_Cake

gozunda wrote: »

Don't worry it is an expression and was not a statement of intent! Appologies if you thought otherwise.

The doctor was not ' acting within the law' legislation states there is a right of termination where there is a risk to the life if the mother

By withholding necessary medical intervention this doctor actions resulted in the death of this women

If he did not have the moral fibre to do what was right both legally and ethically then he is at fault imo

The doctor clearly stated his 'religious' stance in relation to the termination

The family have a I believe a good case in taking this doctor and / or institution to law

Legislation says nothing of the sort I'm afraid. The constitution allows for this but in the absence of supporting legislation the doctor would be on very shaky ground legally speaking.

We don't know anything about the doctor's stance but I suspect it wasn't because of his personal religious beliefs and more down to a legitimate fear of prosecution.

jaja321

iregk wrote: »

By intelligent open minded people saying this is an absolute disgrace or by pro life bible wavers claiming it as murder?

Protesting the lack of action in legislating for the X Case. Which if legislated for would give doctors a proper legislative framework to operate under and would prevent something as disgraceful as this happening again.

OldNotWIse

Dodge wrote: »

Well then you didn't read my post. Here it is again



I never said individual atheists/agnostics couldn't be anti-choice. I said the driving force in this country behind their "movement" was religon based.

It appears you're now agreeing with me

I'm not interested in your verbal gymnastics. How exactly is me saying, "Bodies? No. Mostly because religious fanatics seek safety in numbers and need to rely on each oter for validation. Separate them from the pack and they will not survive." a pointer taht I did not read your post? (honestly you can set your watch by the "read my post" argument around here)

A lot of pro life people are simply pro life because of their own moral standards.

I repeat, not all those who are pro life are religious, and religion is not the driving force for the pro life movement. It may have been years ago but I think we are all sick to death of the catholic church at this stage.

Dodge

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I'm not interested in your verbal gymnastics.

I repeat, not all those who are pro life are religious,

It was your insistence that the movement was not religious that started these gymnastics. you knew full well that posters were using shorthand. Of course nobody believed that only Catholics/christian were anti-choice.

and religion is not the driving force for the pro life movement

again, can you point me towards any secular anti-choce groups within the Irish movement?

Zulu

Vicxas wrote: »

Ok, that was a sweeping generalisation, but the majority of Pro-lifers are deeply religious.

I'm not religious, but don't let that get in the way of your ignorant prejudice.

Cool Mo D

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Funny, I thought he said "this is a catholic country"

She may be entitled to one but he was not legally obliged to perform one. Therefore he cannot be held liable.

Lets just wait and see if they have a case shall we??

No, that's wrong. A doctor isn't legally required to treat someone. But if they do decide to treat someone, and something goes wrong, they could be legally liable.

jaja321

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Quick close the stable door, the horse has bolted.

Answer them better to start a petition/lobby politicians etc to bring in legislation to prevent tragedies like this happening in the future. If a womans life is in danger, she should have access to an abortion - simple. This should be the focus of energies and anger now. At least channel it into something useful.

This is what the protest is about. To get the Government to finally legislate for it.

Zulu

iregk wrote: »

By intelligent open minded people saying this is an absolute disgrace or by pro life bible wavers claiming it as murder?

Pathetic.

gozunda

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Funny, I thought he said "this is a catholic country"
She may be entitled to one but he was not legally obliged to perform one. Therefore he cannot be held liable.
Lets just wait and see if they have a case shall we??

His statement in context about catholicism is quite clear imo

If this doctor could not make a call based on his religious beliefs then he should have excused himself from the care of this women and not denied her rights under law

The end result of this doctors barbaric behaviour is that a young women is dead
That is the bottom line.

It is up to medical professionals to make an ethical decision based on the medical facts
Not to wring their hands and claim that some mythical belief system prevents them from doing their job

From what you have said I take it that you approve of this doctors attitude and behaviour ?

Dodge

gozunda wrote: »

His statement in context about catholicism is quite clear imo

I don't think it is clear. Without tone I don't thinkits fair to castigate him too much

Perhaps he wanted to treat the woman but felt he couldn't due to the law, which he may have blamed on the 'fact' that 'this is a catholic country'.

Perhaps he was angry that he believed this is a "catholic country"

If that was the case than the Doctor shows a fair lack of tact, and you can questions his decision making seperately too, but I wouldn't be rushing to jail him based on he said/she said

Benny_Cake

gozunda wrote: »

His statement in context about catholicism is quite clear imo

If this doctor could not make a call based on his religious beliefs then he should have excused himself from the care of this women and not denied her rights under law

The end result of this doctors barbaric behaviour is that a young women is dead
That is the bottom line.

It is up to medical professionals to make an ethical decision based on the medical facts
Not to wring their hands and claim that some mythical belief system prevents them from doing their job

From what you have said I take it that you approve of this doctors attitude and behaviour ?

You are making a big assumption here. He could have said something along the lines of "this is a Catholic country" in terms of explaining how the laws that we have came about.

Also, you are completely ignoring the fact that no legislation exists which would make a provision for an emergency intervention in this case.

Morag

Yakult wrote: »

Once I saw the doctors were detecting a faint heartbeat it didn't surprise me that they wouldn't abort. Medically, I have no clue as to what was showing on the results of tests that were undertook, they obviously thought they might be able to save the baby.

She was only 17 weeks pregnant, there was no way that the pregnancy was viable at that stage and with her cervix being fully dilated it was clear to there was no way to stop the miscarriage from happening. There was no way to 'save the baby', there was a way to save her life.

gozunda

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Legislation says nothing of the sort I'm afraid. The constitution allows for this but in the absence of supporting legislation the doctor would be on very shaky ground legally speaking.

We don't know anything about the doctor's stance but I suspect it wasn't because of his personal religious beliefs and more down to a legitimate fear of prosecution.

So you think that the doctor is not on 'shakey ground legally speaking' for refusing the woman the necessary medical intervention required to save her life??

I believe as stated the family will be able to pursue this doctor for his refusal to provide necessary medical care

Provision under the constitution is there - where Doctors refuse to act accordingly and site catholic beliefs they are acting against all medical ethics

UCHG has a documented history of catholic right wing pro life bias - it will not set them in good stead for any legal action that will follow.

jumpguy

It's really hard to pass judgement on anyone in this case, because we really don't know the facts. Are we 100% sure that the woman would've survived if the pregnancy had been terminated (admittedly, it seems like it'd have improved her chances)?

The doctor cannot really be faulted for this imo. He/she could only obey the law, and it was probably very difficult while the woman was pregnant/miscarrying to determine if her life was in "imminent danger", it does she was quite sick though. The comment about a "Catholic country" seems very strange though, especially since he/she was talking to people who obviously weren't likely Catholics. Just leaving it at "it's against the law" would've probably been more appropriate.

I think really, if anyone is to blame it's the legislators who are too cowardly to do their job and set out clear and fair legislation on the issue. The Constitution is still the same way as it is (the right to the life of the unborn, but the mother also has an equal right to live), but I'd say if legislation was drawn up allowing abortion when the baby was going to die before it could cause any medical problems then it would've made a difference here. Of course, then you've to start thinking about pre-natal disease testing and that and then it starts becoming very controversial.

The blood is on the hands of those sitting in the Dáil, too cowardly to act on an issue that'll probably never worry themselves (being a mostly male parliament.) It's very troubling that it'll take the life of a young woman before they do what they've been called on to do by hundreds in the legal and medical profession for 20 years now.

Morag

eviltwin wrote: »

Does anyone know when the famous "expert group" are due to report back to the Government?

They were due to report back LAST September and even if they do report back tomorrow the government is under NO obligation to publicly publish the report.

Benny_Cake

gozunda wrote: »

So you think that the doctor is not on 'shakey ground legally speaking' for refusing the woman the necessary medical intervention required to save her life??

I believe as stated the family will be able to pursue this doctor for his refusal to provide necessary medical care

The legislation is there - where Doctors refuse to act accordingly and site catholic beliefs they are acting against all medical ethics

UCHG has a documented history of catholic right wing pro life bias - it will not set them in good stead for any legal action that will follow.

Can you cite this legislation then? Also, if it was there, why did the EU uphold that case against the Irish government?

I can't see how the doctor is liable here. The State may well be on the other hand. Either way, we have too little information to go on to know one way or another just yet.

gozunda

Dodge wrote: »

I don't think it is clear. Without tone I don't thinkits fair to castigate him too much

Perhaps he wanted to treat the woman but felt he couldn't due to the law, which he may have blamed on the 'fact' that 'this is a catholic country'.

Perhaps he was angry that he believed this is a "catholic country"

If that was the case than the Doctor shows a fair lack of tact, and you can questions his decision making seperately too, but I wouldn't be rushing to jail him based on he said/she said

In which case he should have excused himself from the care of this women

His inaction resulted in the death of this women - end of story

If he choose not to step away then he bears responsibility in the death of this women

blacklilly

There is no medical, ethical or legal reason why this women should have been denied whatever treatment she neeeded, even if her baby dies as a side-effect. I san condemn the actions of the hospital and still be consistently pro life

charlietheminxx

This story is tragic. That poor family I can only imagine the pain and distress the woman must have been in.

This can't be allowed happen again. Legislation is needed NOW, it's already been left for far too long.

eviltwin

Sharrow wrote: »

They were due to report back LAST September and even if they do report back tomorrow the government is under NO obligation to publicly publish the report.

Your joking? :eek:

The more I hear the more angry and upset I get. I'm 35, I hope to have another child at some stage in the next few years. This could be me. This could be my sisters or my friends, it could be daughter one day.

I never would want to find myself in a position where I have access to something that could save my life denied because of a moral belief of those people who don't know me or my family or have any interest in our lives.

Its very frightening, I know its rare but it does make you think.

gozunda

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Can you cite this legislation then? Also, if it was there, why did the EU uphold that case against the Irish government?

I can't see how the doctor is liable here. The State may well be on the other hand. Either way, we have too little information to go on to know one way or another just yet.

I will rephrase that - the right to termination where there is a risk to the mother is provided in the constitution

Why do we bother with a constitution if we cannot rely on it to vindicate a persons rights ( see recents childrens referendum)

The EU took the case because of the lazy ^rsed attitude of our indigenous politicians and their fear of the resident RCC

From the information available I believe it is quite clear that the doctor was at least negligent and his behaviour / inaction resulted in the death of a women under his care

Dodge

gozunda wrote: »

In which case he should have excused himself from the care of this women

His inaction resulted in the death of this women - end of story

If he choose not to step away then he bears responsibility in the death of this women

In no way am i trying to absolve the Doctor. I was just pointing out the 'this is a catholic country' line may/may not be have been misinterpreted.

There are far more pressing issues than that

Benny_Cake

gozunda wrote: »

I will rephrase that - the right to termination where there is a risk to the mother is provided in the constitution

Why do we bother with a constitution if we cannot rely on it to vindicate a persons rights ( see recents childrens referendum)

The EU took the case because of the lazy ^rsed attitude of our resident politicians and their fear of the resident RCC

From the information available I believe it is quite clear that the doctor was at least negligent and his behaviour / inaction resulted in the death of a women under his care

The legislation was never drawn up to implement that provision of the Constitution, largely due to a cowardly political class and an indifferent population. Without supporting legislation, a doctor is on very dodgy ground. The State is to blame here.

Morag

eviltwin wrote: »

Your joking? :eek:

The more I hear the more angry and upset I get. I'm 35, I hope to have another child at some stage in the next few years. This could be me. This could be my sisters or my friends, it could be daughter one day.

I never would want to find myself in a position where I have access to something that could save my life denied because of a moral belief of those people who don't know me or my family or have any interest in our lives.

Its very frightening, I know its rare but it does make you think.

I am not joking and guess what there has just been a statement saying the report reached the Minster for Health late last night...
Epic Timing :rolleyes:

Yes it could be you or me or given my families history with blood pressure, my sisters, my cousins or in year to come my daughter.

28064212

gozunda wrote: »

Provision under the constitution is there

Provision under the law is not. Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (which is the law in force):

whosoever, with intent to procure the miscarriage of any woman, whether she be or be not with child, shall unlawfully administer to her or cause to be taken by her any poison or other noxious thing, or shall unlawfully use any instrument or other means whatsoever with the like intent, shall be guilty of felony

This is a failure of the legislators, not a single doctor. The doctor would have been open to prosecution under the above law if he provided an abortion. It is exactly what the ECHR predicted when they called Ireland's legislative framework regarding abortion "chilling".

On a side-note, anyone who comments on "what the Irish people want", or "how the people voted" should take note of this: Since the introduction of the constitutional ban on abortion, there have been 4 referendums related to abortion in Ireland. The pro-life side has lost all of them

MagicSean

Why are people so upset at the comment that this is a Catholic country so abortions aren't allowed. This is a Catholic country. Read the preamble to the constitution. The whole document was influenced by religion. Many of out laws were too. The catholic ethos of the country is the very reason abortions aren't allowed. Furthermore, has the doctor actually be named? I mean, considering the varied ethnic makeup of the staff in many hospitals it's very possible he wasn't catholic. He could easily have made that comment out of frustration at no being able to do what he had to. This part of the incident is a complete non-issue as far as I'm concerned.

People keep saying it's legal to perform an abortion in these circumstances. This is wrong. It is a constitutional right but this right has not been implemented by legislation. In fact it is countered by it. There are laws against abortion in Ireland and the doctor would have been breaking these laws by performing an abortion. Sure he may have overturned any conviction after a few years and a lot of money appealing to the supreme court but why should he be expected to put his whole career and freedom on the line to take that stand just because the people of ireland have let this slide for so long? Some people keep referring to the medical council guidelines. These are irrelevent. They are insufficiently explained and not above the legislation on abortion.

This is not a debate on wether abortion is right or wrong. I don't think anyone can deny that if the mothers life is in danger a termination can be necessary. This issue is one of the failure of governments to implement this into legislation.

NamelessPhil

The Medical Council of Ireland provides professional guidelines to all medical practitioners in the State. I've taken the following extracts from the "Guide to Professional Conduct and Ethics for Registered Medical Practitioners".

Abortion 21.1 Abortion is illegal in Ireland except where there is a real and
substantial risk to the life (as distinct from the health) of the mother. Under current legal precedent, this exception includes where there is a clear and substantial risk to the life of the mother arising from a threat of suicide. You should undertake a full assess- ment of any such risk in light of the clinical research on this issue.
...
21.4 In current obstetrical practice, rare complications can arise where therapeutic intervention (including termination of a pregnancy) is required at a stage when, due to extreme immaturity of the baby, there may be little or no hope of the baby surviving. In these exceptional circumstances, it may be necessary to intervene to terminate the pregnancy to protect the life of the mother, while making every effort to preserve the life of the baby.

It seems from the bare facts of the case that the doctors concerned waited too long to save the life of the mother despite their own professional guidelines which would permit intervention to save her life.

Penny Dreadful

gozunda wrote: »

I will rephrase that - the right to termination where there is a risk to the mother is provided in the constitution

I don't think it is. The Supreme Court ruling stated the above but it has not been enacted into legislation, therefore the Constitution as of yet.
This is why the doctor's hands were tied.

Zulu

eviltwin wrote: »

I never would want to find myself in a position where I have access to something that could save my life denied because of a moral belief of those people who don't know me or my family or have any interest in our lives.

And yet, I'd wager that you would protest against a state that permitted rich people harvest the organs of homeless people, for life saving treatment?

In such a state you wouldn't be denied something that would save your life based on other peoples moral beliefs.

Look, I know it's far fetched, but really, we all do want to be a part of a society that upholds the moral belief of it's majority. Don't lose sight if that.

That's the essence of a democracy.

eviltwin

MagicSean wrote: »

Why are people so upset at the comment that this is a Catholic country so abortions aren't allowed. This is a Catholic country. Read the preamble to the constitution. The whole document was influenced by religion. Many of out laws were too. The catholic ethos of the country is the very reason abortions aren't allowed. Furthermore, has the doctor actually be named? I mean, considering the varied ethnic makeup of the staff in many hospitals it's very possible he wasn't catholic. He could easily have made that comment out of frustration at no being able to do what he had to. This part of the incident is a complete non-issue as far as I'm concerned.

People keep saying it's legal to perform an abortion in these circumstances. This is wrong. It is a constitutional right but this right has not been implemented by legislation. In fact it is countered by it. There are laws against abortion in Ireland and the doctor would have been breaking these laws by performing an abortion. Sure he may have overturned any conviction after a few years and a lot of money appealing to the supreme court but why should he be expected to put his whole career and freedom on the line to take that stand just because the people of ireland have let this slide for so long? Some people keep referring to the medical council guidelines. These are irrelevent. They are insufficiently explained and not above the legislation on abortion.

This is not a debate on wether abortion is right or wrong. I don't think anyone can deny that if the mothers life is in danger a termination can be necessary. This issue is one of the failure of governments to implement this into legislation.

The country is not Catholic Sean, its a person that has a religion, not a country and that is fluid. You only have to look at the Census to see that. The majority might be Catholic ( in name at least ) but there are many people who are other faiths and none. Why do we persist on making laws that impact on everyone simply because of the religious views of some? And lets face it, being Catholic doesn't mean anything, plenty of Catholics voted in favour of divorce and would be happy to see marriage equality, why should this issue be any different?

I have no issue with people being pro-life for whatever reason but I'm pro-choice. I would encourage a woman to have an abortion she didn't agree with or want - I would be a monster if I did that - so why do they feel its okay to force me to continue with a pregnancy in the same circumstances?

Jarrod

Smidge wrote: »

Tragic story..
I hope this doctors remarks were not instigated by the fact that the poor woman was Muslim ie "THIS is a CATHOLIC country.

I wonder why if the baby still had a heart beat and the dr was conflicted, why not deliver the baby, we know it wouldn't have survived either way(given what the article said) and that way his hands were "clean" with respect to an abortion.

And if done in a timely manner it may well have saved that woman's life.

I think the only God here was a Dr with a "God Complex"

What makes you think she was Muslim? She wasn't btw.

Leftist

MagicSean wrote: »

Why are people so upset at the comment that this is a Catholic country so abortions aren't allowed. This is a Catholic country. Read the preamble to the constitution. The whole document was influenced by religion. Many of out laws were too. The catholic ethos of the country is the very reason abortions aren't allowed. .

that is disgusting.

you mean to say the catholics can be allowed to impose their religious laws on the rest of us?

that is a theocracy, not a democracy. A disgrace. And if the constitution really does say that, then it should be destroyed.

Morag

Jarrod wrote: »

What makes you think she was Muslim? She wasn't btw.

She was Hindu, she should have been celebrating Diwali with her husband.
Hopefully she will be treated better in her next life.

Vicxas

Leftist wrote: »

that is disgusting.

you mean to say the catholics can be allowed to impose their religious laws on the rest of us?

that is a theocracy, not a democracy. A disgrace. And if the constitution really does say that, then it should be destroyed.

Wasnt the whole spin on the childrens referendum about us having a say on the constituion?

If so, why aren't we pushing to have this changed now!?

Morag

Leftist wrote: »

that is disgusting.

you mean to say the catholics can be allowed to impose their religious laws on the rest of us?

that is a theocracy, not a democracy. A disgrace. And if the constitution really does say that, then it should be destroyed.

There is a constitutional convention to over haul it next year.

eviltwin

Zulu wrote: »

And yet, I'd wager that you would protest against a state that permitted rich people harvest the organs of homeless people, for life saving treatment?

In such a state you wouldn't be denied something that would save your life based on other peoples moral beliefs.

Look, I know it's far fetched, but really, we all do want to be a part of a society that upholds the moral belief of it's majority. Don't lose sight if that.

That's the essence of a democracy.

Not sure where you link abortion with taking organs from homeless people

I have no problem with people's moral beliefs, if you don't want an abortion don't have one simple as. But don't undermine the intelligence of people to make decisions for themselves based on what's best for them. Give them some credit.

As a result of the moral majority two people are now dead and a family are left heartbroken. And the worst thing was there was possibly no need for it.

barbiegirl

Having had 3 miscarriages I am in a position to comment on the guidelines handed down to doctors in relation to when they can operate to remove a fetus. As a result of court cases and stories 3 years ago where women who went for 2nd opinions having been told they had miscarried in early pregnancy and a fetal heartbeat was later found, doctors are not allowed, by the medical council, to carry out a D&C until no fetal heartbeat has been found over the course of a week.
Because this pregnancy was further advanced than these cases, and there were other factors such as leaking amniotic fluid etc. they could carry out the procedure as soon as they determined there was no heartbeat. These are the guidelines that their bosses have given them and that they HAVE to live by.
I am certain that the doctors wanted to operate, but couldn't. I would also point out that it is very rare for a mis-carriage to result in septicaemia.
Should the legislation have been in place so that these doctors could do what they needed to do? Absolutely. This a complete failure of successive governments to implement something we as a nation voted on nearly a generation ago. Is a disgrace that this woman died? Absolutely and my heart goes out to her husband and family. Were the doctors themselves to blame? In this case no, their hands were completely tied. :mad: