Vigil for Savita Halappavanar: 4PM Saturday, Irish Embassy, Grosvenor Place SW1X 7HR

Fysh

UPDATE:

A second protest has been called on Saturday at Grosvenor Place:

Date: 17th November
Time: 4PM onwards
Place: Irish Embassy, Grosvenor Place
Postcode: SW1X 7HR (Google Map, Bing Maps)
Nearest Transport Links: Hyde Park Corner, Victoria, Green Park
More info: here

Original post is below:

From here:

"In light of the death of Savita Halappanavar, there is a protest outside the Dail tonight by an Irish pro-choice group. In solidarity with the group, and to express our own shock and anger at the death of Savita Halappanavar, there will be a London-based pro-choice protest tonight. This will be at 6pm, at 17 Grosvenor Place, SW1X 7HR. Although it is short-notice, I hope that many of you can make it to express your own views on the terrible tragedy of a young women dying after her request for an abortion was refused."

Facebook event page is here if you're interested.

I'm heading along, I suspect at least one or two other regulars from here will be too.

LadyMayBelle

Was just logging on to post about this Fysh, you bet me to it.

I will be attending also, will look out for ye.

I dont think Ive ever attended a protest in my life bar a haphazard one in first year college about fees, but since hearing about this last night I'm a combination of fuming mad and terribly saddened so feel that coming together at this protest is a way of supporting.

A disgrace.

Reekwind

Hmmm. I would have been there but too short notice on a work night. A pity as this is something that I do feel strongly about

Fysh

Reekwind wrote: »

Hmmm. I would have been there but too short notice on a work night. A pity as this is something that I do feel strongly about

Why am I suddenly filled with the fear that you'll turn up to the follow-up protest being talked about for Saturday carrying a placard with something like "Abortion is never the solution" or some other trollworthy statement?

Playboy

Very tragic incident. Really hope it forces the government to sort out our draconian abortion laws. You would think the doctor would have taken the risk in order to save the ladies life. After all his duty of care is to his patient.. Hasn't he breached the Hippocratic oath in order to abide by a law? Would he really have been prosecuted for aborting the baby given the circumstances?

Couldn't make it tonight but will try and make it on Saturday if there is a follow up protest.

ballsymchugh

Playboy wrote: »

Very tragic incident. Really hope it forces the government to sort out our draconian abortion laws. You would think the doctor would have taken the risk in order to save the ladies life. After all his duty of care is to his patient.. Hasn't he breached the Hippocratic oath in order to abide by a law? Would he really have been prosecuted for aborting the baby given the circumstances?

Couldn't make it tonight but will try and make it on Saturday if there is a follow up protest.

what was the crowd like?

it's a tragic case indeed, but it's all down to the doctor that she had. miscarriages are induced quite often in ireland where necessary, and it is still one of the safest country in the world for a woman to have a baby.
there was a gynaecologist from ballinasloe on newstalk this evening saying all this, and with over 2000 births a year, the last maternal death in portiuncula was 27 years ago.

this whole case stinks of one guy wanting his way, like what was going on in drogheda hospital in the 70's. he wouldn't have been prosecuted if he had completed the miscarriage, as the X case ruling would've been on his side as i see it.

while there does need to be legislation, it's the doctor here that's at fault. the medical council guidelines are there and they weren't followed.
depending on what the hospital's side of the story is, he'll be very likely hung out to dry.

there was a case a while ago where a doctor in a private hospital refused to do IVF treatment for an unmarried couple because of his religion, but he did refer them on to someone who could help them. if this guy didn't want to treat because of his religion, then he should've called someone else.

Fysh

ballsymchugh wrote: »

what was the crowd like?

it's a tragic case indeed, but it's all down to the doctor that she had. miscarriages are induced quite often in ireland where necessary, and it is still one of the safest country in the world for a woman to have a baby.
there was a gynaecologist from ballinasloe on newstalk this evening saying all this, and with over 2000 births a year, the last maternal death in portiuncula was 27 years ago.

this whole case stinks of one guy wanting his way, like what was going on in drogheda hospital in the 70's. he wouldn't have been prosecuted if he had completed the miscarriage, as the X case ruling would've been on his side as i see it.

while there does need to be legislation, it's the doctor here that's at fault. the medical council guidelines are there and they weren't followed.
depending on what the hospital's side of the story is, he'll be very likely hung out to dry.

there was a case a while ago where a doctor in a private hospital refused to do IVF treatment for an unmarried couple because of his religion, but he did refer them on to someone who could help them. if this guy didn't want to treat because of his religion, then he should've called someone else.

Stall the ball a second here.

20 years ago the Supreme Court ruled on this, and said the government should legislate accordingly. 2 years ago the European Court of Human Rights pointed out that the government had an obligation to legislate accordingly. Medical guidelines are all very well, but I imagine most medical professionals wouldn't want to risk doing something that hasn't yet been enshrined in law, because few people want to become the test case for an argument that could, in small-c conservative Ireland, go either way. Would you want to be the doctor who got effectively blackballed for losing that test case and costing the hospital that employs you a large fine and compensation payout?

I'm not saying that such thinking is correct, nor am I saying the outcome is likely. I am saying that there's a very easy way to avoid it, and that's for the government to do what they were told to do in 1992 and legislate, because that would mean there was no question whatsoever about it, at which point any failure to make the option available where it was necessary would result in a malpractice suit.

Let's not go ignoring the failure of several governments to do anything about this and blame 1 doctor. There's enough blame here for everyone involved to have seconds.

I reckon the crowd was maybe 70 or 80 people - more like 40 when it started but people kept turning up as it went on. It finished up by 6:30 though, so more people may have turned up after. Hopefully there'll be something on Saturday that's better-attended.

Edited to add:

Sorry if my post seems harsh, but I get quite angry about the backwardness of Ireland's position re: abortion and women's reproductive rights. It's worth noting that regardless of the existence of medical guidelines, this report says that a number of medical professionals are calling for legislation to clarify when terminations are allowable under the law. If the people doing the job say we need legislation, then claiming that it's fine and there's no problem is merely ignoring the problem in the hope that it'll go away.

Reekwind

Fysh wrote: »

Why am I suddenly filled with the fear that you'll turn up to the follow-up protest being talked about for Saturday carrying a placard with something like "Abortion is never the solution" or some other trollworthy statement?

I carry around a full set of vestments and several generic religious placards at all times for this very reason

But in all seriousness, do let me know if there's serious talk of a repeat on Sat

ballsymchugh wrote:

and it is still one of the safest country in the world for a woman to have a baby

If legislation could prevent even one additional death then it should be in place. The attitude should be that we can reduce maternal mortality even further

It's also worth touching on the broader point in which the absence of such legislation (stemming from successive governments' obvious cowardice in approaching the matter) produces an environment in which individuals can rule out potentially life-saving measures because, to quote, "this is a Catholic country". That's the sort of backwards attitude - that allows doctors to refuse critical treatment because of their religious beliefs - that strikes me as entirely wrong

Fysh

I think there will be another protest on Saturday, but I haven't seen details yet. Keep an eye on the Facebook event page, the Feminist Events blog and/or contact the organiser of yesterday's event at feministlondon(a)gmail.com.

ballsymchugh

Fysh wrote: »

Stall the ball a second here.

20 years ago the Supreme Court ruled on this, and said the government should legislate accordingly. 2 years ago the European Court of Human Rights pointed out that the government had an obligation to legislate accordingly. Medical guidelines are all very well, but I imagine most medical professionals wouldn't want to risk doing something that hasn't yet been enshrined in law, because few people want to become the test case for an argument that could, in small-c conservative Ireland, go either way. Would you want to be the doctor who got effectively blackballed for losing that test case and costing the hospital that employs you a large fine and compensation payout?

I'm not saying that such thinking is correct, nor am I saying the outcome is likely. I am saying that there's a very easy way to avoid it, and that's for the government to do what they were told to do in 1992 and legislate, because that would mean there was no question whatsoever about it, at which point any failure to make the option available where it was necessary would result in a malpractice suit.

Let's not go ignoring the failure of several governments to do anything about this and blame 1 doctor. There's enough blame here for everyone involved to have seconds.

I reckon the crowd was maybe 70 or 80 people - more like 40 when it started but people kept turning up as it went on. It finished up by 6:30 though, so more people may have turned up after. Hopefully there'll be something on Saturday that's better-attended.

Edited to add:

Sorry if my post seems harsh, but I get quite angry about the backwardness of Ireland's position re: abortion and women's reproductive rights. It's worth noting that regardless of the existence of medical guidelines, this report says that a number of medical professionals are calling for legislation to clarify when terminations are allowable under the law. If the people doing the job say we need legislation, then claiming that it's fine and there's no problem is merely ignoring the problem in the hope that it'll go away.

i didn't say in my post that there shouldn't be legislation, i was mainly replying to playboy who asked if the doctor would get in trouble if he completed the miscarriage. (i don't mean to be pedantic on the choice of words here either, but as the foetus was non viable, i'm pretty sure it's not classed as an abortion. sounds crass, i know).
calling for clarification on when terminations are allowable under law is for cases where the foetus IS viable. while this case is highlighting the patheticness of the legislature, it is the wrong case.

as i said in my post, there was another specialist on the radio last night (and many others in between) who said that the doctor involved in the case was wrong, then yes, that doctor is at fault in this instance. there was a case brought to the medical council in ireland over the summer where an IVF specialist wouldn't treat an unmarried couple because of his religious beliefs, but he referred them to someone who would. religion is never an excuse to refuse best practice to someone, and if that doctor did say what is reported to have been said, then yes, he should be blackballed and struck off.

Fysh

ballsymchugh wrote: »

i didn't say in my post that there shouldn't be legislation, i was mainly replying to playboy who asked if the doctor would get in trouble if he completed the miscarriage. (i don't mean to be pedantic on the choice of words here either, but as the foetus was non viable, i'm pretty sure it's not classed as an abortion. sounds crass, i know).
calling for clarification on when terminations are allowable under law is for cases where the foetus IS viable. while this case is highlighting the patheticness of the legislature, it is the wrong case.

as i said in my post, there was another specialist on the radio last night (and many others in between) who said that the doctor involved in the case was wrong, then yes, that doctor is at fault in this instance. there was a case brought to the medical council in ireland over the summer where an IVF specialist wouldn't treat an unmarried couple because of his religious beliefs, but he referred them to someone who would. religion is never an excuse to refuse best practice to someone, and if that doctor did say what is reported to have been said, then yes, he should be blackballed and struck off.

The comments I've seen haven't appeared to be the consultant saying that it was his faith that was the problem, but rather that saying "This is a Catholic country" was provided as explanation for why the law allegedly stated that "while there's a foetal heartbeat we can't do anything". (See The Irish Times, for example - but it's all a bit "he said she said").

The point is regardless of what the Medical Council Guidelines say, the absence of legislation specifying how and where the provision of terminations or abortions for medical reasons can occur in compliance with the Irish Constitution is what leads to this ridiculous situation. Leaving this decision up to an individual when there's still legal ambiguity is just bloody stupid, and I don't for one second buy the idea that a doctor can be expected to follow a guideline that isn't enshrined in the laws of the country in which he or she practices. To suggest otherwise is to put us in very dangerous territory.

ballsymchugh

Fysh wrote: »

The comments I've seen haven't appeared to be the consultant saying that it was his faith that was the problem, but rather that saying "This is a Catholic country" was provided as explanation for why the law allegedly stated that "while there's a foetal heartbeat we can't do anything". (See The Irish Times, for example - but it's all a bit "he said she said").

The point is regardless of what the Medical Council Guidelines say, the absence of legislation specifying how and where the provision of terminations or abortions for medical reasons can occur in compliance with the Irish Constitution is what leads to this ridiculous situation. Leaving this decision up to an individual when there's still legal ambiguity is just bloody stupid, and I don't for one second buy the idea that a doctor can be expected to follow a guideline that isn't enshrined in the laws of the country in which he or she practices. To suggest otherwise is to put us in very dangerous territory.

soooooooooooo we're both in agreement that legislation is needed. grand.
on that topic, people shouldn't forget to email who would normally be their local TD about the matter. don't say we're in britland.

i'm still of the opinion that the doctor should be struck off for even mentioning religion as a reason not to do best practice. This is the case i was talking about before, where a surgeon let religion get in the way of his job.

Sean O Hara

The way this whole tragic situation is being hijacked by special interest groups and scurrilous elements of the national/international media is nothing short of a disgrace.

How is it that so many can come to conclusions without the benefit of the facts?

Let the truth come out from an independent source before jumping to judgement.

Rgds,
Sean

Fysh

Sean O Hara wrote: »

The way this whole tragic situation is being hijacked by special interest groups and scurrilous elements of the national/international media is nothing short of a disgrace.

How is it that so many can come to conclusions without the benefit of the facts?

Let the truth come out from an independent source before jumping to judgement.

Rgds,
Sean

To be fair, what you say applies to both the prats I saw yesterday at the protest at the embassy trying to present it as a "We want on-demand abortion now!" issue and about the prats in Precious Life or Youth Defence who insist that there's no problem with the current situation. As far as I'm concerned, both groups are equally deserving of a ding around the ear for their conduct.

The facts of this specific case are yet to be determined, but we already know for certain that legislation concerning the X case is long overdue (according to both the Irish Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights). This legislation would have been relevant here, and might have helped achieve a better outcome.

That's what I'm looking for in this context - the enshrinement into law of a verdict already handed down by the highest authority in the Irish judiciary, to remove any ambiguity or confusion about when terminations or abortions can be considered legal, and how the service should be made available.

Tying this into a wider "on-demand abortion" debate (from either a pro-choice or pro-foetus angle) is misrepresentation of the issue, IMO.

ballsymchugh

Fysh wrote: »

To be fair, what you say applies to both the prats I saw yesterday at the protest at the embassy trying to present it as a "We want on-demand abortion now!" issue and about the prats in Precious Life or Youth Defence who insist that there's no problem with the current situation. As far as I'm concerned, both groups are equally deserving of a ding around the ear for their conduct.

qft

wait a sec, were there only 2 prats?!

Fysh

ballsymchugh wrote: »

qft

wait a sec, were there only 2 prats?!

I wish it was only 2 There was a mob of socialist party types who were trying to push it as a "we demand abortion for all people everywhere" move, which was annoying. However, eventually they stopped their prattle and let someone from the Abortion Support Network (who explained the details of the X case and what's happened since).

Similarly, there seem to be plenty of Youth Defence/Precious Life/$GENERIC_PRO_FOETUS_ANTI_ABORTION_PROTESTER astroturfers around the place trying to pull a "Nothing to see here, abortion is murder as it always was, we don't need any change to the law" stance.

To be honest, I'm kind of glad there's international coverage happening, it's ludicrous that we've gone through several governments without getting this sorted out. Hopefully the baleful eyeball of the international community might help give Enda & co a kick up the backside to sort things out rather than just kicking this once again into the long grass...

Edited to add:

I'll stick this in the OP as well, but Saturday's rally has now been called here - Saturday, 4PM, Grosvenor Place, outside the Irish Embassy.

Fysh

The organiser of the protests is asking for any Irish women who would be willing to speak at Saturday's protest - if you're interested, contact her at feministlondon(a)gmail.com. This would greatly help ensure that the protest is understood as a specific Irish issue and help people understand just how backwards Irish reproductive rights legislation is compared to most of Europe.

Also, crossposting part of a comment I posted elsewhere:

In the outcome of ABC Vs Ireland, the European Court of Human Rights found that the lack of Irish legislation to formalise the terms under which abortion is accessible on medical grounds was a violation of the European Convention of Human Rights. This means that those of us who cannot contact Irish ministers directly about the issue (for want of an Irish postal address for return correspondence etc) can and should contact our MEPs about this issue and ask them to put pressure on the Irish government to address the issue.

When contacting your MEP, you may want to point out that the Irish government has shown a remarkable willingness to rush through legislation on short notice where it perceives that this is necessary to address issues of compliance with European law: for instance, TD Sean Sherlock proposed in January 2012 that legislation was required to resolve a perceived loophole resulting from a 2010 court case. This legislation was signed into law on the 29th of February.

For those of us in London, I think the best MEPs to target are the following:
Charles Tannock CON (Human Rights committee member, foreign affairs committee member)
Claude Moraes LAB (Civil Liberties committee member)
Baroness Sarah Ludford LIBDEM (Human Rights committee substitute)
Mary Honeyball LAB (Women's Rights and Gender Equality committee member)
Marina Yannakoudakis CON (Women's Rights and Gender Equality committee member)

You can find your MEPs and their contact details at http://www.europarl.org.uk/view/en/your_MEPs.html, or you can use http://www.writetothem.com/ to find them based on your postcode and email them through the website.

exiledelbows

While completely agreeing with taking further action on this, there is no point in contacting MEPs regarding the ECHR. It and its court or an instrument of the Council of Europe, not the EU or European Parliament. Therefore you're wasting your time contacting British MEPs on this issue. Surely TDs accept an email address or perhaps use a relative's address?

Fysh

exiledelbows wrote: »

While completely agreeing with taking further action on this, there is no point in contacting MEPs regarding the ECHR. It and its court or an instrument of the Council of Europe, not the EU or European Parliament. Therefore you're wasting your time contacting British MEPs on this issue. Surely TDs accept an email address or perhaps use a relative's address?

To be fair, I listed two MEPs who are specifically on a Human Rights committee and two who are on a Women's Rights committee - both of these roles have clear overlap with the issues at hand, and since they relate to a fellow member state I think it's legitimate to contact them. We're residents in the UK represented by these individuals, we're entitled to request representation about this.

They may not want to do anything about it, but it is most definitely the remit of at least those MEPs on the Human Rights and Women's Rights committees, because we're talking about an EU member state's failure to legislate in a way that negatively affects its citizens.

Playboy

ballsymchugh wrote: »

what was the crowd like?

it's a tragic case indeed, but it's all down to the doctor that she had. miscarriages are induced quite often in ireland where necessary, and it is still one of the safest country in the world for a woman to have a baby.
there was a gynaecologist from ballinasloe on newstalk this evening saying all this, and with over 2000 births a year, the last maternal death in portiuncula was 27 years ago.

this whole case stinks of one guy wanting his way, like what was going on in drogheda hospital in the 70's. he wouldn't have been prosecuted if he had completed the miscarriage, as the X case ruling would've been on his side as i see it.

while there does need to be legislation, it's the doctor here that's at fault. the medical council guidelines are there and they weren't followed.
depending on what the hospital's side of the story is, he'll be very likely hung out to dry.

there was a case a while ago where a doctor in a private hospital refused to do IVF treatment for an unmarried couple because of his religion, but he did refer them on to someone who could help them. if this guy didn't want to treat because of his religion, then he should've called someone else.

Cheers for that... sounds like its more complex than first appears. Like you I really hope that doctor gets hung out to dry if its found that he contravened particular guidelines because of his religious views. But as Fysh said there shouldn't be any ambiguity in regards to an issue such as this in the first place. Lets hope the international condemnation will spur Time's man of the year Enda Kenny into some kind of action

who the fug

Playboy wrote: »

Cheers for that... sounds like its more complex than first appears. Like you I really hope that doctor gets hung out to dry if its found that he contravened particular guidelines because of his religious views.

as an atheist I hope the law is changed so that the he/she does not get forced by law to go against their religion

Tolerance works both way

Jack B. Badd

who the fug wrote: »

as an atheist I hope the law is changed so that the he/she does not get forced by law to go against their religion

Tolerance works both way

How would you propose it be changed?

who the fug

Jack B. Badd wrote: »

How would you propose it be changed?

I don't know, but if what we have heard is true then the mother and fathers request must be accepted, if the doctor because of his/her religion has objections they must not be forced to carry out the procedure

yes I want my cake and eat it

Fysh

who the fug wrote: »

as an atheist I hope the law is changed so that the he/she does not get forced by law to go against their religion

Tolerance works both way

I'm confused as to what you mean.

If someone opts into a role where they agree to a duty of care for their fellow humans, and find themselves in a position whereby that obligation requires them to take certain steps which they find to be incompatible with their beliefs (be they religious in nature or otherwise - I find it tedious that folks of particular religions seem to think they're the only ones who face moral dilemnas), then there's a very simple solution, as ballsymchugh has posted above - they step aside, and hand over the situation to a colleague who can act in their stead.

If they refuse to hand over to a colleague and instead insist on not taking the steps required by their duty of care, then they are undertaking a dereliction of duty and should be at the receiving end of a malpractice suit.

I'm not sure why you see this as a big problem - would you mind clarifying this? There's a big difference between "step aside if you feel unable to perform the following actions" and "the new law will force doctors to perform terminations regardless of their personal views on the procedure".

who the fug

Fysh wrote: »

I'm confused as to what you mean.

If someone opts into a role where they agree to a duty of care for their fellow humans, and find themselves in a position whereby that obligation requires them to take certain steps which they find to be incompatible with their beliefs (be they religious in nature or otherwise - I find it tedious that folks of particular religions seem to think they're the only ones who face moral dilemnas), then there's a very simple solution, as ballsymchugh has posted above - they step aside, and hand over the situation to a colleague who can act in their stead.

If they refuse to hand over to a colleague and instead insist on not taking the steps required by their duty of care, then they are undertaking a dereliction of duty and should be at the receiving end of a malpractice suit.

I'm not sure why you see this as a big problem - would you mind clarifying this? There's a big difference between "step aside if you feel unable to perform the following actions" and "the new law will force doctors to perform terminations regardless of their personal views on the procedure".

What I don't want is the reality of an underfunded health service forcing people to go against their beliefs, (ie do you want your contract renewed) as they have no one to hand over to.

As I said I want my cake and eat it.

This whole situation is a mess, if I had seen you post re the protest yesterday I would have gone down, but may have ended thumping a socalist worker or a pro lifer

Fysh

who the fug wrote: »

What I don't want is the reality of an underfunded health service forcing people to go against their beliefs, (ie do you want your contract renewed) as they have no one to hand over to.

As I said I want my cake and eat it.

This whole situation is a mess, if I had seen you post re the protest yesterday I would have gone down, but may have ended thumping a socalist worker or a pro lifer

Nobody has ever been entitled to an easy choice in these matters, but if faced with the choice between being told to do something I consider to be grossly against my personal ethics or effectively losing my job, I would likely spend some time looking into alternative employment options.

Then again, anyone who didn't think that they were going to face some gut-wrenchingly difficult questions and challenges working in medicine hasn't thought about the job properly.

ballsymchugh

who the fug wrote: »

What I don't want is the reality of an underfunded health service forcing people to go against their beliefs, (ie do you want your contract renewed) as they have no one to hand over to.

As I said I want my cake and eat it.

This whole situation is a mess, if I had seen you post re the protest yesterday I would have gone down, but may have ended thumping a socalist worker or a pro lifer

what about those cases where medics take parents of a jehovah's witness kid to court to force blood transfusions?

Galwayguy35

Some of the headlines on the English papers yesterday left a bit to be desired such as "Irelands Shame".

It seems too much like telling another country what they should be doing, this tragic case is an internal one for the Irish people to sort out for ourselves.

ballsymchugh

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Some of the headlines on the English papers yesterday left a bit to be desired such as "Irelands Shame".

It seems too much like telling another country what they should be doing, this tragic case is an internal one for the Irish people to sort out for ourselves.

it's as if they have a perfectly utopian society over here too. if we want to be right pricks, we can just say something like "well it was the laws yis gave us that put us in this mess in the first place!" just don't mention it was in the 19th century...

Fysh

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Some of the headlines on the English papers yesterday left a bit to be desired such as "Irelands Shame".

It seems too much like telling another country what they should be doing, this tragic case is an internal one for the Irish people to sort out for ourselves.

I disagree. Given that the Irish solution to this particular Irish problem has been for the government to bury its head in the sand and hope that any woman seeking an abortion would just pop over to the UK and get one (thereby offloading the problem onto Britain) I think they have every right to call us out on this.

Im getting sick of seeing people say that "we shouldn't be pressured into doing something just because of one woman's death", when no irish government in 20 years has shown the backbone to actually legislate for the X case ruling.

ballsymchugh

Fysh wrote: »

I disagree. Given that the Irish solution to this particular Irish problem has been for the government to bury its head in the sand and hope that any woman seeking an abortion would just pop over to the UK and get one (thereby offloading the problem onto Britain) I think they have every right to call us out on this.

Im getting sick of seeing people say that "we shouldn't be pressured into doing something just because of one woman's death", when no irish government in 20 years has shown the backbone to actually legislate for the X case ruling.

the shame is failure to legislate.
but this is still the wrong case to highlight the issue. every medic that i've spoken to about it agrees, and there's a good thread in health science about the case. it's extremely emotive alright, but it doesn't seem to be such a grey area case as most people are making it out to be. it's the mentioning of Catholic Ireland that has people up in arms, which drags it down.