Woman dies after termination denied

Galwayguy35

inisboffin wrote: »

It's not going to happen overnight, but I don't see it taking 30 years tbh.

So would you want it to be like in Britain where someone would have an abortion at 24 weeks on non medical grounds?

I wouldn't.

Unrealistic

inisboffin wrote: »

It's not going to happen overnight, but I don't see it taking 30 years tbh.

Based on our track record so far I wouldn't be so confident. If it takes 20+ years just to take the tiny step of moving from a right defined by the Supreme Court in the X-case to legislating for that right then it will take a seismic shift to push us along the giant step to abortion on demand in a shorter time frame.

I'm old enough to remember the 1983 referendum and how divisive it was. The anti-choice side is very well resourced and organised (funded and trained by radical US anti-abortion groups) and very effective at what they do. In a question like this they don't need to convince voters that they are right. They just need to plant a seed of doubt in peoples minds that the other side are wrong. When they roll out the real life examples of a mother and child happy together where the mother had been considering or was advised an abortion but didn't have one; or the prospective mother who have had their mental health ruined from a feeling of guilt after having an abortion; then the subtext will be "if you vote yes you will be killing the first mother's child" or "if you vote no you could save the second mother's child". It will be painted as blood on your hands as a voter in such a way that it will be hard for many to ignore. Even on something as relatively non-contentious as the suicide provision the anti-choice side came within 0.4% of winning the vote as recently as 10 years ago.

As a side note, I noticed Declan Ganley (who would be one of the main movers on the anti-choice side) tweeting last night about the potential for a referendum in the UK on staying in the EU. An opinion poll showed that 56% wanted out and 31% wanted to stay in with only 13% undecided. He stated his opinion that even starting from an uphill struggle like this it would be possible for the pro-EU side to win. That's is these people's speciality. Wait for a substantial referendum and then throw all their weight behind promoting the most outlandish interpretation as long as it suits their aims. 3-4 months ago the Children's Referendum was viewed a distraction put together by the government to make it look like they are doing something to take attention away from their failures on the economic front. And at the same time there was an assumption that it would be uncontentious and pass almost unanimously; "sure who would vote against rights for children?". Then the no side, who are pretty much the same people on the no side on the abortion question, got stuck in. Cue lots of emotive arguments, a minority with some validity but mostly deceptive and self-serving. And the result is large numbers of people staying away from the polls because the waters have been muddied so much that they find it impossible to make an informed decision on how to vote. And the end result is a 42% vote against a referendum that had been expected to just fly through. If they can achieve that based on throwing out some distorted horror stories about children being taken into care then what do you think they could achieve if they are talking about 'babies being killed'?

Mrs OBumble

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

So would you want it to be like in Britain where someone would have an abortion at 24 weeks on non medical grounds?

I wouldn't.

If an Irish woman now wants an abortion that late on non-medical grounds, she simply goes to England. That's a whole different issue.

What this discussion is about is making it legal for doctors to act when they need to - apparently they cannot do so at the moment.

What people keep forgetting is that the law does not force women to have abortions - and it does not stop them from doing so either.

Personally, I don't think we should have any laws in the area, except for one requiring consultants to allow a woman to seek a second opinion if she wants one.

inisboffin

Unrealistic wrote: »

I'm old enough to remember the 1983 referendum and how divisive it was. The anti-choice side is very well resourced and organised (funded and trained by radical US anti-abortion groups) and very effective at what they do. In a question like this they don't need to convince voters that they are right. They just need to plant a seed of doubt in peoples minds that the other side are wrong. When they roll out the real life examples of a mother and child happy together where the mother had been considering or was advised an abortion but didn't have one; or the prospective mother who have had their mental health ruined from a feeling of guilt after having an abortion; then the subtext will be "if you vote yes you will be killing the first mother's child" or "if you vote no you could save the second mother's child". It will be painted as blood on your hands as a voter in such a way that it will be hard for many to ignore. Even on something as relatively non-contentious as the suicide provision the anti-choice side came within 0.4% of winning the vote as recently as 10 years ago.

I absolutely hear your point about how divisive the last referendum was. But I feel there has been a shift, particularly in the over 40's (and those who are now the over 40's). A lot of water has passed under the bridge in terms of church/state and the relationship between the two in the minds of the people. Just from conversations between generations witnessed now, I think there is a change.
TBH I don't think the comparison with the Children's Referendum (and how the 'Dana' camp etc decided to vote) is a simple one. In fact, I know of quite a few people who were undecided, possibly leaning to a no in fact, that absolutely voted yes, JUST because it was the opposite to the Dana camp. Most of the people I have in mind would be pro-choice by the way, which is interesting.
It's a little Monty Python and disturbing to me tbh, that people would vote a certain way, JUST to vote the opposite of a 'celeb', rather than doing research on facts as much as possible. Remember too the complications of the last referendum where extreme anti choicers AND pro choice all disagreed with the same wording, but for different reasons.
I think one more difference this time, emotional involvement of the people aside, is international interest, web/media coverage of same, and the 'judgement of our neighbours factor'.

This thread is about legislation to prevent a repeat of a tragedy. There is a scale from anti to pro choice of people, and, regardless of their personal views, I hope that many on there would not want this tragedy repeated.

Galwayguy35

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

If an Irish woman now wants an abortion that late on non-medical grounds, she simply goes to England. That's a whole different issue.

What this discussion is about is making it legal for doctors to act when they need to - apparently they cannot do so at the moment.

What people keep forgetting is that the law does not force women to have abortions - and it does not stop them from doing so either.

Personally, I don't think we should have any laws in the area, except for one requiring consultants to allow a woman to seek a second opinion if she wants one.

I'm well aware of all that, I was replying to someone who said that in their opinion abortion on demand would be here in less than 30 years.

Little My

How did the vigil go last night? Only a small mention of it on the Irish Times and a pic. A fairly good turn out?



http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/1117/breaking26.html
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/1117/breaking4.html

inisboffin

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I'm well aware of all that, I was replying to someone who said that in their opinion abortion on demand would be here in less than 30 years.

What I said is that I disagreed with the statement that it 'hasn't a hope' of happening in Ireland in the next 30 years. We cannot be that absolute about something so divisive.

inisboffin

Little My wrote: »

How did the vigil go last night? Only a small mention of it on the Irish Times and a pic. A fairly good turn out?



http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/1117/breaking26.html
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/1117/breaking4.html

It was a beautiful vigil. Great turnout, the crowd came and went and others came, so difficult to gauge numbers. There was coverage on RTE and I saw pictures on a good few sites.

_Whimsical_

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

If an Irish woman now wants an abortion that late on non-medical grounds, she simply goes to England. That's a whole different issue.

What this discussion is about is making it legal for doctors to act when they need to - apparently they cannot do so at the moment.

What people keep forgetting is that the law does not force women to have abortions - and it does not stop them from doing so either.

Personally, I don't think we should have any laws in the area, except for one requiring consultants to allow a woman to seek a second opinion if she wants one.

The thing is Drs can and do act in these situations at present. The medical council guidelines to drs call for action to be taken if a mothers life is in danger. It was in the papers yesterday that terminations have occurred in UCHG in similar circumstances in the past. However in this specific case the medical people I've spoken to have agreed they'd consider this surgically handling a miscarriage rather than a termination strictly speaking. Why it wasn't done here is hard to understand but it wasn't a legal issue as such as far as I can glean, unless it is that the dr took it upon him/herself to interpret the law and was unsure of their footing seeing as there's no exact legislation.Why that would be the case when are guidelines and a precedent already in place in the hospital is odd.

I whole heartedly agree with you that a second opinion should be very patient's right, not only pregnant women. Hopefully among the many things to come out of this case will be that Drs start listening to their patients and their level of suffering and will be more alert to developing illness etc.

Seaneh

shampoosuicide wrote: »

whatever about medical management, surely the point is that the woman asked for an abortion and was refused, which is clearly to do with abortion laws

If it was about somehting as simple as abortion on demand, she still would have been refused in most countries where abortion is legal.

Most countries only allow abortion up to 12 weeks, 9 weeks in some countries, she was 17 weeks pregnant.

Nobody knows the facts of what happened, blaming the medical team is pointless without knowledge of the case is I'd call it boarderline baseless defamation. In the thread in AH I've seen posts from people claiming it is "obvious neglect" or "negligence" both of which, if true would leave the consultant open to both civil and criminal charges, but if untrue, could leave the posters and possibly even boards.ie open to libel charges by the medical team involved.


I am absolutely stunned boards.ie have not stepped in and told people to stop throwing around blame with any evidence.

_Whimsical_

Seaneh wrote: »

If it was about somehting as simple as abortion on demand, she still would have been refused in most countries where abortion is legal.

Most countries only allow abortion up to 12 weeks, 9 weeks in some countries, she was 17 weeks pregnant.

Nobody knows the facts of what happened, blaming the medical team is pointless without knowledge of the case is I'd call it boarderline baseless defamation. In the thread in AH I've seen posts from people claiming it is "obvious neglect" or "negligence" both of which, if true would leave the consultant open to both civil and criminal charges, but if untrue, could leave the posters and possibly even boards.ie open to libel charges by the medical team involved.


I am absolutely stunned boards.ie have not stepped in and told people to stop throwing around blame with any evidence.

Unless there are names involved or heavy insinuation as to the identity of the Drs involved there wouldn't be any defamation case worries.

Infairness though none of us know what happened exactly so we will all have to await the facts. The outcome may have been so unforseeable that it was a case of terribly bad luck on everyone's part. Really such a tragedy deserves a respectful and considered response and anyone talking in absolutes right now without the fact isn't giving it that.

Seaneh

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

Infairness though none of us know what happened exactly so we will all have to await the facts. The outcome may have been so unforseeable that it was a case of terribly bad luck on everyone's part. Really such a tragedy deserves a respectful and considered response and anyone talking in absolutes right now without the fact isn't giving it that.

100% agreement.

shampoosuicide

Seaneh wrote: »

If it was about somehting as simple as abortion on demand, she still would have been refused in most countries where abortion is legal.

Most countries only allow abortion up to 12 weeks, 9 weeks in some countries, she was 17 weeks pregnant.

Nobody knows the facts of what happened, blaming the medical team is pointless without knowledge of the case is I'd call it boarderline baseless defamation. In the thread in AH I've seen posts from people claiming it is "obvious neglect" or "negligence" both of which, if true would leave the consultant open to both civil and criminal charges, but if untrue, could leave the posters and possibly even boards.ie open to libel charges by the medical team involved.


I am absolutely stunned boards.ie have not stepped in and told people to stop throwing around blame with any evidence.

she still would have been refused despite the foetus being all-but-dead, and despite being in intense pain? not a rhetorical question, but i'd be shocked if that's true.

Seaneh

shampoosuicide wrote: »

she still would have been refused despite the foetus being all-but-dead, and despite being in intense pain? not a rhetorical question, but i'd be shocked if that's true.

The person I quoted stated:

surely the point is that the woman asked for an abortion and was refused

That is what I replied to.

If you simplify to that level, she would have been refused in my developed nations.

As for the rest of my post.
It is all perfectly valid.

Nobody knows the facts of the case outside of those on the medical team.
Nobody can make any call about that was or wasn't done and why.
Doing so would be the actual definition of ignorance.

ig·no·rance   [ig-ner-uhns]
noun
the state or fact of being ignorant; lack of knowledge, learning, information, etc.

Brennans Row

Seaneh wrote: »

Nobody knows the facts of the case outside of those on the medical team.
Nobody can make any call about that was or wasn't done and why.
Doing so would be the actual definition of ignorance.

Ignorance

There is a whiff of arrogance in what you posted there.

I would take Mr. Halappanavar’s account of what happened to be genuine, as written in the Irish Times article from last Wednesday.

Both Ms. and Mr. Halappanavar were / are qualified professionals working in a medical environment too.

The HSE has not denied Mr. Halappanavar’s account of the events either.

Of course we will all have to wait for the reports to be published in the distant future, but I’m sure our outrage will be stone cold by then.

Woman 'denied a termination' dies in hospital

KITTY HOLLAND and PAUL CULLEN, Health Correspondent Wed, Nov 14, 2012

Two investigations are under way into the death of a woman who was 17 weeks pregnant, at University Hospital Galway last month.

Savita Halappanavar (31), a dentist, presented with back pain at the hospital on October 21st, was found to be miscarrying, and died of septicaemia a week later.
Her husband, Praveen Halappanavar (34), an engineer at Boston Scientific in Galway, says she asked several times over a three-day period that the pregnancy be terminated. He says that, having been told she was miscarrying, and after one day in severe pain, Ms Halappanavar asked for a medical termination.

This was refused, he says, because the foetal heartbeat was still present and they were told, “this is a Catholic country”.

She spent a further 2½ days “in agony” until the foetal heartbeat stopped.

Intensive care

The dead foetus was removed and Savita was taken to the high dependency unit and then the intensive care unit, where she died of septicaemia on the 28th.

An autopsy carried out by Dr Grace Callagy two days later found she died of septicaemia “documented ante-mortem” and E.coli ESBL.

A hospital spokesman confirmed the Health Service Executive had begun an investigation while the hospital had also instigated an internal investigation. He said the hospital extended its sympathy to the family and friends of Ms Halappanavar but could not discuss the details of any individual case.

Speaking from Belgaum in the Karnataka region of southwest India, Mr Halappanavar said an internal examination was performed when she first presented.

“The doctor told us the cervix was fully dilated, amniotic fluid was leaking and unfortunately the baby wouldn’t survive.” The doctor, he says, said it should be over in a few hours. There followed three days, he says, of the foetal heartbeat being checked several times a day.

“Savita was really in agony. She was very upset, but she accepted she was losing the baby. When the consultant came on the ward rounds on Monday morning Savita asked if they could not save the baby could they induce to end the pregnancy. The consultant said, ‘As long as there is a foetal heartbeat we can’t do anything’.

“Again on Tuesday morning, the ward rounds and the same discussion. The consultant said it was the law, that this is a Catholic country. Savita [a Hindu] said: ‘I am neither Irish nor Catholic’ but they said there was nothing they could do.

“That evening she developed shakes and shivering and she was vomiting. She went to use the toilet and she collapsed. There were big alarms and a doctor took bloods and started her on antibiotics.

“The next morning I said she was so sick and asked again that they just end it, but they said they couldn’t.”

Critically ill

At lunchtime the foetal heart had stopped and Ms Halappanavar was brought to theatre to have the womb contents removed. “When she came out she was talking okay but she was very sick. That’s the last time I spoke to her.”

At 11 pm he got a call from the hospital. “They said they were shifting her to intensive care. Her heart and pulse were low, her temperature was high. She was sedated and critical but stable. She stayed stable on Friday but by 7pm on Saturday they said her heart, kidneys and liver weren’t functioning. She was critically ill. That night, we lost her.”

Mr Halappanavar took his wife’s body home on Thursday, November 1st, where she was cremated and laid to rest on November 3rd.

The hospital spokesman said that in general sudden hospital deaths were reported to the coroner. In the case of maternal deaths, a risk review of the case was carried out.

External experts were involved in this review and the family consulted on the terms of reference. They were also interviewed by the review team and given a copy of the report.

© 2012 The Irish Times

Seaneh

Brennans Row wrote: »

Ignorance

There is a whiff of arrogance in what you posted there.

Yes, Ignorance, that is exactly what appointing blame and making brash statements on the case are without knowing any of the facts.

I never claimed Mr. Halappanavar lied, I feel extremely sorry for him and I wouldn't wish the death of a wife or unborn child on anyone, I couldn't even begin to imagine how much pain he is in.

However, even from his extremely limited account, it is impossible to make any judgement as there are very facts available to the public.


There is no arrogance in my post, I just don't see how it's acceptable to have this quasi-witchhunt going on with no facts available.

Brennans Row

Seaneh wrote: »

There is no arrogance in my post

I'll make myself clearer, as I did not find it acceptable to read where you infer in simple English, that . . .

Nobody knows (including Mr Halappanavar?) the facts of the case outside of those on the medical team.
Nobody can make (including Mr Halappanavar?) any call about that was or wasn't done and why.
Doing so would be the actual definition of ignorance (including Mr Halappanavar?).

The Irish Times use of two journalists (health correspondents) to write that article is an indication of their professionalism that merits the seriousness of this case.

Mr Halappanavar has every right to make public as to what he experienced irrespective if the HSE and the doctors involved refrain from commenting at this time.

That's their choice, that's their predicament and there is no denial from them either.

Sponge Bob

Seaneh. I think this was a miscarriage which needed to be determined quickly. The miscarriage process was allowed to continue for far too long and an infection set in. It was untreatable by the time the miscarriage proceess ended, and Savita died.

By the way the massive board of enquiry appointed today , 5 or 7 of them, has no legal status and speculation and commentary may continue here as always.

I actually agree with you that most civilised countries (not the UK) have considered limits on when abortion, as such, is available on demand.

Abortion is not permitted in many countries beyond 16 weeks and the UK has an obscenely long 'time window' set in the 1960's when medical science had a dramatically different view of survivability in case of being born prematurely. However that is, strictly speaking, a problem for the UK, not for us.

But I don't think Savita asked for an abortion, she asked for help in finishing a miscarriage that was evidently in train.

She did not get that help from UCHG in Galway.

Raging_Ninja

Was the miscarriage caused by septicemia?

Could a termination have made the situation worse?

Redhairedguy

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

Was the miscarriage caused by septicemia?

Could a termination have made the situation worse?

No. Mrs. Halappanavar was admitted to UCHG already miscarrying; the septicemia happened a few days after she was admitted.

Your second question is still a subject of massive debate amongst many professionals, but the general consensus from a few doctors and nurses, whom I have spoken to, is that the termination might have given Savita a better chance of survival.

Obviously, I speak with no authority and am only recounting what I have read in papers, and discussed with friends and family.

Raging_Ninja

Redhairedguy wrote: »

Your second question is still a subject of massive debate amongst many professionals, but the general consensus from a few doctors and nurses, whom I have spoken to, is that the termination might have given Savita a better chance of survival.

Obviously, I speak with no authority and am only recounting what I have read in papers, and discussed with friends and family.

How does a termination improve odds of survival from septicemia?

Redhairedguy

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

How does a termination improve odds of survival from septicemia?

In so much, that it may not have occurred to the same fatal extent, if at all.

deliege

Just my two cents here... I'm not a health professional, but when I hear people complain that the galway hospital doctors didn't allow her to have the pregnancy terminated, knowing it was a miscarriage etc, I can't help thinking about a couple of friends in France to whom the same kind of thing happened a while ago: the lady wanted it finished as soon as possible, of course, poor her, but they were advised against a termination procedure and to "let nature finish it its way", because apparently (at least that's the reason they were told) it would be better regarding any future pregnancy. So she spent 5 days in the hospital, under lots of painkillers & close monitoring because of infection risks, until it was over... Just to say that this is not "only in Ireland" that such procedures are observed, apparently.

Mrs OBumble

Brennans Row wrote: »

The Irish Times use of two journalists (health correspondents) to write that article is an indication of their professionalism that merits the seriousness of this case.

Your faith in the media is touching, if misplaced.

I haven't done the analysis myself, but this guy has - and he's found discrepancies in the timelines presented by different pieces from the Irish Times.

I didn't work in health-administration for long. But it was long enough to develop a very health attitude towards the amounts of a story that are often not published by the media.

inisboffin

From the Irish Examiner:

"In 2010, the European Court of Human Rights found that the Irish State had breached a cancer patient’s human rights by failing to have a legislative, or regulatory, framework in place outlining her right to a life-saving abortion."

Fact is, since that ruling, nothing has changed legally or with medical guidelines.
Many medics and non medics alike are calling for clarity, and are stating that currently it *isn't* clear. The details of Savitas case are still to be 'officially' brought to light, but the sad fact is that this isn't the only case. Regardless of people's opinions of choice no choice or terms of abortion or aided termination, the ruling of the EC court has not been acted upon.

snubbleste

DailyMail has Galway resident Praveen's diary account from her first scan to her tragic death
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

yaledo

From the Daily Mail article linked by snubbleste above:

MONDAY, OCTOBER 22:
...Savita [asks] for a termination. The consultant's response shocks me. 'It's a Catholic country,' she says. 'We won't be able to terminate if the baby is still alive.'

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 23:
[After saying she would check with the consultant, the midwife] later reports back, saying: 'We can't do anything, it's a Catholic thing'

Up to now I have heard him say they were told "it's a Catholic country", but this is the first time I've heard him attribute this quote to a specified individual: the [female] consultant.

snubbleste

The inquest has resumed today at Galway courthouse. A jury has been installed.
There is a huge media presence there this morning

Colours

I don't understand why there is such preoccupation in finding out who the person was who made the catholic country remark when the hospital clearly confirmed that they denied Savita Halappanavar's request for an abortion after she had requested after it had been medically confirmed by them that she was miscarrying and the baby would not survive. This is central in ascertaining the events whose course lead to this tragedy, as far as I can see.

antoobrien

Colours wrote: »

I don't understand why there is such preoccupation in finding out who the person was who made the catholic country remark

Regardless of who made the comment (iirc initially it was reported to be a doctor) it has to be found out if it was medical staff that said it.

Colours wrote: »

when the hospital clearly confirmed that they denied Savita Halappanavar's request for an abortion after she had requested after it had been medically confirmed by them that she was miscarrying and the baby would not survive.

Under Irish law this is irrelevant. For a medical abortion the mother's life (not her health) must be in danger.

Colours wrote: »

This is central in ascertaining the events whose course lead to this tragedy, as far as I can see.

Nope, ascertaining why she died is the point of a coroners inquest, so that lessons can be learned to prevent it again. It's fairly clear now that the medical staff were in eror when saying that her life was not in danger, the coroner's job is to find out if she could have been saved at all.