Woman dies after termination denied

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.

snubbleste

The midwife manager on St Monica's Ward at Galway University Hospital has confirmed that she told Savita Halappanavar that a termination could not be carried out because Ireland was a "Catholic country".
She said that with hindsight it "sounded bad" and the remark was something she regretted. http://www.rte.ie/news/health/2013/0410/380613-savita-halappanavar-inquest/

This ties in with Praveen's diary account on 23 October

Colours

antoobrien wrote: »

Nope, ascertaining why she died is the point of a coroners inquest, so that lessons can be learned to prevent it again.

Nothing I said contradicts this or implies otherwise. These facts being discussed are coming out due to the inquest.

I just don't understand why there is so much focus on that remark about it being a Catholic country, apart from it being a silly thing to say - and the person who said it admitted to it during today's proceedings. What's more crucial is the fact that the consultant turned down Savita's request for an abortion at least once on the basis that there was still a heartbeat detected in the foetus despite, it appears, not ascertaining to any proper degree that there was indeed no real and substantial risk to the mother's life, in so far as checking for raised white blood cells and raised temperature and monitoring closely for any subsequent changes thereof. If they had checked these signs then they would have determined that there was a real risk to the mother and they would have consented to her request.

Whatever about it being a silly and inappropriate remark to make at the time, it happens to be true that the law that prevented the doctor from performing an abortion once it was confirmed that the foetus was non-viable are in place due to the Catholic belief system which informed its law makers at the time.

Mrs OBumble

Colours wrote: »

it happens to be true that the law that prevented the doctor from performing an abortion once it was confirmed that the foetus was non-viable are in place due to the Catholic belief system which informed its law makers at the time.

So if these laws are in place, then how come this guy says he has performed abortions in similar circumstances four times in the last year, and hasn't been arrested for it?

john.han

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

So if these laws are in place, then how come this guy says he has performed abortions in similar circumstances four times in the last year, and hasn't been arrested for it?

Maybe read the headline in the article you linked, it was because the doctor recognised a risk to the life of the mother. In Savita's case there was a failure to recognise the risk early enough.

Colours

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

So if these laws are in place, then how come this guy says he has performed abortions in similar circumstances four times in the last year, and hasn't been arrested for it?

My view would be that the person you're referring to in your link - the master of the Rotunda Maternity Hospital - carried out these abortions because he believed there was a risk of life to the mother because they were showing signs of sepsis. I would imagine that this kind of scenario arises not too infrequently whereby doctors - while taking into consideration the law - act according to their own medical training and judgement. I have also wondered would there have been any major inquiry or controversy if the doctor who treated Savita had gone ahead and carried out the abortion by justifying if challenged afterwards that it was her opinion that Savita was at risk of developing life threatening sepsis otherwise.

antoobrien

Colours wrote: »

Nothing I said contradicts this or implies otherwise. These facts being discussed are coming out due to the inquest.

I just don't understand why there is so much focus on that remark about it being a Catholic country,

Finding out who said it has a great deal of importance because if anyone but doctor said it (we now know it was a midwife), the comment is merely insensitive.

If it was a doctor it opens the door for medical malpractice as it could be argued that the ethos is overriding the medical status of the patient.

With that in mind, ignoring the issue of who made the comment is prejudicial to the outcome of the inquest.

john.han

antoobrien wrote: »

Finding out who said it has a great deal of importance because if anyone but doctor said it (we now know it was a midwife), the comment is merely insensitive.

If it was a doctor it opens the door for medical malpractice as it could be argued that the ethos is overriding the medical status of the patient.

With that in mind, ignoring the issue of who made the comment is prejudicial to the outcome of the inquest.

That's not true, the patient is under the care of a consultant and ultimately the consultant and the hospital are responsible for the care of that patient and that includes vicarious responsibility for the actions/omissions of other staff members. The door is still open for medical malpractice considering the abysmal standard of care (even without any reference to a catholic country).

antoobrien

john.han wrote: »

That's not true, the patient is under the care of a consultant and ultimately the consultant and the hospital are responsible for the care of that patient and that includes vicarious responsibility for the actions/omissions of other staff members. The door is still open for medical malpractice considering the abysmal standard of care (even without any reference to a catholic country).

Doctors are ultimately the ones that make the decisions, what the midwife and nursing staff say to the doctor. have a bearing on care, but it is up to the doctor(s) to make the final decision

If it was the doctor that made the comment (as was being implied in early media reporting) it would be so much worse.

Mrs OBumble

john.han wrote: »

Maybe read the headline in the article you linked, it was because the doctor recognised a risk to the life of the mother. In Savita's case there was a failure to recognise the risk early enough.

Absolutely - but I quoted it because Colours said (bolding mine):

"it happens to be true that the law that prevented the doctor from performing an abortion once it was confirmed that the foetus was non-viable are in place"


Personally I'm sick of Catholic belief being blamed for this by people who clearly have only a passing acquaintence with actual Catholic theology.

It's a bit like "health and safety" - it's so much easier to say "Iit's a catholic thing" and to say "it's my interpretation of Irish law".

Wouldn't surprise me in the least if the doctors had been looking for a test case, and Savita, being foreign, was a handy candidate. I've heard a LOT of negative things about how pregnant foreign women have been treated here.

serfboard

Praveen and his legal team have said that the inquest was the last chance to get at the truth, and we are getting to hear details of the treatment in open court.

He also said that it was the doctor that had made the Catholic country remark. I never believed that.

I think that the doctor may have explained the legal position in Ireland - "I cannot perform an abortion because the foetus still has a heartbeat and there is no threat to the life of the mother even though the foetus will not survive to term" or words to that effect. AFAIR Savita was (naturally) upset and confused as to why this should be the case, and by way of explaining why, the midwife said it was because Ireland is a catholic country - which is exactly correct. Were it not, we would not have had the abortion referendum in the first place.

IMO, the consultant was negligent in her practice. A white blood cell count above the norms and she says she wasn't told about it? I don't believe that. If the consultant was not told about her bloods, wouldn't you think she would ask? If she didn't ask, then she was negligent, IMO.

deliege

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Wouldn't surprise me in the least if the doctors had been looking for a test case, and Savita, being foreign, was a handy candidate. I've heard a LOT of negative things about how pregnant foreign women have been treated here.

Sorry, just my two cents, but here I have a hard time to read that without reacting...

I happen to be foreign (european, but still non-irish), and have spend quite some time in the hospital / maternity ward when pregnant and after (had to go back there months later after the delivery, could have been very bad and some people tell me the hospital staff is responsible, I myself believe it's more bad luck and circumstances, anyway it's a long story): 1) I have NEVER been seen an "irish" doctor while there, or even caucasian one (except for the anesthetist, not from here either though) 2) have never seen the consultant named on my file either (but his name doesn't definitely sound irish) 3) overall, I feel I've been well treated (especially by the irish midwives), though communication with the foreign doctors was sometimes tough...

... I totally understand you're being sick of the catholic belief being blamed for all kind of things... But I myself am a bit sick to see "suspicion of racism" as explanations for anything everywhere (worse on the continent than here, but still)

Redhairedguy

Guys. Can we please just discuss the facts that are available. Speculations on this case are not welcome.

Implying that doctors may or may not have knowingly allowed Savita to die, is very near the knuckle.

Less of that, or it'll be the splintery side of the wooden spoon for the lot of ye divils.