Woman dies after termination denied

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.