Death of Savita Halappanavar and the abortion issue

yore

Macha wrote: »

Sorry, I don't see the relevance of that story. Keep on twisting though.

What, you don't see that it can happen that there can be a misdiagnosis of a miscarraige? Which might lead to a situation where a perfectly normal foetus is aborted by mistake...which might lead to doctors erring on the side of caution and wanting to wait for the heartbeat to stop?

How about: "sorry, it looked like you might have miscarried so lets get in there in the next five minutes and rip that foetus out of there"



Neither do you see the relevance that there was no legal impediment in that case yet eejits are claiming there is now.

Keep on trolling and twisting yourself

Godge

Stheno wrote: »

SHe went into the hospital on a Sunday initially, was discharged, came back, the foetus was removed on the following Wed. and she died the following Sat.

so if the termination had happened on Monday, intravenous antibiotics had been administered, she may have been discharged home by the following Saturday instead of being sent to the morgue.

yore

Godge wrote: »

so if the termination had happened on Monday, intravenous antibiotics had been administered, she may have been discharged home by the following Saturday instead of being sent to the morgue.

I'm not a doctor or a barrister, but was the law preventing these intravenous antibiotics from being administered in the absence of a termination?

southsiderosie

yore wrote: »

What, you don't see that it can happen that there can be a misdiagnosis of a miscarraige? Which might lead to a situation where a perfectly normal foetus is aborted by mistake...which might lead to doctors erring on the side of caution and wanting to wait for the heartbeat to stop?

How about: "sorry, it looked like you might have miscarried so lets get in there in the next five minutes and rip that foetus out of there"



Neither do you see the relevance that there was no legal impediment in that case yet eejits are claiming there is now.

Keep on trolling and twisting yourself

Yes, because an article written by the founder of the Iona Institute is going to have a completely impartial view of this situation, uh-huh.

Macha

yore wrote: »

What, you don't see that it can happen that there can be a misdiagnosis of a miscarraige? Which might lead to a situation where a perfectly normal foetus is aborted by mistake...which might lead to doctors erring on the side of caution and wanting to wait for the heartbeat to stop?

How about: "sorry, it looked like you might have miscarried so lets get in there in the next five minutes and rip that foetus out of there"

Irrelevant to the case we're discussing and the need to legislate for those cases. The doctors certainly didn't err on the side of caution when it came to Savita's life did they?

yore wrote: »

Neither do you see the relevance that there was no legal impediment in that case yet eejits are claiming there is now.

There's a difference between the law and legislation. The lack of clear guidance on this issue seems to have been enough in this case to make the medical team unsure of the law.

We have 2 referenda and a Supreme Court ruling. Enough already.

yore

southsiderosie wrote: »

Yes, because an article written by the founder of the Iona Institute is going to have a completely impartial view of this situation, uh-huh.

You are going to have to be more precise than that bad attempt at sarcasm. What point are you trying to make?

Stheno

yore wrote: »

You are going to have to be more precise than that bad attempt at sarcasm. What point are you trying to make?

THe author of the article is staunchly pro-life? Ergo it has influenced their writing?

yore

Macha wrote: »

Irrelevant to the case we're discussing and the need to legislate for those cases. The doctors certainly didn't err on the side of caution when it came to Savita's life did they?

I'm not a doctor and I don't think you are either.

Please explain the difference in legal basis between the cases of misdiagnosis when the termination was allowed and this case where you seem to think that the law prevented the doctor from performing one.

Macha wrote: »

There's a difference between the law and legislation. The lack of clear guidance on this issue seems to have been enough in this case to make the medical team unsure of the law.

What is your justification for assuming that it was their lack of legal expertise that led them to make the decision they did?

yore

Stheno wrote: »

THe author of the article is staunchly pro-life? Ergo it has influenced their writing?

Right, so the woman in the story who was told to come for a termination of her baby that she was mis-diagnosed as having miscarried was making it all up? Maybe the author made up the whole story and all people were fictitious? :rolleyes:

Macha

yore wrote: »

I'm not a doctor and I don't think you are either.

And?

yore wrote: »

Please explain the difference in legal basis between the cases of misdiagnosis when the termination was allowed and this case where you seem to think that the law prevented the doctor from performing one.

The woman's life was in danger.

yore wrote: »

What is your justification for assuming that it was their lack of legal expertise that led them to make the decision they did?

That isn't something I claimed.

Stheno

yore wrote: »

I'm not a doctor and I don't think you are either.

Please explain the difference in legal basis between the cases of misdiagnosis when the termination was allowed and this case where you seem to think that the law prevented the doctor from performing one.



What is your justification for assuming that it was their lack of legal expertise that led them to make the decision they did?

There are no clear guidelines which allow doctors to make a decision based on risk to life, rather than risk to health, risk to life is the only case in which abortion is legally allowed.

It's a grey area, a risk to health could be so significant as to pose a potential risk to life, as in the case of septicemia so it could be a waiting game for doctors to get to a point where they deem a health risk to be a risk to life.

southsiderosie

yore wrote: »

What, you don't see that it can happen that there can be a misdiagnosis of a miscarraige? Which might lead to a situation where a perfectly normal foetus is aborted by mistake...which might lead to doctors erring on the side of caution and wanting to wait for the heartbeat to stop?

So after a doctor has diagnosed that a woman was having a miscarriage, they are supposed to say "oh, but I could be wrong so let's wait and see". Yes, that sounds sensible and humane. /sarcasm

Godge

yore wrote: »

I'm not a doctor or a barrister, but was the law preventing these intravenous antibiotics from being administered in the absence of a termination?

Not exactly. Certain treatment wasn't possible until the miscarraige was completed. The refusal to terminate until no foetal heartbeat was present meant that treatment could not commence. The two/three-day delay (depending on which news report you read) was doubly problematic. Not only did treatment not commence, but the condition got worse.

Early termination followed by early treatment would have had the dual benefit of treatment starting earlier before the infection had got too bad.

If the facts bear up as reported (and we have no reason to doubt them) it is an indictment of us as a country.

yore

Macha wrote: »

The woman's life was in danger.

You're not making sense. I asked what was the difference in legal basis where they could not perform the same procedure on this case as opposed to the mis-diagnosis case. You replied :the womans life was in danger". Yes, which is even more explicitly allowed for.

Macha wrote: »

That isn't something I claimed.

Well what was this trying to imply?

Macha wrote: »

The lack of clear guidance on this issue seems to have been enough in this case to make the medical team unsure of the law.

Stheno

southsiderosie wrote: »

So after a doctor has diagnosed that a woman was having a miscarriage, they are supposed to say "oh, but I could be wrong so let's wait and see". Yes, that sounds sensible and humane. /sarcasm

In fairness ssr, it did happen both in Galway and Drogheda hospitals repeatedly a couple of years ago.

It is a different scenario than Savitas case though, the women were scheduled for a d and c and sent home to come back in for the d and c. Those who requested a second scan then found there was a heartbeat, it led to a review of policies etc.

Macha

yore wrote: »

You're not making sense. I asked what was the difference in legal basis where they could not perform the same procedure on this case as opposed to the mis-diagnosis case. You replied :the womans life was in danger". Yes, which is even more explicitly allowed for.

Eh, no it isn't: that's the problem. See below.

yore wrote: »

Well what was this trying to imply?

That there isn't enough legal clarity, not that there wasn't sufficient legal expertise within the team.

Jebus, do we really expect our medical teams to interpret 2 referenda and a Supreme Court ruling every time they find themsleves in this situation? Really?

yore

southsiderosie wrote: »

So after a doctor has diagnosed that a woman was having a miscarriage, they are supposed to say "oh, but I could be wrong so let's wait and see". Yes, that sounds sensible and humane. /sarcasm

You might need an "open sarcasm" bracket too. Because you're not too good at it.

You clearly don't understand the concept that such a diagnosis might not be black and white while there are still vital signs present. :rolleyes:

None of this has anything to do with the law directly. Only a possible motivation for delaying the termination until absolutely sure

yore

Macha wrote: »

That there isn't enough legal clarity, not that there wasn't sufficient legal expertise within the team.

Jebus, do we really expect our medical teams to interpret 2 referenda and a Supreme Court ruling every time they find themsleves in this situation? Really?

The question I asked of you is what is your justification that this "legal clarity" was the root of their decisions and not medical diagnosis or malpractice/mis-diagnosis

Edit: as for your other point, are you trying to say that it is fine to perform a termination (on a miscarried foetus) where there is no danger to the woman, but not legally murky when there is a danger?????

Macha

yore wrote: »

The question I asked of you is what is your justification that this "legal clarity" was the root of their decisions and not medical diagnosis or malpractice/mis-diagnosis

I don't know but it appears to be a likely result, given she was told Ireland is a Catholic country when she asked for a D&C. We still need to legislate for the X case.

yore wrote: »

Edit: as for your other point, are you trying to say that it is fine to perform a termination (on a miscarried foetus) where there is no danger to the woman, but not legally murky when there is a danger?????

This question is not clear and there are a whole load of unnecessary punctuation.

Stheno

yore wrote: »

You might need an "open sarcasm" bracket too. Because you're not too good at it.

You clearly don't understand the concept that such a diagnosis might not be black and white while there are still vital signs present. :rolleyes:

None of this has anything to do with the law directly. Only a possible motivation for delaying the termination until absolutely sure

Savita essentially went into labour, her cervix was fully dilated, and she was leaking amniotic fluid at 17 weeks and the doctors could do nothing about it. Her baby would not have survived once delivered at that age.

Slightly different from some bleeding and a scan which couldn't find a heartbeat later corrected from the results of a second scan.

yore

Macha wrote: »

This question is not clear and there are a whole load of unnecessary punctuation.

youve stated that the difference was that the womans life was in danger in this case you are implying that because her life was in danger the situation was less clear than the other cases i quoted ie the misdiagnosed ones this is clearly not the case as far as i understand it

southsiderosie

yore wrote: »

youve stated that the difference was that the womans life was in danger in this case you are implying that because her life was in danger the situation was less clear than the other cases i quoted ie the misdiagnosed ones this is clearly not the case as far as i understand it

Because the misdiagnosed women were not in active labor.

yore

southsiderosie wrote: »

Because the misdiagnosed women were not in active labor.

The question started as asking what the legal basis for the difference was. Feel free to correct me where a miscarrying woman in active labour but in danger is a grey area but a miscarrying woman in neither is not.

Stheno

yore wrote: »

The question started as asking what the legal basis for the difference was. Feel free to correct me where a miscarrying woman in active labour but in danger is a grey area but a miscarrying woman in neither is not.

I think the difference is that in the examples you posted the women were not miscarrying, it was misdiagnosed and when rechecked found they were not miscarrying, whereas Savita was in active labour at 17 weeks, fully dilated and miscarrying with no hope of the foetus surviving?

Macha

yore wrote: »

The question started as asking what the legal basis for the difference was. Feel free to correct me where a miscarrying woman in active labour but in danger is a grey area but a miscarrying woman in neither is not.

Because the X case was about the woman's life being in danger, not her health. So despite her having a miscarriage, because it wasn't 100% clear her life was in danger and there was still a heartbeat it was unclear if a d&c would be lawful.

ArtyisOverHere

I think the guidelines on section 21.4 is very clear

http://www.medicalcouncil.ie/Information-for-Doctors/Professional-Conduct-Ethics/The-Guide-to-Professional-Conduct-and-Ethics-for-Registered-Medical-Practitioners.pdf

yore

Stheno wrote: »

I think the difference is that in the examples you posted the women were not miscarrying, it was misdiagnosed and when rechecked found they were not miscarrying, whereas Savita was in active labour at 17 weeks, fully dilated and miscarrying with no hope of the foetus surviving?

The point I'm making is that there seemed to be no legal basis for stopping the misdiagnosed women from being given a termination. One woman went for a second opinion and it was uncovered but others were upset because they had already had their terminations and had the heartache of never knowing whether a mistake was made or not.

The mis-diagnosing doctor was never prosecuted for the actual sending of the women for the terminations which he would have been had it been illegal to do so. It seemed to have been a routine thing. Ipso facto, terminations for miscarraige have no legal barriers. So the law not the basis for this terrible tragedy. If some doctors misinterpreted the law in this case, that is their human error and not a fault of the law

Stheno

ArtyisOverHere wrote: »

I think the guidelines on section 21.4 is very clear

http://www.medicalcouncil.ie/Information-for-Doctors/Professional-Conduct-Ethics/The-Guide-to-Professional-Conduct-and-Ethics-for-Registered-Medical-Practitioners.pdf

Those guidelines are:

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 assessment
of any such risk in light of the clinical research on this issue.
21.2 It is lawful to provide information in Ireland about abortions
abroad, subject to strict conditions.4 It is not lawful to encourage
or advocate an abortion in individual cases.
21.3 You have a duty to provide care, support and follow-up services
for women who have an abortion abroad.
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.

I personally think that the issue here is that due to risk of life arising late into the equation that point one of the guidelines applied, as opposed to point 4, or were taken as the guidance for the doctors in this case.

It also quotes legal precedent as opposed to actual legislation, were I a doctor, I'd be wary in that regard.

It must be very difficult to judge when health as opposed to life is at risk in the early stages of the likes of septicemia/infection.

Were the law clearer and were it clearly legislated that where the life of the foetus was unviable, and that the life of the mother should be prioritised, it may have made a difference in this one case.

yore

Macha wrote: »

Because the X case was about the woman's life being in danger, not her health. So despite her having a miscarriage, because it wasn't 100% clear her life was in danger and there was still a heartbeat it was unclear if a d&c would be lawful.

That's a misdiagnosis then isn't it.
They were acting on the side of caution in taking both lives into consideration. blame the misdiagnosis and not the law.

Stheno

yore wrote: »

The point I'm making is that there seemed to be no legal basis for stopping the misdiagnosed women from being given a termination. One woman went for a second opinion and it was uncovered but others were upset because they had already had their terminations and had the heartache of never knowing whether a mistake was made or not.

The mis-diagnosing doctor was never prosecuted for the actual sending of the women for the terminations which he would have been had it been illegal to do so. It seemed to have been a routine thing. Ipso facto, terminations for miscarraige have no legal barriers. So the law not the basis for this terrible tragedy. If some doctors misinterpreted the law in this case, that is their human error and not a fault of the law

The difference is that in the case of the women you are talking about, they were told there was no foetal heartbeat, and a d and c was arranged to evacuate the dead foetus.

In Savitas case, she was in active labour with a 17 week old foetus, which was not viable, and could not be saved.

So in the first case, an error was made reading a scan, which was rectified thankfully. If the error had not been rectified it would have resulted in an accidental termination based on human error.

In the second, someone went into active and unpreventable labour far too early for the baby to survive, but the fact that the foetus had a heartbeat meant the doctors were constrained by their duty of care to the foetus as pointed out in the IMC guidelines above.

ArtyisOverHere

Stheno wrote: »

Those guidelines are:



I personally think that the issue here is that due to risk of life arising late into the equation that point one of the guidelines applied, as opposed to point 4, or were taken as the guidance for the doctors in this case.

It also quotes legal precedent as opposed to actual legislation, were I a doctor, I'd be wary in that regard.

It must be very difficult to judge when health as opposed to life is at risk in the early stages of the likes of septicemia/infection.

Were the law clearer and were it clearly legislated that where the life of the foetus was unviable, and that the life of the mother should be prioritised, it may have made a difference in this one case.

Septicaemia is a very clear risk to life - we also saw the case of Lily Allen recently. If someone contracts septicaemia they need immediate treatment. It is a very serious life threatening condition. If I were a doctor I would not hesitate. You have the full weight of professional opinion and accepted practice on your side.

There was a case in Cork were a doctor in a similar situation did not remove all body parts from the womb and was sued for that. They were not prosecuted for carrying out the procedure.

Frankly the assertion that the legality would be in question is a rather strange one to be made when this is a regular practice in Ireland for these cases, when the Irish medical council issues guidelines on it and when the courts take no interest in cases they know about.

Stheno

ArtyisOverHere wrote: »

Septicaemia is a very clear risk to life - we also saw the case of Lily Allen recently. If someone contracts septicaemia they need immediate treatment. It is a very serious life threatening condition. If I were a doctor I would not hesitate. You have the full weight of professional opinion and accepted practice on your side.

There was a case in Cork were a doctor in a similar situation did not remove all body parts from the womb and was sued for that. They were not prosecuted for carrying out the procedure.

Frankly the assertion that the legality would be in question is a rather strange one to be made when this is a regular practice in Ireland for these cases, when the Irish medical council issues guidelines on it and when the courts take no interest in cases they know about.

So what went wrong here in your opinion?

One article I read today did talk to an obgyn who advised that best practice in a miscarriage where the cervix was open was to ensure that after 24 hours all actions were taken to evacuate the uterus, and try to manage it.

Did they just leave it too late? Misdiagnose the septicemia? Make a mistake as they were on call for 72 hours as still happens here?

Or did they just hesitate as there was a foetal heartbeat?

Kinda hard to surmise?

poeticseraphim

A RED C POLL by the Irish examiner in 2010 showed 60% of people support a woman's right to choose.

This is a case of Liberal Ireland being held hostage.

It is not clear that Savita's life would have been saved by the X case legislation as it was not clear her life was in danger.

What is clear is that she requested and abortion.

This country is at odds with every civilized democracy on the issue of a woman's volition over her own body.

It is far behind in women's rights in general and is in denial.

Why is the politics forum NOT the place to discuss abortion or women's right?? It is exactly the right place.

When something takes 20 years after being passed by a referendum it is clear the Govt is obstructing the will of the people.

Ireland has thrown women under the bus. And yes it is the stone age here and not just about abortion.

In terms of how cases of rape are treated and the sentences handed out.

It is time for a change.

We are one of the worst in terms of women in politics....only 15% of the Dáil are women. Yet it is the Dáil that is legislating on this issue. How is that sensible????


It is time for this country to be liberated.

I will never give my vote to a politician who is not pro-choice ever again.


And there is a list of all TD's who have obstructed any legislation on the X case for the past 20 yrs...

Níl
Bannon, James. Barry, Tom.
Broughan, Thomas P. Browne, John.
Burton, Joan. Butler, Ray.
Buttimer, Jerry. Byrne, Catherine.
Byrne, Eric. Calleary, Dara.
Carey, Joe. Coffey, Paudie.
Collins, Áine. Conaghan, Michael.
Conlan, Seán. Connaughton, Paul J.
Coonan, Noel. Corcoran Kennedy, Marcella.
Costello, Joe. Creed, Michael.
Daly, Jim. Deasy, John.
Deering, Pat. Doherty, Regina.
Donohoe, Paschal. Dooley, Timmy.
Dowds, Robert. Doyle, Andrew.
Durkan, Bernard J. Farrell, Alan.
Ferris, Anne. Fitzgerald, Frances.
Fitzpatrick, Peter. Flanagan, Charles.
Flanagan, Terence. Fleming, Sean.
Gilmore, Eamon. Grealish, Noel.
Griffin, Brendan. Hannigan, Dominic.
Harrington, Noel. Harris, Simon.
Hayes, Tom. Healy-Rae, Michael.
Heydon, Martin. Howlin, Brendan.
Humphreys, Heather. Humphreys, Kevin.
Keating, Derek. Keaveney, Colm.
Kehoe, Paul. Kelleher, Billy.
Kelly, Alan. Kenny, Seán.
Kirk, Seamus. Kyne, Seán.
Lawlor, Anthony. Lynch, Ciarán.
Lynch, Kathleen. Lyons, John.
McCarthy, Michael. McConalogue, Charlie.
McEntee, Shane. McGrath, Mattie.
McGrath, Michael. McGuinness, John.
McHugh, Joe. McLoughlin, Tony.
McNamara, Michael. Maloney, Eamonn.
Martin, Micheál. Mathews, Peter.
Mitchell, Olivia. Mitchell O’Connor, Mary.
Moynihan, Michael. Mulherin, Michelle.
Murphy, Dara. Murphy, Eoghan.
Naughten, Denis. Neville, Dan.
Nolan, Derek. Ó Cuív, Éamon.
Ó Fearghaíl, Seán. Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán.
O’Dea, Willie. O’Donnell, Kieran.
O’Donovan, Patrick. O’Mahony, John.
O’Sullivan, Jan. Penrose, Willie.
Perry, John. Phelan, Ann.
Phelan, John Paul. Quinn, Ruairí.
Rabbitte, Pat. Reilly, James.
Ring, Michael. Ryan, Brendan.
Shatter, Alan. Sherlock, Sean.
Shortall, Róisín. Smith, Brendan.
Spring, Arthur. Stanton, David.
Timmins, Billy. Troy, Robert.
Tuffy, Joanna. Twomey, Liam.
Wall, Jack. Walsh, Brian.
White, Alex.

robp

Its striking how unreliable and manipulative the press were with the initial launch of this story. Especially outside Ireland.

Catholic ethos suggestion dismissed
Staff and users of University Hospital Galway were keen to dismiss suggestions yesterday of any Catholic ethos influencing treatment decisions.

As the controversy around the death of Savita Halappanavar continued, sources close to the hospital stressed that not only was there “no particular ethos” at the hospital but it was very well resourced with a high level of specialist care.

“This is why it’s such a shock,” said Cllr Catherine Connolly (Ind), a member of the HSE West’s regional health forum.

“As someone born and reared in Galway, I can say it [a Catholic ethos] never came to my attention. There is a huge waiting list and there is a big issue around cutbacks but once you get into the hospital the treatment is second to none.”

Cllr Michael Crowe (FF), also a member of the HSE forum, said the hospital operated on the basis of “patient first”.

“My belief is if there’s any threat to life, regardless of the context, the medical people would protect the patient. There is no other issue at play. I can say that as a patient, a visitor, and a member of the [forum],” he said.

He added: “There is no doubt it’s a shocking case . . . There is the loss of the young lady in question but there are also the doctors who treated her: they lost a person in their professional duty and they are in my mind too.”

Medical sources similarly downplayed any suggestion of a particular religious ethos at the hospital.
One senior source with experience of Medical Council inquiries said: “Across the country we have moved a good deal away from what might have been the case 15 or 20 years ago.” link

GSF

robp wrote: »

Its striking how unreliable and manipulative the press were with the initial launch of this story. Especially outside Ireland.

how would any of these people be in a position to know what was said to the patient and her husband?

the comments prove nothing

robp

GSF wrote: »

how would any of these people be in a position to know what was said to the patient and her husband?

the comments prove nothing

They prove we shouldn't get hysterical over speculations and allegations. What was apparently said to the husband does not necessarily reflect the thought processes and logic of the doctor.

GSF

robp wrote: »

They prove we shouldn't get hysterical over speculations and allegations. What was apparently said to the husband does not necessarily reflect the thought processes and logic of the doctor.

"apparently said" means what?

And why would somone "apparent say" that if it was of no relevance?

Jelle1880

robp wrote: »

Its striking how unreliable and manipulative the press were with the initial launch of this story. Especially outside Ireland.

All that says is that, according to them, the hospital doesn't use a Catholic ethos in decision making.

It bears no real relevance to this specific case, as it could very well be the doctor's decision not to abort.

Looks like covering the hospital for future litigation.

robp

Jelle1880 wrote: »

All that says is that, according to them, the hospital doesn't use a Catholic ethos in decision making.

It bears no real relevance to this specific case, as it could very well be the doctor's decision not to abort.

Looks like covering the hospital for future litigation.

A public statement and an article in the IT is not going to prevent litigation

GSF wrote: »

"apparently said" means what?

And why would somone "apparent say" that if it was of no relevance?

We can only speculate but maybe to cover his or her back. Often natural delivery is the safest way to deal with these cases. Sepsis can happen very quickly and may not have been apparent or avoidable.

PhoenixParker

The Catholic Ethos thing is kind of interesting.
To the best of my knowledge UCHG has never had a specific link with the catholic church.
Unlike many of the hospitals in this country it was founded in 1956, having developed from a workhouse - city infirmary - university hospital.

Their mission statement and vision makes absolutely no reference to the catholic church, the only thing I can find that suggests a catholic ethos is the fact that the wards are named after saints. While the management structure page doesn't seem to be working, I've never heard of nuns or priests being involved in the management of the hospital.

Compare the mission statement of UCHG -http://www.guh.hse.ie/About_Us/Mission_and_Vision_Statement/

to the one for the Mater which developed from a hospital run by the sisters of Mercy:
http://www.mater.ie/about-us/mission/
which has "catholic ethos" literally at its core.

and a significant part of its management board is directly linked with the catholic church
http://www.mater.ie/about-us/corporate-structure/

raisinordate

I agree that the death of Savita was a tragedy. But it is not certain that the termination of her pregnancy would have saved her life. I think that people are just jumping on the bandwagon now that this has happened when they didn’t have a thought for the pro choice argument before. And yes, of course this tragedy has obviously opened a lot of peoples’ eyes as to the problems with laws in our country. What sickens me is that people are just, as usual, jumping on the bandwagon and acting like they care when really they couldn’t give a **** and just want to feel like they’re part of this great movement to change legislation. Okay, so maybe abortion is needed in a miniscule amount of cases to save a mother’s life, but if abortion is legalised in this country, won’t it just become an easy option for people who haven’t properly thought through a pregnancy? If it’s a readily available option then the abortion rate will obviously rise dramatically in this country and cause the unnecessary deaths of unborn children who could have had a chance at life. How many of you people reading this were born into non-ideal homes but were still given the chance to be born? If abortion was legal in Ireland, the number would be far less.

Macha

raisinordate wrote: »

How many of you people reading this were born into non-ideal homes but were still given the chance to be born? If abortion was legal in Ireland, the number would be far less.

My father was the result of my grandmothers rape. I am still pro-choice.

To take this argument to the extreme, we shouldn't have any form of contraception at all.

BlaasForRafa

PhoenixParker wrote: »

The Catholic Ethos thing is kind of interesting.
To the best of my knowledge UCHG has never had a specific link with the catholic church.
Unlike many of the hospitals in this country it was founded in 1956, having developed from a workhouse - city infirmary - university hospital.

Their mission statement and vision makes absolutely no reference to the catholic church, the only thing I can find that suggests a catholic ethos is the fact that the wards are named after saints. While the management structure page doesn't seem to be working, I've never heard of nuns or priests being involved in the management of the hospital.

In this case it may not be the ethos of the hospital that is in question but the beliefs and ethos of the consulants, in particular the consultant in charge of the Obstetrics department. For example if the chief consultant argued the pro-life position strenuously then his subordinates may have been afraid to argue against what the boss says.

Also, just as an aside but pretty much every ward in the hospital is named after a saint, that in itself indicates a catholic ethos.

Jelle1880

raisinordate wrote: »

I agree that the death of Savita was a tragedy. But it is not certain that the termination of her pregnancy would have saved her life. I think that people are just jumping on the bandwagon now that this has happened when they didn’t have a thought for the pro choice argument before. And yes, of course this tragedy has obviously opened a lot of peoples’ eyes as to the problems with laws in our country. What sickens me is that people are just, as usual, jumping on the bandwagon and acting like they care when really they couldn’t give a **** and just want to feel like they’re part of this great movement to change legislation. Okay, so maybe abortion is needed in a miniscule amount of cases to save a mother’s life, but if abortion is legalised in this country, won’t it just become an easy option for people who haven’t properly thought through a pregnancy? If it’s a readily available option then the abortion rate will obviously rise dramatically in this country and cause the unnecessary deaths of unborn children who could have had a chance at life. How many of you people reading this were born into non-ideal homes but were still given the chance to be born? If abortion was legal in Ireland, the number would be far less.

It would have given her (and the medical staff) a far better chance.

poeticseraphim

I just want to say this.


If my mother had chosen to terminate the pregnancy with myself for whatever reason and someone had forced her to continue. I would be devastated now.

Think on that. How would you feel if your mother went through that.

I would never want that to happen. Heck i would die for my mother now.

The the pro-life side can speak for the unborn makes no sense..some unborn grow up to be pro-choice and some pro-life.

People are uneasy with the idea of a human being being forced to carry a fetus inside them and go through a pregnancy against their will.So i would say they would be even more uneasy about being the product of that pain.

There are people walking around who are the product of rape....they do not support rape..yet they would not be around without it.

They may also support abortion...maybe because they might be intimately aware of the generational pain unwanted pregnancies can cause. I accept some people feel differently.

If you are pro-life you are hardly going to entice the people who have sories to tell to open up..there is a hidden world out there of tragic situations where people have to make very personal choices

I am pro-choice....

We have had 150 abortions of Irish women....that is 150,000 more children in state care.

Don't assume you know what the unborn would want or what is best...

To be honest it is no one elses business but the people involved.

By the way if we were not beside the UK you BET we WOULD have abortion by now.No question about it.

http://www.ifpa.ie/Hot-Topics/Abortion/Statistics

Here are stats....what surprised me was the number of women over 40 going over to the UK for abortions.

And those under 15 in some years. Hell of a journey.


And also there are stats on that page of Irish women having abortions in the Netherlans too...which is never mentioned.

murphaph

raisinordate wrote: »

I agree that the death of Savita was a tragedy. But it is not certain that the termination of her pregnancy would have saved her life. I think that people are just jumping on the bandwagon now that this has happened when they didn’t have a thought for the pro choice argument before. And yes, of course this tragedy has obviously opened a lot of peoples’ eyes as to the problems with laws in our country. What sickens me is that people are just, as usual, jumping on the bandwagon and acting like they care when really they couldn’t give a **** and just want to feel like they’re part of this great movement to change legislation. Okay, so maybe abortion is needed in a miniscule amount of cases to save a mother’s life, but if abortion is legalised in this country, won’t it just become an easy option for people who haven’t properly thought through a pregnancy? If it’s a readily available option then the abortion rate will obviously rise dramatically in this country and cause the unnecessary deaths of unborn children who could have had a chance at life. How many of you people reading this were born into non-ideal homes but were still given the chance to be born? If abortion was legal in Ireland, the number would be far less.

Abortion is very rarely going to be an "easy option" for any woman. Even in countries where it is available on demand, it is not used "en-masse" as some sort of morning after pill.

Abortion should be available where the mother's health is at risk, not just her life. Making it "health" instead of "life" makes the decision much easier for the doctors who are charged with making the call.

Death and Taxes

raisinordate wrote: »

I agree that the death of Savita was a tragedy. But it is not certain that the termination of her pregnancy would have saved her life. I think that people are just jumping on the bandwagon now that this has happened when they didn’t have a thought for the pro choice argument before. And yes, of course this tragedy has obviously opened a lot of peoples’ eyes as to the problems with laws in our country. What sickens me is that people are just, as usual, jumping on the bandwagon and acting like they care when really they couldn’t give a **** and just want to feel like they’re part of this great movement to change legislation. Okay, so maybe abortion is needed in a miniscule amount of cases to save a mother’s life, but if abortion is legalised in this country, won’t it just become an easy option for people who haven’t properly thought through a pregnancy? If it’s a readily available option then the abortion rate will obviously rise dramatically in this country and cause the unnecessary deaths of unborn children who could have had a chance at life. How many of you people reading this were born into non-ideal homes but were still given the chance to be born? If abortion was legal in Ireland, the number would be far less.

With respect, I think your post misses the point. Abortion should be available to any woman who wants one within a certain timeframe,eg up to 12/14 weeks of pregnancy.
It ill behoves anyone to decide on behalf of others that they should either be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy or be forced to travel to another juristiction to have one.

poeticseraphim

WileyCoyote wrote: »

With respect, I think your post misses the point. Abortion should be available to any woman who wants one within a certain timeframe,eg up to 12/14 weeks of pregnancy.
It ill behoves anyone to decide on behalf of others that they should either be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy or be forced to travel to another juristiction to have one.

Here here.

walshb

I would be pro choice yet I respect both sides of the argumenet. However, in this case, I think the lady was badly let down by the system. Badly. She was an educated woman who went three days asking for a termination and the system failed her because of a very grey law. It's about time this country woke up and started to modernise and progress.

Death and Taxes

I see the Minister has announced the panel to enquire into the death, it contains three staff members of the hospital where the death occured, no experts in either medical, constitutional law or indeed medical ethics.
Lord Widgery's tribunal was more balanced than this unashamed whitewash!