Consultant 'refused abortion plea'

Seachmall

Overheal wrote: »

To think that there exists no religious zealotry in Ireland of all places is a bit misguided. You don't think Ireland being a Catholic country is an opinion held by anyone, right or wrong? I've heard of scientists that believe in creationism over evolution so the profession is nothing to hide behind. Plenty of medical professionals the world over have moral hang ups about abortion.

To be fair I'm an atheist and if someone asked me what abortion was illegal in Ireland I'd tell them it's because Ireland is a Catholic country.

Context is important. "This is a Catholic country" may have been an explanation as to why she wasn't legally entitled to an abortion as oppose to the grounds on which the abortion was refused.

Gatling

Seachmall wrote: »

To be fair I'm an atheist and if someone asked me what abortion was illegal in Ireland I'd tell them it's because Ireland is a Catholic country.

Context is important. "This is a Catholic country" may have been an explanation as to why she wasn't legally entitled to an abortion as oppose to the grounds on which the abortion was refused.

But the whole conversation is being selectively quoted
Oh woman refused abortion over Catholic religion ,
When the conversation was woman in miscarriage said in India the Hindu faith allows termination then midwife manager said what she said about Ireland being catholic and the big storm begins

Slideshowbob

Here: http://www.rte.ie/news/health/2013/0410/380613-savita-halappanavar-inquest/

"Dr Ciaran McLoughlin said the remark had gone around the world and he stated public hospitals in Ireland did not follow religious dogma of any persuasion."

Yet a quick look at St Vincent's Hospital website, http://www.stvincents.ie/Home/Mission_Statement.htm states:

"The values underlying the philosophy of St Vincent’s Healthcare Group in relation to our care of patients and staff are those of human dignity, compassion, justice, quality and advocacy, which are based on the mission and philosophy of the Religious Sisters of Charity, our shareholders."

"Our Mission

"To bring the healing love of Christ to all we serve"
Our concern for others, especially those in need permeates every aspect of the life and work of our service.
We are dedicated to providing the best possible health care, drawing on the talents and creativity of all our staff."


Also Bon Secours: http://www.bonsecours.ie/index.cfm/page/ourvision



"Our Mission and Vision

Through our Mission, Bon Secours Health System will:

• Be a leader in Catholic Healthcare in Ireland."

Quite condradictory statements there alone!

Seachmall

Slideshowbob wrote: »

Quite condradictory statements there alone!

You can follow Catholic teachings while claiming your decisions were based on the law, not dogma, because both the law and the Church have the same requirements for when abortion is acceptable.

Pompey Magnus

Slideshowbob wrote: »

Here: http://www.rte.ie/news/health/2013/0410/380613-savita-halappanavar-inquest/

"Dr Ciaran McLoughlin said the remark had gone around the world and he stated public hospitals in Ireland did not follow religious dogma of any persuasion."

Yet a quick look at St Vincent's Hospital website, http://www.stvincents.ie/Home/Mission_Statement.htm states:

"The values underlying the philosophy of St Vincent’s Healthcare Group in relation to our care of patients and staff are those of human dignity, compassion, justice, quality and advocacy, which are based on the mission and philosophy of the Religious Sisters of Charity, our shareholders."

"Our Mission

"To bring the healing love of Christ to all we serve"
Our concern for others, especially those in need permeates every aspect of the life and work of our service.
We are dedicated to providing the best possible health care, drawing on the talents and creativity of all our staff."


Also Bon Secours: http://www.bonsecours.ie/index.cfm/page/ourvision



"Our Mission and Vision

Through our Mission, Bon Secours Health System will:

• Be a leader in Catholic Healthcare in Ireland."

Quite condradictory statements there alone!

Are they not private hospitals?

Gatling

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Are they not private hospitals?

Yes there both private

Chinasea

Not sure if it is still in use, but not too long ago was helping someone fill in admittance registration sheet to Holles Street Maternity Hospital and the patient was asked what their Christian name was?????

Although in labor the lady balked - Christian name: WTF?


Staff were perplexed at her reaction - which in return perplexed us.

Ardent

I for one am glad Savita's husband is pursuing justice. I'm ashamed of this backward, bigotted country we live in and hope some good/change will come as a result of this case.

rainbow kirby

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Are they not private hospitals?

Mater Hospital mission statement - that's public and rather in-your-face Catholic.

Icepick

Uriel. wrote: »

You don't think a an individual's concern regarding the potential for freely open abortion is legitimate?

WTF is a freely open abortion?

LizT

Jesus, the more I read about this case, the more upset I get.

I really feel for her husband, he lost his wife and child, now he has to deal with allegations of attention seeking and money grabbing. Some people just have to find fault with everything and everyone.

opinion guy

Ardent wrote: »

I for one am glad Savita's husband is pursuing justice. I'm ashamed of this backward, bigotted country we live in and hope some good/change will come as a result of this case.

I believe that by the time this is done Praveen will have done more for women's health and indeed the Heath service in ireland in general than generations of hse managers, politicians and medical councils will have done. The guy is a national hero without doubt. I have nothing but admiration for the guy.

Steve O

Ardent wrote: »

I for one am glad Savita's husband is pursuing justice. I'm ashamed of this backward, bigotted country we live in and hope some good/change will come as a result of this case.

Well said. It baffles me that people sneer at this guy as "overhyping" it. Fcuking digusting. Who the F**k would stand there and watch anyone die because of religious values?

It shows how brainwashed these morons really are, they've no compassion whatsoever.

Electric Sheep

Seachmall wrote: »

You can follow Catholic teachings while claiming your decisions were based on the law, not dogma, because both the law and the Church have the same requirements for when abortion is acceptable.

Coincidentally, no doubt.

seamus

I wonder will the OP and the other posters who made disgusting allegations of "money-grabbing" and attention-seeking now come back on and admit they were wrong seeing as the below has now come to light:

- The obstetrician has admitted that Savita was denied standard practice treatment (i.e. a termination) for 48 hours because of Irish law (or the lack thereof)
- The obstetrician has admitted that there were other general failings in the care provided (such as a failure to even do simple monitoring)
- The "Catholic country" comment has been completely corroborated by the person who said it
- Hospital staff have admitted they doctored the patient notes up to two weeks after Savita's death.

I'll admit I was open-minded about the case. Praveen could have been exaggerating or misrecalling some of the details and mentally filling in the blanks.

But it turns out that not only is his damning testimony accurate - it was worse than even he knew.

This is not an outside case. Savita's case needs to be accepted as not only what happens when your abortion laws are screwed up, but as a perfect example of the state of our health care system overall. Or indeed, lack of health care system

Uriel.

Icepick wrote: »

WTF is a freely open abortion?

Addmitedly my phraseology could have been better but if you read it in context of the discussion at the given time it's clear that I was referring to open legislation on abortion, in other words freely available without restriction. But I've no doubt that you knew that already

Uriel.

Steve O wrote: »

Well said. It baffles me that people sneer at this guy as "overhyping" it. Fcuking digusting. Who the F**k would stand there and watch anyone die because of religious values?

It shows how brainwashed these morons really are, they've no compassion whatsoever.

Did she die as a result of religious values? To me it seems to suggest So far that negligence more of a factor.

Plus you don't need to be religious to have a belief one way or another on the specifics of abortion

Pushtrak

Uriel. wrote: »

Addmitedly my phraseology could have been better but if you read it in context of the discussion at the given time it's clear that I was referring to open legislation on abortion, in other words freely available without restriction. But I've no doubt that you knew that already

What kind of restrictions are you referring to here? After a certain amount of weeks, or are you going beyond that?

drkpower

seamus wrote: »

- Hospital staff have admitted they doctored the patient notes up to two weeks after Savita's death.

Retrospective notes (which are identified as such) are a far cry from 'doctoring' the notes; medics are rightly advised in many cases to make retrospective notes. While writing such a note 2 weeks later (which i think has been reported) is not typical, there is nothing wrong with it per se - labelling it 'doctoring' is unfair.

rainbow kirby

Uriel. wrote: »

Did she die as a result of religious values? To me it seems to suggest So far that negligence more of a factor.

The law that tied Dr Astbury's hands is the result of Catholic teaching on abortion and the church having way too much influence on politicians and the electorate in the early 80s.

The 8th amendment needs to go. It is a deeply flawed piece of legislation that only hurts women.

Gatling

And yet the we voted against abortion in 2 referendums

Uriel.

Pushtrak wrote: »

What kind of restrictions are you referring to here? After a certain amount of weeks, or are you going beyond that?

Any kind. At the point in the discussion, the matter of specifics weren't a focal point.

If you are asking me what I think should be the restrictions or whether there should be Any in respect of abortion, then I'll have to come back to you on that one as I haven't quite honestly formed a full view due to the complexities. I can however make two broad statements - 1. I dont believe that there should be a 100% ban on abortion and 2. I don't think we should have 100% access to abortion on demand.

Two ends of the spectrum there I known and its usually the stuff in the middle that causes the real honest debate but that's the nature of the matter I suppose

Nodin

Gatling wrote: »

And yet the we voted against abortion in 2 referendums

...yet we voted for limited access to abortion, and have yet to see legislation nearly 21 years later.

seamus

Retrospective notes (which are identified as such) are a far cry from 'doctoring' the notes; medics are rightly advised in many cases to make retrospective notes. While writing such a note 2 weeks later (which i think has been reported) is not typical, there is nothing wrong with it per se - labelling it 'doctoring' is unfair.

OK, that's a fair point.

Gatling wrote: »

And yet the we voted against abortion in 2 referendums

No, we didn't.

Pushtrak

Did you know in 1995, the narrow margin in favour of divorce? Seriously... 50.28% in favour. Skin of the teeth.

Uriel.

rainbow kirby wrote: »

The law that tied Dr Astbury's hands is the result of Catholic teaching on abortion and the church having way too much influence on politicians and the electorate in the early 80s.

The 8th amendment needs to go. It is a deeply flawed piece of legislation that only hurts women.

Not necessarily. Is catholic teaching broadly in line with the law, yes, are all those against (partially or otherwise) abortion catholic or religious, no.

If the hospital had have acted in accordance with their own policy it would appear that there was a strong possibility of either treating the problem without abortion or identifying the progress of the problem in a more timely manner and initiating an abortion in a timely manner within the scope of the law and save her, though such an assumption strays deeply into medical ly specific issues which I am not qualified to be an authority on

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Gatling wrote: »

Yes there both private

Well, I think it's more "Yes and no."

The Bons is private, and the Mater includes a private hospital. But Vincents, and the Mater per se, and many other significant hospitals are so-called "voluntary hospitals". That means they are largely State funded. The situation is similar to the school system. You have institutions providing publically funded services, which are owned by religious bodies.

It's quite an awkward arrangement, for many practical reasons.

Gatling

seamus wrote: »

OK, that's a fair point.


No, we didn't.

We did and we didn't to be more precise

Funny if we allow abortions on demand or limited in certain limited situations
And say a young girl or a mother gets a termination and die because of complications from said abortion ,
Everybody up in arms ban abortion its dangerous or other
Excuse

Uriel.

Gatling wrote: »

We did and we didn't to be more precise

Funny if we all low abortions on demand or limited does certain limited issues
And say a young girl or mother

I have no idea what this means

Gatling

Uriel. wrote: »

I have no idea what this means

Touch is a bit wonky sorry

Uriel.

Gatling wrote: »

Touch is a bit wonky sorry

Lol. Makes more sense now except the first part. Typing on a phone is a pain. I'm doing the same myself

GCU Flexible Demeanour

seamus wrote: »

- The obstetrician has admitted that Savita was denied standard practice treatment (i.e. a termination) for 48 hours because of Irish law (or the lack thereof)

Did she? I thought the reason she said treatment was delayed was because she was unaware of the results of an initial blood test taken at the time of admission. I thought she said that, if she'd been aware of the results of that test, she would have accelerated her approach to the case.

Can you substantiate what you are saying?

Kiwi in IE

Pushtrak wrote: »

Did you know in 1995, the narrow margin in favour of divorce? Seriously... 50.28% in favour. Skin of the teeth.

Please tell me you are messing? 1995? and 49.72% were against divorce? Why? Did they want to see others in the wonderful situation where a couple have been separated for 35 years but on death the 'new' partner of 30 years has no rights because they are still 'married'? That is unbelievable!

Morag

Gatling wrote: »

And yet the we voted against abortion in 2 referendums

Nope, only in 1 which was when the 8th amendment was put in place 30 years ago, the 2 referendum after that were in relation to the X case ruling and both times it was voted that it was to be kept and legislated for which 21 years later they have still failed to do.

And recent pools have show that attitudes to the availability of abortion esp when needed to safe guard the health and lives of women and in cases of rape and fatal fetal abnormalities is very different to what it was 30 years ago.

Morag

Uriel. wrote: »

Did she die as a result of religious values? To me it seems to suggest So far that negligence more of a factor.

Are you even aware of the 8th amendment?

Uriel.

Morag wrote: »

Are you even aware of the 8th amendment?

exceptionally aware.

Madam_X

I feel awfully sorry for the woman who said the catholic country thing - clearly she was just explaining something and never meant anything heartless by it.

Fuseman wrote: »

I would take a lot of what Praveen said with a pinch of salt.

Why?

LizT wrote: »

Some people just have to find fault with everything and everyone.

Provided it fits in with their agenda of course.

Uriel.

Morag wrote: »

Nope, only in 1 which was when the 8th amendment was put in place 30 years ago, the 2 referendum after that were in relation to the X case ruling and both times it was voted that it was to be kept and legislated for which 21 years later they have still failed to do.

And recent pools have show that attitudes to the availability of abortion esp when needed to safe guard the health and lives of women and in cases of rape and fatal fetal abnormalities is very different to what it was 30 years ago.

Leaving aside the issue of rape and fetal abnormalities for a moment.
Do you think the Constitute as it stands today severely negatively affects the protection of a woman's life in respect to the life of the unborn? I don't believe it does to be perfectly honest, the failure to legislate properly may of course have a an overarching impact.

I think the Constitutional law would have been sufficiently open to allow for an abortion in the case at hand (saying that with the caveat of not being qualified in the medical field)

Flier

Uriel. wrote: »

Leaving aside the issue of rape and fetal abnormalities for a moment.
Do you think the Constitute as it stands today severely negatively affects the protection of a woman's life in respect to the life of the unborn? I don't believe it does to be perfectly honest, the failure to legislate properly may of course have a an overarching impact.

I think the Constitutional law would have been sufficiently open to allow for an abortion in the case at hand (saying that with the caveat of not being qualified in the medical field)

Said from the comfort of your computer screen, with no possibility of ever being in that Doctors position, who, by her own account, felt that terminating the pregnancy would have been contrary to law.

Edit: To be clear - it makes not one iota of difference what you or anybody else thinks. The fact is that Dr Astbury (a well respected doctor and professional to the core) felt that an abortion would not have been legal. If there is a difference of opinion on what is allowed by the constitution, as evidently there is, then that is a further endorsement for legislation to reflect the constitution.

rainbow kirby

Uriel. wrote: »

Do you think the Constitute as it stands today severely negatively affects the protection of a woman's life in respect to the life of the unborn?

Consider the wording

The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother

for a minute, the implication there is that the unborn will be defended first and "due regard" will be paid to the mother's right to life. This directly affects how medical treatment can be applied during pregnancy - Savita's case being one example of that, Sheila Hodgers and Michelle Harte being others, and countless more besides. That's before we look at the very grey line between when a case is a risk to health (not covered under the X case judgement) vs a risk to life - how is that point to be defined?

Uriel.

Flier wrote: »

Said from the comfort of your computer screen, with no possibility of ever being in that Doctors position, who, by her own account, felt that terminating the pregnancy would have been contrary to law.

Edit: To be clear - it makes not one iota of difference what you or anybody else thinks. The fact is that Dr Astbury (a well respected doctor and professional to the core) felt that an abortion would not have been legal. If there is a difference of opinion on what is allowed by the constitution, as evidently there is, then that is a further endorsement for legislation to reflect the constitution.

Yeah we are all discussing this from the "comfort of our computer screens" so get over yourself. If you don't want to discuss something then fine.

But it would appear to me, that the Dr. in question is suggesting that had she had more accurate medical information, which would have been available had policy and procedure matters she would have been able to carry out an abortion in line with the Constitution some 5 hours earlier at least. Would that have saved the poor woman... I don't know, but perhaps.

Uriel.

rainbow kirby wrote: »

Consider the wording



for a minute, the implication there is that the unborn will be defended first and "due regard" will be paid to the mother's right to life. This directly affects how medical treatment can be applied during pregnancy - Savita's case being one example of that, Sheila Hodgers and Michelle Harte being others, and countless more besides. That's before we look at the very grey line between when a case is a risk to health (not covered under the X case judgement) vs a risk to life - how is that point to be defined?

The wording is fine or relatively so in my opinion. the matter then is legislative one and/or interpretation issue. And clear legislation/guidelines should be put in place and they should largely be based on medical expertise in my view.

As far as I can see so far, the Constitution hasn't inherently failed here

EDIT: I am also not convinced that the failure to legislate in this case was the main culprit either, though it played a part.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

rainbow kirby wrote: »

This directly affects how medical treatment can be applied during pregnancy - Savita's case being one example of that

I'm not sure that's correct. Clearly, medical practice has to be impacted by the Constitution. But the details emerging suggest that there were many operational mistakes in handling the case. The Constitution certainly doesn't require people to make mistakes.

Now, a suite of issues still arises - and probably a suite of issues that would require a referendum to resolve. One issue is simply why a pregnancy needs to be prolonged if a miscarriage is next to inevitable (apart, of course, from any genuine medical reasons for not intervening). But we have to be very clear-headed in assessing the evidence, and avoid the temptation to merge every fact into a political point.

The information emerging from the inquest is good. Finally, a lot of the obvious questions are being answered. Yet, I feel a certain sadness for the family as I read through it - which I'll admit can be just a superficial reaction to blanket media coverage. This case is of tremendous importance; these are pivotal events, whatever happened. Yet, its just one couple's awful tragedy at the same time.

If you donated your body for medical science, there would be ethical protocols about how it should be handled. Unfortunately, there's no similar system for situations where the details of someone's life and death become the subject of political science. There's no protocol for how we should treat these facts with respect. Yet, we should.

Kiwi in IE

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

If you donated your body for medical science, there would be ethical protocols about how it should be handled. Unfortunately, there's no similar system for situations where the details of someone's life and death become the subject of political science. There's no protocol for how we should treat these facts with respect. Yet, we should.

I completely agree. Some of the details published of the more graphic signs of sepsis are undignified, uneccessary and disrespectful. Reporting that 'obvious signs of sepsis' were not reported would be entirely sufficient without describing the intimate details.

Pushtrak

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Please tell me you are messing? 1995? and 49.72% were against divorce? Why? Did they want to see others in the wonderful situation where a couple have been separated for 35 years but on death the 'new' partner of 30 years has no rights because they are still 'married'? That is unbelievable!

I wish that was a joke... Well, it is a joke, I wish it were untrue. We're... A bit behind the curve, to put it delicately.

seamus

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Did she? I thought the reason she said treatment was delayed was because she was unaware of the results of an initial blood test taken at the time of admission. I thought she said that, if she'd been aware of the results of that test, she would have accelerated her approach to the case.

Can you substantiate what you are saying?

Dr Astbury denied three requests were made for a termination, and insisted that when she told Mrs Halappanavar she could not abort the baby on the Tuesday she used the words “in this country it is not legal to terminate a pregnancy in grounds of poor prognosis of the foetus” and never mentioned religion.

The doctor agreed that in other jurisdictions, like England, her patient would have been offered a termination if the prognosis of her foetus was poor.

“The law in Ireland does not permit termination even if there’s no prospect of viability,” she added.

“That would be my understanding of the legal position based on the legal judgement in the X-case and the Medical Council guidelines.”

The "48 hours" came from a news report I heard yesterday, I'll see if I can dig up a source on that.

homerjay2005

opinion guy wrote: »

I believe that by the time this is done Praveen will have done more for women's health and indeed the Heath service in ireland in general than generations of hse managers, politicians and medical councils will have done. The guy is a national hero without doubt. I have nothing but admiration for the guy.

the same health service that has one of the best records in the world for child mortality?

one death like this in 17 years at this hospital and while there will be lessons learned and were mistakes made, there is no evidence yet to suggest that these mistakes directly lead to her death. the doctors didnt believe her life was a risk as they didnt know what virus/infection she had.

VinLieger

homerjay2005 wrote: »

the same health service that has one of the best records in the world for child mortality?

one death like this in 17 years at this hospital and while there will be lessons learned and were mistakes made, there is no evidence yet to suggest that these mistakes directly lead to her death. the doctors didnt believe her life was a risk as they didnt know what virus/infection she had.

As has been stated since that "statistic" came out the numbers are completely skewed thanks to the ready availability of abortions across the irish sea.

Rasheed

Madam_X wrote: »

I feel awfully sorry for the woman who said the catholic country thing - clearly she was just explaining something and never meant anything heartless by it.

Oh stop, me too. The poor midwife was just trying to explain to a grieving, confused, frustrated woman why she had to continue with the torture of her situation. Wrongly put surely, but I think she meant well.

rainbow kirby

homerjay2005 wrote: »

the same health service that has one of the best records in the world for child mortality?

Only because they are reported differently here to how they are reported in the UK, US and most of Europe. Also doesn't take adverse maternal health outcomes into account.