Consultant 'refused abortion plea'

Pompey Magnus

homerjay2005 wrote: »

however for most people, this was never, until now about how she died, it was about abortion, the catholic church and a reason to slam the lack of legislation in this country.

It almost looks like some are engaged in their own little inadvertent cover up, beginning with the media and quickly trickling down into broader society where there has been a deflecting of attention away from the real issue so as to push certain agendas and to score a cheap shot on the Catholic Church.

WayneMolloy

Morag wrote: »

I think we will the the abortion pill made legal eventually, it might take 20 years but I think it will happen.

If you can get up the pole after nine minutes, you can wait nine months to come down it again.

lynski

This is not about abortion it is about relevant, appropriate, timely medical care and how if you are a woman the law is against you receiving this in a case of miscarriage. It is about choice of options in suffering and pain and it is about how religion can supersede a woman's right to autonomy over her body. I am politically pro- choice because it is none of my business how others conduct their lives as long as it is legal. I am personally anti-abortion at this time of my life I would not have one. But would I have in the future? I can see circumstance in which I would.
We HAVE abortion here already they are just performed, at a rate of 15 or more a week every week, in other countries. It is time we look after ourselves.

pl4ichjgy17zwd

It always amazes me how many people believe thier precious church is being oppressed.

drkpower

wolfpawnat wrote: »

But the case now seems to hinge more on the whole "why did no one read the test findings" argument since that appears to be what killed her. If she had had the correct anti-biotics, they would have killed the foetus and she would have had an abortion via life saving drugs that would have increased her survival chances exponentially, though still not guaranteeing her survival.

That isnt correct.

Antibiotics will not kill the foetus. The treatment for chorioamnionitis (which appears to have then caused sepsis) is antibiotics and evacuation of the uterus. So antibiotics and a termination were needed to treat the patient. One, without the other, would be less than optimal care.

The relevance of the blood tests being acted upon earlier is twofold:
1. it may have affected Dr Astbury's assessment as to whether Savita's life was at a real and substantial risk (and therefore may have allowed a termination at an earlier time);
2. it may have prompted earlier antibiotic treatment

WayneMolloy

Kristopher Rancid Chairlift wrote: »

It always amazes me how many people believe thier precious church is being oppressed.

It always amazes me that those who are pro abortion, think that those who arent - must be a bunch of bead rattlers.

eireannBEAR

WayneMolloy wrote: »

It always amazes me that those who are pro abortion, think that those who arent - must be a bunch of bead rattlers.

top class comment. its belittles the pro-choice argument as they seem to be more against the church than the abortion laws!

im only against abortion on demand and for mental health reasons and i aint no catholic.

LizT

Mod

This thread isn't about abortion on demand, if you want to discuss that, there's plenty of other threads on boards where you can do so.

rainbow kirby

WayneMolloy wrote: »

If you can get up the pole after nine minutes, you can wait nine months to come down it again.

eireannBEAR wrote: »

top class comment. its belittles the pro-choice argument as they seem to be more against the church than the abortion laws!

im only against abortion on demand and for mental health reasons and i aint no catholic.

Oh look, men spouting judgemental crap again. Anything to stop women from exercising their rights to bodily integrity.

pl4ichjgy17zwd

WayneMolloy wrote: »

It always amazes me that those who are pro abortion, think that those who arent - must be a bunch of bead rattlers.

My comment wasn't regarding abortion. It was to those in the thread who seem to think the church and catholics are being oppressed because it's 'trendy' now or that people are using this as an excuse to hop on an 'anti-catholic' bandwagon.

Nonoperational

Timistry wrote: »

I have been following this case with much interest and most of all, disgust. Luckily my mind does not venture into the dark depravity that is this money grabbing theory. The story is far worse than the perceived bandwagon which he apparently jumped on. If I was in his position and money permitting I would have been looking at all legal avenues including the european court of human rights.

Since the" its a catholic country" quote has been confirmed and talk of a paper trail coverup of sorts has surfaced you have to wonder WTF is going on behind the scenes in this country. The catholic churches roots have weaved their way into the very fabric of the irish health and educational systems and indeed the social construct. The fact that people are still staunchly anti abortion in any circumstances after this aberration is frankly shocking. People would have their dog looked after better than this.

And alas, Im unfortunately convinced that NOTHING will come of this. There will be no policy changes, no change of the law or legislation re the x case, no one will step down (in Ireland would would have to shoot someone in the face to do this). I hope he takes the HSE and the whole system to the cleaners, not for monetary gain but to bring shame and force change upon the HSE

That's a really irritating post.
This whole thing has nothing to do with "Catholic roots". This is a case of doctors not following up properly on a patient that deteriorated much more quickly then anyone thought would happen. If the situation had been followed up properly and everyone knew all the important details then this would not have happened.

And to say nothing will come of this is not true either. Galway University Hospital have already implemented new sepsis guidelines, and the fallout of this won't be easily forgotten.

Like FFS, this was a mistake, a tragic mistake, but it need not have happened. Your making it sound like it had to happen because the HSE and the Church are taking part in some sort of cover-up. Complete nonsense.

Can you find me the hundreds of cases per year where mothers die in Ireland because they are refused terminations? No. You can't.
Ireland has one of the lowest maternal mortality rates in the world.

But don't let that get in the way of all the ranting about the church and abortion etc etc.

WayneMolloy

Kristopher Rancid Chairlift wrote: »

My comment wasn't regarding abortion. It was to those in the thread who seem to think the church and catholics are being oppressed because it's 'trendy' now or that people are using this as an excuse to hop on an 'anti-catholic' bandwagon.

Who claimed that the church is being oppressed?

And lol at you claiming it being trendy to defend the church. These days, its almost a revolutionary act for a young person to openly state that they they support the church or that they are anti abortion. Much more trendy for young people to set their FB profile pic to an image of savita, shout pro abortion slogans and slate the church ( and also slate those that slate islam!).

homerjay2005

Kristopher Rancid Chairlift wrote: »

My comment wasn't regarding abortion. It was to those in the thread who seem to think the church and catholics are being oppressed because it's 'trendy' now or that people are using this as an excuse to hop on an 'anti-catholic' bandwagon.

so you honestly think this hasnt happened at all?

If the original article didnt contain the following headline "Woman 'denied a termination' dies in hospital" with reference to Catholic Country in the sub heading, her name would be known by very few people in this country.

Seachmall

eireannBEAR wrote: »

im only against abortion on demand and for mental health reasons and i aint no catholic.

Can you explain why you're against abortion in other cases?

To tie it in with the thread topic, why should Savita have been refused an abortion when she requested it?

mikom

God help the poor ould church being oppressed.
They have the choice to fuck off out of it if they don't like it.
Plenty of developing countries with poorly educated peoples out there for them to latch on to.
It's no coincidence that the new selection for pope is Latin American.

eireannBEAR

Seachmall wrote: »

Can you explain why you're against abortion in other cases?

To tie it in with the thread topic, why should Savita have been refused an abortion when she requested it?

i never said savita should have been denied a termination!!

as far as im concerned no man has the right to force an abortion on a women and no women has the right to an abortion.

the only exceptions should be if the birth puts the mothers life at high risk. after all why should both mother and child die. in those circumstance you are not protecting the child by allowing his/hers mother to die along with him/her.

Morag

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/savita-doctor-law-was-factor-in-termination-decision-29187443.html

When asked why she had approached a second member of staff to discuss carrying out a termination, Dr Astbury said she considered it good practice if going to do something out of the ordinary that you would seek the opinion of a second senior member of staff.

When asked by the coroner, "Did you think it might be a question of law?" Dr Astbury replied; "Yes."

She said later she felt inhibited and constrained by the legal laws in Ireland when it came to Savita's case.

wolfpawnat

homerjay2005 wrote: »

for what it is worth, i agree here that failings have been made.

however for most people, this was never, until now about how she died, it was about abortion, the catholic church and a reason to slam the lack of legislation in this country.

By the media yes. As I said time and again, it was all about sensationalist headlines and the want for some reason to make Ireland seem like some third world back water living in the middle ages. Yes we need to further separate church and state in many aspects, but they were not even waiting for facts, merely spouting BS.

drkpower wrote: »

Retropective notes are extremely common and when identified as such do not represent tampering and are not 'fiddling with the notes'. Particularly where time did not allow for a complete note to be written contemporaneously, writing a retrospective note is considered best practice.

Yes, at the end of a working shift or just before the patient is released. I know this personally. But never after a death unless something important is remembered, like perhaps a request for more medication, etc.

drkpower wrote: »

That isnt correct.

Antibiotics will not kill the foetus. The treatment for chorioamnionitis (which appears to have then caused sepsis) is antibiotics and evacuation of the uterus. So antibiotics and a termination were needed to treat the patient. One, without the other, would be less than optimal care.

The relevance of the blood tests being acted upon earlier is twofold:
1. it may have affected Dr Astbury's assessment as to whether Savita's life was at a real and substantial risk (and therefore may have allowed a termination at an earlier time);
2. it may have prompted earlier antibiotic treatment

My stepmother was given anti-biotics while pregnant that were going to kill the already dying foetus. Her life was seen as I dunno would you call it suitably at risk, but at risk enough for them to think it the best plan of action, and yes, then the foetus was as you say evacuated. I have said in many of my posts that this should have been done for Savita too. Whatever drugs necessary to deal with her infection, make her comfortable and bring her deteriorating health somewhat under control, then deal with the dead/dying foetus. And then allow her to make full recovery. As I have also stated, the failure of the medical parties involved to read/obtain her blood test results is what failed in this situation. As you have stated too, with the correct information, her doctor would have been able to make a better call and more than likely Savita would still be alive today.

mikom

eireannBEAR wrote: »

i never said savita should have been denied a termination!!

as far as im concerned no man has the right to force an abortion on a women and no women has the right to an abortion.

the only exceptions should be if the birth puts the mothers life at high risk. after all why should both mother and child die. in those circumstance you are not protecting the child by allowing his/hers mother to die along with him/her.

Would you allow a (no notion of quitting) female heroin addict the opportunity to request an early abortion?

Pompey Magnus

mikom wrote: »

Would you allow a (no notion of quitting) female heroin addict the opportunity to request an early abortion?

Why should that be an exception?

mikom

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Why should that be an exception?

It's not an exception, it's a question.

Stark

Pompey Magnus wrote:

Why should that be an exception?

You think forcing heroin addicts to become parents to (probably profoundly disabled) children is a good idea?

drkpower

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Yes, at the end of a working shift or just before the patient is released. I know this personally. But never after a death unless something important is remembered, like perhaps a request for more medication, etc. .

No; not just at the end of a shift. And yes; even after a death. Once they are identified clearly as retrospective and the reasons given for their addition, retrospective notes are entirely appropriate and even best practice.

wolfpawnat wrote: »

My stepmother was given anti-biotics while pregnant that were going to kill the already dying foetus. Her life was seen as I dunno would you call it suitably at risk, but at risk enough for them to think it the best plan of action, and yes, then the foetus was as you say evacuated. I have said in many of my posts that this should have been done for Savita too. Whatever drugs necessary to deal with her infection, make her comfortable and bring her deteriorating health somewhat under control, then deal with the dead/dying foetus. And then allow her to make full recovery. As I have also stated, the failure of the medical parties involved to read/obtain her blood test results is what failed in this situation.

While your interpretation of your stepmother's experience is clearly relevant and important information, antibiotics do not kill the foetus (at least not at the speed that would be required in the context of chorioamnionitis) and treatment for chorioamnionitis is antibiotics and evacuation of the uterus, not one or the other, nor one followed by the other.

wolfpawnat wrote: »

As you have stated too, with the correct information, her doctor would have been able to make a better call and more than likely Savita would still be alive today.

I didnt say that; because we dont know that.

Pompey Magnus

mikom wrote: »

It's not an exception, it's a question.

Yes, but why do you feel the need to ask eireannBEAR if you don't think it worthy of an exception to his already quite clear criteria?

eireannBEAR

heroin addicts are not of sound mind and body so they would not be allowed an abortion even in the uk! disgraceful question by the way.

mikom

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Yes, but why do you feel the need to ask eireannBEAR if you don't think it worthy of an exception to his already quite clear criteria?

He is a self confessed ex-addict.
I presume he knows what coming off certain substances is like.
I also presume he will know how incapable of caring for a child many addicts can be.

eireannBEAR wrote: »

heroin addicts are not of sound mind and body so they would not be allowed an abortion even in the uk! disgraceful question by the way.

It's a perfectly valid question.
Not disgraceful at all.

Spontaneous abortion is one of the many side effects of heroin addiction.
This is enabled by the addicts "choice" to continue using.

Avoiding this, then you will have the birth of a heroin addicted baby to a parent incapable of caring for it.

Pompey Magnus

Stark wrote: »

You think forcing heroin addicts to become parents to (probably profoundly disabled) children is a good idea?

Firstly I don't discriminate between a child who is disabled and one who is not, that aspect of your question is irrelevant as far as I am concerned. In answer to the rest of your question though I feel the State should ensure the child is adequately cared for after birth and if the mother is not able to do so then the State should intervene.

eireannBEAR

mikom wrote: »

He is a self confessed ex-addict.
I presume he knows what coming off certain substances is like.
I also presume he will know how incapable of caring for a child many addicts can be.

how would that give me any insight in to the mind of a HEROIN addict???

Seachmall

eireannBEAR wrote: »

the only exceptions should be if the birth puts the mothers life at high risk. after all why should both mother and child die. in those circumstance you are not protecting the child by allowing his/hers mother to die along with him/her.

Well there's no moral dilemma there so the answer is clear but what about a case where you only have two options,

1. Abort the child, let the mother survive.
2. Birth the child, let the mother die.

Not in a "save one or both die" situation but in a "pick one or the other" situation?

Is abortion justified?

Gatling

anybody huffing and puffing on here Actually got medical qualifications .
Or medically versed in emergency maternity medicine,

wolfpawnat

drkpower wrote: »

No; not just at the end of a shift. And yes; even after a death. Once they are identified clearly as retrospective and the reasons given for their addition, retrospective notes are entirely appropriate and even best practice.

I was a trainee nurse, we were not allowed many retrospective notes after death unless essential. Only notes at the time (you could imagine the size of the paperwork load some of us left for the actual nurses to tidy up). But we were not left do too much damage. I am only going on what I did myself.

drkpower wrote: »

While your interpretation of your stepmother's experience is clearly relevant and important information, please be asured that antibiotics do not kill the foetus (at least not at the speed that would be required in the context of chorioamnionitis).

No, anti-biotics do not actively kill a foetus, but they weaken it, like us adults, and if the foetus is already dying, it may speed up the already inevitable. Getting her infection under control was paramount to her survival, the foetus as you clearly seem to know yourself, would/should be second to that.

drkpower wrote: »

I didnt say that; because we dont know that.

Hence why I said more than likely rather than swearing blindly she would be. We have no guarantees. Medicine is not perfect, and people will always die, this is fact. But with the correct information and course of action, her chances of survival would have been a hell of a lot higher.

Stark

Gatling wrote: »

anybody huffing and puffing on here Actually got medical qualifications .
Or medically versed in emergency maternity medicine,

Do you?

HondaSami

Seachmall wrote: »

What about a case where the mother will likely die during birth but the child could be saved or the child could be aborted and the mother saved.

Not in a "save one or both die" situation but in a "pick one or the other" situation?

Is abortion justified?

This is the only time i am in favour of it, save the mother always imo.

I'm for it in rape/incest cases also, just to be clear but never on demand.

eireannBEAR

rape/incest case are dodgy but i would side with termination due to it would be carried out near instantly and most rape cases could be resolved with the pill.

Gatling

Stark wrote: »

Do you?

No but my partner has been through 2 difficult labour's

Seems a lot of view's on medical issues with little or no actual knowledge of either medicine or maternity in general

mikom

eireannBEAR wrote: »

how would that give me any insight in to the mind of a HEROIN addict???

Don't say it was cannabis you were addicted to, or else I will fall off my seat.

eireannBEAR

mikom wrote: »

Don't say it was cannabis you were addicted to, or else I will fall off my seat.

flagged

wolfpawnat

eireannBEAR wrote: »

rape/incest case are dodgy but i would side with termination due to it would be carried out near instantly and most rape cases could be resolved with the pill.

Not wanting to drag this off Savita and the discussion at hand too much. But this is very true, these days with the MAP being available over the counter, it has countered the rape suggestion, hence the vote my the IMO against it in their recent meeting.

Then there are the terrified/nasty women who will claim rape to get the abortion and innocent men may end up imprisoned for something that was consensual.

Incest is a whole different kettle of fish though!

Seachmall

[Post is irrelevant given mod warning below.]

mikom

mikom wrote: »

Don't say it was cannabis you were addicted to, or else I will fall off my seat.

eireannBEAR wrote: »

flagged

It was?

Good Jaysus.
As bad as being in the grips of a video game addiction.

LizT

Mod

This is it guys, last warning. This thread is for discussion of the case at hand, it's not a pro/anti abortion thread.

Any more off topic posts will be infracted from here on out, fair warning.

wolfpawnat

I can find toss all new information online from the second half of today's inquest hearing. Seriously need to find a good news site. Anything else come to light?

Flier

Uriel. wrote: »

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.

I'm not having a go at you - you're right, there's a lot of armchair doctors and lawyers stating as fact what should or shouldn't have been done. However, the staff in UCHG were working in real time, and made the best decision they could with the information they had at the time. And the coroner (who is actually qualified) is waiting to hear all the evidence before he decides to rule on the case.

Uriel. wrote: »

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.

5 hours is a very fine line in a rapidly deteriorating situation. I wouldn't like my life to depend on it.

Morag

https://twitter.com/FergalBowers

He is the Health Correspondent for RTE News and has been live tweeting the inquest.

drkpower

wolfpawnat wrote: »

I was a trainee nurse, we were not allowed many retrospective notes after death unless essential. Only notes at the time (you could imagine the size of the paperwork load some of us left for the actual nurses to tidy up). But we were not left do too much damage. I am only going on what I did myself. .

Just because it was what you did as a trainee nurse doesnt mean that you were doing it right. Google MPS; retrospective notes and you wil find very quickly what best practice is considered to be.

wolfpawnat wrote: »

No, anti-biotics do not actively kill a foetus, but they weaken it, like us adults, and if the foetus is already dying, it may speed up the already inevitable. Getting her infection under control was paramount to her survival, the foetus as you clearly seem to know yourself, would/should be second to that. .

The foetus is the source of the infection (or more accurately the connection between the foetus and mother is the source); as a former trainee nurse, I hope you were thought that removing the source of an infection is even more important in most cases than antibiotic therapy. Removing the source of infection is most definitely not 'second to' antibiotic therapy.

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Hence why I said more than likely rather than swearing blindly she would be. We have no guarantees. Medicine is not perfect, and people will always die, this is fact. But with the correct information and course of action, her chances of survival would have been a hell of a lot higher.

Saying she 'more than likely' would have survived is still wrong.

positron

This week my faith in humanity has been restored by the actions of Midwife Manager Ann Maria Burke, who had the courage and decenty to stick to her values and principles and agree that she did indeed mention the widely reported 'catholic country' remark, and I am sure she knows full well how much damage that has done and how many are going to look down at her for that. And for Praveen to straight away come out and express that he understands her and does not feel anything against her and still want to thank all the staff who tried to help - that was equally heartwarming. Good people on both sides. I am sure this won't get as much media coverage as the original news item, which is a shame, but that's how it is.

On the other hand, I still can't stop thinking that Savita would have been alive today if this happened in India, or another country. That is, based on everything that was discussed, I personally feel Dr Astbury (sp?) was hindered by the legal situation from taking a more proactive decision - like any doctor would have in India for example. It's a shame really. And the fact that there are many people out there who are try to split hair on the minute details trying to find fault elsewhere etc.. is a bit worrying..!

GCU Flexible Demeanour

positron wrote: »

<...> the widely reported 'catholic country' remark<...>

As many have said, it's only stating facts to say that the main reason abortion is banned by the Constitution is because of the influence of Catholicism.

positron wrote: »

<...> I still can't stop thinking that Savita would have been alive today if this happened in India<...>

http://www.unfpa.org/public/home/news/pid/10730

Disparity exists within and across countries and regions. One third of all maternal deaths occur in just two countries – in 2010, almost 20 per cent of deaths (56,000) were in India and 14 per cent (40,000) were in Nigeria.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15814392

The present study was undertaken at a rural medical institute in India to analyse the trends in maternal mortality due to sepsis and the factors associated with change, if any. <...> the percentage contribution of septic abortion has remained the same. <...> Most of the women who had died due to septic abortion were married (65%). <...>

positron wrote: »

<...> I personally feel Dr Astbury (sp?) was hindered by the legal situation from taking a more proactive decision <...>

Grand, but have you any actual basis for saying that? The issue, so far, seems to be about infection going undetected. Hasn't the doctor you're referring to said that she'd have acted sooner if she'd known the full picture?

drkpower

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Hasn't the doctor you're referring to said that she'd have acted sooner if she'd known the full picture?

she has said that she may have acted sooner had she been aware of some indicators of infection earlier (foul vaginal discharge, white cell count).

She has said that she did, in fact, feel constrained from acting due to Irish law.


There is a notable difference there, I think.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

drkpower wrote: »

she has said that she may have acted sooner had she been aware of some indicators of infection earlier (foul vaginal discharge, white cell count).

She has said that she did, in fact, feel constrained from acting due to Irish law.


There is a notable difference there, I think.

There's a difference between those two statements, but the emerging picture suggests that (similar to the reported outcome of the HSE inquiry) the law wasn't the pivotal issue. The pivotal issue was the condition was undiagnosed (or, at least, that would seem to be what's coming out the testimony.)

positron

The figure of 56000 might look big, but when they say India they are talking about over 1.2 billion people, so it might be really tiny in percentage terms.

Dr Astbury also said she felt constrained by the Irish law to giving an abortion as soon as she knew the fetus was not viable. I am sure everyone would agree there is no point prolonging the agony and risking death in such a case, and it is shocking really that in this day and age a knowledgeable medical team with armed with the right skillset, knowledge, medical equipment and test results, can't proactively act to help someone, due to some conditions setup by a society under the influence of a religious order with no knowledge of the medical procedures, threats or benefits just because they feel they are the guardians of some sort of moral value and feels the need to inflict that upon everyone else irrespective of their own personal belief or the lack of.