Abortion Discussion

Frito

I don't know if I'm misunderstanding the act/guidance document, but it seems that there is an extra level of scrutiny applied by the referrer ie referrals must come through GP, there is no automatic right of referral but dependent on whether GP believes a test is applicable. The review panel appear concerned with reviewing decisions made by the treating team ie obstetrician, psych but could this include the GP? - it is possible that a GP may decide not to refer which would cause unnecessary delays.
Although I could be entirely wrong.

lazygal

I don't understand the gp link. I had no contact with my gp during either pregnancy, all my antenatal care was with my hospital and consultant. Does this mean I'd have to go back to my gp if I need to terminate a pregnancy and then follow consultant led care?

Frito

lazygal wrote: »

I don't understand the gp link. I had no contact with my gp during either pregnancy, all my antenatal care was with my hospital and consultant. Does this mean I'd have to go back to my gp if I need to terminate a pregnancy and then follow consultant led care?

I'm presuming it's in a crisis situation ie you've just found out you're pregnant, before you're linked in with obstetrics, or you may be linked in but don't have an appt for a while and they suggest you see your GP.
But overall I'm led to believe yes.

Frito

I'm just trying to think how it might work practically. I'm assuming most obstetricians are too busy to respond to pregnant women who feel suicidal at the thought of pregnancy and motherhood, and they suggest seeing their GP first.

lazygal

Frito wrote: »

I'm just trying to think how it might work practically. I'm assuming most obstetricians are too busy to respond to pregnant women who feel suicidal at the thought of pregnancy and motherhood, and they suggest seeing their GP first.

I had consultant led care and if I had any emergency I was told to come straight to the maternity hospital, which I did once. The hospital would be available24 hours, a gp wouldn't. Suppose the gp you're seeing acts "in accordance with his or her conscience" and doesn't agree with termination of pregnancy, as some don't prescribe contraception, how would that work?

swampgas

lazygal wrote: »

I had consultant led care and if I had any emergency I was told to come straight to the maternity hospital, which I did once. The hospital would be available24 hours, a gp wouldn't. Suppose the gp you're seeing acts "in accordance with his or her conscience" and doesn't agree with termination of pregnancy, as some don't prescribe contraception, how would that work?

To be honest, as far as I can see it's not designed to work at all. It is still expected that women will travel abroad to have abortions. The legislation and guidelines were designed purely to provide a fig-leaf for the government so they can say they have addressed the supreme court decision that a suicidal woman may be allowed an abortion. There was never any real intent to actually provide for abortions, merely to provide the most narrow, restrictive and minimal response possible to meet their legal obligations.

lazygal

I fully expected the powers that be to put as many "systems" as possible in place to maintain the status quo. It's going to be obvious to women in the maternity system that termination without answering the riddles of mystery will be too difficult and booking a flight to the UK the more pragmatic choice. We'll only really deal with this when a woman who can't travel has to be treated.

shruikan2553

Why don't the make a 9 month wait time in case you change your mind and you must beat Bilbo baggins in a game of riddles.

iwantmydinner

lazygal wrote: »

I fully expected the powers that be to put as many "systems" as possible in place to maintain the status quo. It's going to be obvious to women in the maternity system that termination without answering the riddles of mystery will be too difficult and booking a flight to the UK the more pragmatic choice. We'll only really deal with this when a woman who can't travel has to be treated.

And the cycle of preventable tragedy continues

Frito

lazygal wrote: »

I had consultant led care and if I had any emergency I was told to come straight to the maternity hospital, which I did once. The hospital would be available24 hours, a gp wouldn't. Suppose the gp you're seeing acts "in accordance with his or her conscience" and doesn't agree with termination of pregnancy, as some don't prescribe contraception, how would that work?

That's kind of my point really, in any other circumstance you would present to your specialist, except in abortion where the GP refers. An extra level of scrutiny is imposed.

On some flow charts in the guidance document it does start with either GP referral or self-presentation to obstetrician, but then other charts state GP should refer. So clarification needed to avoid women self presenting to request an abortion to be told to see their GP first.

aloyisious

Pregnant woman refused abortion gives birth by Caesarean Section http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/pregnant-woman-refused-abortion-gives-birth-by-caesarean-30512038.html

Opinion piece in Thursday's Irtsh Times... http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/abortion-guidelines-north-and-south-deny-women-their-rights-under-law-1.1896041

Nodin

^^ At least it wasn't a death that got it back in the headlines.


"A YOUNG woman, who was refused an abortion under the country’s new laws, had the baby delivered by Caesarean section after going on hunger strike.
The woman was in the second trimester of the pregnancy when she discovered she was pregnant and requested the abortion, which was refused.
In what is believed to be one of the first cases under the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act, 2013, the woman sought an abortion as she claimed to be suicidal.
Her case was assessed by a panel of three experts, as set out under the legislation passed last summer.
The psychiatrists on the panel determined her life was at risk as she had suicidal thoughts. But the consultant obstetrician said the baby could be delivered as it was far enough into the pregnancy.
The panel decided the baby should be delivered. The child was born at 25 weeks and is understood to be doing well.
After initially refusing tio have the baby delivered, the woman ultimately agreed."
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/baby-delivered-as-woman-refused-abortion-under-law-30512513.html

They were going to the high court for an order that would let them feed her regardless.

Is it just me or is this very much the notion that the UN (amongst others) referred to - women as vessels?

lazygal

Women are vessels. If you are pregnant in Ireland you must remain pregnant no matter what the circumstances are, unless there is a real, substantial and probable risk to your life. You must remain pregnant even if you don't want to be, unless your life is threatened. Men have no such legal obligation when it comes to pregnancy.

Absolam

lazygal wrote: »

Men have no such legal obligation when it comes to pregnancy.

If men did have such a legal obligation when it comes to pregnancy, what difference would it make?

lazygal

Absolam wrote: »

If men did have such a legal obligation when it comes to pregnancy, what difference would it make?

Maybe then we'd change the law so no one has to be a vessel.

aloyisious

Absolam wrote: »

If men did have such a legal obligation when it comes to pregnancy, what difference would it make?

That's the nub of the question of abortion here. The medical profession is averse to being put into a corner by law when it comes to such a request. Guidelines are being used purely to allow medical practitioners here evade any such request and prevent any woman having the right in law to insist on having an abortion whatsoever. One does not have to be a rocket-scientist to see that the guidelines are worded purely for that purpose, and definitely NOT for the care of any pregnant woman. Guidelines are of lesser value than toilet paper, unlike that of the women they are being used to avoid and deceive.

Putting your question after the prior sentence in lazygal's post (You must remain pregnant even if you don't want to be, unless your life is threatened) it might lift the position and request out of the theory and into the practical for men asked to place themselves in the mind of the pregnant woman requesting the abortion. Men have the comfort of being able to avoid such a position. Their hypocrisy is damnable, as is that of their D2 bed-fellows in all the evasion, prevarication and downright lying going on to avoid putting a pro-abortion piece of legislation into our state's law books.

rainbow kirby

Feck sake, they would rather have a baby delivered at 25 weeks, using major abdominal surgery, with all the associated issues of extreme prematurity rather than grant a second trimester abortion?

That is incredibly depressing.

Absolam

lazygal wrote: »

Maybe then we'd change the law so no one has to be a vessel.

Really? You honestly imagine that if someone was silly enough to pass a law tomorrow saying any man who is pregnant must remain pregnant, even though he doesn't want to be, unless his life is threatened, then someone else would be silly enough to pass a law saying no one has to be a vessel?

aloyisious wrote: »

That's the nub of the question of abortion here.

It's not though. The question of abortion here is not men vs women. There are men who are pro abortion, there are women who are anti abortion. Trying to make it about sexism is ludicrous.

aloyisious wrote: »

The medical profession is averse to being put into a corner by law when it comes to such a request. Guidelines are being used purely to allow medical practitioners here evade any such request and prevent any woman having the right in law to insist on having an abortion whatsoever.

There is no right in law to insist on having an abortion, that's not a matter of guidelines, it's a matter of the constitution. Medical practitioners aren't avoiding giving women that right; women won't have that right unless the country votes to give it to them.

aloyisious wrote: »

One does not have to be a rocket-scientist to see that the guidelines are worded purely for that purpose, and definitely NOT for the care of any pregnant woman. Guidelines are of lesser value than toilet paper, unlike that of the women they are being used to avoid and deceive.

Hang on, no one ever claimed that the guidelines were supposed to allow people to claim to be suicidal so that they could procure an abortion. The guidelines are supposed to ensure that women who are suicidal as a result of a pregnancy can procure an abortion if it's deemed medically necessary.

aloyisious wrote: »

Putting your question after the prior sentence in lazygal's post (You must remain pregnant even if you don't want to be, unless your life is threatened) it might lift the position and request out of the theory and into the practical for men asked to place themselves in the mind of the pregnant woman requesting the abortion.

Not to put too fine a point on it, men can't get pregnant. Legislating for that impossibility seems rather pointless; I doubt it will change how anyone thinks about abortion either.

aloyisious wrote: »

Men have the comfort of being able to avoid such a position. Their hypocrisy is damnable, as is that of their D2 bed-fellows in all the evasion, prevarication and downright lying going on to avoid putting a pro-abortion piece of legislation into our state's law books.

Men and their D2 bedfellows. Seriously? So now it's men and the women from Dublin 2 that are oppressing the rest of Irish womankind? I'll grant you damnable hypocrisy is a redolent phrase, but I must wonder what exactly is hypocritical about a man (or a women from Dublin 2) not being pro-abortion?

lazygal

rainbow kirby wrote: »

Feck sake, they would rather have a baby delivered at 25 weeks, using major abdominal surgery, with all the associated issues of extreme prematurity rather than grant a second trimester abortion?

That is incredibly depressing.

Not to mention the cost of such an event at a time when maternity services are stretched to capacity and other women aren't allows to opt for a section if they so wish.

Chattastrophe!

FFS ... if the poor woman was suicidal before, imagine what an ordeal like that would do to your mental health! :eek: It's disgusting that this was allowed to happen.

And the poor baby, too. 25 weeks is barely past the threshold of viability, who knows what sort of permanent health problems it'll end up with, if it survives.

I hope the woman is given extensive support to deal with what she's been through. The idea of being forced to undergo major surgery like that against your will, to bring an unwanted tiny premature baby into the world ... I don't think I'd ever be able to get over that.

swampgas

To be fair, this isn't really a problem with the law or with the guidelines, the real problem is the 8th amendment to the constitution. No real improvement will come (or be possible) until the constitutional issues are sorted out.

I heard on the radio that there may be as many as 6 referenda put before the people over the next year or so. Why not add another one, on the 8th? The people have never been given a chance to endorse the continuance of the 8th amendment, and Ireland has changed quite significantly since it was introduced.

aloyisious

Absolam.

I have no reason to doubt that as the majority of TD's and Senators are men, along with the same applying to the medical profession, that it is majorly a male decision NOT to go to law to provide the abortion service requested by women for women, regardless of the smaller numbers of men and women having opinions in either direction on abortion.

I agree with your (There is no right in law to insist on having an abortion, that's not a matter of guidelines, it's a matter of the constitution. Medical practitioners aren't avoiding giving women that right; women won't have that right unless the country votes to give it to them) and again I say it's the fault of D2'rs. They (a majority being men) are NOT daring to provide the necessary change in the Constitution, It's the basis on which law is decided here. The medical practitioners are NOT demanding of the other D2'rs in Leinster House "get us out of this situation, you are choosing to evade your responsibilities as legislators".

My point on the guidelines is that they are not meant to assist the medical profession and women have abortions where and when necessary. My point is that the guidelines were put together and worded to deliberately prevent any woman being provided with an abortion at all, and to prevent any medic wishing to provide it with a fear of action from within his/her professional representative body and prosecution in court. The guidelines are a duplicity, designed to deceive and prevaricate.

Re male pregnancy, I was pointing out that men have the comfort of not having to consider the position of pregnant women from a practical point of view, and that that actuality allows them to adapt a blinkered view of pregnancy and abortion.

Our legislators have an inherent obligation to decide the laws under which our state and it's citizens exist. When they choose to decide to let their personal feelings rule how they do the job we put them there to do, then they are failing both the rest of Irish womankind and their male counterparts in our society. I know t's a bloody job we put them in there to do, but THEY are deliberately sandbagging US on abortion.

Richard Bingham

Chattastrophe! wrote: »

FFS ... if the poor woman was suicidal before, imagine what an ordeal like that would do to your mental health! :eek:

An ordeal like a c section? Actually this will probably help her mental health as she now won't have to deal with having had an abortion. Ending a life is not something that a normal rational human being is likely to walk away from without being affected by it.

Chattastrophe! wrote: »

And the poor baby, too. 25 weeks is barely past the threshold of viability

Some would say that she could have waited another fortnight.

Chattastrophe! wrote: »

...who knows what sort of permanent health problems it'll end up with, if it survives.

At least it will have a life.

Chattastrophe! wrote: »

to bring an unwanted tiny premature baby into the world

When you say "unwanted" I assume you mean unwanted by her mother. What does that matter? I don't want you but it doesn't mean I have a right to kill you. Do you seriously believe that a mother should have the right to kill her baby (which then has to be removed from her womb anyway, sometimes causing harm to her) even if a c-section is an option.

Chattastrophe! wrote: »

...forced to undergo major surgery like that against your will

A c-section can hardly be described as major surgery. There must be thousands of them every year in Ireland alone.

Also, who forced anyone to do anything? Was she raped?

Turtwig

C-section is a major invasive surgery. Sometimes with permanent effects.

Delirium

Richard Bingham wrote: »

Also, who forced anyone to do anything? Was she raped?

sadly it seems she was

https://twitter.com/JohnBurnsST/status/500746784101371904

lazygal

Richard Bingham wrote: »

An ordeal like a c section? Actually this will probably help her mental health as she now won't have to deal with having had an abortion. Ending a life is not something that a normal rational human being is likely to walk away from without being affected by it.



Some would say that she could have waited another fortnight.



At least it will have a life.



When you say "unwanted" I assume you mean unwanted by her mother. What does that matter? I don't want you but it doesn't mean I have a right to kill you. Do you seriously believe that a mother should have the right to kill her baby (which then has to be removed from her womb anyway, sometimes causing harm to her) even if a c-section is an option.



A c-section can hardly be described as major surgery. There must be thousands of them every year in Ireland alone.

Also, who forced anyone to do anything? Was she raped?

How many c sections have you had?

Brian Shanahan

Richard Bingham wrote: »

Ending a life is not something that a normal rational human being is likely to walk away from without being affected by it.

Then the question surely must be:
When the psychiatrist stated that there was a clear chance of the young woman carrying out her suicide if she were forced to carry to term (yes she was being forced to carry to term here), why did the other two doctors on the panel decide to risk her death? Surely they wouldn't want her blood on their hands according to what you say.

Nodin

Richard Bingham wrote: »

................
A c-section can hardly be described as major surgery. There must be thousands of them every year in Ireland alone.?

Occassionally women say that men are dismissive of issues relating to the female gender. I'd imagine too much of the above is why.

Richard Bingham wrote: »

................
Also, who forced anyone to do anything? Was she raped?

Before some recent news, there was no indication one way or the other, so why the rhetorical question implying she wasn't forced?

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

I have no reason to doubt that as the majority of TD's and Senators are men, along with the same applying to the medical profession, that it is majorly a male decision NOT to go to law to provide the abortion service requested by women for women, regardless of the smaller numbers of men and women having opinions in either direction on abortion.

I agree; the majority of public representatives are male. However, they are elected by a public that is approx. 49% female. Those women are obviously not sexist when they choose their representatives, yet you assume the representatives they choose are. What basis do you have for your assumption?
It's not a MALE decision, it's a REPRESENTATIVE decision. If enough women want to request a service for women (and that's sexism right there; there are men as I said who support abortion, and women who don't) they can elect representatives who will promote their point of view. In fact, if enough people want to, they can make it an election issue and get elected on that basis. Right now, the fact that a majority of elected representatives aren't looking to bring a referendum to the people would indicate they have no confidence their electorate want it, and might vote them out if they do it.

aloyisious wrote: »

I agree with your <...> and again I say it's the fault of D2'rs. They (a majority being men) are NOT daring to provide the necessary change in the Constitution, It's the basis on which law is decided here.

I seriously don't know what you have against people from Dublin 2, or why you think it's up to them to change the law. However, if it, as you say, requires daring to change the constitution, what do you think they are daring? If they dare to go against public opinion, then they're not doing what they were elected for and will lose their seats. If freely available abortion is what public opinion demands, they dare nothing by representing their electorate.

aloyisious wrote: »

The medical practitioners are NOT demanding of the other D2'rs in Leinster House "get us out of this situation, you are choosing to evade your responsibilities as legislators".

Legislation is not the province of medical practicioners, it's the province of legislators. Who we elect.

aloyisious wrote: »

My point on the guidelines is that they are not meant to assist the medical profession and women have abortions where and when necessary.

My point is they are, it's just that the definition of necessary is narrower than you would like it to be.

aloyisious wrote: »

My point is that the guidelines were put together and worded to deliberately prevent any woman being provided with an abortion at all, and to prevent any medic wishing to provide it with a fear of action from within his/her professional representative body and prosecution in court. The guidelines are a duplicity, designed to deceive and prevaricate.

I'd say that's a nonsense; the guidelines specify under what circumstances a woman must be provided with an abortion. Again, those circumstances are simply more restrictive than you would like.

aloyisious wrote: »

Re male pregnancy, I was pointing out that men have the comfort of not having to consider the position of pregnant women from a practical point of view, and that that actuality allows them to adapt a blinkered view of pregnancy and abortion.

How is "If you're not a woman you can't understand" not a sexist statement?

aloyisious wrote: »

Our legislators have an inherent obligation to decide the laws under which our state and it's citizens exist. When they choose to decide to let their personal feelings rule how they do the job we put them there to do, then they are failing both the rest of Irish womankind and their male counterparts in our society.

Can you point to a legislator who has taken a stance on abortion contrary to what their constituents have required?

Nodin

"A WOMAN who became pregnant as a result of rape believes the state denied her access to an abortion for months, until the foetus became viable. Earlier this month, the baby was delivered prematurely through a Caesarean section, which was authorised under the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act.

The young woman, a foreign national with limited English, was not able freely to travel abroad for an abortion because of her legal status in Ireland.

She discovered she was expecting about eight weeks into the pregnancy, and immediately sought an abortion because she had been the victim of a traumatic rape. Months later, the woman believed she had been effectively refused an abortion, or the ability to travel abroad for such a procedure, by the state. She then went on a hunger and liquid strike. "
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/homeV2/article1447800.ece

The rest is behind a pay wall, but the above is damning enough on its own, if true. There's no way I can understand why somebody or how somebody could do that to a rape victim, if the case is as outlined above, let alone a group.

I seem to remember the issue of women in care being raised after the Savita H incident and subsequent legislation. I confess I'd only thought of that in relation to young girls in care, rather than those in the asylum system.