Abortion Discussion

aloyisious

On a small matter of law, I was wondering whether, due to her status, the state had care-obligations to the young woman beyond those due to Irish Citizens and whether what has occurred was within the obligations put on the state under whatever international law or agreement the state signed up to or is obliged to follow. Did the obstetrician, whatever about state law and guidelines, step outside the boundaries of those international ones? Would state law trump international law in this case?

I had a look at what i posted and Absolam's reply.... Quote:
Originally Posted by aloyisious View Post
I'm left wondering how the bishop came to the conclusion that the caesarean section operation was not necessary, like; was he given specific details on the medical condition of both the woman and the feotus which lead him to believe that the operation was not required on medical grounds. If the bishop is correct that there was no medical need for the operation, then why was it done? From the statement he made, one can infer that it was entirely medically safe for the pregnancy to proceed full-term to a natural birth.

Absolam... I get the impression that the implication is the bishop believes it would have been better to force the woman to bring the pregnancy to term and give birth naturally, as there was no physical necessity for a c section. The presumption being that he either doesn't accept that there was a risk of suicide, or that he doesn't believe a risk of suicide is sufficient reason to deliver the child early by c section... unquote.

........................................................................................................................................................................

It left me wondering what the obstetrician would be feeling and saying after reading what the bishop said, if he had done the caesarean for the purpose of pre-empting the causal-effect a suicide would have. Ah, damned if I did, damned if I didn't, even the church is agin me for being pro-life: sprang to mind.

lazygal

Was she a refugee or asylum seeker? I've only read reports that she wasn't Irish.

Cabaal

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2014/08/18/rte-weirdness/

RTÉ journalist Dyane Connor spoke to Rachel English on Morning Ireland earlier, to discuss the case of the woman whose baby was born by Caesarean section after a panel of experts turned down her request for an abortion.

Neither journalist mentioned that the woman was raped.

Rachel English: “We’re joined by RTE reporter, Dyane Connor. I suppose I should say as well, Dyane, that there are legal restrictions on what we can say about the woman at the centre of this case but what can you tell us about her.”

Dyane Connor: “Yes, there is a court order in place, so she cannot be identified at all, to protect her identity. We do know that she was in her second trimester when she was admitted to hospital, requesting an abortion. Now, as it required under the new legislation which came into effect at the beginning of this year, she was assessed by a panel of three medical experts – two psychiatrists and an obstetrician. I understand it was decided that she did have suicidal thoughts but it was decided not to carry out an abortion, instead to terminate the pregnancy by a Caesarean section. Now when the woman was told of this, she was very upset and she began a hunger and thirst strike. At this point, the HSE went to the high court to get an order, to allow it to hydrate her, because, for a woman to undergo a Caesarean section, I understand, it’s very dangerous if she is dehydrated. Now a further court date was set, subsequently to this, the woman I understand did agree to allow a Caesarean section to be carried out and this was performed when she was either 24th going on her 25th week of pregnancy, the baby was delivered.”

English: “Now this practice if we go back for a moment, this practice, the assessment by a medical panel. This was introduced under the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act, so what happens? How does this work?”

Connor: “Well, once the legislation is called upon, the woman is seen by three medical experts, so you have to psychiatrists who are examining her mental health and then an obstetrician who obviously, in this instance, made the decision that the baby is considered viable, can survive outside the womb. Now an option that was open to the woman, when she was refused an abortion, she could have I suppose asked for a review of this decision which would have meant that a panel of ten medical practitioners are then called upon. This has to be done within, no later than three days, after the initial decision is made. Once the panel has convened to review that decision, they then must make a decision no longer than seven days. Obviously time is of the essence in this case. Now, it’s very important as well to stress that the termination of a pregnancy is the ending of a pregnancy. In the first three months, we would refer to it as an abortion. But in later stages of pregnancy, this termination of a pregnancy can be the delivering of a baby by Caesarean section if an obstetrician believes that the baby is viable.”

English: “As you mention the timeframe here, can we go back over that for a moment because there does appear to be some confusion. Now, it’s reported that the young woman here, that she first asked for an abortion when she was eight weeks’ pregnant. And, yet, some time seems to have passed before she was assessed by this panel of medical experts.”

Connor: “That’s correct. A colleague of mine, Emer Lowe, was also working on this story over the weekend and sources close to this woman say she did find out she was pregnant in her first trimester and that she asked her doctor for an abortion and she claims that she wasn’t given the options that should be open to a woman in a situation like hers. And it was impossible for her to travel abroad for an abortion in her circumstances. But it was her second trimester before she went in to hospital, looking for the abortion.”

English: “What’s known now about how the young woman is and, indeed, how the baby is?”

Connor: “I believe the woman is quite upset and traumatised and the baby was born by Caesarean section and is being cared for and treated in a hospital at the moment, where the baby will remain for the coming months. What happens then is still not clear. But I understand that at the moment, it looks like the baby will be taken into care.”

English: “Dyane, thank you very much indeed.”

Anyone?

I noticed this yesterday as well,

Two different radio stations mentioned no rape, whilst all the newspapers I checked mentioned she was raped.

While RTE might be ignoring it, not everyone is

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/woman-sought-abortion-at-eight-weeks-1.1899851

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-28833128

MrPudding

Calina wrote: »

I'm not entirely sure that it makes any difference what age she is. Forcing minors to have children is obscene.

I think you have misunderstood my point. Forget the pregnancy for a moment. If you have two people on hunger strike, one an adult and one a minor, then the HSE can apply to be court to force feed the minor. In law the minor is not considered capable of making the decision to end her life. With respect to the adult, however, in normal circumstances, the HSE would be unsuccessful in obtaining an order to force feed an adult.

The reports say hat the HSE went to court for an order to force feed be woman. My point is that if the woman was a minor this would be fairly normal, and could be done whether or not she was pregnant, however, if the woman is an adult then the order was sought only because she was pregnant. Had she not been pregnant the HSE would likely fail.

Forcing anyone, adult or minor to endure a pregnancy they they do not want, particularly when experts have found there is a risk to continuing the pregnancy is obscene. I just think it is worse when this new law, along with 40.3.3 operate to change the status of a pregnat adult to that of an incubator with apparently no right to decide what to do with her body and not even allowed the right to protest at her treatment by refusing food.

MrP

Loafing Oaf

Absolam wrote: »

In short, not much as far as I can tell. It is empowered to hear complaints and make recommendations on compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, but I can't see any reference to further powers than that (not even the power to compel testimony).
From the dreaded wikipedia:
"the United States has not accepted a single international obligation required under the Covenant. It has not changed its domestic law to conform with the strictures of the Covenant"
So despite the fact that the US is a signatory to the treaty (and has a seat on the committee), it seems not all bothered about complying with it...
and
"It remains disputed whether the Human Rights Committee's "Views under article 5(4) of the Optional Protocol" qualify as decisions of a quasi-judicial body or simply constitute authoritative interpretations on the merits of the cases brought before them."
Which reads to me as a judgement made by the Committee may not of itself necessarily be of any use in bringing a legal case for compliance within a State that is a signatory to the Treaty, which would be a useless exercise in Ireland anyway since the Constitution outweighs any other legal instrument.
So the Committee appears to be in a position to censure non compliance, but not to compel compliance; there are plenty of examples of their criticising various countries for non compliance (and abortion is only one of a number of issues it has been critical of Ireland on), but I can't see any examples of them asking the UN proper to sanction or invade countries in order to force them to comply.

Interesting info, cheers, but I was really asking you how you think the system should work. Supposing you had an Islamic majority that mandated compulsory FGM for all women, would they be entitled to tell the UNHRC that this practice was fully in compliance with their understanding of 'human rights'. If every country can make up its own rules, what useful function has such a committee?

aloyisious

lazygal wrote: »

Was she a refugee or asylum seeker? I've only read reports that she wasn't Irish.

Good point. I've dropped the "refugee" reference til that's sorted.

Calina

I wonder if she is a student to be honest.

lazygal

Calina wrote: »

I wonder if she is a student to be honest.

Her right to travel may be limited if she's from outside the eu. Not to mention the financial cold hard reality that if you can't afford an abortion you can't access one in Ireland.

Calina

lazygal wrote: »

Her right to travel may be limited if she's from outside the eu. Not to mention the financial cold hard reality that if you can't afford an abortion you can't access one in Ireland.

She has to be from outside the EU, otherwise she has the right to travel. However, she may have a student or work visa so refugee or asylum requirement is not a given.

jank

lazygal wrote: »

Two psychiatrists determined her life was threatened by suicide, and this has been widely reported. It was an obstetrician who decided on the c section. Her life was under threat, the threat itself should not be relevant, unless you think a physical threat is more of a 'real' threat than suicide.

In reality, a physical threat to the life of the mother is of course more real than suicide due to the amount of child-birth related deaths that occur in the world (Are there even stats on mothers who died because of suicide?). In singular instances the end result is the same, the death of the mother. I imagine this is what is being referred to as a 'physical threat', an externality that the mother or doctors cannot control, rather than a voluntary (or involuntary due to her mental state) action of the mother to do self harm. It depends on your view point.

jank

It will be interesting if the person in question is a refugee and the legal implications of that status. Afaik refugees have very limited rights in the first place (this is true everywhere) thus would they even quality to have the same rights as Irish citizens?

Calina

jank wrote: »

It will be interesting if the person in question is a refugee and the legal implications of that status. Afaik refugees have very limited rights in the first place (this is true everywhere) thus would they even quality to have the same rights as Irish citizens?

Depends on your assessment of this in terms of basic human rights. They are not limited by status.

Calina

jank wrote: »

In reality, a physical threat to the life of the mother is of course more real than suicide due to the amount of child-birth related deaths that occur in the world (Are there even stats on mothers who died because of suicide?). In singular instances the end result is the same, the death of the mother. I imagine this is what is being referred to as a 'physical threat', an externality that the mother or doctors cannot control, rather than a voluntary (or involuntary due to her mental state) action of the mother to do self harm. It depends on your view point.

I think the word you're looking for is "tangible" rather than real.

Calina

MrPudding wrote: »

It would be I retesting to know the woman's age. If she is a minor then the HSE's decision to go to court to obtain an order to force feed her is quite reasonable. If she is not a minor then this would be an example of the new law and 40.3.3 changing this woman's status from that of a human being with the relevant rights to that of an incubator with no rights to decide what she does and does not do with her body, not even the right to protest at her treatment by refusing food.

I almost hope the girl is a minor as the alternative is obscene.

MrP

She is now 18 according to the Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/18/pregnant-suicidal-victim-ireland-abortion-law

The rape took place when she was 17 per the same report.

jank

Calina wrote: »

Depends on your assessment of this in terms of basic human rights. They are not limited by status.

Of course, but is a right to an abortion a basic human right?

lazygal

jank wrote: »

Of course, but is a right to an abortion a basic human right?

Yes. The right not to be pregnant unless you want to be is a human right.

Cabaal

jank wrote: »

Of course, but is a right to an abortion a basic human right?

So a women becoming pregnant against her wishes due to a rape is ok then?
Because agreeing that an abortion in such an instances is not a right only legitimizes the pregnancy and that rape the caused it.

Whats next, the women has to agree to visitation rights with the rapist for the child she was forced to give birth to? Sure she has no right to refuse, its his baby too!
:rolleyes:

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

Allegedly the woman had asked for an abortion at eight weeks, but this ran into problems, allegedly language interpretation problems, so her request was NOT met. It leaves an intervening period of approx seventeen (17) weeks between that alleged request and the caesarean operation, when an abortion, allegedly approved of by the two psychiatrists, could have proceeded. The woman was not out of the country due to her legal status as a refugee here. Her need's were NOT acceded-to by the obstetrician within the guidelines, using the same guidelines to deny her request, Catch-22 for her.

I think you've leapt to a bit of a conclusion there. There's nothing saying that the psychiatrists agreed to the abortion at the eight weeks stage but the obstetrician refused and waited 17 weeks to perform a c section instead.
In fact, your own interpretation only says she requested an abortion at eight weeks; not that she was assessed as suicidal.
If she didn't say she was suicidal until 17 weeks after she requested the abortion, then the obstetrician acted in a timely manner once the psychiatrists has properly assessed her condition.

aloyisious wrote: »

one must presume, from the fact the caesarean-birth took place after the woman went on hunger-strike (itself a life-threatening situation recognized as such due to the court-action) that the obstetrician was aware that the woman had a fixed opinion about the feotus growing within her and that her action indicated that she would end her life rather than allow the feotus grow within her to a full-term birth, that the obstetrician knew the woman was deliberately putting her life in jeopardy due to the abortion-request refusal and that it was an action-statement of suicide. That seem's a clear signal to the obstetrician that the psychiatrists were right in their evaluation on the woman, yet the caesarean-op went ahead at his/her insistence. It seem's to me that he/she took a gamble on the life of the mother and should therefore be removed from the panel forthwith.

As I said, you seem to be leaping to a conclusion here. Since we don't know otherwise it might well be the case that the psychiatrists assessed here as suicidal because she went on hunger strike (which would be borne out by the Irish Times report which says "the woman went on hunger and thirst strike at this stage and a panel of experts was convened". The obstetrician may have always agreed with the psychiatric assessment that the pregnancy should be terminated, and only have disagreed as to the method of termination, which would be the obstetricians field of expertise rather than the psychiatrists anyway. In which case, the obstetrician, rather than being removed from the panel should be lauded for making a decision which saved two lives rather than one.
I think a more comprehensive and specific detailing of the timelines and activities involved is needed before drawing any definitive conclusions.

aloyisious wrote: »

It left me wondering what the obstetrician would be feeling and saying after reading what the bishop said, if he had done the caesarean for the purpose of pre-empting the causal-effect a suicide would have.

Other than the fact that the obstetrician saved the child's life, is there any reason for concluding (s)he is not pro-choice?

jank

lazygal wrote: »

Yes. The right not to be pregnant unless you want to be is a human right.

That is your opinion of it but I am asking a rhetorical question. Is there a human right to have an abortion? There is of course a recognised human right to life.. People like to make this argument black and white for their own purposes and I am not going down that rabbit hole with you as its a pointless exercise.

Calina

Absolam wrote: »

Other than the fact that the obstetrician saved the child's life, is there any reason for concluding (s)he is not pro-choice?

I don't think it's a safe assertion. This is the relevant section in the legislation:

9. (1) It shall be lawful to carry out a medical procedure in respect of a pregnant woman in accordance with this section in the course of which, or as a result of which, an unborn human life is ended where—

(a) subject to section 19 , three medical practitioners, having examined the pregnant woman, have jointly certified in good faith that—

(i) there is a real and substantial risk of loss of the woman’s life by way of suicide, and

(ii) in their reasonable opinion (being an opinion formed in good faith which has regard to the need to preserve unborn human life as far as practicable) that risk can only be averted by carrying out the medical procedure,

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2013/en/act/pub/0035/print.html#part2-chap1

and I've highlighted a section which may be relevant. They have to try and protect the unborn life during the medical intervention regardless.

Absolam

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Interesting info, cheers, but I was really asking you how you think the system should work. Supposing you had an Islamic majority that mandated compulsory FGM for all women, would they be entitled to tell the UNHRC that this practice was fully in compliance with their understanding of 'human rights'. If every country can make up its own rules, what useful function has such a committee?

To answer your second question first; yes it appears to me they are entitled to tell the UNHRC anything they like, even that the Mohammad fairies do it and they never touched them, nossir. The fact that every country makes up it's own rules is pretty close to the definition of sovereignty; the function of the Committee is to hear complaints and make recommendations on compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Whether or not you think that's a useful function or not is a matter of opinion I suppose.
As to my opinion on how the system should work; I'm not a huge fan of a system where an unelected and unrepresentative organisation can impose its will on a sovereign nation. The ethics and morals of a country are the business of the people of that country; I may not agree with the ethical and moral stance of some countries, but if I don't live there I don't see how I have a right to tell them what to do. Obviously that discussion is incredibly nuanced and points can be made about invading or sanctioning countries to correct their filthy foreign habits, make them have straight cucumbers, and use metric measurements, but I think that's a whole other thread.

lazygal

jank wrote: »

That is your opinion of it but I am asking a rhetorical question. Is there a human right to have an abortion? There is of course a recognised human right to life.. People like to make this argument black and white for their own purposes and I am not going down that rabbit hole with you as its a pointless exercise.

Is it a human right to decide you don't want to remain pregnant with a foetus conceived by rape?

jank

Cabaal wrote: »

So a women becoming pregnant against her wishes due to a rape is ok then?

Did I say it was OK? No, I never said such a thing so I am going to disappoint you and not engage with you further as you want to argue with Ghosts.

Absolam

Calina wrote: »

I don't think it's a safe assertion. This is the relevant section in the legislation <...> and I've highlighted a section which may be relevant. They have to try and protect the unborn life during the medical intervention regardless.

You don't think it's a safe assertion that the obstetrician is pro-choice, or that the obstetrician is pro-life?
For myself, I don't think either is a safe assertion.

Calina

Absolam wrote: »

You don't think it's a safe assertion that the obstetrician is pro-choice, or that the obstetrician is pro-life?
For myself, I don't think either is a safe assertion.

I don't think it is necessarily safe to assume we know what the obstetrician's view was either way.

jank

lazygal wrote: »

Is it a human right to decide you don't want to remain pregnant with a foetus conceived by rape?

To be pedantic, the state intervened to stop the person being pregnant. It wasn't an abortion but the end result is the same. Crude, but job done. The method of terminating the pregnancy is different and there are issues with the viability of the foetus/child. There are lots on unknowns here and the story is likely to emerge over the coming days.

And no, I am not a fan of the state intervening in this alleged manner so you can all breath out now and save the 'angry post' for someone else who will gladly entertain you all day long.

I'm out....

Absolam

lazygal wrote: »

Yes. The right not to be pregnant unless you want to be is a human right.

I don't think it is in Ireland?

lazygal wrote: »

Is it a human right to decide you don't want to remain pregnant with a foetus conceived by rape?

Again, I don't think it is in Ireland.

Hoagy

I suspect that this entire discussion is missing the point.

According to the Irish Times:

She arrived in the State this year. Her friend, who works in a university here, said the woman had been raped in her own country and found out she was pregnant when she underwent a medical assessment “a week or two after she arrived” in the State. “She told them immediately, ‘I do not want this. I am too young to be a mother. I am not ready,’” he said. She also feared for her safety as a result of the pregnancy.

To me that suggests that she is here as an asylum seeker, in which case the delay from April to July could be due to the dreadful direct provision system, so that by the time she was seen by an expert panel it was too late to do anything other than deliver the baby.

keane2097

Absolam wrote: »

I don't think it is in Ireland?

Again, I don't think it is in Ireland.

Human rights don't vary from parish to parish, that's what makes them rights.

Calina

Hoagy wrote: »

I suspect that this entire discussion is missing the point.

According to the Irish Times:

She arrived in the State this year. Her friend, who works in a university here, said the woman had been raped in her own country and found out she was pregnant when she underwent a medical assessment “a week or two after she arrived” in the State. “She told them immediately, ‘I do not want this. I am too young to be a mother. I am not ready,’” he said. She also feared for her safety as a result of the pregnancy.

To me that suggests that she is here as an asylum seeker, in which case the delay from April to July could be due to the dreadful direct provision system, so that by the time she was seen by an expert panel it was too late to do anything other than deliver the baby.

To me this suggests she could be a student as well.

The truth is we just don't know.