Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Abortion Discussion
Options
Comments
-
Cantremember wrote: »The medical uncertainty was grounded in a legal uncertainty. The judgement in this case was based on the lack of prospects of survival of the foetus. In a future similar case if the medical opinion is not all "going the one way" guess where it will end up. The 8th will continue to exercise an influence on medical thinking.
Exactly. A pregnant woman who's 20 weeks pregnant and who's clinically dead would face the same type of court case tomorrow. In fact, given that the doctors in the previous case felt it necessary to whip out the constitution rather than focus solely on medicine, I would think doctors would be even more likely to resist allowing a pregnant woman to die than they were before, if a 14 year sentence was hanging over them. The judgment makes it clear that it is a judgment on the facts of the case alone, any other case would have to be decided on its own merits.
I think though that it is only a matter of time before a case on FFA abnormality is taken, and I am very surprised it has not arisen in the courts before.0 -
i think you've got it backwards. The medical uncertainty was whether the foetus could survive. The legal uncertainty was whether not acting to assist it to survive was against the law.Cantremember wrote: »The medical uncertainty was grounded in a legal uncertainty.
I'm not convinced a similar case will end up back in court. The HC has handed the medical profession the authority to withdraw care if the person is very unlikely to survive. If the person has any reasonable chance of surviving I don't think doctors will argue against continuing care, and I doubt the HC would say they should. The 8th does and should exert an influence on medical thinking; the medical profession can't ignore a persons right to life whether they're born or unborn.Cantremember wrote: »In a future similar case if the medical opinion is not all "going the one way" guess where it will end up. The 8th will continue to exercise an influence on medical thinking.0 -
Why? It would seem that if there was a good chance of the child being delivered, doctors would keep her on somatic support, and if there wasn't they would allow the foetus to die... A decision the HC seems to think they are qualified to make without legal intervention?Exactly. A pregnant woman who's 20 weeks pregnant and who's clinically dead would face the same type of court case tomorrow.
you must have access to information the rest of us haven't seen... At what point did the doctors 'whip out the constitution rather than focus solely on the medicine'? You give the impression that doctors wanted to make some sort of statement? Personally I got the impression that doctors were concerned that they would prosecuted under the new legislation if the allowed the foetus to die (which shows a commendable awareness of their obligations as doctors), and decided to not let anyone die if they could help it until their legal position was clear. Maybe a selfish decision overall, but at least they erred on the side of not letting someone (or something, if it makes you happy) die, which is a generally positive course of action in fairness.In fact, given that the doctors in the previous case felt it necessary to whip out the constitution rather than focus solely on medicine, I would think doctors would be even more likely to resist allowing a pregnant woman to die than they were before, if a 14 year sentence was hanging over them.
That's true, but it does provide a precedent, and a rationale, which will serve doctors in the future. The more case law there is, the more confidence doctors can have in their actions.The judgment makes it clear that it is a judgment on the facts of the case alone, any other case would have to be decided on its own merits.
On what (legal) basis do you think such a case could be taken? Genuinely interested.I think though that it is only a matter of time before a case on FFA abnormality is taken, and I am very surprised it has not arisen in the courts before.0 -
i think you've got it backwards. The medical uncertainty was whether the foetus could survive. The legal uncertainty was whether not acting to assist it to survive was against the law.
I'm not convinced a similar case will end up back in court. The HC has handed the medical profession the authority to withdraw care if the person is very unlikely to survive. If the person has any reasonable chance of surviving I don't think doctors will argue against continuing care, and I doubt the HC would say they should. The 8th does and should exert an influence on medical thinking; the medical profession can't ignore a persons right to life whether they're born or unborn.
I haven't. Let's put it another way: the uncertainty of the medical team on how to proceed was based on the uncertainty of how the provisions of the 8th amendment would apply to them.
Leaving aside the religious defense of the 8th I think there is actually a consensus to be found around abortion. Very few people support abortion on demand. Very few people see any common sense in ascribing personhood to cells adhering to the uterine wall. Very few people see why a rape victim should be expected to carry a child to full term from the date of the rape but equally very few would support abortion at a late stage of pregnancy. The problem is trying to put absolute laws in place about such complex human situations: and that without looking at other medical complications. Repeal the 8th and put in place rational legislation that gives doctors freedom and still respects the unease of a lot of Irish people about AOD. Of course, quantifying the very few is impressionistic. IMHO. I'm out.0 -
That was a legal uncertainty, not a medical one though. And most likely not based around the 8th, which doesn't directly apply to them at all, but around the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act, which assuredly does. Had there been no medical uncertainty (had they been sure they had a good chands of delivering the child alive and unharmed) there would have been no legal uncertainty.Cantremember wrote: »I haven't. Let's put it another way: the uncertainty of the medical team on how to proceed was based on the uncertainty of how the provisions of the 8th amendment would apply to them.
Or simply deal with it the way we deal with all other Constitutional law... Enact legislation, have court cases, and establish jurisprudence. The big problem with the 8th is it took forever to enact legislation, and we're only beginning to establish jurisprudence. Given time there will be less and less uncertainty about where the constitution, and the derived legislation, allows lines to be drawn. Repealing the 8th won't remedy current uncertainty, it will simply go back to square one; there will still need to be legislation, and there will still need to be court cases to establish jurisprudence.Cantremember wrote: »The problem is trying to put absolute laws in place about such complex human situations: and that without looking at other medical complications. Repeal the 8th and put in place rational legislation that gives doctors freedom and still respects the unease of a lot of Irish people about AOD. Of course, quantifying the very few is impressionistic. IMHO. I'm out.0 -
Advertisement
-
I still don't see what "legal uncertainty" people mean. If the foetus is going to survive; the machine stays on. If its not going to survive, the machine gets switched off. Its chances of survival are a matter of medical uncertainty; which can only be judged by expert medical opinion. Not legal opinion.That was a legal uncertainty, not a medical one though. And most likely not based around the 8th, which doesn't directly apply to them at all, but around the Act, which assuredly does. Had there been no medical uncertainty (had they been sure they had a good chands of delivering the child alive and unharmed) there would have been no legal uncertainty...
The Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act specifies the number and specialty of medical practitioners who must concur that a termination is necessary in order to prevent a risk of death to the mother. So its not really relevant here.0 -
I'm waiting for an explanation as to how the 8th amendment and the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act do not bear any relation to each other in relationship to the treatment of pregnant women and the feotus in their wombs. It's like arguing that they are NOT linked to the same topic. It's like arguing that it would NOT be the medical people treating the woman in the case who would have the task of turning off the machines providing the artificial life-preservation to her body, thus affecting any chance of viabilty to the feotus in her womb. They were the ones who felt there was a chance they might face legal prosecution if, by withdrawing the artificial life-preservation machines keeping the brain-dead woman's body active, the foetus would be affected to a negative degree medically contrary to the wording in the 8th amendment. That was the crux of the case and the expert medical evidence given as to the existing medical status of the feotus was pertinent to the judgement. The judges were guided by the expert medical evidence in court that the feotus was NOT viable inside or outside the womb. The judges ruling authorised the switching-off of the machines, in effect, telling the medics they would not be prosecuted if they switched off the machines in this case. Both the 8th amendment and the Act are legally relative to the care medical staff are obliged to provide to pregnant women and the foetus within the women's wombs. The situation remains unresolved as the next feotus may be older and considered viable, and be given the 8th amendment scope of equality to life by the court.0
-
I still don't see what "legal uncertainty" people mean. If the foetus is going to survive; the machine stays on. If its not going to survive, the machine gets switched off. Its chances of survival are a matter of medical uncertainty; which can only be judged by expert medical opinion. Not legal opinion.
The Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act specifies the number and specialty of medical practitioners who must concur that a termination is necessary in order to prevent a risk of death to the mother. So its not really relevant here.
Because the Act also created the offense of intentionally destroying unborn human life. The legal uncertainty arose as the offense has yet to be tested, therefore, in theory at least, it is possible that they could commit the offense by omission as much as by commission, i.e. Withholding medical care resulting in the destruction of the foetus could (and generally speaking I suspect would) be considered intentional destruction.0 -
The two are intimately interwoven, as we've just seen from the doctors worrying about playing lawyer, and the jurists playing at doing a medical literature survey. There's an inherent medical uncertainty from the current technology and practice and how they interact with the condition, known and unknown, of the patient. There's the further uncertainty on top of that from the patchy-going-on-sparse epidemiology, arising not just from the prevalence of the sort of condition involved, but from the very fact that "pioneering-cum-experimental" treatment option isn't generally the one pursued. (In most jurisdictions because the legal ramifications begin and end with "woman's next of kin refuses consent for further medical treatment; doctors comply".)I still don't see what "legal uncertainty" people mean. If the foetus is going to survive; the machine stays on. If its not going to survive, the machine gets switched off. Its chances of survival are a matter of medical uncertainty; which can only be judged by expert medical opinion. Not legal opinion.
Replicate that for each of the cases (NP and any possible future scenario), and then attempt to use this judgement to interpolate between them. If you have a foetal prognosis that's inherently better in some respect, or even if you now have better data with which to assess the true prospects, you're back to wondering if there's a "realistic" prospect of a viable birth in the sense and terms of this judgement. You'll note that it's presented in the usual fuzzily-hedged legal language, after all, not bar graphs and statistical probabilities and confidence intervals.The Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act specifies the number and specialty of medical practitioners who must concur that a termination is necessary in order to prevent a risk of death to the mother. So its not really relevant here.
(Are you being sponsored by the phrase "not relevant" for the purposes of this thread?) The Act does just one or two things more that that. For one:
Now, doubtless you're about to tell us that "really means" just abortion, and that an assortment of intended acts resulting in the destruction of unborn human life "aren't considered" abortion. But it's not you that'd be betting their liberty for the next 14 years on that actually being the case. Or more likely, betting a "career-changing" medico-legal controversy on it.PoLDP 22(1) wrote:It shall be an offence to intentionally destroy unborn human life.0 -
Withholding medical care resulting in the destruction of the foetus could (and generally speaking I suspect would) be considered intentional destruction.
Supposedly there's a "principle" of common law (meaning in effect, enough failures to legislate and ad hoc case judgements laid end-to-end) that non-actions aren't criminal (or criminalisable). Though that would still leave quite the morass if one felt it constrained discontinuing treatments already under way. (The "shall we switch the machine off?" question, in effect.)0 -
Advertisement
-
I suppose it depends which of McDowell's propositions you with to be cynical about, and which you wish to take at face value: what he says currently obtains, and what he says should have happened. Because the latter argues for doing himself out of any such work, via either the doctors playing lawyer, or the supreme court playing legislature.But McDowell runs a legal practice, and if nobody wanted to take cases to court, he would have no business. So perhaps that is the businessman in him talking.
My own cynicism prefers to believe that it's the ex-politician in him talking, seeking to exculpate himself from the complete hames he made of his time as a legislator in this area.
This is precisely what McDowell is saying they haven't done. Because (much as I hate to in any degree agree with him) they haven't done it. They haven't set out with any clarity which future cases are covered by the lack of a "realistic" prospect for life, which they made clear is all that voids the 8th's overriding all the other considerations. They haven't set out who, aside from themselves, has competence to judge the "best interests" of the unborn. I get that you're very invested in reciting the "all persons, born and unborn" mantra (though not in backing up any actual basis for it, mind), but they could have assigned exercise of right to refuse medical treatment to the next of kin (or some extrapolation of this). They didn't.IMO McDowell is correct in saying that, and the High Court are also correct to throw such decisions in future back to the medical profession, which they did by their extensive quoting from medical journals and medical experts, and writing those into the judgement.
This goes to the point I made several pages ago (mainly addressed by meta-tangency so many dimensions deep that H. P. Lovecraft would have pause) of who exercises any rights ascribed to a foetus, especially given the tacit assumption that the pregnant woman is the last possible person you'd want to, as presumptively hostile to its interests given any possible conflict, tending to argue against any sort of normal notion of guardianship, and leading pretty much in a single step straight to nation-as-parent. If it takes the High Court to assess "best interests" of these fundamentally anomalous legal entities, that's your litigation farm right there.
This case was State vs State, judged by State. If future cases, in the same permutation, are Individuals of Modest Means vs State, it's going to skew things further against the "natural death" resolution, not towards it.So while costs were awarded to the plaintiff this time (it would have been cruel not to) in the unlikely event that other similar cases started to come before the courts regularly, the legal costs themselves would become the deterrent.0 -
No. She has just read the information that is out there. It was reported in several articles they the doctors 'sat down with the constitution' to try to work out what there position was. I have not read the judgement since it was released, but I am pretty sure this was actually mentioned in the judgement too.you must have access to information the rest of us haven't seen... At what point did the doctors 'whip out the constitution rather than focus solely on the medicine'?
With the greatest respect, your impression appears to be wrong. I say this beciSe it is actually in conflict with what the neurosurgeon actually said happens, unless you are suggesting he was being dishonest... He said they were concerned about the constitional rights of the foetus. Further, he told the court they sat down with a copy of the constitution, not a copy of the PoLDP Act, to try to work it out.Absolam wrote:You give the impression that doctors wanted to make some sort of statement? Personally I got the impression that doctors were concerned that they would prosecuted under the new legislation if the allowed the foetus to die[...]
MrP0 -
alaimacerc wrote: »Supposedly there's a "principle" of common law (meaning in effect, enough failures to legislate and ad hoc case judgements laid end-to-end) that non-actions aren't criminal (or criminalisable). Though that would still leave quite the morass if one felt it constrained discontinuing treatments already under way. (The "shall we switch the machine off?" question, in effect.)
There is a principle of 'double effect' in addition, there is potentially a defense of 'necessity'. Whilst it has. It been tested, double effect might apply to these circumstances. In addition, there is a well established principle that the act of removing life support from a person, in the correct circumstances, does not result in criminal liabity when the person being supported dies. I have not actually looked at it in any great depth, but I am not sure there is anything unique to the PoLDP Act that would mean doctors would liable, criminally, for the death of a foetus after removing support for the mother.
Clearly it does mention the destruction of the foetus, but then we also have homicide laws. If removing life support does not attract liability under bomicide laws, and there is no specific defense written into those laws, why would it attract liability under the PoLDP Act?
MrP0 -
Clearly it does mention the destruction of the foetus, but then we also have homicide laws. If removing life support does not attract liability under bomicide laws, and there is no specific defense written into those laws, why would it attract liability under the PoLDP Act?
MrP
But presumably if a rogue medic took it upon him/herself to turn off life support on someone who may possibly have survived, homicide law WOULD apply?0 -
But presumably if a rogue medic took it upon him/herself to turn off life support on someone who may possibly have survived, homicide law WOULD apply?
Likely. That is why I said in the correct circumstances. Giving medics the ability to remove life support willy nilly would probably be a bad thing.
MrP0 -
Your bizarre chariaterisation of jurisprudence aside, it would seem that since the doctors did not wish to turn off somatic support for legal reasons that they thought (or were advised) such a principle was not likely to protect them? If they were assured that their actions weren't criminal or criminisable (or legally actionable) they would have had no legal worries.alaimacerc wrote: »Supposedly there's a "principle" of common law (meaning in effect, enough failures to legislate and ad hoc case judgements laid end-to-end) that non-actions aren't criminal (or criminalisable). Though that would still leave quite the morass if one felt it constrained discontinuing treatments already under way. (The "shall we switch the machine off?" question, in effect.)0 -
As Mr Pudding has pointed out, if an act of omission does not constitute an offense when allowing an adult to die in certain circumstances, there was no genuine reason to suppose it might be an offense to allow an unborn to die in similar circumstances.Because the Act also created the offense of intentionally destroying unborn human life. The legal uncertainty arose as the offense has yet to be tested, therefore, in theory at least, it is possible that they could commit the offense by omission as much as by commission, i.e. Withholding medical care resulting in the destruction of the foetus could (and generally speaking I suspect would) be considered intentional destruction.
No, not really. If the State provides free legal aid to someone, the lawyers appointed represent that person, not the State. Often the state is actually trying to prosecute the person it gives legal aid to.alaimacerc wrote: »This case was State vs State, judged by State.
In this particular case the State appointed legal teams to represent the interests of both foetus and N.P.
AFAIK the legal proceedings were instigated originally by "the family" as plaintiff, but I'm not sure whether they were considered a separate party in the case to the deceased party N.P?
Anyway they were awarded their costs in the judgement.0 -
As Mr Pudding has pointed out, if an act of omission does not constitute an offense when allowing an adult to die in certain circumstances, there was no genuine reason to suppose it might be an offense to allow an unborn to die in similar circumstances.
Except that the law which makes it an offence to destroy unborn human life has it's basis in the constitutional undertaking to defend and vindicate the life of the unborn as far as practicable. There is no such undertaking to defend already born life - one could argue that the unborn enjoys more protection than the born.
The other point is that withdrawing life support once it has been instigated would be viewed as a commission, not an omission. As any medical practitioner will tell you, once the decision to provide support such as ventilation is made, it is often much more difficult decision to then withdraw it, knowing the likely hood is that the patient will die. Even then when the medical evidence supports withdrawal, and the next of kin are in agreement, there is never fear of prosecution. Given that that fear was very much evident in this case (and in others involving the unborn), I can only conclude that it is this 'special' protection of the unborn that is the basis of said fear of prosecution.0 -
Then maybe Lazygal does have access to information I haven't seen. Every account I've seen that mentions Doctors considering the constitution goes back to one source; Ruadhain Mac Cormaic in the Irish Times.No. She has just read the information that is out there. It was reported in several articles they the doctors 'sat down with the constitution' to try to work out what there position was. I have not read the judgement since it was released, but I am pretty sure this was actually mentioned in the judgement too.
He says "One consultant neurologist described the surreal moment when he and an obstetrics specialist found themselves sitting down with a copy of the Constitution, trying to “figure it out”. They then approached the family and told them they could not accede to their request to end life support “for constitutional reasons”.". But his quote, "figure it out" doesn't appear in the evidence in the judgement, and his account, whilst similar, isn't quite the same as the account in the judgement, where Dr Boylan, referring to notes from the medical team, "adverted to the discussions <...> focussed on the difficulties for medical practitioners as a consequence of the absence of medico-legal guidelines and because of difficulties arising from the 8th Amendment". He also mentioned (from the notes) that the team didn't want to do anything that could "get them into trouble from a legal point of view". So in the judgement there's no record of anyone presenting evidence that the team sat down with the constitution. Perhaps Mac Cormaic had access to the notes read by Dr Boylan, or perhaps he paraphrased Boylans testimony; as I said i haven't seen anything to support what Lazygal said.
if he did tell the court that, I can't find it in the evidence presented section of the judgement; but I can find Boylans evidence where he says, from the notes of the medical team, that they were concerned about possible legal trouble. Since (as far as I know) the only offense they could be prosecuted for would be under the Protection of Life During Pregnacy Act, that would seem to be the only reason they might be concerned with ther legal position.With the greatest respect, your impression appears to be wrong. I say this beciSe it is actually in conflict with what the neurosurgeon actually said happens, unless you are suggesting he was being dishonest... He said they were concerned about the constitional rights of the foetus. Further, he told the court they sat down with a copy of the constitution, not a copy of the PoLDP Act, to try to work it out.
If there is more info available ( such as the notes Boylan referred to) I would be interested in seeing it, but so far, from the judgement, I can't see anything to support the specific statement by Mac Cormaic, and repeated by Lazygal. Either way, I don't think it amounts to 'whipping out the constitution rather than focusing on the medicine', nor do I think there were pro (life or choice) doctors looking to make any kind of statement; I think they were looking to ensure they did their jobs in accordance with the law.0 -
Had another look at the case, and you are correct, the 'sitting down with the constitution' meeting is not specifically mentioned, though as you point out Boylan does mention the 8th was a concern, and that seems to be based on the medical notes he had. But whether or not one believes Boylan, in the 'Legal Principles' section the judge references the submission made by counsel for the HSE where it was argued that art 40.3.3 was applicable. So whilst we don't have any additional confirmation of the doctors sitting down with the constitution we do have a pretty solid indication that they did have constitutional comcerns, or at least if they didn't personally, the people that were advising them on whether or not they could turn off the machines, the HSE, did.Then maybe Lazygal does have access to information I haven't seen. Every account I've seen that mentions Doctors considering the constitution goes back to one source; Ruadhain Mac Cormaic in the Irish Times.
He says "One consultant neurologist described the surreal moment when he and an obstetrics specialist found themselves sitting down with a copy of the Constitution, trying to “figure it out”. They then approached the family and told them they could not accede to their request to end life support “for constitutional reasons”.". But his quote, "figure it out" doesn't appear in the evidence in the judgement, and his account, whilst similar, isn't quite the same as the account in the judgement, where Dr Boylan, referring to notes from the medical team, "adverted to the discussions <...> focussed on the difficulties for medical practitioners as a consequence of the absence of medico-legal guidelines and because of difficulties arising from the 8th Amendment". He also mentioned (from the notes) that the team didn't want to do anything that could "get them into trouble from a legal point of view". So in the judgement there's no record of anyone presenting evidence that the team sat down with the constitution. Perhaps Mac Cormaic had access to the notes read by Dr Boylan, or perhaps he paraphrased Boylans testimony; as I said i haven't seen anything to support what Lazygal said.
if he did tell the court that, I can't find it in the evidence presented section of the judgement; but I can find Boylans evidence where he says, from the notes of the medical team, that they were concerned about possible legal trouble. Since (as far as I know) the only offense they could be prosecuted for would be under the Protection of Life During Pregnacy Act, that would seem to be the only reason they might be concerned with ther legal position.
If there is more info available ( such as the notes Boylan referred to) I would be interested in seeing it, but so far, from the judgement, I can't see anything to support the specific statement by Mac Cormaic, and repeated by Lazygal. Either way, I don't think it amounts to 'whipping out the constitution rather than focusing on the medicine', nor do I think there were pro (life or choice) doctors looking to make any kind of statement; I think they were looking to ensure they did their jobs in accordance with the law.
MrP0 -
Advertisement
-
Mairead Enright was at the hearings and mentioned it in her human rights blog. It's not clear from what she said weather the doctors envisaged themselves puzzling over the constitution or if it actually happened. Eye witness testimony for ya.
"The expert witness from the public voluntary hospital where P. was first treated was less confident. He described futile efforts to obtain legal advice from their own in-house team or from the HSE, and conjured up the spectacle of doctors reading the Eighth Amendment for themselves. Eventually P.’s family were directed to seek their own legal advice"0 -
The points in bold are contradicted by the word "equal" which is used in the Constitution, and also the words "as far as practicable" which indicate that the protection of life is limited in the usual way and does not apply where it is futile.ProfessorPlum wrote: »Except that the law which makes it an offence to destroy unborn human life has it's basis in the constitutional undertaking to defend and vindicate the life of the unborn as far as practicable. There is no such undertaking to defend already born life - one could argue that the unborn enjoys more protection than the born.
...I can only conclude that it is this 'special' protection of the unborn that is the basis of said fear of prosecution.
And when you say "There is no such undertaking to defend already born life" you are forgetting that the basic right to life for all "persons" would be seen as an implied or "unenumerated" right even if not specifically written into the Constitution. The 8th amendment merely clarified that "the unborn" are included.Aticle 40.3 wrote:The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.
I'm inclined to conclude that the initial fear of prosecution, while the foetus existed in what was still (for it) a reasonably healthy environment was well grounded, in that withdrawing its life support at that stage, as requested by the family, would definitely have been an offence. As the situation deteriorated, and they could honestly say it was not going to survive either way, switching off life support ceased to be an offence. But as the matter was by then sub judice, because the family had initiated legal proceedings, the doctors had to then wait for the legal judgement. But the legal judgement was based on the doctors own medical opinion anyway, so it was really just a circular exercise.
I don't think so, because this is often what eventually happens in a hospice situation, and it is not considered an offence then. It depends on whether the patient is ever going to recover, or whether the life support is just a futile exercise in postponing the death for a short period of time.ProfessorPlum wrote: »The other point is that withdrawing life support once it has been instigated would be viewed as a commission, not an omission.0 -
I'm inclined to conclude that the initial fear of prosecution, while the foetus existed in what was still (for it) a reasonably healthy environment was well grounded, in that withdrawing its life support at that stage, as requested by the family, would definitely have been an offence. As the situation deteriorated, and they could honestly say it was not going to survive either way, switching off life support ceased to be an offence. But as the matter was by then sub judice, because the family had initiated legal proceedings, the doctors had to then wait for the legal judgement. But the legal judgement was based on the doctors own medical opinion anyway, so it was really just a circular exercise.
Well done, a classic bit of victim-blaming there.
Disgusting. And rubbish, because nobody ever thought the fetus could possibly survive.
They just hoped it would die of its accord. Same as happened with Savita Halappanavar. Only she died while they stood around waiting.0 -
-
Seriously? What victim is being blamed? And how do you know nobody ever thought the foetus could possibly survive?Well done, a classic bit of victim-blaming there.
Disgusting. And rubbish, because nobody ever thought the fetus could possibly survive. They just hoped it would die of its accord. Same as happened with Savita Halappanavar. Only she died while they stood around waiting.
And why would doctors hope it would die of its own accord? These are doctors we're talking about... They're generally inclined towards saving lives by and large.
As for same as what happened to Savita Halappanavar...... Did she die and no one noticed? They accidentally put her on somatic support whilst waiting for a decision on how to deal with her foetus? That really doesn't seem right.......0 -
Seriously? What victim is being blamed? And how do you know nobody ever thought the foetus could possibly survive?
And why would doctors hope it would die of its own accord? These are doctors we're talking about... They're generally inclined towards saving lives by and large.
As for same as what happened to Savita Halappanavar...... Did she die uand no one noticed? They accidentally put her on somatic support whilst waiting for a decision on how to deal with her foetus? That really doesn't seem right.......
What? You didn't say it was the family's court action that stopped them from turning off the life support?
When in fact the previous cases mentioned in court all waited till the fetus died by itself. The Irish ones anyway.
And yes. If you go back back and read the detailed description of what happened Savita H, all the time spent checking and rechecking the fetus' heartbeat indicate exactly that. Dr Astbury even told them that was an issue.0 -
-
-
just for the sake of clarity then... Which of my comments blamed which victim for what?They explain how your comment was victim blaming.
To be clear... You're saying that what happened with Savita Halappanavar was she died and was placed on somatic support until a decision was made about what to do with her still living foetus? It's just, that's not what everyone seemed to be talking about at the time. I thought it was about the fact that they failed to provide proper treatment and she died of sepsis days after the dead foetus had been removed. Which sounds like not the same thing at all.I edited with a reminder of Savita Halappanavar.0 -
Advertisement
-
just for the sake of clarity then... Which of my comments blamed which victim for what?
To be clear... You're saying that what happened with Savita Halappanavar was she died and was placed on somatic support until a decision was made about what to do with her still living foetus? It's just, that's not what everyone seemed to be talking about at the time. I thought it was about the fact that they failed to provide proper treatment and she died of sepsis days after the dead foetus had been removed. Which sounds like not the same thing at all.
You blamed the family. Maybe you don't think they were in any way victims, since you speculate (on zero evidence) that they in fact caused the problem but I disagree strongly.
As for Savita Halappanavar, no that's not what I'm saying AT ALL. Read he accounts of the way the fetus' heartbeat interested the medical team greatly. She may have received little care from the staff, but her fetus got infinite amounts of attention. She was told no termination was possible while there was. a heartbeat.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement