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
-
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.
Have you guys got your wires crossed here? I believe it was Recedite you initially accused of 'victim-blaming' Volchitsa.0 -
You know, I don't think I did. In fact, I know I didn't... That's just pain nonsense. Feel free to quote me if you think otherwise...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.
How can anyone blame anyone for anything in this situation? This was a tragedy that resulted in two deaths, but no one did anything to be blamed for.
You said it was the same with Savita H. But it wasn't; the circumstances and the events were entirely different. Other than a pregnant woman and her foetus dying, these were entirely different. Different things happened, different choices were made, the reasoning was different, the sequence of outcomes was different, the reason for the outcomes was different.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 -
Loafing Oaf wrote: »Have you guys got your wires crossed here? I believe it was Recedite you initially accused of 'victim-blaming' Volchitsa.
Ah, exactly right,Loafing Oaf. Im on a phone here and can't read back too easily. It was the comment about the machines nor being turned off because of the family having gone to court that I objected to.0 -
You know, I don't think I did. In fact, I know I didn't... That's just pain nonsense. Feel free to quote me if you think otherwise...
How can anyone blame anyone for anything in this situation? This was a tragedy that resulted in two deaths, but no one did anything to be blamed for.
You said it was the same with Savita H. But it wasn't; the circumstances and the events were entirely different. Other than a pregnant woman and her foetus dying, these were entirely different. Different things happened, different choices were made, the reasoning was different, the sequence of outcomes was different, the reason for the outcomes was different.
Yep, not your comment originally, you just queried the comment. Hope its clear now how it was victim blaming( whoever made it.
And I didn't say everything was the same for SH, I said they had that particular point in common - the unwillingness of he Irish medical staff to actively hasten the death of a doomed fetus, however horrifying the consequence s of their refusal to act as medical staff in the rest of the civilized world would.0 -
That was recedite that said that, as far as I can tell, while engaging in seemingly out-of-a-blue-sky speculation as to the details of the case in order to fit reality about the theory.What? You didn't say it was the family's court action that stopped them from turning off the life support?
You may have subsequently been thrown off by Absolam, instead of his more usual "how very dare people speculate" routine, instead appeared taking offence on r's behalf, or else to be offering covering fire by instead questioning your characterisation (which seems pretty spot-on to me).0 -
Advertisement
-
What they "indicate" is in fact quite the point of contention, as can clearly be seen from the submissions and findings in this case. Certainly "futility" isn't the total extent of the limitation. Nor is "futility" always guaranteed to always, reliably be such a limitation, otherwise there would be greater clarity regarding FFA. What "the usual way" is, is entirely opaque.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.
That's far from clear. Nor is it clear what the extent of it is, even as it stands. One imagines that the SC would have something to say if the offence of murder were abolished, for example, but more generally, who knows.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.
"Clarified" isn't the word you're looking for. As has been pointed out at considerable length, this was clearly a material change. If you have any serious rebuttal to offer, it might save time and effort in the long run, as opposed to merely continuing to assert the same thing.The 8th amendment merely clarified that "the unborn" are included.0 -
ProfessorPlum wrote: »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"
My reading of this would be that "conjured up" connotes an "appalling vista" type of characterisation, given the "futile"(!) attempts, not something being described as actually having happened. Though, who knows.0 -
Just to be clear, I'm making no claim as to definitive criminality of any such actions. I'm just pointing out there's no lack of basis for anxieties around same, which maybe-potential-arguable considerations aren't going to entirely (if much at all) remove. (Even if that were the extent of their worries, which as I've said they're not going to be.)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.
The then-outstanding questions would have been, surely, how the "correct circumstances" read across from the one to the other, and with particular reference to (as I keep saying, sorry), who is a competent person to exercise the decision and any right(s) in question on behalf of the "life" in question, where it necessarily lacks the capacity to do so itself.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.
One further difference that springs to mind is that a person has the right to refuse medical treatment on a general basis, from their right to bodily integrity. A foetus, even under the recent ruling, is given the (on the face of it narrower) right to a "natural death", as considered as an aspect of its (enumerated) "right to life". Prior to the judgement, even greater uncertainty on this point seems pretty excusable.0 -
he didn't blame the family either though?if there was a reasonable chance of survival the medical team were right to continue somatic support, and to fear prosecution if they didn't, regardless of the families wishes. That's not blaming the family; they did what they thought was right, as did the doctors.Yep, not your comment originally, you just queried the comment. Hope its clear now how it was victim blaming( whoever made it.
Well no, you simply said "Same as happened with Savita Halappanavar". No qualification there... whether in hindsight you intended it or not. And I'll warrant a reasonable proportion of the rest of the civilised world are not in the least horrified the medical staff did everything they could to save the life of a child whose mother had died so tragically.And I didn't say everything was the same for SH, I said they had that particular point in common - the unwillingness of he Irish medical staff to actively hasten the death of a doomed fetus, however horrifying the consequence s of their refusal to act as medical staff in the rest of the civilized world would.0 -
I'm sure I must be renowned for my extravagent assertions of baseless ennui at the behaviour of our medical professionals.alaimacerc wrote: »You may have subsequently been thrown off by Absolam, instead of his more usual "how very dare people speculate" routine, instead appeared taking offence on r's behalf, or else to be offering covering fire by instead questioning your characterisation (which seems pretty spot-on to me).
And I'm sure any disagreement with the prevailing outrage of the moment must seem like collusion with the fiends determined to not murder babies at will, but I reckon that common sense doesn't need the paranoid conclusion of 'covering fire' to be expressed.0 -
Advertisement
-
That's right. There are lot's of "victims" in a tragedy such as this, and no winners, except perhaps the lawyers.he didn't blame the family either though?if there was a reasonable chance of survival the medical team were right to continue somatic support, and to fear prosecution if they didn't, regardless of the families wishes. That's not blaming the family; they did what they thought was right, as did the doctors.
I don't intend to respond to stupid and vague accusations that derail the thread from an otherwise intelligent debate.0 -
-
-
he didn't blame the family either though?if there was a reasonable chance of survival the medical team were right to continue somatic support, and to fear prosecution if they didn't, regardless of the families wishes. That's not blaming the family; they did what they thought was right, as did the doctors.
Well no, you simply said "Same as happened with Savita Halappanavar". No qualification there... whether in hindsight you intended it or not. And I'll warrant a reasonable proportion of the rest of the civilised world are not in the least horrified the medical staff did everything they could to save the life of a child whose mother had died so tragically.
Here are the posts concerned. You can clearly see in bold where recedite (apologies for thinking it was you, btw, but you did join in to defend it, and on my phone I can't easily see who I'm replying to/quoting) speculates that the life support would normally have been turned off within a reasonable time, were it not that the family had gone to the courts in the meantime.
He is directly blaming the family for what happened, and without a scrap of evidence for this.
And here you can see again in bold, that what I say is "the same" as Savita Halappanavar, is the extreme reluctance, not to say refusal, by medical staff to take any action even when medically indicated that would hasten the death of an already doomed fetus.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.
In one case the action needed was a D and E, in the other turning off the life support.
But I'm sure you know that really, and are being disingenuous in pretending to think that I might have been referring to life support for Savita Halappanavar for example.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 -
But how is he blaming the family? He has recounted the sequence of events.. He never said the family did anything wrong, or inferred that they had some agenda, or offered any speculation on or criticism of the familys motivations. I just don't see any blame being offered (by Recedite) here.You can clearly see in bold where recedite speculates that the life support would normally have been turned off within a reasonable time, were it not that the family had gone to the courts in the meantime. He is directly blaming the family for what happened, and without a scrap of evidence for this.
Are you looking at the post you quoted? Because I can't see you saying that at all... Entirely aside from the extraordinary presumption of your new statement, which is quite remarkable.And here you can see again in bold, that what I say is "the same" as Savita Halappanavar, is the extreme reluctance, not to say refusal, by medical staff to take any action even when medically indicated that would hasten the death of an already doomed fetus.
Of course I know it; but it's hardly disingenuous to point out that what you've just said is that the circumstances in the two cases were different. In one a foetus died and caused the death of its mother, in the other the mother died and caused the death of the foetus. In one the mother could have been saved by better medical care, in the other it's probable that neither could have been saved, regardless of medical intervention. I really can't see why you imagine they're the same.In one case the action needed was a D and E, in the other turning off the life support. But I'm sure you know that really, and are being disingenuous in pretending to think that I might have been referring to life support for Savita Halappanavar for example.0 -
So is it a fact that the reason the life support machine was not turned off was because of the court action begun by the family? Do you have the slightest evidence for that piece of nasty speculation?But how is he blaming the family? He has recounted the sequence of events.
Is it even the case that anyone in the medical team ever thought that there was ever the slightest chance for the fetus to get to viability?
Their medical advice was to turn it off. Their legal situation was that they didn't want to take the legal risk of doing so.
You confuse the fact that the fetus was initially healthy in the hours after its mother's death with the unfounded speculation that anyone with the slightest clue about these things could expect that situation to last.0 -
Are you really suggesting that the Doctors should have decided to turn off the somatic support whilst there was a court case going on to determine whether they should turn off the somatic support? Knowing that the Doctors were already concerned about their legal position?So is it a fact that the reason the life support machine was not turned off was because of the court action begun by the family? Do you have the slightest evidence for that piece of nasty speculation?
There's nothing nasty about pointing out that few people want to risk being found in contempt of court when they're already worried about being guilty of the unlawful destruction of unborn life.0 -
Are you really suggesting that the Doctors should have decided to turn off the somatic support whilst there was a court case going on to determine whether they should turn off the somatic support? Knowing that the Doctors were already concerned about their legal position?
There's nothing nasty about pointing out that few people want to risk being found in contempt of court when they're already worried about being guilty of the unlawful destruction of unborn life.
No that isn't what I'm suggesting at all.
That's a complete misrepresentation, which ignores completely for example the fact that I mentioned that the Irish precedents cited in court all entailed the foetus dying first, before the life support was turned off.
You seem to make a habit of this.0 -
-
So if you're not suggesting that they should have turned somatic support off whilst the court case was ongoing, how is Recidite 'victim blaming' the family by pointing out that they didn't turn off somatic support whilst the court case was ongoing?No that isn't what I'm suggesting at all.
That's a complete misrepresentation, which ignores completely for example the fact that I mentioned that the Irish precedents cited in court all entailed the foetus dying first, before the life support was turned off.
You seem to make a habit of this.0 -
Advertisement
-
You said this : "Giving medics the ability to remove life support willy nilly would probably be a bad thing." Which no-one had suggested doing, so that's a straw man argument.
What are you on about? I was not making an argument, straw man or otherwise, I was simply answering a question from you.
You asked about medics turning off life support when there was a chance of survival. My response was, by reference to my previous post, that they could only lawfully do it in certain circumstances. My comment about them turning life support off 'willy nilly' was meant as shorthand for them turning life support off in circumstances other than when they would have legal protection from homicide offences, like the circumstances you actually asked me about and which I was directly responding to.
Not sure why you are accusing me of making a straw man argument for answering a question that you actually asked me...
MrP0 -
This from Facebook Abortion Rights Campaign page of 2 hours ago, nice sourced article
http://ncronline.org/blogs/grace-margins/hard-line-positions-such-anti-abortion-carry-costs#.VKQKSXbjx54.twitter....0 -
Perhaps we are at cross purposes to some extent then.What are you on about? I was not making an argument, straw man or otherwise, I was simply answering a question from you.
You asked about medics turning off life support when there was a chance of survival. My response was, by reference to my previous post, that they could only lawfully do it in certain circumstances. My comment about them turning life support off 'willy nilly' was meant as shorthand for them turning life support off in circumstances other than when they would have legal protection from homicide offences, like the circumstances you actually asked me about and which I was directly responding to.
Not sure why you are accusing me of making a straw man argument for answering a question that you actually asked me...
MrP
The problem I have with your point is that it repeatedly ignores what we know was also the real issue in the other cases cited in court, that turning off a life support on a dead person will not lead to a homicide case, because the person is already dead, whereas turning off life support on a not-yet-dead fetus is not nearly so easily defended under Irish law, which does not take into account the potential viability of the unborn life to be defended. Hence the link some people see here with the question of termination for FFA.
This is very different even from the cases cited abroad such as in Texas - the fetus' malformations were a reason for acceding to the family's requests to turn off life support. That would not be a good enough reason in Ireland.
Which is why I think your point about homicide laws not applying in the case of medics turning off a machine on a dead person is not relevant here, whereas turning it off on someone who is still alive would be very different. And yet still something of a false equivalence in medical terms. Which is the real problem - Ireland's law on protection of the unborn simply does not function in medical terms, only in legal ones.0 -
aloyisious wrote: »This from Facebook Abortion Rights Campaign page of 2 hours ago, nice sourced article
http://ncronline.org/blogs/grace-margins/hard-line-positions-such-anti-abortion-carry-costs#.VKQKSXbjx54.twitter....
Fcuking hell, that's spot on. I could kiss her.
This part is heartbreaking in its integrity and decisiveness. Heartbreaking because it's such a far cry from our country's position.
"If you want to ban or seriously restrict access to abortion, it is not enough to believe deeply that abortion is wrong. It is also important to ask why people have abortions and what might happen to them if abortions were made unavailable. To ask how the burdens of such a ban might be distributed across lines of gender, race, and class. To consider that pregnancy can kill women, can cause serious and sometimes irreparable damage to women’s health. It can prevent women from working, from going to school, from leaving abusive partners. Laws banning abortion can and sometimes do prevent women from receiving life-saving medical care and dying with dignity."0 -
Not sure how productive discussion of this point is going to be while recedite continues his usual 'never apologise, never explain' attitude, and has 'moved on' from the topic, but here goes...So if you're not suggesting that they should have turned somatic support off whilst the court case was ongoing, how is Recidite 'victim blaming' the family by pointing out that they didn't turn off somatic support whilst the court case was ongoing?
The suggestion of the post was that it was the decision of the family to bring the action that led to the delay of the outcome they sought and distress entailed. There's your "victims" and your "blaming" both right there. Essentially thereafter we're haggling about where this is on the continuum of doing so righteously and accurately, to crassly and being wrong on the facts.
Such a "conclusion" relies on an assumption -- with no basis provided then or since -- that there was a material change in the foetal prospects during the course of the legal action. It further relies on the assumption (also with no apparent basis) that had this been the case, settlement or withdrawal of the action would have somehow been impossible. (You want life support removed, we now think this is both desirable and possible, but let's continue a high-profile adversarial legal process on the premise that we fundamentally disagree.)
Perhaps that's not quite directly accusing them of being a punch of hair-trigger vexatious litigants that were foolish not to trust in the omnibenevolent medical establishments. It's at the very least speculating as to their misfortune in having brought about this -- entirely hypothetical -- unfortunate scenario through no fault of their own, in a remarkably insensitive manner.0 -
"If you want to ban or seriously restrict access to abortion, it is not enough to believe deeply that abortion is wrong. It is also important to ask why people have abortions and what might happen to them if abortions were made unavailable. To ask how the burdens of such a ban might be distributed across lines of gender, race, and class. To consider that pregnancy can kill women, can cause serious and sometimes irreparable damage to women’s health. It can prevent women from working, from going to school, from leaving abusive partners. Laws banning abortion can and sometimes do prevent women from receiving life-saving medical care and dying with dignity."
Certainly seems to be sufficient to merely not care about all the latter, though. Even without the "deep belief" part, come to that.0 -
Your usual snide recharacterisations aside, Recidite literally saidalaimacerc wrote: »Not sure how productive discussion of this point is going to be while recedite continues his usual 'never apologise, never explain' attitude, and has 'moved on' from the topic, but here goes...
The suggestion of the post was that it was the decision of the family to bring the action that led to the delay of the outcome they sought and distress entailed. There's your "victims" and your "blaming" both right there.
Like it or lump it, that's what happened. There's no suggestion in it; it doesn't make the family victims, nor does it blame them for what took place. Whether or not the somatic support would have been turned off sooner if they hadn't brought the case wouldn't make them any more or less victims, nor does it make them any more or less to blame for what happened.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.0 -
Like it or lump it, that's what happened. There's no suggestion in it; it doesn't make the family victims, nor does it blame them for what took place. Whether or not the somatic support would have been turned off sooner if they hadn't brought the case wouldn't make them any more or less victims, nor does it make them any more or less to blame for what happened.
The original claim made by recedite was rather more specific than that. It's interesting that you are so emotionally invested in defending a post that you didn't make and that the poster responsible appears decidedly less keen on discussing than you.
As for how the events victimized the family more than the death of the young woman alone, the fact that the children had to spend Christmas Day knowing their mother was "dead but not quite" instead of being buried three weeks before seems terribly cruel and unnecessary to me. So whoever was responsible for that made victims of her children. And to claim it was the family's court action without the smallest shred of evidence is clearly blaming them for it.
But. I gather this sort of issue is of supreme indifference to you, or you would, probably like the poster who originally made the claim, be hoping it got forgotten ASAP.0 -
The problem with the way this article presents the facts is that it moves seamlessly fromaloyisious wrote: »This from Facebook Abortion Rights Campaign page of 2 hours ago, nice sourced article
http://ncronline.org/blogs/grace-margins/hard-line-positions-such-anti-abortion-carry-costs#.VKQKSXbjx54.twitter....
"Because she was 15 weeks pregnant, however, doctors declined the family’s wishes to take her off life support, unsure of whether doing so would violate Irish anti-abortion law"...
to...
"Doctors had little trouble figuring out the medical evidence, however. The fetus had virtually no chance of surviving, and none of the seven medical consultants who testified recommended continuing life support. The woman’s body, an intensive care specialist reported, had become infected and inflamed and bore little resemblance to the woman’s photograph beside the bed. As one physician put it, continuing life support would mean “going from the extraordinary to the grotesque.”
Without taking into account the time lapse between the two situations. This falsely portrays the case as always having been a legal uncertainty, while portraying a medical certainty.
I pointed out in this thread that it was the other way round; any uncertainty in the the overall situation resulted from the medical uncertainty, and as soon as doctors (not the lawyers) made the decision that continuing life support would be futile, there was no actual legal issue with switching off, other than the fact that the matter was by then sub judice, and they were at that stage required to wait for the judgement.
Its important to remember here that once the mother was declared clinically dead, the foetus was the primary patient, and all decisions re the futility or otherwise of maintaining life support had to be focussed primarily on that. Similarly with the "distress" being caused. Many here won't agree with the ethics of that, but it is unambiguously the actual medico-legal position. The requests of the relatives/family had to come second. Quoting from the judgement...In reply to the Court, Dr. McKenna further confirmed that to the extent that a mother is suffering from various problems during a pregnancy, the baby also suffers and will react with distress to adverse developments and will not be unaware or unaffected by them.
Others calling me "disgusting" is hardly productive, it is just shooting the messenger.alaimacerc wrote: »Not sure how productive discussion of this point is going to be while recedite continues his usual 'never apologise, never explain' attitude, and has 'moved on' from the topic, but here goes...
I haven't abandoned, but if somebody else gets there before me and posts a reply that is the same as the one I would have given, I just thank their post instead of repeating it all.
You say I am "wrong on the facts", but without presenting any facts of your own to back up this allegation.alaimacerc wrote: »The suggestion of the post was that it was the decision of the family to bring the action that led to the delay of the outcome they sought and distress entailed. There's your "victims" and your "blaming" both right there. Essentially thereafter we're haggling about where this is on the continuum of doing so righteously and accurately, to crassly and being wrong on the facts.
Such a "conclusion" relies on an assumption -- with no basis provided then or since -- that there was a material change in the foetal prospects during the course of the legal action.
You call for facts and evidence from me, to back up what I said, and in this A&A forum, I would expect nothing less. The following extract is from the HC judgement; This is the testimony of the obstetrician...
So he clearly states that he would "be prepared now" to withdraw life support. He has already made that medical decision. He apparently made that decision some time after the medical deterioration, but before he arrived in the court. The judges accepted that this decision was made in good faith, and in the best interests of the patient (the foetus). Having examined other evidence and precedent, they confirmed that they accepted and agreed with it, and subsequently issued a court order to implement it.Asked if he believed in the light of Dr. Colreavy’s evidence of deterioration in the mother’s condition that somatic support remained a viable option, he replied that he did not. He honestly did not think there was any hope of the baby surviving with the “storm” that is going on around it and would give up all hope for the baby. The mother in the instant case has an open wound in her head, she has four or five tubes out of her body and is deteriorating rapidly. He and his team would be prepared now to withdraw somatic treatment in consultation and in liaison with the family members. He was cross-examined as to why he had changed his view as to the prospects for the unborn child from the more optimistic tone of his earlier report. He answered that the infection which has become evident over the past few days “seems to be taking over”. He stated that if you have a dead brain that is infected it will be a constant seat of infection. He said that the brain itself is “liquefying” and thus pouring toxins into the blood stream. As this goes on, the deterioration of the mother’s condition will undoubtedly affect the baby and he did not believe that its viability would continue.
I made no comment saying that a settlement out-of-court was impossible once the legal proceedings were started. All I know is that it didn't happen. I could speculate that the short time frame, and it being over the Christmas holiday period, and the public policy interest of the case all would have made an out-of-court settlement less likely than otherwise, but any speculation about that is irrelevant to the main issues.alaimacerc wrote: »It further relies on the assumption (also with no apparent basis) that had this been the case, settlement or withdrawal of the action would have somehow been impossible. (You want life support removed, we now think this is both desirable and possible, but let's continue a high-profile adversarial legal process on the premise that we fundamentally disagree.)0 -
Advertisement
-
I agree with recedite's first 4 para's above in outlining the progress of treatment of both the woman and the feotus. The team had a constitutional obligation to the feotus in the initial stage after brain-death was declared in the woman. Both situations described by recedite and the court's released judgement documents were literally in two separate theatres.
It seem's to me that they were brought about by the constitutional obligation to the feotus placed on the medics, that by the time it became clear to the medics that the feotus had been made a "no longer-viable" entity due to the woman's physical deterioration, they could take no more action as the court had become involved, and the deterioration was ongoing during all stages of the hearings.
Re recedites last Para, any change in mind by the medics would have had to have been notified to the family, and thence by agreement between them, to the court seeking an end to the action. The court may not have been able, due to it been of constitutional reference, to withdraw from hearing the case. The ward of court case was about making the woman's father her carer by order of the court, removing any legal responsibility of care (including decision making) from the medics AND the hospital.
The unfortunate (or fortunate) thing is that we were relying for facts on the initial story in the papers for info on which to make understandings of the situation. It seemed there were a good few days before the story was printed during which the woman's medical status changed, even before the court case was taken and hearings began. The saving grace for debate is that the court/service printed and issued the judgement of the court, incl the evidence given by the medical experts, removing the need for a decision by the court on how the constitution referred to it. The feotus was, in esence, declared a non-viable entity, somewhat on the lines argued by it's counsel about the woman. dead therefore outside protection of the constitution.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement