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
-
Well, I did quote his original statement. How could it be rather more specific that the actual statement was?The original claim made by recedite was rather more specific than that.
Oh, his statement needs no defending; it's you wild allegations that bear refuting.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.
I really don't see how an event can victimise anyone. They weren't singled out, or targeted. They were unfortunate. Not as unfortunate as the young woman or the foetus she was carrying, but they weren't victimised either.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 they were 'victimised' by someone who was desperately trying to save the life of their unborn sibling? Right.......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.
You gather that from what I say, or what you need me to be to justify your position? Honestly, trying to paint unfortunate families as martyrs to justify your own campaign against the 8th amendment says a lot more about your supreme indifference to people than mine.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 I gather this sort of issue is of supreme indifference to you, or you would, probably like the poster who originally made the claim, be hoping it got forgotten ASAP.0 -
Which is all fine, except that we aren't just talking about life support of already dead people. Medics are allowed, in certain circumstances to stop support of people that are still 'alive', and can do this without attracting liability. So someone that had a DNR order, or has refused treatment. Whilst I am not sure of the exact medical side of things, permanent vegetative state is slightly different to this case, in that brain stem death may not have occurred, but medics can still withdraw support and nutrition, without being criminally liable.Perhaps we are at cross purposes to some extent then.
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 what I was talking about, though I may not have made myself clear. So when I said that in certain circumstances medics could remove support I was talking about both those that are already dead and those that may not be. I then further added that there was nothing that I could see in the PoLDP Act that did anything to make removal of support for a foetus any different to removal of support from a born person, under the correct circumstances.
As I mentioned above, removing support does happen for 'living people' as well. When I said in the correct circumstances this was not simply referring to when a person was dead, but also when the correct consent was in place, whether that person was living or dead. This is the sh1tty for of euthanasia we have in the Ireland and the UK: Medics can remove mechanical support and allow a patient to suffocate, or they can remove nutritional support and allow them to starve to death but god forbid the medic actually takes any positive act to give them any kind of humane death. It really bugs me that a humane death is reserved for non-humans.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.
I hope this clarifies things.
MrP0 -
Umm, so you think that the right for ill people to refuse treatment (DNR's are not, afaiaa, enforced on third parties!) by extension the law allows fetuses to be destroyed?Which is all fine, except that we aren't just talking about life support of already dead people. Medics are allowed, in certain circumstances to stop support of people that are still 'alive', and can do this without attracting liability. So someone that had a DNR order, or has refused treatment.
Isn't that like saying that because some dying people commit suicide it is legal to euthanize others?
I don't know the detail either, but I am aware, as I'm sure you are too, that life support is not normally withdrawn without a court order, and this after both family and doctors agree that the person is not going to recover. The reason for this is because it is impossible to tell initially if the person has a chance of recovery or not - and the difference in this a case is that the unanimous opinion was that the fetus could not get to viability.Whilst I am not sure of the exact medical side of things, permanent vegetative state is slightly different to this case, in that brain stem death may not have occurred, but medics can still withdraw support and nutrition, without being criminally liable.
So nothing like a PVS in terms of chances of recovery.If health professionals and family members agree there is no point in continuing treatment, the decision usually has to be referred to the courts before treatment can be withdrawn.
This would usually be considered if a person was in a state of impaired consciousness for at least 12 months, as by this point the chances of recovery are remote.
http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Vegetative-state/Pages/Introduction.aspx
It actually doesn't, tbh. I don't really understand how the last part of your post relates to the rest : you seem to be arguing for euthanasia on the basis of this case, which to my mind is very different from euthanizing a born person who has had a life and opinions about that life and possibly about their death. And who may for all we can tell be suffering some form of locked-in consciousness inside that PVS. A fetus inside a dead woman is nothing like that. It has no consciousness and can't suffer.This is what I was talking about, though I may not have made myself clear. So when I said that in certain circumstances medics could remove support I was talking about both those that are already dead and those that may not be. I then further added that there was nothing that I could see in the PoLDP Act that did anything to make removal of support for a foetus any different to removal of support from a born person, under the correct circumstances.
As I mentioned above, removing support does happen for 'living people' as well. When I said in the correct circumstances this was not simply referring to when a person was dead, but also when the correct consent was in place, whether that person was living or dead. This is the sh1tty for of euthanasia we have in the Ireland and the UK: Medics can remove mechanical support and allow a patient to suffocate, or they can remove nutritional support and allow them to starve to death but god forbid the medic actually takes any positive act to give them any kind of humane death. It really bugs me that a humane death is reserved for non-humans.
I hope this clarifies things.
MrP
The case for and against euthanasia is an important one, but I don't think it can be dragged in here, it really isn't relevant.0 -
More of your unsupported "facts". Can you cite some evidence to back up these "facts"?I don't know the detail either, but I am aware, as I'm sure you are too, that life support is not normally withdrawn without a court order, and this after both family and doctors agree that the person is not going to recover. The reason for this is because it is impossible to tell initially if the person has a chance of recovery or not - and the difference in this a case is that the unanimous opinion was that the fetus could not get to viability.
During the time the doctors refused to withdraw life support, when or where did they state that it was their unanimous opinion that the foetus was not going to be viable?
If an elderly patient is dying of cancer and suffering, is it necessary to obtain a court order before substituting an electrolyte only solution for the glucose solution in their intravenous drip?
Or maybe you don't know, or don't care, because you are only interested in how you can manipulate this recent case to support your crusade against the 8th amendment, and you can't see the bigger picture and the real issues that were at the heart of it......The case for and against euthanasia is an important one, but I don't think it can be dragged in here, it really isn't relevant...
What is your own qualification for saying this?A fetus inside a dead woman is nothing like that. It has no consciousness and can't suffer.
A few posts back I quoted the medic in charge of the case as saying;
Its about time you started backing up your posts with some evidence, instead of randomly accusing other people of getting their facts wrong.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.0 -
More of your unsupported "facts". Can you cite some evidence to back up these "facts"?
During the time the doctors refused to withdraw life support, when or where did they state that it was their unanimous opinion that the foetus was not going to be viable?
If an elderly patient is dying of cancer and suffering, is it necessary to obtain a court order before an electrolyte only solution for the glucose solution in their intravenous drip?
Or maybe you don't know, or don't care, because you are only interested in how you can manipulate this recent case to support your crusade against the 8th amendment, and you can't see the bigger picture and the real issues that were at the heart of it....
What is your own qualification for saying this?
A few posts back I quoted the medic in charge of the case as saying;
Its about time you started backing up your posts with some evidence, instead of randomly accusing other people of getting their facts wrong.
This thread has just gotten ridiculous with people voicing their opinions on what is legal or not, without any knowledge of the actual facts.
Electrolytes or glucose in a drip won't make much difference either way, btw, and it is of huge significance weather a patient is legally competent to make their own healthcare decisions (perhaps the elderly patient alluded to above), or not (a minor, a patient in PVS, perhaps a foetus). Generally you can't go around withdrawing treatment from patients who can't consent, unless you can be very sure it is in their best interest. Many of these type cases do end up looking to the courts for guidance.0 -
Advertisement
-
What a strange post - from the poster who posted a speculative version of events completely at variance with what we do know! Projection, much?More of your unsupported "facts". Can you cite some evidence to back up these "facts"?
During the time the doctors refused to withdraw life support, when or where did they state that it was their unanimous opinion that the foetus was not going to be viable?
When you ask for evidence about how these things are decided, did you miss the link I gave to the NHS which confirms what I said?
As for what the doctors told the family, you don't seem to realize that their original medical advice was to turn off the life support, because there was no hope. The only reason the same doctors then said they wouldn't do that was because the fetus was not yet dead. So they were waiting for the fetus to die first, something they expected, from previous similar situations. Except that, as with Savita Halappanavar, albeit in a different medical situation, the fetus refused to die in a reasonable timeframe, and so the family became more and more distressed about the suffering that was being imposed on them due to the Irish constitution, and nothing else.
They went to court with the support of the medical team that was refusing to switch off the life support, some of whom cried as they gave evidence in court. What does that tell you about what was really going on?
No idea why you think I have decided alone that the 8th was responsible for this happening, it was accepted in court that the 8th was the reason the medical staff didn't want to turn off life support. It's a fact, and saying so does not amount to a crusade, still less to some sort of manipulation.If an elderly patient is dying of cancer and suffering, is it necessary to obtain a court order before substituting an electrolyte only solution for the glucose solution in their intravenous drip?
Or maybe you don't know, or don't care, because you are only interested in how you can manipulate this recent case to support your crusade against the 8th amendment, and you can't see the bigger picture and the real issues that were at the heart of it...
As for your elderly patient, I'd be very careful if I were you of accusing doctors of performing euthanasia on patients who have not previously expressed a desire to die. Remember Harold Shipman, in England? But maybe murder of the elderly is legal in Ireland, I don't know. Makes a bit of a mockery if the whole "pro-life" ethos if it is though, doesn't it?
You mean about the fetus not suffering? I mean "can't suffer pain", not "can't suffer growth anomalies etc as a result". I think you'll find that Dr McKenna did not mean that the fetus could suffer pain in the sense that a born baby can. Their brain is not well enough developed until at least the third trimester, and even then it's unclear that it can process pain as a meaningful sensation. For example, fetal distress means a different thing (it's a physical description, not a psychological one) that bears no relation to the distress I meant when I said the family became distressed.What is your own qualification for saying this?
A few posts back I quoted the medic in charge of the case as saying;
Its about time you started backing up your posts with some evidence, instead of randomly accusing other people of getting their facts wrong.
You can look that up on the NHS website if you want, but it's accepted scientifically. And I certainly haven't accused people "randomly" - what you posted was a lie, quite simply. It was not because of the family's court action that the life support was not turned off, the court action was because of the refusal to turn it off despite the doctors telling the family there was no hope for the woman or her fetus given its early stage of development.0 -
Except that blood sugars are necessary for survival. Basic facts.ProfessorPlum wrote: »This thread has just gotten ridiculous with people voicing their opinions on what is legal or not,without any knowledge of the actual facts.
Electrolytes or glucose in a drip won't make much difference either way, btw,
That is the whole point of this discussion. And if the doctors are sure, they do not necessarily need a court order.ProfessorPlum wrote: »Generally you can't go around withdrawing treatment from patients who can't consent, unless you can be very sure it is in their best interest.0 -
Except that blood sugars are necessary for survival. Basic facts.
That is the whole point of this discussion. And if a doctor is sure, he/she does not necessarily need a court order.
So are you actually saying that a doctor can, of his own accord and without any indication that the patient might have expressed such a desire, legally withdraw nourishment, thereby killing the person?
Only if you are right, do you think Marie Fleming spent her last months campaigning over a non existent problem?
Do you have any examples of this happening? What sort of safeguards do you think are in place for such cases, to prevent a Harold Shipman-type situation arising?0 -
This is what you keep saying. I asked where you got this information.As for what the doctors told the family, you don't seem to realize that their original medical advice was to turn off the life support, because there was no hope. The only reason the same doctors then said they wouldn't do that was because the fetus was not yet dead. So they were waiting for the fetus to die
The testimony of the obstetrician suggests that the original medical report was more optimistic than that, even if it is not in the public domain. But from the judgement we have...
Furthermore, I am saying that if the doctors did believe from the outset that the foetus had no chance of survival, as you are claiming, then there was no legal reason to prolong its suffering. Whether in the 8th amendment or in any legislation.Since he wrote his original report there had been an ongoing evolving situation which was getting worse day by day. 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”0 -
Except that blood sugars are necessary for survival. Basic facts.
You see this is kind of my point exactly.
In most circumstances the body is well capable of maintaining blood glucose levels without having a 'glucose' infusion. So weather it's an electrolyte infusion or glucose, you're really just maintaining fluid intake. I think you're confusing nutrition - given via TPN, NG or PEG, with giving a glucose infusion, which couldn't under any circumstances be considered nutrition. But carry on....0 -
Advertisement
-
This is what you keep saying. I asked where you got this information.
The testimony of the obstetrician suggests that the original medical report was more optimistic than that, even if it is not in the public domain. But from the judgement we have...
Furthermore, I am saying that if the doctors did believe from the outset that the foetus had no chance of survival, as you are claiming, then there was no legal reason to prolong its suffering. Whether in the 8th amendment or in any legislation.
Several places, I'm not going to back through them all, especially when the court judgment clearly proceeds on that basis too :
Note that there is no mention that anyone might have thought at the start that there was some chance for the fetus. That's because they didn't. Brain death at such an early stage in pregnancy does not allow any chance of a viable healthy baby.Kearns P ... (found that) the foetus’s chances of survival if she were maintained on life support were very slim indeed:
“The entire medical evidence in this case goes one way only, and that is to establish that the prospects for a successful delivery of a live baby in this case are virtually non-existent. The medical evidence clearly establishes that early gestation cases have a much poorer prognosis for the unborn child than those cases where brain death of the mother occurs at a later stage, usually improving after 24 weeks [pp 17-18].
“There is uncontradicted evidence from all of the medical experts that brain death at such an early stage of pregnancy precludes any realistic hope that the baby in this case might be born alive.
http://www.lawandreligionuk.com/2014/12/27/high-court-of-ireland-rules-brain-dead-pregnant-woman-can-be-taken-off-life-support/
Where is your evidence that the obstetrician actually thought the baby might possibly reach viability, when the judge (Kearns) said the opposite?0 -
Actually don't bother I've found it, and proved your dishonesty at the same time. You omitted the link, and neglected to make it clear that this doctor was not one of her own team, but had simply written a report as to how a pregnant woman might be treated to keep her alive. He hadn't examined her and didn't know her case.Where is your evidence that the obstetrician actually thought the baby might possibly reach viability, when the judge (Kearns) said the opposite?Dr. David Mortell provided a report, simply intended to address her treatment and what might happen perhaps in the future.
Having heard the evidence of Dr. Colreavy, he was now aware of the "dreadful state that the patient is in".
The mother's temperature is going up, there is infection and her blood pressure is difficult to control.
He now had great concern about her somatic care and about her chances of survival.
Since he wrote his original report there had been an ongoing evolving situation which was getting worse day by day. Asked if he believed in the light of Dr. Colreavy's evidence ... (As per the rest of your carefully edited quote) :mad:
https://static.rasset.ie/documents/news/judgment.pdf
The doctors who had cared for her knew there was no chance, right from the start, and the judgment accepts that all the available medical evidence goes in that direction, whereas some random "expert" had lots of bright ideas as to how to experiment on her to see if the boundaries could be pushed further than they ever had before.
No wonder her treatment has been described as grotesque.
And you presented his testimony as though he were the obstetrician who had seen her at the time of her death and who had since changed his mind. That isn't what happened at all!
Edit : while googling to find out who David Mortell was, the first thing that came up was a fitness to practise trial in 2011 because he had failed to warn a couple that their unborn baby had Edwards syndrome. The baby then died shortly after birth. Presumably the couple would have chosen a pregnancy termination in the UK had they been given that chance.
I wonder what that may tell us about Dr David Mortell's beliefs and objectivity in the matter.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/mother-tells-inquiry-how-baby-boy-died-in-her-arms-26778724.html0 -
You have only proved that you are an idiot.Actually don't bother I've found it, and proved your dishonesty at the same time. You omitted the link, and neglected to make it clear that this doctor was not one of her own team, but had simply written a report as to how a pregnant woman might be treated to keep her alive. He hadn't examined her and didn't know her case.
It says there immediately before the part you quoted that.
We don't know what was in the early report, only that his opinion about the prognosis changed some time later. At the time of his court appearance he said;Dr. David Mortell is the obstetrician who dealt with N.P. and her unborn child. While he had provided a report...
I spelled it all out for you earlier, but you have failed to grasp the points being made. Now you seem to be alleging some sort of medical malpractice. Good luck with that...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..0 -
recedite, could you cite this quote?recedite wrote:Dr. David Mortell is the obstetrician who dealt with N.P. and her unborn child. While he had provided a report...
It doesn't appear in the judgement here
https://static.rasset.ie/documents/news/judgment.pdf
I imagine you may both be looking at different documents?0 -
You have only proved that you are an idiot.
It says there immediately before the part you quoted that. We don't know what was in the early report, only that his opinion about the prognosis changed some time later. At the time of his court appearance he said;
I spelled it all out for you earlier, but you have failed to grasp the points being made. Now you seem to be alleging some sort of medical malpractice. Good luck with that...
I'll take your word for that but it isn't in the link I gave, and you repeatedly quote without giving a source, which is pretty poor form no matter what.
Here's my link, again:
https://static.rasset.ie/documents/news/judgment.pdf
The first mention of Dr Mortell is at the top of p15, which I quoted. I can't see any mention of his being a member of the original team.
As for the rest of your post, I haven't alleged malpractice. I said he actually was the object of a malpractice suit which appears to indicate that he may have religious views of fetal medicine. In any other country of course that would be an allegation of malpractice, but not in Ireland, where it is merely a statement of fact for a certain proportion of the medical establishment. John Bonnar for example makes no secret of his views.
In any case, Dr Mortell's actions then meant that the couple concerned were deprived of any chance to have a choice about terminating a pregnancy for an anomaly incompatible with life. If as you say he is also the doctor who claimed, contrary to ALL the medical evidence, to believe initially that this fetus might have a chance of reaching viability, then perhaps we have an answer as to how this horror was visited on this family.0 -
I have found the quote.
It is at this link
https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1385958/p-p-v-hse.pdf
Midway through page 15
Not sure of any other differences currently, nor of the source of that document.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »I have found the quote.
It is at this link
https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1385958/p-p-v-hse.pdf
Midway through page 15
Not sure of any other differences currently, nor of the source of that document.
Thanks for that Emmett. It seems a little longer, for example there is further medical detail about the state of the woman's abdomen that seems to have been omitted from the link I found. Of course recedite may have been quoting from yet another link, who knows?
So I gather, knowing Dr Mortell's previous medical history (which I had looked up precisely because I couldn't find any information about who he was in the link I had found myself) it looks as though we have a plausible explanation as to why this all happened in the first place. Not because there was ever any medical reason to think the baby could ever survive to viability, but, as in GUH, because some medical staff still function along the lines of "This is a catholic country".
The echo with Savita Halappanavar, where the fetus clung on to "life" and it was considered impossible to do anyone to hasten its inevitable death, and this sad case had struck me from quite early on, but the reason for this parallel between the two situations seems to be becoming ever clearer the more we learn about those involved.
Here is what I found about that malpractice suit. He was found guilty of three counts of malpractice.
http://novusmedica.com/2011/11/16/finding-of-poor-professional-practice-over-foetal-scan-failure/0 -
It was posted earlier in this thread;Deleted User wrote: »recedite, could you cite this quote?Lingua Franca wrote: »
I'm not saying anything about him other than quoting from the judgement, although some of his testimony does seem a bit "weasely". We haven't seen his initial report.If as you say he is also the doctor who claimed, contrary to ALL the medical evidence, to believe initially that this fetus might have a chance of reaching viability, then perhaps we have an answer as to how this horror was visited on this family.
I did say that if the hospital doctors did believe from the outset that the foetus had no chance of survival and was distressed, then there was no legal reason to prolong its suffering.
Look, I'll retract the "idiot" comment about you, and hopefully you will retract the "disgusting" "dishonest" and "liar" comments about me
0 -
OK sure, we weren't working from the same information source, so obviously your quotes were incompatible with mine. That's what links are for!Look, I'll retract the "idiot" comment about you, and hopefully you will retract the "disgusting" "dishonest" and "liar" comments about me
Anyway, to be frank I think it is all the more significant that he was the obstetrician involved in the case at the crucial time of her death, given that he had previously been the object of a malpractice suit for failing to provide information to a couple about a fetal anomaly incompatible with life. The neurologist advised that her life support machine be turned off, and all the accounts I have seen said that the team agreed except for ONE team member, who raised the issue of the 8th amendment. It looks like we now know who that probably was and why.0 -
Well, my own opinion re the Savita case is that an abortion was legal as soon as there was a threat to the mothers life. But due to the particular ethos of the hospital they either chose not to make it available to her, or else they failed to appreciate the seriousness of the situation. Either one of those was unacceptable.... because some medical staff still function along the lines of "This is a catholic country".
The echo with Savita Halappanavar, where the fetus clung on to "life" and it was considered impossible to do anyone to hasten its inevitable death, and this sad case had struck me from quite early on, but the reason for this parallel between the two situations seems to be becoming ever clearer the more we learn about those involved....0 -
Advertisement
-
Well, my own opinion re the Savita case is that an abortion was legal as soon as there was a threat to the mothers life.
The law stipulates substantial threat. All pregnancies/miscarriages pose some threat to the woman's life. Would other Irish maternity hospitals have terminated the pregnancy within hours of the miscarriage being diagnosed? Possibly, but if that is the practice they are on dubious legal grounds to say the least...0 -
Well, my own opinion re the Savita case is that an abortion was legal as soon as there was a threat to the mothers life. But due to the particular ethos of the hospital they either chose not to make it available to her, or else they failed to appreciate the seriousness of the situation. Either one of those was unacceptable.
I don't know, I remember Dr Peter Boylan testifying that it would have been impossible to say that there was a risk to her life, as opposed to her health until it was probably too late anyway, because of the virulent nature of the infection she had. So that even if they had done all the reading of results etc it probably would have made little difference.
And I have definitely seen medical texts (UK and US) advising strongly against any avoidable delay in acting once the clinical signs of chorioamnionitis (what Savita Halappanavar had) are observable, without waiting for bloods etc, because of the risk of sepsis taking hold and becoming untreatable. Which fits with Boylan's analysis.
Mind you, those articles concerned mainly women nearly at full term, where the survival of the fetus is a factor. Only in Ireland is it also necessary to wait for those signs during an inevitable miscarriage at 17 weeks, and that is because of the constitution.0 -
Substantial, yes. Again it is a medical decision not a legal one. Probably there are doctors in this world who would be prepared to testify in court that Chorioamnionitis and septicaemia pose a substantial threat to life. In the Savita case there does not appear to have been any great hurry to analyse blood tests or to make contingency preparations for an emergency abortion, because (they admitted that) they had already made up their mind to wait for the foetus to die by itself. However the "substantial risk" legal precedent allowing a legal abortion was there, and available to be invoked since the 1992 x-case ruling.Loafing Oaf wrote: »The law stipulates substantial threat. All pregnancies/miscarriages pose some threat to the woman's life....0 -
Substantial, yes. Again it is a medical decision not a legal one. Probably there are doctors in this world who would be prepared to testify in court that Chorioamnionitis and septicaemia pose a substantial threat to life. In the Savita case there does not appear to have been any great hurry to analyse blood tests or to make contingency preparations for an emergency abortion, because (they admitted that) they had already made up their mind to wait for the foetus to die by itself. However the "substantial risk" legal precedent allowing a legal abortion was there, and available to be invoked since the 1992 x-case ruling.
Do you think you could find a single medium-competent doctor anywhere prepared to testify that chorioamnionitis and septicaemia don't pose substantial threat to life? :shock:
And there is no need for blood tests when the clinical observations are enough, as they were in her case (high temperature, elevated heart rate etc)
Yet none of the staff involved in Savita Halappanavar's care were found guilty of more than being in need of a little retraining.
So there is obviously something wrong with your overly simplistic analysis.0 -
Well, my own opinion re the Savita case is that an abortion was legal as soon as there was a threat to the mothers life. But due to the particular ethos of the hospital they either chose not to make it available to her, or else they failed to appreciate the seriousness of the situation. Either one of those was unacceptable.
Just on this point, we're possibly going off topic a little, but it strikes me that you are implying something here and I'd love to know what.
The media descriptions of what happened describe the nurses being so worried about Savita Halappanavar that they moved her up to beside the nurses' station so as to keep a better eye on her. Far from failing to realize the seriousness, the impression I have of what happened was that they were very aware but unsure of how to deal with it until the fetus died (all the checking and rechecking of the fetal heartbeat) She wasn't just put in a ward and left, she was very actively monitored. What they didn't do was go any further than that and do the one thing that was required : terminate the pregnancy.
Now, in your opinion, there was no legal obstacle - which means they had chosen not to terminate. Would you care to suggest reasons as to why they might do that, other than actually believing they couldn't for legal reasons?
Or do you think the law was clear but they just didn't know what the law was? Would that not be unprofessional? I wouldn't expect doctors to be lawyers, but they need a modicum of legal knowledge, surely?0 -
Well then maybe we need to ask the Irish Medical council where is the "fitness to practice inquiry" instead of just saying "oh its the 8th amendment; its too strict/too loose/too vague and nobody knows what it means anyway"Yet none of the staff involved in Savita Halappanavar's care were found guilty of more than being in need of a little retraining.
So there is obviously something wrong with your overly simplistic analysis.
Which brings us back to Dr. Mortel. I find it disturbing that the key decision in this case was placed in the hands of someone who was recently found guilty of poor professional practice in this very area. I wonder what sort of oversight was in place. Did the consultant agree with Dr Mortel's earlier report, or did he examine the patient(s) at all in the early stages.
At the time of the court hearing, everyone (both medical and legal people) were in agreement that prolonging the death of the foetus was futile.
The real question is; who was in favour of prolonging it just after the mothers brain tissue had died and just before the family initiated the legal action?
Was the proposed "treatment plan" at that stage concealing the true nature of the prognosis, similar to what had occurred in his previous malpractice case?
At what point exactly did he change his mind, and was this decision communicated to the family?
What was in his original report, and did the consultant in charge read it and agree with it?
Why is this guy employed by the HSE?0 -
Well then maybe we need to ask the Irish Medical council where is the "fitness to practice inquiry" instead of just saying "oh its the 8th amendment; its too strict/too loose/too vague and nobody knows what it means anyway"
Which brings us back to Dr. Mortel. I find it disturbing that the key decision in this case was placed in the hands of someone who was recently found guilty of poor professional practice in this very area. I wonder what sort of oversight was in place. Did the consultant agree with Dr Mortel's earlier report, or did he examine the patient(s) at all in the early stages.
At the time of the court hearing, everyone (both medical and legal people) were in agreement that prolonging the death of the foetus was futile.
The real question is; who was in favour of prolonging it just after the mothers brain tissue had died and just before the family initiated the legal action?
Was the proposed "treatment plan" at that stage concealing the true nature of the prognosis, similar to what had occurred in his previous malpractice case?
At what point exactly did he change his mind, and was this decision communicated to the family?
What was in his original report, and did the consultant in charge read it and agree with it?
Why is this guy employed by the HSE?
All well and good, but even if it's all exact, the fact remains that if the 8th amendment (or similar, since the POLDP Act may also be part of the problem) hadn't been in place, the other members of the team could have told him to take a running jump.
Instead we had three medical consultants around a table with a legal document (the constitution!) trying to "figure out" what the correct legal course of action was. How utterly crazy is that - these are highly paid medical experts who were spending their valuable time trying to do lawyers' work! I thought we had a shortage of doctors, not a shortage of flipping lawyers!
And that was because of the constitutional position. Plainly and simply. Which of course the actual constitutional position is not.0 -
The Galway hospital had their own policy which involved leaving the doomed foetus for as long as possible to die by itself, even when they knew its death was inevitable and there was at the same time a real threat to the mothers life. I can't say why they had that policy, just that it did not reflect a requirement imposed by the 8th amendment in the Constitution.Now, in your opinion, there was no legal obstacle - which means they had chosen not to terminate. Would you care to suggest reasons as to why they might do that, other than actually believing they couldn't for legal reasons?
The RC policy is that all abortion is forbidden, but an act to save the life of a dying mother which results in the "termination" of the foetus does not constitute an act of abortion. That is a much higher bar than is described in the 8th amendment, which allows abortion if there is a substantial risk. The word "substantial" does not mean "grave" it means;
1. "not-makey uppy" and 2. "not insignificant".
For example, the real threat of maternal suicide has been deemed to be enough to allow abortion according to the 8th amendment, but according to RC canon law/doctrine it would not be sufficient reason.
Maybe when medical ethics, law, and religious morality collide it is difficult for some people who have been religiously indoctrinated from early childhood to see clearly which is which.
The Midlands Regional hospital Mullingar is supposed to be a secular hospital managed directly by the HSE under the direct control of the state AFAIK.0 -
The only source we have for this AFAIK is the one Irish Times article.Instead we had three medical consultants around a table with a legal document (the constitution!) trying to "figure out" what the correct legal course of action was.
In reality, their job was to make a decision as to the futility or otherwise of the treatment, whether distress was being caused, and whether prolonging the dying process was in the best interests of the foetus.
As for other members of the team telling the obstetrician to take a running jump, nurses cannot do that. People of higher rank such as consultants can. Doctors of equal rank should have the courage to speak out when they disagree with their colleague, instead of just closing ranks.0 -
Advertisement
-
No time just now, got to run, but by the other members of the team I meant the other two doctors, and particularly the neurologist whose opinion was to take her off the life support. I'm obviously aware that nurses don't make decisions of that nature anyway, so would have no "opinion" to give.
Also, I may be wrong, but my understanding of the origins of GUH was that it was a secular hospital, unlike some of the Dublin ones. I'm surprised to hear the opposite, and unfortunately your link leads to a content-free page, so there is no confirmation of that. Do you have anything to back this up?0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement