Abortion Discussion

robindch

Mod:

Satori Rae wrote: »

[...] a lying personal attack [...]

That's unparliamentary language - please avoid such comments.

Satori Rae

robindch wrote: »

Mod:That's unparliamentary language - please avoid such comments.

No problems apologies. I had not realised but I felt I had to justify his/her + one other posters accusations against me in prior post.

robindch

Satori Rae wrote: »

[...] I felt I had to jusistify his/her accusations

Summary - justifications from quoted text are admirable, but the assertion or the implication of dishonesty is not, as it assumes a knowledge of the state of mind and of knowledge of the poster which no other poster can ever have.

Pray, continue.

Satori Rae

robindch wrote: »

Summary - justifications from quoted text are admirable, but the assertion or the implication of dishonesty is not, as it assumes a knowledge of the state of mind and of knowledge of the poster which no other poster can ever have.

Pray, continue.

That is true apologies about that I hadn't released that saying that was rule on this is all tbh. (newish user)

But that is how the comments as a whole came across to me at the time also in a comment I quoted from absolem earlier in the thread they said I rewrote comments implying I was changing my wording to suit myself which was untrue (I cant put link quote up now as on phone).

If I overstepped the line then so be it I fudged up. But I kind of have to stand by it as a stubborn mule would o.0

But it wont happen again

Absolam

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

One thing you have to remember of Absalom, if it doesn't scan with his far right, medieval and absolutely nutty conception of catholicism, he denounces it as being tantamount to "godless communism". He will forever twist your words, lie back to you, denounce you, or do anything else he thinks necessary in order to publicise his lies and do down reality. You're better off not arguing with him.

Given that when I press you for a factual basis for your posts you normally abandon the discussion, I usually don't bother....
However, since on this occasion you're addressing my character rather than my post I feel I should ask; do you have any facts to back up the vitriolic nonsense you just posted, or should I just attribute the diatribe to childish pique?

Satori Rae wrote: »

Totally agree its why I stopped replying total waste of time, I like debates and to talk about views but when it comes across as a lying personal attack I have no respect for the person and switch off

If you feel I have lied about anything at all, feel free to quote me. Obviously, it wasn't me that was lying when I pointed out that when you said you hadn't said something, you actually had said it. But I'm happy to discuss anything I said that you think was untruthful?

Satori Rae wrote: »

He or she did try to lie saying I had changed my comment to have advantage over them in some way in doing so, that is a personal attack and a lie.

I didn't say any such thing. I said you used the word barbaric. You said you didn't. I pointed out where you did.

Satori Rae wrote: »

He or she was trying to make me out to be the liar twisting my edits to be something more then what they are therefore I will call them out on it if it is not true.........also if you check all my comments on boards you will see they are all edited this again is due to being dyslexic.

I did nothing of the sort; I never mentioned your edits, only your use of the word barbaric.

Satori Rae wrote: »

Just because it does not suit you 2 does not mean you should be verbally nasty in your wording about other people or be sarcastic making crass remarks about someones reputation. Or speuclation on their integrity. Or try twist their words to suit you, all for you to have a row.

In fairness, you're the one calling people liars.....

Satori Rae wrote: »

But that is how the comments as a whole came across to me at the time also in a comment I quoted from absolem earlier in the thread they said I rewrote comments implying I was changing my wording to suit myself which was untrue (I cant put link quote up now as on phone).
If I overstepped the line then so be it I fudged up. But I kind of have to stand by it as a stubborn mule would o.0

I neither said nor implied that you rewrote comments. Feel free to put up the quote when you're not on your phone and I'll be happy to explain what I actually said.

volchitsa

Meanwhile, a poster who came on to make a point that was relevant to the thread, about the tactics used by anti-abortion protesters outside a school, has been sidetracked down a complete dead-end about her use of one word, and not even a particularly offensive one.

Those who want to shut the discussion down must be delighted.

[SARC] Not that Absolam would ever use that as a tactic, I'm sure he's above that sort of thing. [/SARC]

Shouldn't everyone just get back to the discussion? :rolleyes:

volchitsa

Such as, for example, the fact that no-one is to be held personally responsible for the avoidable death of Savita Halappanavar. Not even the consultant who repeatedly examined her dying fetus, while apparenlty falling to do as much for the woman carrying that fetus.

http://utv.ie/News/2015/03/31/Doctor-who-treated-late-Savita-Halappanavar-cleared-34588

Meantime, we learn that reports on how to cure "systems failures" in any part of the medical service are regularly ignored and that no-one is ever held responsible for issues at that level either.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/hse-chiefs-did-not-visit-portlaoise-despite-concerns-1.2167976

Since only pregnant women are made to wait until their life is under threat before being legally allowed to access the full range of medical care available in other countries, I think we can limit the discussion to that issue, on this thread anyway.

So given that not all pregnant women will want or be able to leave the country for the duration of their pregnancy and labour, does anyone still claim that Irish pregnancy and maternity services are even acceptable, never mind world-class, as we used to be told, until reliable figures started coming out, instead of the massaged HSE ones?

And does anyone else think the particular problem there seems to be in Irish maternities is likely related to Irish abortion law in that the latter shows (or creates) a view of pregnant women as untrustworthy and unsuitable to participate in deciding their treatment in the way patients normally do?

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

Meanwhile, a poster who came on to make a point that was relevant to the thread, about the tactics used by anti-abortion protesters outside a school, has been sidetracked down a complete dead-end about her use of one word, and not even a particularly offensive one.

Was the point not about the venue they chose, their churlish response to her airing her "views on them re thinking their protest mannerisms", and her inability to ignore their views at least without letting loose at them? That was the impression I got......

volchitsa wrote: »

Those who want to shut the discussion down must be delighted. [SARC] Not that Absolam would ever use that as a tactic, I'm sure he's above that sort of thing. [/SARC]

Well, I wasn't the one who was trying to turn the discussion away from the assertion that those accused of rape should be treated as guilty simply on the word of their accuser to whether or not they used a particular word... so I guess you're not talking about me.
Maybe you're talking about your own attempt to lead the discussion into rapists having access to children they fathered?
Or perhaps your diversion of accusing people of being unsympathetic to victims of rape when they enquire after the facts?

volchitsa wrote: »

Shouldn't everyone just get back to the discussion? :rolleyes:

Glad to see you're back on board

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

Such as, for example, the fact that no-one is to be held personally responsible for the avoidable death of Savita Halappanavar. Not even the consultant who repeatedly examined her dying fetus, while apparenlty falling to do as much for the woman carrying that fetus. Meantime, we learn that reports on how to cure "systems failures" in any part of the medical service are regularly ignored and that no-one is ever held responsible for issues at that level either.

Well, that was a quick about face! Aren't we supposed to be back on topic? Pretty sure the thread title is Abortion Discussion, not medical disasters.

volchitsa wrote: »

Since only pregnant women are made to wait until their life is under threat before being legally allowed to access the full range of medical care available in other countries, I think we can limit the discussion to that issue, on this thread anyway.

Why can't we limit the discussion to the issue of Abortion, like the title says? You could have another thread for pregnant womens lives and things that affect them.

volchitsa wrote: »

So given that not all pregnant women will want or be able to leave the country for the duration of their pregnancy and labour, does anyone still claim that Irish pregnancy and maternity services are even acceptable, never mind world-class, as we used to be told, until reliable figures started coming out, instead of the massaged HSE ones?

It might fit better in The Ladies Lounge, or maybe Conspiracy Theories, depending on whether you're going down the route of how acceptable the maternity services are, or how the HSE figures are massaged...

volchitsa wrote: »

And does anyone else think the particular problem there seems to be in Irish maternities is likely related to Irish abortion law in that the latter shows (or creates) a view of pregnant women as untrustworthy and unsuitable to participate in deciding their treatment in the way patients normally do?

If you're interested, I don't... I do think that some people will leap on any tragedy, even misrepresent it, if they think they can use it to further their agenda though.

volchitsa

Absolam wrote: »

Well, that was a quick about face! Aren't we supposed to be back on topic? Pretty sure the thread title is Abortion Discussion, not medical disasters.
Why can't we limit the discussion to the issue of Abortion, like the title says? You could have another thread for pregnant womens lives and things that affect them.

It might fit better in The Ladies Lounge, or maybe Conspiracy Theories, depending on whether you're going down the route of how acceptable the maternity services are, or how the HSE figures are massaged...

And does anyone else think the particular problem there seems to be in Irish maternities is likely related to Irish abortion law in that the latter shows (or creates) a view of pregnant women as untrustworthy and unsuitable to participate in deciding their treatment in the way patients normally do?

It's true that that post made a wider point than "abortion" full stop, however I'd suggest that it's excessive to claim that this thread really is purely about the concept of abortion and can't discuss possible knock-on effects of Irish abortion law on other aspects of women's lives (and no, that doesn't limit it to the Ladies' Lounge - or not unless abortion is to be redefined in Ireland as a purely female concern).

For one thing, the issue of abortion itself has been discussed to death. The thread has run its course in that case. So either we open multiple threads about each new aspect or incident resulting from Ireland's almost unique legal position on abortion, which isn't normally the preferred method here, imuic, or we use this thread to discuss tangential points leading off from that main one.

But a pathetic ding dong about which word was used in a post is never going to fit in on any thread worth opening. Satori Rae fell into a newbie's trap, but you should know better. One would almost think you were doing it deliberately.

Now. Any views on the point itself - that the Irish medical system is clearly in no fit state to force its doctors to perform feats of medical daring and prowess with women's lives that other, better-organized systems would sack those doctors for attempting?

robindch

Mod:

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

[...] Absalom [...] will forever [...] lie back to you [...] do anything [...] to publicise his lies [...]

Sorry, just noticed this now. FYI - the warning issued to Satori Rae also applies to you. And every other poster too.

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

It's true that that post made a wider point than "abortion" full stop, however I'd suggest that it's excessive to claim that this thread really is purely about the concept of abortion and can't discuss possible knock-on effects of Irish abortion law on other aspects of women's lives (and no, that doesn't limit it to the Ladies' Lounge - or not unless abortion is to be redefined in Ireland as a purely female concern).

So, it is ok to get sidetracked by related subjects? So that we're clear here?

volchitsa wrote: »

For one thing, the issue of abortion itself has been discussed to death. The thread has run its course in that case. So either we open multiple threads about each new aspect or incident resulting from Ireland's almost unique legal position on abortion, which isn't normally the preferred method here, imuic, or we use this thread to discuss tangential points leading off from that main one.

But not the ones that you feel are sidetracks? What's the difference, in this context, between a sidetrack and a tangent anyway?

volchitsa wrote: »

But a pathetic ding dong about which word was used in a post is never going to fit in on any thread worth opening. Satori Rae fell into a newbie's trap, but you should know better. One would almost think you were doing it deliberately.

Ah I think I'm getting it... it's tangents you approve of, right? So it's ok to discuss womens health issues if you can use them to imply that Ireland would be a golden haven for womankind if only we had on demand abortion, but not ok to discuss the actual circumstances of how a person who wants an abortion alleges she became pregnant. Would that be a reasonable indication of the tangents you think should and shouldn't be discussed?

volchitsa wrote: »

Now. Any views on the point itself - that the Irish medical system is clearly in no fit state to force its doctors to perform feats of medical daring and prowess with women's lives that other, better-organized systems would sack those doctors for attempting?

Well, start with an objective assessment of the state of the Irish medical system compared to say, half a dozen similar economies.
Then perhaps move on to the feats of medical daring and prowess the Irish system forces doctors to perform.
Then give us a comparison of their performance vs doctors performing similar feats in other, better organised systems (presumably from your first assessment?) and the rate at which doctors in each are dismissed for their performance.
After that maybe we can express some views on whether you have a point?

Actually... maybe start with how such a nebulous bunch of inferences is (specifically) relevant to the subject at hand (all tangents notwithstanding), and then we could proceed to your presentation of the objective assessment?


Oh... and, it's a different point from the one you were making?

volchitsa

No, it's the same point, that Irish abortion law forces doctors not to intervene when a woman's health is at risk, because ending a pregnancy for health reasons only becomes legal in Ireland when the woman's life is at risk.

In any other developed country I know of, a doctor who chose - against the woman's wishes - to abstain from ending a miscarrying pregnancy because only her health and not her life was at risk, would be liable to sanctions for the gravest professional misconduct.

My point is that a health service which decides to make doctors take that sort of decision, using the force of law, not even just their professional ethics body, is way out of line with accepted best medical practice. That's just a fact, not a theory.

So when that same medical service also shows that it is particularly inept at learning from its mistakes and is in fact performing worse than most comparable services in that way (or do you think issues like repeated failure to implement previous reports such as I linked to earlier are not a problem in Ireland?) then the HSE is indeed forcing its doctors to perform medical feats that other, better-performing health services not only don't do, but would ban their doctors from even attempting.

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

No, it's the same point, that Irish abortion law forces doctors not to intervene when a woman's health is at risk, because ending a pregnancy for health reasons only becomes legal in Ireland when the woman's life is at risk..

I have to disagree.
First point:
"the particular problem there seems to be in Irish maternities is likely related to Irish abortion law in that the latter shows (or creates) a view of pregnant women as untrustworthy and unsuitable to participate in deciding their treatment in the way patients normally do?"
Second point:
"the Irish medical system is clearly in no fit state to force its doctors to perform feats of medical daring and prowess with women's lives that other, better-organized systems would sack those doctors for attempting?"
Without going into all of the differences, the outstanding change at first glance is a lack of any reference whatsoever in the second to the untrustworthiness and unsuitability of pregnant women.
Of course, you've now made a third point above....

volchitsa wrote: »

In any other developed country I know of, a doctor who chose - against the woman's wishes - to abstain from ending a miscarrying pregnancy because only her health and not her life was at risk, would be liable to sanctions for the gravest professional misconduct..

That's a fourth (and one I'd love to review your evidence for, after you've dealt with the second).

volchitsa wrote: »

My point is that a health service which decides to make doctors take that sort of decision, using the force of law, not even just their professional ethics body, is way out of line with accepted best medical practice. That's just a fact, not a theory..

And that would be a fifth; though I'd say your 'fact' bears some substantiation as well.

All in all, this is sounding more and more like a rant than a point... are you just going to throw out variations on the theme "Ireland is terrible because it doesn't do what I want'?

volchitsa wrote: »

So when that same medical service also shows that it is particularly inept at learning from its mistakes and is in fact performing worse than most comparable services in that way (or do you think issues like repeated failure to implement previous reports such as I linked to earlier are not a problem in Ireland?) then the HSE is indeed forcing its doctors to perform medical feats that other, better-performing health services not only don't do, but would ban their doctors from even attempting.

Well, you seem to think there is some evidence for your second point (though what you've said above is distinctly different again from what you said)so, after you've shown how such a nebulous bunch of inferences is (specifically) relevant to the subject at hand (all tangents notwithstanding, maybe you are intending to show us an objective assessment of the state of the Irish medical system compared to say, half a dozen similar economies, then move on to the feats of medical daring and prowess the Irish system forces doctors to perform, and give us a comparison of their performance vs doctors performing similar feats in other, better organised systems (presumably from your first assessment?) and the rate at which doctors in each are dismissed for their performance?

I would actually be interested in discussing it, even if you can't show how it's relevant to the subject at hand.
On the other hand, if your basis for all this is simply your coloured view of what you've read about what doctors may have done in a particular couple of cases and the notion that it proves we need a more liberal abortion regime.... it probably won't be so interesting.

volchitsa

I don't understand what your objection to my point is. Do you dispute that only the Irish health care system forbids doctors from ending a pregnancy because the woman's health is at risk, even when she requests that?

And do you dispute that a doctor in the UK, or France, or Germany, who refused to accede to Savita Halappanavar's request to "get it over with" when she was miscarrying would surely face a fitness to practice hearing if such a woman subsequently died in the way Ms Halappanavar did?

Instead of which, Dr Astbury's defence was that her understanding of the law was that Ms Halappanavar needed to be at over 50% risk of dying before she was allowed to terminate. And since Dr Astbury has been cleared of any allegation of misconduct (no need for an actual hearing, the evidence in her favour was so strong, apparently) a decision which would have been, in itself, a probable cause for sanctions in any other country, has become a rock solid defence in Ireland.

What in that do you actually disagree with?

K4t

Absolam wrote: »

On the other hand, if your basis for all this is simply your coloured view of what you've read about what doctors may have done in a particular couple of cases and the notion that it proves we need a more liberal abortion regime.... it probably won't be so interesting.

Funny as most I know would say Humane.

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

I don't understand what your objection to my point is.

Which one?

volchitsa wrote: »

Do you dispute that only the Irish health care system forbids doctors from ending a pregnancy because the woman's health is at risk, even when she requests that?

I do. Would you like to refer to the United Nations statistics on the number of nations who forbid abortions being carried out in order to preserve a womans health (33%), or to preserve a womans mental health (37%)?

volchitsa wrote: »

And do you dispute that a doctor in the UK, or France, or Germany, who refused to accede to Savita Halappanavar's request to "get it over with" when she was miscarrying would surely face a fitness to practice hearing if such a woman subsequently died in the way Ms Halappanavar did?

Unless you can provide evidence that they would face a fitness to practice hearing specifically for that refusal, I really think I do....

volchitsa wrote: »

Instead of which, Dr Astbury's defence was that her understanding of the law was that Ms Halappanavar needed to be at over 50% risk of dying before she was allowed to terminate. And since Dr Astbury has been cleared of any allegation of misconduct (no need for an actual hearing, the evidence in her favour was so strong, apparently) a decision which would have been, in itself, a probable cause for sanctions in any other country, has become a rock solid defence in Ireland.

Well, not any other country. It might (and you haven't shown any evidence for this either remember) have been a probable cause in other countries where a risk to the health of the mother is a legal ground for abortion; so countries with different laws is what you're saying. So you're pillorying the Irish system because it doesn't follow the laws of other countries. Which is a bit silly really, isn't it? Or should we decry the fact that we're not stoning adulterers because other countries do it?

volchitsa wrote: »

What in that do you actually disagree with?

Pretty much all of it I think, though I'm happy enough to review any evidence that the UK, France, or Germany would actually make a doctor face a fitness to practice hearing for refusing to provide an abortion to someone who asked for one.

Still, I have to ask, how is that supposed to show Irish abortion law creates a view of pregnant women as untrustworthy and unsuitable to participate in deciding their treatment?

Or that the Irish medical system is clearly in no fit state to force its doctors to perform feats of medical daring and prowess with women's lives that other, better-organized systems would sack those doctors for attempting?

Or that in any other developed country, a doctor who chose - against the woman's wishes - to abstain from ending a miscarrying pregnancy because only her health and not her life was at risk, would be liable to sanctions for the gravest professional misconduct?
Actually, the UN statistics pretty much make a lie of that one, so I suppose we can cross that off... unless you're going to argue that the definition of developed is allowing abortion in circumstances you approve off? Again referring to the UN, as well as Ireland Malta, the UAE, & Chile are all in the top quartile of developed countries, and do not permit abortion in the case of risk to the health of the mother.

Or that a health service which decides to make doctors take that sort of decision, using the force of law, not even just their professional ethics body, is way out of line with accepted best medical practice (an that's just a fact, not a theory)? Again, you're not offering anything there that supports this argument...

Really, you've a lot of points on the go there, and what you've said doesn't seem to making any headway substantiating even one of them?

Absolam

K4t wrote: »

Funny as most I know would say Humane.

Not the ones who think a more liberal regime would kill more people I suspect..... but I'm sure there are lots of people with lots of words they'd use to describe changes in either direction

swampgas

Absolam wrote: »

Still, I have to ask, how is that supposed to show Irish abortion law creates a view of pregnant women as untrustworthy and unsuitable to participate in deciding their treatment?

You can't see the connection between Irish law on abortion and how it treats women, or you don't want to see it?

Perhaps you could explain to all those women who travel abroad to have abortions that the Irish legal/medical system is treating them perfectly well? That they absolutely do have the ability to choose their own response to an unwanted pregnancy, as long as they travel outside the state to avail of the actual treatment? Is that your idea of a sensible and humane system?

Absolam

swampgas wrote: »

You can't see the connection between Irish law on abortion and how it treats women, or you don't want to see it?

I can certainly see how every law in every jurisdiction is connected to how it treats people; that's not unique to abortion law in Ireland. But it's not the same as showing that Irish abortion law creates a view of pregnant women as untrustworthy and unsuitable to participate in deciding their treatment, is it?

swampgas wrote: »

Perhaps you could explain to all those women who travel abroad to have abortions that the Irish legal/medical system is treating them perfectly well?

That doesn't seem like a difficult proposition (though perfectly well seems like a pretty relative concept), but again, not what Volchitsas' point was....

swampgas wrote: »

That they absolutely do have the ability to choose their own response to an unwanted pregnancy, as long as they travel outside the state to avail of the actual treatment? Is that your idea of a sensible and humane system?

Oh no, I think you're mistaken. They absolutely do not have the ability (or right) to choose their own response to an unwanted pregnancy (once they are actually pregnant), and traveling outside the State to do so is avoiding the law. There is a logic to that; that ability would affect the right to life of another person if they had it, but I think you know that and just want to avoid it (much easier to focus on only one of the people involved, eh?). Those specifics are as sensible and humane as our laws, which were democratically arrived at, allow for.
You may feel it's inhumane to 'force' women to avoid the law in order to abort the foetuses they're carrying, or you may feel it's inhumane to abort foetuses; but I don't think you can claim a monopoly on what may be considered compassionate or civilised behaviour.

recedite

volchitsa wrote: »

Instead of which, Dr Astbury's defence was that her understanding of the law was that Ms Halappanavar needed to be at over 50% risk of dying before she was allowed to terminate. And since Dr Astbury has been cleared of any allegation of misconduct (no need for an actual hearing, the evidence in her favour was so strong, apparently) a decision which would have been, in itself, a probable cause for sanctions in any other country, has become a rock solid defence in Ireland.

What in that do you actually disagree with?

So now you have switched to the Savita Halappanavar case.

Firstly, nothing that doctor said or did has become "a rock solid defence" because new legislation came in after that event. Any kind of precedents set up by that case do not necessarily apply any more.

Secondly, the obstetrician was only cleared by what I would call "in-house" hearings of HSE/Hiqa and the Medical Council. She was never put on trial in a court to see whether her opinions or actions contravened the legal position at the time, which was defined by the x-case ruling; ie termination was allowed if there was a substantial threat to the life of the mother.

Thirdly, that supervising doctor pinned the blame on more junior staff, which is a tacit admission that "somebody" fcuked up, just not herself.

She said there were system failures in the case of Savita, who was 17 weeks pregnant when admitted to hospital and died of septicaemia a week later....

She had a potentially virulent infection which was missed by staff, who failed to properly assess and monitor her.
This sepsis progressed to septic shock and she died a week later.

The Hiqa investigation of her case said following the rupture of her membranes, she should have received four hourly observations, including checks on her temperature, heart rate, breathing and blood pressure.

Dr Astbury told the inquest she was unaware of abnormalities which showed up in a blood test and she said Savita's vital signs should have been regularly checked....

Separately, a number of nurses are currently the subject of a complaint to their regulatory body An Bord Altranais.

All this indicates that the Savita tragedy was a result of medical negligence, and was not an inevitable consequence of staff following the law of the land.

obplayer

recedite wrote: »

So now you have switched to the Savita Halappanavar case.

Firstly, nothing that doctor said or did has become "a rock solid defence" because new legislation came in after that event. Any kind of precedents set up by that case do not necessarily apply any more.

Secondly, the obstetrician was only cleared by what I would call "in-house" hearings of HSE/Hiqa and the Medical Council. She was never put on trial in a court to see whether her opinions or actions contravened the legal position at the time, which was defined by the x-case ruling; ie termination was allowed if there was a substantial threat to the life of the mother.

Thirdly, that supervising doctor pinned the blame on more junior staff, which is a tacit admission that "somebody" fcuked up, just not herself.

All this indicates that the Savita tragedy was a result of medical negligence, and was not an inevitable consequence of staff following the law of the land.

Once again

Dr Peter Boylan, former Master of the National Maternity Hospital in Dublin, disagrees.

A leading obstetrician claimed the inability to end Savita Halappanavar's pregnancy until there was a substantial and real risk of her death ultimately cost the 31-year-old her life. Peter Boylan revealed that by the time she was sick enough to justify an abortion on the morning of Wednesday October 24 last year, she was already suffering from sepsis blood infection.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news...-29201735.html

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-22185690


Halapannavar’s husband maintains that her death could have been prevented if hospital officials had intervened earlier to terminate her non-viable fetus. Now, after a two-week review of the coroner’s report, that position has been confirmed by an Irish jury

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013...abortion-care/

SAVITA Halappanavar would most likely have lived had she received a termination within two days of her admission to Galway Hospital.

http://www.herald.ie/news/courts/abo...-29205695.html

Absolam

obplayer wrote: »

Once again

Isn't that kind of dancing around the facts to reach a directed conclusion though?

obplayer wrote: »

Peter Boylan revealed that by the time she was sick enough to justify an abortion on the morning of Wednesday October 24 last year, she was already suffering from sepsis blood infection

A sepsis which could have been treated with antibiotics, but was missed by medical staff and resulted in septic shock killing her. That does sound rather more like medical negligence caused her death than refusing to abort her child?

obplayer wrote: »

Halapannavar’s husband maintains that her death could have been prevented if hospital officials had intervened earlier to terminate her non-viable fetus. Now, after a two-week review of the coroner’s report, that position has been confirmed by an Irish jury

Leaving aside the notion that a jury could be competent to make medical judgements like what treatment is appropriate or likely to result in a particular outcome in given circumstances, the jurys' unanimous verdict was "medical misadventure". They agreed with Dr MacLoughlins nine recommendations (none of which were that an abortion should have been carried out); in fact I can't see where the jury said that her death could have been prevented if hospital officials had intervened earlier to terminate her non-viable fetus; can you provide a link?

obplayer wrote: »

SAVITA Halappanavar would most likely have lived had she received a termination within two days of her admission to Galway Hospital.

She also would most likely have lived had she received proper treatment for sepsis. She would also most likely have lived had she never become pregnant, but that's about as useful a statement as she would most likely have lived had she received a termination; neither abortion nor contraception are appropriate treatments for sepsis whether or not they would have resulted in circumstances where Ms Halappanavar would have been (with the benefit of hindsight) more likely to live.

obplayer

Absolam wrote: »

Isn't that kind of dancing around the facts to reach a directed conclusion though?

A sepsis which could have been treated with antibiotics, but was missed by medical staff and resulted in septic shock killing her. That does sound rather more like medical negligence caused her death than refusing to abort her child?

Leaving aside the notion that a jury could be competent to make medical judgements like what treatment is appropriate or likely to result in a particular outcome in given circumstances, the jurys' unanimous verdict was "medical misadventure". They agreed with Dr MacLoughlins nine recommendations (none of which were that an abortion should have been carried out); in fact I can't see where the jury said that her death could have been prevented if hospital officials had intervened earlier to terminate her non-viable fetus; can you provide a link?

She also would most likely have lived had she received proper treatment for sepsis. She would also most likely have lived had she never become pregnant, but that's about as useful a statement as she would most likely have lived had she received a termination; neither abortion nor contraception are appropriate treatments for sepsis whether or not they would have resulted in circumstances where Ms Halappanavar would have been (with the benefit of hindsight) more likely to live.

This is truly the last time I will ever read a post of yours let alone reply to you but here goes; why don't you apply for a position as Dr. Boylan's tutor? You clearly believe you know more than he does so why not offer to teach him?

Absolam

obplayer wrote: »

This is truly the last time I will ever read a post of yours let alone reply to you but here goes; why don't you apply for a position as Dr. Boylan's tutor? You clearly believe you know more than he does so why not offer to teach him?

Have I contradicted anything Dr Boylan actually said?
I defer entirely to his (and the other Doctors) medical opinions, though I feel obliged to point out that he didn't say that an abortion was the only way to save Ms Halappanavar's life. As I previously said, she would most likely have lived had she received a termination, and would most most likely have lived had she never become pregnant. Neither is an appropriate treatment for sepsis.

volchitsa

Absolam wrote: »

Have I contradicted anything Dr Boylan actually said?
I defer entirely to his (and the other Doctors) medical opinions, though I feel obliged to point out that he didn't say that an abortion was the only way to save Ms Halappanavar's life. As I previously said, she would most likely have lived had she received a termination, and would most most likely have lived had she never become pregnant. Neither is an appropriate treatment for sepsis.

I can't believe you just said this. You may as well say to parents of a child killed by a drunk driver that it's a pity anyone ever invented the petrol engine.

As for pinning the blame on those lower down, remind us which of the staff got a blame or professional sanction of any kind?

(the answer is none.)

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

I can't believe you just said this. You may as well say to parents of a child killed by a drunk driver that it's a pity anyone ever invented the petrol engine.

Are we to endure more faux outrage on behalf of victims to keep us from questioning the presented 'facts' again?
I didn't say to parents of a child killed by a drunk driver that it's a pity anyone ever invented the petrol engine, but if you're going to just pick an event in Ms Halappanavar's timeline that had it not occurred would have meant she didn't die of sepsis, then any one is as good as another. Unless of course, you need to portray the events as a tragedy that mystically supports your agenda.............

volchitsa wrote: »

As for pinning the blame on those lower down, remind us which of the staff got a blame or professional sanction of any kind? (the answer is none.)

So, what's your point? I don't think blaming or sanctioning someone was going to move the nation towards a more liberal abortion regime, do you? Personally, I'd much rather HIQA found a way to prevent similar deaths in the future (say by producing recommendations to be implemented in hospitals) then they found someone to blame, but maybe that's just me. If I were Ms Halapannavar's husband I might feel differently, but I'm not.

volchitsa

Absolam wrote: »

A sepsis which could have been treated with antibiotics, but was missed by medical staff and resulted in septic shock killing her. That does sound rather more like medical negligence caused her death than refusing to abort her child?

Only because you clearly don't have a clue. Or are misrepresenting the situation deliberately.

She was getting antibiotics. Unfortunately she was getting antibiotics suitable for a woman with a ongoing pregnancy (because of the law in Ireland, not because anyone thought her pregnancy could possibly go to term, and nor were they trying to stop the miscarriage from happening). So what she was getting wasn't able to prevent the development of the type of bacteria she was infected with. The results of tests showing that were accessed by somebody but it was never made clear by whom - which is completely nonsensical, because IDs and passwords. A similar lack of cooperation from the hospital authorities was seen when they refused to make the rosters available to identify the staff who were present when Praveen Halappanavar heard Dr Astbury use the famous "Catholic country" explanation, the one the midwife that he was able to identify without access to names (but who had not been called to testify until he did manage to ID her) admitted to also having used.

Those are just a couple of examples of the way the GUH admin bodies actively blocked the investigation into Savita Halappanavar's death. It makes no sense to blame it on individual failings, especially when all individuals involved were cleared of any major failing.

Absolam wrote: »

Leaving aside the notion that a jury could be competent to make medical judgements like what treatment is appropriate or likely to result in a particular outcome in given circumstances

Well, this is the crazy thing about a country having a law which makes medical judgments in the place of doctors (and in advance of actual events which they can't possibly fully foresee, not being doctors!)

Absolam wrote: »

had she received a termination; neither abortion nor contraception are appropriate treatments for sepsis

Contraception??
You really are obsessed with whole Humanae Vitae take on things aren't you? Unless you are advising that women protect their health by refusing ever to get pregnant in the first place, so that any woman foolish enough to get pregnant despite your advice basically has it coming to her! The end of the human race in a generation - is that your solution to untreated miscarriage?? You sound mad.

As for abortion/termination of pregnancy, you are quite simply wrong - it is by far the most effective treatment for incipient sepsis in pregnant women. Ending the pregnancy as soon as possible is the preferred course of action.

The problem arises when there is a conflict between the interests of the woman and those of her fetus - but in other countries that is a decision taken by the doctor and the woman concerned, not by doctors alone, and moreover doctors constrained by a legal quandary caused by non medical legislators trying to micromanage medical situations they are incompetent to judge.

And in the case of Savita Halappanavar, there was no real conflict, since she was miscarrying anyway - the legal conflict here was created entirely by non-medical legislators, who, as you just pointed out, are not competent in that role.

pauldla

volchitsa wrote: »

I can't believe you just said this. You may as well say to parents of a child killed by a drunk driver that it's a pity anyone ever invented the petrol engine.

And sure if Jill Meagher had been more faith-filled and not walking down the road at 3 am she'd still be alive!

kylith

pauldla wrote: »

And sure if Jill Meagher had been more faith-filled and not walking down the road at 3 am she'd still be alive!

Sure, no one should ever have been born and then nothing bad could happen to them.

As the law stands at the moment I have to be in the process of dying before I can be given some treatment if I am pregnant, even if it is the pregnancy that is killing me. Can you imagine if a man was told "You have testicular cancer, but we have to wait for it to become terminal before we can treat it in case it affects your ability to produce sperm"? Or "You have a cut on your arm, we have to wait for it to become infected before we can do anything"? It's fcking barbaric. It dehumanises me and all other women. Welcome to Ireland; you are less important in law than a foetus that is dying anyway.