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
-
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'm not certain that the medical team at the hospital in question at the time could do anything about this issue.
The other options were not physically beyond their control.
Therefore it is a pretty odd thing to bring up in the context of the discussion.0 -
Hmmm.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.
When answering the point that sepsis could have been treated with antibiotics, do you think saying that she was getting antibiotics, without mentioning that she was receiving an antibiotic (oral erythromycin) for ruptured membranes (not the treatment of infection), is misrepresenting the situation deliberately?
Do you think that failing to mention that when the doctor was actually worried (too late, as it turned out) about tissue hypoperfusion that might indicate severe sepsis, Ms Halappanavar was then put on an antibiotic (intravenous Augmentin) specifically to treat sepsis followed by Metronidazole, also to treat sepsis, might be misrepresenting the situation deliberately?
Or do you clearly not have a clue?
That is, as you say, clearly nonsensical. Would you like to rephrase?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.
I'm not sure where you think you're going with that... are you suggesting there's a conspiracy of some sort?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.
Which investigation said it had been blocked?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.
You appear to be suggesting there shouldn't be legislation controlling how doctors conduct themselves... which I suspect is not really a good idea. Or are you deliberately misrepresenting the situation again, I wonder?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!)
I'm quite certain I've never mentioned it to be honest. I wonder what makes you think I'm obsessed with it, when I've never spoken about it?Contraception?? You really are obsessed with whole Humanae Vitae take on things aren't you?
I only sound mad because you're telling me I'm saying something. But I didn't say it... so who sounds mad?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.
Well you seem pretty certain of that. I'm guessing you can link to a proper source that shows not being pregnant removes bacterial infections from the blood then? I always thought it was treated with antibiotics (and Sepsis Alliance say that abortion can be a cause of sepsis) so I guess I'm going to learn something new....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.
You mean other countries where abortion is permitted when there is a risk to the health of the woman right? Not the countries where it's not; just so we're not being deliberately misled here....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.
Actually, I never said they took on a medical role. You're the one saying legislators have no place deciding what doctors can do, but I'm inclined to disagree.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.
Anyway I think we've discussed on the thread previously whether doctors should kill someone who is going to die anyway; most people tend towards the view that in certain circumstances they might allow them to die, but they oughtn't to kill them. I suppose that's why some people like to have legislators decide what doctors can (and can't) do.0 -
That's not true though, is it? As Volchitsa would say, you're deliberately misrepresenting the situation.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.
As the law stands at the moment your life must be at risk before you can be given a treatment that would endanger the life of the child you're carrying (but not any other treatment), and if it is the pregnancy that is killing you, you will receive that treatment.
That doesn't sound nearly as dramatic, I agree, but at least it's true
I can see why you think it was odd so, but you see I wasn't suggesting the medical team could (or should) have done anything about it. I was pointing out that if it had occurred, just like if she had received a termination, she most likely would have lived; the fact that she most likely would have lived doesn't make such an event a suitable treatment for sepsis.Deleted User wrote: »I'm not certain that the medical team at the hospital in question at the time could do anything about this issue. The other options were not physically beyond their control. Therefore it is a pretty odd thing to bring up in the context of the discussion.0 -
I can see why you think it was odd so, but you see I wasn't suggesting the medical team could (or should) have done anything about it. I was pointing out that if it had occurred, just like if she had received a termination, she most likely would have lived; the fact that she most likely would have lived doesn't make such an event a suitable treatment for sepsis.
And what relevance do you think that has to the discussion of the medical team, their legal requirements, the ethical dilemmas, the price of milk etc?
It's extremely odd to enter it into the same paragraph tbh.0 -
That, like termination, it is not a suitable treatment for sepsis.Deleted User wrote: »And what relevance do you think that has?0 -
Advertisement
-
That, like termination, it is not a suitable treatment for sepsis.
But "not having become pregnant in the first place" isn't a treatment for anything at all.
Whereas termination of a pregnancy is certainly part of a treatment which may have been recommended elsewhere.
Why enter it into the discussion?0 -
Because in regard to the treatment of sepsis (which we were discussing, rather than the treatment of anything at all), it is the equivalent of termination.Deleted User wrote: »But "not having become pregnant in the first place" isn't a treatment for anything at all. Why enter it into the discussion?0 -
-
In regard to the to the discussion of the medical team, their legal requirements, the ethical dilemmas, the price of milk etc I didn't say it was relevant (and I don't think it necessarily is, particularly with regard to the price of milk); it was relevant to the discussion of obplayers point that "SAVITA Halappanavar would most likely have lived had she received a termination", insofar as there are any number of events that, had they occurred, Savita Halappanavar would most likely have lived. But we ought not to therefore construe them as suitable treatments for sepsis.Deleted User wrote: »Apologies, I've been slow in editing both posts. If you'd like to edit or answer the edits I'll stop editing!
That "termination of a pregnancy is certainly part of a treatment which may have been recommended elsewhere" could be true, depending on what was being treated and where it was being treated. I'm sure if you feel it's a point worth making in the context, you'll put forward a case for it, but it's not the point obplayer made.0 -
In regard to the to the discussion of the medical team, their legal requirements, the ethical dilemmas, the price of milk etc I didn't say it was relevant (and I don't think it necessarily is, particularly with regard to the price of milk); it was relevant to the discussion of obplayers point that "SAVITA Halappanavar would most likely have lived had she received a termination", insofar as there are any number of events that, had they occurred, Savita Halappanavar would most likely have lived. But we ought not to therefore construe them as suitable treatments for sepsis.
That "termination of a pregnancy is certainly part of a treatment which may have been recommended elsewhere" could be true, depending on what was being treated and where it was being treated. I'm sure if you feel it's a point worth making in the context, you'll put forward a case for it, but it's not the point obplayer made.
At the time of the treatment/mis treatment etc, (which is all anyone is talking about - given that it is the item that people are looking for clarification on);
Not one person would have even considered the idea that "not having become pregnant in the first place" would be seen as a feasible approach to try to save the life of the patient or the unborn.
However, the same cannot be said of the idea of terminating the pregnancy (consider your own statement : "As I previously said, she would most likely have lived had she received a termination"), in order to treat the patient.
You comparing the two is odd. I stand by that, and I'm not sure your justification of comparing the two is fair.0 -
Advertisement
-
That, like termination, it is not a suitable treatment for sepsis.
You keep saying this, and you keep being wrong. Termination is a very effective part of treatment for sepsis, when the pregnancy is in the process of miscarrying anyway. Which you will agree was the position Savita Halappanavar was in.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septic_abortionTreatment
A dilatation and curettage (D&C) or misoprostol may be needed to clean the uterus of any residual tissue.
It is also a choice offered as standard in all developed countries when a woman is undergoing a prolonged or possibly infected miscarriage.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/pregnancy-loss-miscarriage/basics/treatment/con-20033827
Again, this was the problem for Savita Halappanavar - there was no need to wait for the infection to set in, except in Ireland. Dr Boylan said exactly that on the VB show with John Bonnar - that the ban on abortion means that instead of treating the woman before she gets chorioamnionitis, in Ireland obstetricians wait until chorioamnionitis sets in, and then they terminate. It is a risky strategy, and allows no margin of error - so that where there is the slightest error, as in GUH, the woman may die. In other words, had she been in a hospital in the UK, France, Spain, Germany, almost any country with a decent health care system she would not have been left to develop septicaemia, and woudl in all probably have lived.
(I noticed the table you proposed earlier in your bid to "prove" that Ireland's refusal of termination for health reasons was perfectly reasonable, compares Ireland to places like Burkina Fasso - I mean, I know the economy has tanked, but that is a step too far, surely!)0 -
Well, firstly, being part of a treatment is not the same as being a treatment. No deliberate misdirection, remember?You keep saying this, and you keep being wrong. Termination is a very effective part of treatment for sepsis, when the pregnancy is in the process of miscarrying anyway. Which you will agree was the position Savita Halappanavar was in.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septic_abortion Secondly, that's not a a link to a proper source that shows not being pregnant removes bacterial infections from the blood, which was what I suggested would support your assertion....
You mean other developed countries where it is permitted? Like Ireland; if the feotus isn't alive.It is also a choice offered as standard in all developed countries when a woman is undergoing a prolonged or possibly infected miscarriage.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/pregnancy-loss-miscarriage/basics/treatment/con-20033827
And other countries where abortion is not permitted to preserve the health of the mother? I'm sure you must have meant to include them.... in any case there's no indication they were waiting for infection to set in, is there? I can't find it in the reports.Again, this was the problem for Savita Halappanavar - there was no need to wait for the infection to set in, except in Ireland.
Would you say you're giving the impression that she was deliberately allowed to develop an infection? That seems a bit misleading. Anyway, absent any statistical data to the contrary, there's no reason to believe that Savita Halappanavar, had her sepsis been caught and treated in a timely fashion, had any greater probability of living in any of the countries you've mentioned, other than your wish for a similar abortion regime, is there?In other words, had she been in a hospital in the UK, France, Spain, Germany, almost any country with a decent health care system she would not have been left to develop septicaemia, and woudl in all probably have lived.
The table with the countries you said didn't exist? It also compares Ireland to countries like the UK, France, Germany and Spain. Amazing really.. it must be a comparison of countries!(I noticed the table you proposed earlier in your bid to "prove" that Ireland's refusal of termination for health reasons was perfectly reasonable, compares Ireland to places like Burkina Fasso - I mean, I know the economy has tanked, but that is a step too far, surely!)0 -
But which countries don't allow abortion to preserve the health of the mother? That was the question. I said that developed countries do generally allow abortion in those cases - that's why I named countries such as Germany and the UK, several times - and I don't think we should be happy to have to compare our health care results to places like Nigeria or Burkina Fasso. So we're better than Nigeria. Hmm. Not very reassuring, to be frank.Well, firstly, being part of a treatment is not the same as being a treatment. No deliberate misdirection, remember?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septic_abortion Secondly, that's not a a link to a proper source that shows not being pregnant removes bacterial infections from the blood, which was what I suggested would support your assertion....
You mean other developed countries where it is permitted? Like Ireland; if the feotus isn't alive.
And other countries where abortion is not permitted to preserve the health of the mother? I'm sure you must have meant to include them.... in any case there's no indication they were waiting for infection to set in, is there? I can't find it in the reports.
Would you say you're giving the impression that she was deliberately allowed to develop an infection? That seems a bit misleading. Anyway, absent any statistical data to the contrary, there's no reason to believe that Savita Halappanavar, had her sepsis been caught and treated in a timely fashion, had any greater probability of living in any of the countries you've mentioned, other than your wish for a similar abortion regime, is there?
The table with the countries you said didn't exist? It also compares Ireland to countries like the UK, France, Germany and Spain. Amazing really.. it must be a comparison of countries!
The rest of your post is nonsense - "not being pregnant" "removes" bacterial infection - who ever said that??0 -
Ok Absolam, I lied about not replying to your posts, but I swear to myself this will be the last.
You said....
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=95016280&postcount=8015if she had received a termination, she most likely would have lived; the fact that she most likely would have lived doesn't make such an event a suitable treatment for sepsis.
If keeping the patient alive through a particular procedure does not make it a suitable treatment then what does?
Do you actually enjoy the idea of women dying unnecessarily?
Note to mods, this is a genuine question, I honestly can't think why else he/she would advocate what he/she does.0 -
obplayer didn't say that they was looking for clarification, or that they were presenting a feasible approach to try to save the life of the patient or the unborn though. Obplayers plain, unqualified statement wasDeleted User wrote: »At the time of the treatment/mis treatment etc, (which is all anyone is talking about - given that it is the item that people are looking for clarification on); Not one person would have even considered the idea that "not having become pregnant in the first place" would be seen as a feasible approach to try to save the life of the patient or the unborn.
As such, the statement "SAVITA Halappanavar would most likely have lived had she never become pregnant" is equally true.SAVITA Halappanavar would most likely have lived had she received a termination within two days of her admission to Galway Hospital.
Well, really you should consider the entirety of my statement, rather than a portion of it: "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."Deleted User wrote: »However, the same cannot be said of the idea of terminating the pregnancy (consider your own statement : "As I previously said, she would most likely have lived had she received a termination"), in order to treat the patient.
Is it as odd as requiring one statement to be read in a context it wasn't offered, but removing the context of another to try to make your case?Deleted User wrote: »You comparing the two is odd. I stand by that, and I'm not sure your justification of comparing the two is fair.
I can see how reworking the context would make the statements odd, but if you leave them both as they were it probably makes more sense....0 -
obplayer didn't say that they was looking for clarification, or that they were presenting a feasible approach to try to save the life of the patient or the unborn though. Obplayers plain, unqualified statement was
As such, the statement "SAVITA Halappanavar would most likely have lived had she never become pregnant" is equally true.
Well, really you should consider the entirety of my statement, rather than a portion of it: "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."Originally Posted by obplayer View Post
However, the same cannot be said of the idea of terminating the pregnancy (consider your own statement : "As I previously said, she would most likely have lived had she received a termination"), in order to treat the patient.
Is it as odd as requiring one statement to be read in a context it wasn't offered, but removing the context of another to try to make your case?Originally Posted by obplayer View Post
You comparing the two is odd. I stand by that, and I'm not sure your justification of comparing the two is fair.
I can see how reworking the context would make the statements odd, but if you leave them both as they were it probably makes more sense....
I have to reply. Where did I say the things in bold? Links please?0 -
Really? As I recall, the question wasBut which countries don't allow abortion to preserve the health of the mother? That was the question.
And the answer was yes, according to the UN 33% of countries forbid abortion to preserve the health of the mother.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?
No, you said thatI said that developed countries do generally allow abortion in those cases - that's why I named countries such as Germany and the UK, several times - and I don't think we should be happy to have to compare our health care results to places like Nigeria or Burkina Fasso.
I pointed out that in the top quartile of developed countries according to the UN alone, there are four developed countries which will not permit a doctor to perform an abortion because a womans health 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.
I guess that depends on your point of view. From the point of view of children who weren't terminated to preserve the health of their mothers, were're probably better than 77% of countries included in the UN statistics. Maybe it's a matter of perspective.So we're better than Nigeria. Hmm. Not very reassuring, to be frank.
If you find the rest nonsense, you can only blame yourself for muddying the discussion with notions like "there was no need to wait for the infection to set in, except in Ireland" and "she would not have been left to develop septicaemia"; if you're going to say it, you have to expect it will be addressed.The rest of your post is nonsense - "not being pregnant" "removes" bacterial infection - who ever said that??
As for "not being pregnant" "removes" bacterial infection", didn't you say:
I replied: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.
Abortion/termination causes a state of not being pregnant, and sepsis is a bacterial infection of the blood by the way..... so, any luck with that link?Well you seem pretty certain of that. I'm guessing you can link to a proper source that shows not being pregnant removes bacterial infections from the blood then?0 -
-
Ah now, you really ought to quote the entire sentence don't you think? It makes such a difference to the statement:Ok Absolam, I lied about not replying to your posts, but I swear to myself this will be the last.
You said....
"if she had received a termination, she most likely would have lived; the fact that she most likely would have lived doesn't make such an event a suitable treatment for sepsis."
If keeping the patient alive through a particular procedure does not make it a suitable treatment then what does?I can see why you think it was odd so, but you see I wasn't suggesting the medical team could (or should) have done anything about it. I was pointing out that if it had occurred, just like if she had received a termination, she most likely would have lived; the fact that she most likely would have lived doesn't make such an event a suitable treatment for sepsis.
Ooohhh... that's more than a bit snarky, don't you think? I don't think it's a genuine question to be honest, it doesn't have any bearing on advocating the use of antibiotics in treating sepsis, that's for sure.Do you actually enjoy the idea of women dying unnecessarily?
I think you're just trying to be nasty.....0 -
obplayer didn't say that they was looking for clarification, or that they were presenting a feasible approach to try to save the life of the patient or the unborn though. Obplayers plain, unqualified statement was
As such, the statement "SAVITA Halappanavar would most likely have lived had she never become pregnant" is equally true.
Well, really you should consider the entirety of my statement, rather than a portion of it: "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."
Is it as odd as requiring one statement to be read in a context it wasn't offered, but removing the context of another to try to make your case?
I can see how reworking the context would make the statements odd, but if you leave them both as they were it probably makes more sense....
Right.
You're weaving yourself and the situation into an incomprehensible mess.
In my opinion (and I imagine it's shared), it's quite clear that you tried to create some sort of link between a recommended step in the treatment that Savita would have been offered elsewhere, with something that was not even physically possible to intervene with at the time of her requiring treatment. Which, as an intelligent person, I assume you know isn't really a fair comparison, and hence why I pointed it out as an extraordinary odd thing to bring up.0 -
Advertisement
-
Not really; I'm sticking with the exact narrative as it occured. Your comprehension issues are probably down to the additions you're trying to insert? If you just stick with precisely what was said you should be ok.Deleted User wrote: »Right. You're weaving yourself and the situation into an incomprehensible mess.
Rather than the fanciful additions, perhaps we should stick to what I was actually comparing, as it may help avoid incomprehension?Deleted User wrote: »In my opinion (and I imagine it's shared), it's quite clear that you tried to create some sort of link between a recommended step in the treatment that Savita would have been offered elsewhere, with something that was not even physically possible to intervene with at the time of her requiring treatment.
I said that 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.
Both events would likely have resulted in a situation where Ms Halappanavar didn't have sepsis, but neither is a treatment for sepsis. Treating sepsis requires antibiotics; antibiotics that had they been deployed at the right time in the right manner might have saved Ms Halappanavar's life.
Of course; you did offer an odd comparison. Hopefully the actual comparison I made makes more sense to you now.Deleted User wrote: »Which, as an intelligent person, I assume you know isn't really a fair comparison, and hence why I pointed it out as an extraordinary odd thing to bring up.0 -
That's fine. My comprehension is fine thank you. I'll leave it there.0
-
I pointed out that in the top quartile of developed countries according to the UN alone, there are four developed countries which will not permit a doctor to perform an abortion because a womans health is at risk.
I can't read that link, it's some sort of wall chart that comes up as pretty much illegible onscreen.
Perhaps you could name these countries?
Because apart from Ireland (which you can hardly be counting in a comparison with itself, can you?) the only developed countries I know of which refuse an abortion even for severe health issues are Vatican City and (theoretically, because in reality they ignore their own law apparently) Malta. I guess Poland is ambiguous too, but they were up before the ECHR for refusing an abortion against their own laws recently - rather like Ireland in fact. Not an example of be followed anyway. And even if there really is another western country, I don't think that makes it a widely acceptable practice, does it? So your 33% claim which certainly doesn't include many EU members is, as I said, obtainable only by comparing Ireland with 3rd world countries.
Which you may count as a win in the discussion you're having in your own head, but I don't. In much the same way as you appear determined to claim that nothing unusual happened Savita Halappanavar really, could have happened anywhere - and the silly woman shouldn't have got pregant in the first place anyway. Well, how can anyone argue with that? :rolleyes:
The fact that you appear to think that this sort of seriously out-of-kilter argument is an actual point rather than a somewhat disquieting glimpse into what goes on in your mind is what makes actual exchange with you pretty much impossible.
It is a fact that had Ms Halappanavar been in just about any other western country she would have had a termination within a short time of her inevitable miscarriage being diagnosed - not because her life was danger, but because it was inevitable and she was in pain. That would be - and should be - a good enough reason in any civilized country.
Or do you disagree there too, and think she needed to be left to suffer, despite there being no hope (and no attempt made) to save her pregancy, because - well, because what? Because the law says so? But sometimes the law is wrong and needs to be changed. Doesn't it?0 -
I find the whole notion of doctors waiting for an ill woman to cross the line to the point where her life is in danger before an abortion is allowed quite upsetting. If there is a threat it would make sense to do what needs to be done immediately rather than waiting for her condition to worsen. Carrying out an abortion on a seriously ill patient can't be medically wise if it can be done at an earlier stage in her treatment. I'd imagine as well it means that surgical abortion becomes more likely which in itself carries extra risk. Let doctors do what they are trained to do without legal issues getting in the way.0
-
I did; in the post you referred to, below the chart.I can't read that link, it's some sort of wall chart that comes up as pretty much illegible onscreen.
Perhaps you could name these countries?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.
Firstly, you are now aware of developed countries which refuse an abortion even for severe health issues? It's great to see you've picked up some education since you told us there were none other than Ireland. It gives me great hope for the thread!Because apart from Ireland (which you can hardly be counting in a comparison with itself, can you?) the only developed countries I know of which refuse an abortion even for severe health issues are Vatican City and (theoretically, because in reality they ignore their own law apparently) Malta. I guess Poland is ambiguous too, but they were up before the ECHR for refusing an abortion against their own laws recently - rather like Ireland in fact. Not an example of be followed anyway. And even if there really is another western country, I don't think that makes it a widely acceptable practice, does it? So your 33% claim which certainly doesn't include many EU members is, as I said, obtainable only by comparing Ireland with 3rd world countries.
Secondly..... I think you're engaging in a bit of deliberate misdirection again, aren't you?
Developed countries aren't directly analagous with western countries, or EU members, or even non-third world countries (which is a bit 1950s but anyways..). Nor did you ever say that the 33% was obtainable only by comparing Ireland with 3rd world countries; you just had a little dig at Burkina Faso, remember? And then later Nigeria...
That certainly does not surprise me.Which you may count as a win in the discussion you're having in your own head, but I don't.
Well, you know quite well I didn't claim either don't you?In much the same way as you appear determined to claim that nothing unusual happened Savita Halappanavar really, could have happened anywhere - and the silly woman shouldn't have got pregant in the first place anyway. Well, how can anyone argue with that? :rolleyes:
It does make me wonder; if you didn't deliberately misrepresent things at all, would you ever have anything to say?
Well; you made up both points yourself, so I'd suggest you direct your disquiet towards what goes on in your own mind to be honest... particularly when you feel so compelled to ascribe your quite fanciful notions to others?The fact that you appear to think that this sort of seriously out-of-kilter argument is an actual point rather than a somewhat disquieting glimpse into what goes on in your mind is what makes actual exchange with you pretty much impossible.
It is possible that in some other counties where it is legal to abort a living foetus in order to preserve the life of the mother that Ms Halappanavar might have had a termination and that might have meant staff noticed and acted on their recognition of sepsis earlier thereby saving Ms Halappanavar's life. It's also possible that in the same circumstances in the same Irish hospital that without terminating the life of Ms Halappanavar's child staff might also have noticed the sympotoms of sepsis sooner, and treated it in a timely fashion, thereby saving Ms Halappanavar's life. As it turned out, neither of those things actually happened, but we can certainly argue (to no real purpose) that both could have.It is a fact that had Ms Halappanavar been in just about any other western country she would have had a termination within a short time of her inevitable miscarriage being diagnosed - not because her life was danger, but because it was inevitable and she was in pain. That would be - and should be - a good enough reason in any civilized country.
Oh, I do disagree there, but I respectfully decline the frankly disgusting (in your sort of emotive terms) argument you've prepared on my behalf.Or do you disagree there too, and think she needed to be left to suffer, despite there being no hope (and no attempt made) to save her pregancy, because - well, because what? Because the law says so? But sometimes the law is wrong and needs to be changed. Doesn't it?
I can't believe you just said this.
you clearly don't have a clue. Or are misrepresenting the situation deliberately.
it is disgusting
etc etc...0 -
A lot of people do. A lot of other people find it quite upsetting that someone would end someone elses life in order to preserve the health of someone else. It's just two different points of view.I find the whole notion of doctors waiting for an ill woman to cross the line to the point where her life is in danger before an abortion is allowed quite upsetting.
Absolutely; the law should be as clear as possible so that doctors can do their jobs without wondering whether what they're doing is legal or not.Let doctors do what they are trained to do without legal issues getting in the way.0 -
A lot of other people find it quite upsetting that someone would end someone elses life in order to preserve the health of someone else. It's just two different points of view.
It's not just two different points of view at all, lets be clear about this. Yes, it's two points of view, but there's nothing balanced about them. Let me rephrase your sentence to better reflect what is actually being said in that other point of view you put across.A lot of other people find it quite upsetting that someone a fully qualified doctor dealing with a potential emergency would end someone elses a minute life with less consciousness in all faculties than a newly hatched chicken in order to preserve the health of someone else a grown adult woman who loves and is loved.
Values, please. Without them, that "other opinion" you offer is merely a white-wash. Of course as you can see, with the values added the opinion is particularly stupid and insulting but at least it's telling it like it is..0 -
I'm afraid that's not rephrasing what I said (rephrasing would leave the meaning intact), it's your point of view on what I said.It's not just two different points of view at all, lets be clear about this. Yes, it's two points of view, but there's nothing balanced about them. Let me rephrase your sentence to better reflect what is actually being said in that other point of view you put across.
"A lot of other people find it quite upsetting that a fully qualified doctor dealing with a potential emergency would end a minute life with less consciousness in all faculties than a newly hatched chicken in order to preserve the health of a grown adult woman who loves and is loved."
And yes, two points of view are just two points of view... they're not lives held in the balance, they're not fingers on knives, they're expressions of opinion. Just expressions of opinion.
Is it too hard to admit that other people have different values to you? I value an unborn life more than you do; remove my values, replace them with yours, and you have a different statement; you may think you're telling it like it is but all you're really doing is expressing a different set of values.Values, please. Without them, that "other opinion" you offer is merely a white-wash. Of course as you can see, with the values added the opinion is particularly stupid and insulting but at least it's telling it like it is..
Well... the stupid and insulting bit adds some snark, but that seems to be all the rage on this thread.0 -
Is it too hard to admit that other people have different values to you? I value an unborn life more than you do; remove my values, replace them with yours, and you have a different statement; you may think you're telling it like it is but all you're really doing is expressing a different set of values.
Maybe try adding your actual values then? So that we can better understand what you mean by each of the ways you used the word "someone" in your sentence.0 -
Advertisement
-
Sure; I value the life of a person more than I value the health of a person.Maybe try adding your actual values then? So that we can better understand what you mean by each of the ways you used the word "someone" in your sentence.
A foetus (and I know you believe it ought not to be) has personhood in the eyes of the law in Ireland to a limited degree; a position I agree with.
The right of that person to life cannot be overriden by the right of another person to health; a position I also agree with.
The right of a not yet born person to life can be overriden by the right of a born person to life; a position I also agree with, as well as the notion that a born person should (if of sound mind) be permitted to abdicate their right to life (insofar as not availing of live saving options) in favour of saving the life of an unborn (or born) person if they choose.
Does that help you understand my actual values?
Feel free to add your own; we can all have a show and tell!
Following that, if you want to return the discussion to 'when does the foetus become a person' (I kind of suspect you do), I still hold the same position I held the last time we discussed it; I don't know. I'd be reasonably comfortable with narrowing the window to somewhere between five and twenty five weeks, and I have yet to be entirely convinced by any arguments more specific thus far.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement