Abortion Discussion

ProfessorPlum

volchitsa wrote: »

The fetus wasn't the source of the initial infection, but it's one of the peculiarities of pregnancy that the placenta, by its nature and function, is an ideal organ for any local infection to set up in and from there to disseminate out into the entire body, and that is what happened to Savita. The fetus, or at least its placenta, wasn't the primary source of the infection, but it became the means of entry into her bloodstream, and therefore the infection was never going to be defeated while the placenta was still in place.

Ah now. Don't be doing his work for him!

The foetal membranes were the source of infection. And the treatment for said infection is to remove the source. As it's not possible to remove the membranes without also removing the foetus, treatment would therefore involve a termination. The reason that I harp on about the subtle difference is to demonstrate that Absolam really hasn't much of a clue of medical matters. Now no rapturous applause required Absolam, but it's become more that frustrating to read through your pages of pseudo medical drivel, so maybe instead you could leave out the assertions of medical 'fact'.

Absolam

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Inquests are held in public and the evidence given and the verdicts are on public record.
There is no dispute as to the diagnosis in the case under discussion. Are you disputing the diagnosis?

Are you saying the inquest made the diagnosis? That seems unlikely.....
Anyway, I didn't ask you if the evidence was examined after the fact, I asked you to cite the source for your statement "the primary diagnosis was chorioamnionitis", remember?
If it makes you feel more comfortable, it's a matter of record that the junior doctor suspected sepsis chorioamnionitis, though it went untreated as there was no diagnosis; arguably (as a non medic reviewing the available information) the 'primary' diagnosis was septicemia resulting in septic shock, though if you want to argue that chorioamnionitis was the primary cause of the septicemia, then you have to allow that E. coli. ESBL was the primary cause of the chorioamnionitis.
Anyway feel free to cite that source....

volchitsa

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Ah now. Don't be doing his work for him!

The foetal membranes were the source of infection. And the treatment for said infection is to remove the source. As it's not possible to remove the membranes without also removing the foetus, treatment would therefore involve a termination. The reason that I harp on about the subtle difference is to demonstrate that Absolam really hasn't much of a clue of medical matters. Now no rapturous applause required Absolam, but it's become more that frustrating to read through your pages of pseudo medical drivel, so maybe instead you could leave out the assertions of medical 'fact'.

My memory of what the coroner's report found was that the intial infection was an ascending UG tract infection of the sort that is banal among pregnant women, but that she was unfortunate in that it was a particularly virulent strain, so that the usual relaxed approach in Ireland of letting chorioamnionitis develop clinically before acting led in her case to a disastrous outcome. Whereas in other countries - oh sorry, Absolam, I mean "in other civilized, decent countries that I would be happy to see my own country compared to" - in other comparable countries, a woman with merely an incipient infection and an inevitable miscarriage would have been offered, and possibly strongly advised, a speedy termination.

The reason no-one at GUH got more than a metaphorical slap on the wrist, if that, is that they appear to have done pretty much what anyone else in Ireland would have done, but they were unlucky in that the patient died.

Then there was a panic-stricken round of arse-covering, such as rewriting of the patient's notes and trying to ensure that key witnesses were not called to testify because the family couldn't identify them, but basically no-one was punished because nothing happened in GUH that couldn't potentially have happened in any hospital in Ireland in similar circumstances.

ProfessorPlum

Absolam wrote: »

Are you saying the inquest made the diagnosis? That seems unlikely.....
Anyway, I didn't ask you if the evidence was examined after the fact, I asked you to cite the source for your statement "the primary diagnosis was chorioamnionitis", remember?
If it makes you feel more comfortable, it's a matter of record that the junior doctor suspected sepsis chorioamnionitis, though it went untreated as there was no diagnosis; arguably (as a non medic reviewing the available information) the 'primary' diagnosis was septicemia resulting in septic shock, though if you want to argue that chorioamnionitis was the primary cause of the septicemia, then you have to allow that E. coli. ESBL was the primary cause of the chorioamnionitis.
Anyway feel free to cite that source....

You don't appear to be very good at understanding what is written down before you. Which might a reason for many of your misconceptions!
Where did I say the inquest made the diagnosis? Is that the purpose of an inquest? What kind of evidence night be given at an inquest, do you think. Some more homework for you!

Septicemia was secondary to the primary pathology - chorioamnionitis. E Coli was the pathogen, not the pathology.

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

It's always interesting to go back and look at the medical information that we have available, unencumbered by the desperate rewriting of events that the Pro-life (what an ironic use of the term) movement have engaged in wrt Savita Halapannavar. Here is Dr Jen Gunter's analysis of all the possible explanations for the death of any woman from the complications of a miscarriage at 17 weeks.

It is interesting... would you say that Dr Gunters point of view is unencumbered then? Just so we know......

volchitsa wrote: »

It's a general explanation, she doesn't pretend to have read the notes etc -

And yet she arrived at a diagnosis. Amazing!

volchitsa wrote: »

but Dr Boylan, who did read them, since he was called as expert witness, doesn't contradict anything here : he was quite clear that an early termination would have been the only way to save her life.

Didn't he say that at the point at which a termination could have made a difference, her life was not at risk? The 'only way to save her' also sounds more than a bit overblown; the BBC reports him as saying "on the balance of probabilities she might have survived.". Hmmm.

volchitsa wrote: »

"In a first world country" - is making the same point I was earlier, and that Absolam appears not to understand.

I understood it well enough to point out it was a very 50s reference, remember?

volchitsa wrote: »

It's not enough to find third world countries who point at and say, oh look, they do the same over there - that doesn't justify us doing it here. The countries I want Ireland to be comparable with don't do it. Why do we? And the answer is religion.

Actually, the answer is democracy. You get what the majority voted for, and it's justified by the fact that the majority want it; that's democracy, not religion. If you want Ireland to be comparable to somewhere you like, you have to change the minds of the people.

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

Actually, the answer is democracy. You get what the majority voted for, and it's justified by the fact that the majority want it; that's democracy, not religion. If you want Ireland to be comparable to somewhere you like, you have to change the minds of the people.

Any surveys I've seen would suggest that people would vote for abortion for medical reasons or rape as less people base their decisions off Catholic ethics. Just need the government to catch up. Remember every year the pews are getting emptier. Tick tock!

Absolam

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Really, you should do some leg work yourself Absolam. Find out what chorioamnionitis is, and the answer will be clear to you as to why you are wrong. There was no implication that the foetus was the source of the infection

So, when Drkpower stated that Irish law prevented the removal of the source of the infection, what do you think they were referring to? Irish law doesn't prevent removal of the foetal membranes; there's no mention of it in the legislation. You might consider it the equivalent of Shylocks pound of flesh, but the law does not prevent their removal; only the removal of the unborn life they protect.
So either Drkpower incorrectly stated that the law prevented the removal of the foetus as the source of the infection, which was medically incorrect, or incorrectly stated that the law prevented the removal of the foetal membrane as the source of the infection, which was legally incorrect.
Do you think that's 'a bit of a technicality'? Ah well.......

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

You don't appear to be very good at understanding what is written down before you. Which might a reason for many of your misconceptions!

I think I've managed pretty well so far, thanks!

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Where did I say the inquest made the diagnosis? Is that the purpose of an inquest? What kind of evidence night be given at an inquest, do you think. Some more homework for you!

You didn't; I asked you "Are you saying the inquest made the diagnosis?" You can see it, in the bit you quoted. Just before you said I wasn't very good at understanding what is written down before me. Hmmmm...

recedite

silverharp wrote: »

I'd imagine there are plenty of possible situation where you might agree in advance to certain obligations. But there is no general ethic that one must risk their life to save another , one must sign up to it specifically.

You are creating a strawman. I gave the "rescue at sea" analogy as a more relevant alternative to the "liver donor" analogy that had been presented by Volchita. I specifically said that there is no obligation to risk ones life in order to rescue at sea. The obligation is to investigate and then report the incident if a safe rescue is not feasible.

volchitsa wrote: »

... Here is Dr Jen Gunter's analysis of all the possible explanations for the death of any woman from the complications of a miscarriage at 17 weeks.

It's a general explanation, she doesn't pretend to have read the notes etc - but Dr Boylan, who did read them, since he was called as expert witness, doesn't contradict anything here : he was quite clear that an early termination would have been the only way to save her life.
https://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2012/11/14/did-irish-catholic-law-or-malpractice-kill-savita-halappanavar/

Its a good analysis which I would agree with. Interesting that in her opinion it was medical malpractice. She offers no verdict on whether the law was at fault. The main difference between her analysis and Dr. Boylan's is that he was trying to shift the blame away from medical staff and onto "the law" whereas this doctor accepts that the life threatening situation evolved over a few days, during which time staff either failed to recognise it, or failed to act on it.

volchitsa wrote: »

The reason no-one at GUH got more than a metaphorical slap on the wrist, if that, is that they appear to have done pretty much what anyone else in Ireland would have done, but they were unlucky in that the patient died.

Then there was a panic-stricken round of arse-covering, such as rewriting of the patient's notes and trying to ensure that key witnesses were not called to testify because the family couldn't identify them, but basically no-one was punished because nothing happened in GUH that couldn't potentially have happened in any hospital in Ireland in similar circumstances.

In drawing this conclusion you are basically saying every hospital in Ireland is guilty of malpractice and ignorance of the law, which is why nobody was punished.
I doubt that is true.

ProfessorPlum

Absolam wrote: »

So, when Drkpower stated that Irish law prevented the removal of the source of the infection, what do you think they were referring to? Irish law doesn't prevent removal of the foetal membranes; there's no mention of it in the legislation. You might consider it the equivalent of Shylocks pound of flesh, but the law does not prevent their removal; only the removal of the unborn life they protect.
So either Drkpower incorrectly stated that the law prevented the removal of the foetus as the source of the infection, which was medically incorrect, or incorrectly stated that the law prevented the removal of the foetal membrane as the source of the infection, which was legally incorrect.
Do you think that's 'a bit of a technicality'? Ah well.......
I think I've managed pretty well so far, thanks!
You didn't; I asked you "Are you saying the inquest made the diagnosis?" You can see it, in the bit you quoted. Just before you said I wasn't very good at understanding what is written down before me. Hmmmm...

Keep wriggling there The devil is in the detail after all.
I would think that the law does indeed prevent the removal of the foetal membranes, as it is not possible to do it without procuring a miscarraige, which is illegal. Now the Catholic Church with its law of double effect might be happy to fudge it, but ids say it would be a stretch, even for them.

I am interest to know though, what do you think the diagnosis was ?

silverharp

recedite wrote: »

You are creating a strawman. I gave the "rescue at sea" analogy as a more relevant alternative to the "liver donor" analogy that had been presented by Volchita. I specifically said that there is no obligation to risk ones life in order to rescue at sea. The obligation is to investigate and then report the incident if a safe rescue is not feasible.

but then there is no real sacrifice involved , they are "good neighbour" situations. obligations do not increase just because there is a proportional downside to a third party even if their lives are dependent on you

volchitsa

recedite wrote: »

You are creating a strawman. I gave the "rescue at sea" analogy as a more relevant alternative to the "liver donor" analogy that had been presented by Volchita. I specifically said that there is no obligation to risk ones life in order to rescue at sea. The obligation is to investigate and then report the incident if a safe rescue is not feasible.

How on earth is a rescue at sea analogy a better one than organ donation, which bears a number of physiological points in common with pregnancy?

Such as a dampening down of the immune system to prevent rejection of the "foreign body" for example - it's one of the reasons why pregnant women are susceptible to illnesses that are usually considered benign.

But the law around rescue at sea, and by a trained professional - it's nothing like being pregnant, in no way!
Why only at sea anyway - why not a car accident? Ships captains are paid professionals, their responsibilities are accordingly greater.

Oh wait, that'll be because there is no legal obligation on any non professional to stop and help at a car crash - so in fact the only reason you like the rescue at sea analogy is because it's just about the only one that allows you to claim there may be a legal responsibility put on someone to risk their lives to help someone else. And if there is no legal obligation to take any risk in order to help others at sea, then it's even less like the situation of the pregnant woman in Ireland.

So, other than that it is the only scenario that gives you anything even vaguely like what you think is the "right" answer, it has nothing whatsoever in common with pregnancy! Unlike organ donation, which is pretty similar in many ways.

recedite wrote: »

Its a good analysis which I would agree with. Interesting that in her opinion it was medical malpractice. She offers no verdict on whether the law was at fault. The main difference between her analysis and Dr. Boylan's is that he was trying to shift the blame away from medical staff and onto "the law" whereas this doctor accepts that the life threatening situation evolved over a few days, during which time staff either failed to recognise it, or failed to act on it.

You misunderstand, I suggest you go back and read it properly : she named as one of the three possible scenarios that Irish law might create just such an obligation, or be interpreted as such by medical professionals. Her late edit doesn't say it was therefore "malpractice," she says there is no medical justification. There may be others, legal for example.

The fact that no-one has been accused of malpractice, still less found guilty, tends to indicate that there is little evidence of malpractice.

recedite wrote: »

In drawing this conclusion you are basically saying every hospital in Ireland is guilty of malpractice and ignorance of the law, which is why nobody was punished.
I doubt that is true.

No, like the link by Jen Gunter, you are misreading what I'm saying. I'm saying that this shows that it almost certainly wasn't malpractice, but could, in the same conditions, have happened in any maternity in Ireland.

recedite

volchitsa wrote: »

Ships captains are paid professionals, their responsibilities are accordingly greater...

Oh wait, that'll be because there is no legal obligation on any non professional to stop and help at a car crash - so in fact the only reason you like the rescue at sea analogy is because it's just about the only one that allows you to claim there may be a legal responsibility put on someone to risk their lives to help someone else.

Why are people finding this so hard to understand?
1. The master of a vessel is not necessarily paid; they could be cruising on their own yacht.
2. They cannot ignore a person in distress, once they have seen them. But they are still not obliged to risk their own life trying to rescue. The obligation is limited by that, just as the pregnant woman's obligation towards the foetus is limited.

volchitsa wrote: »

You misunderstand, I suggest you go back and read it properly : she named as one of the three possible scenarios that Irish law might create just such an obligation, or be interpreted as such by medical professionals. Her late edit doesn't say it was therefore "malpractice," she says there is no medical justification. There may be others, legal for example...
I'm saying that this shows that it almost certainly wasn't malpractice, but could, in the same conditions, have happened in any maternity in Ireland.

This quote is directly from the Dr. Gunter link;

As Ms. Halappanavar died of an infection, one that would have been brewing for several days if not longer, the fact that a termination was delayed for any reason is malpractice.

I'd be interested to hear "Professor" Plum's diagnosis BTW. Assuming he agrees that a proportion of the population are carrying E. coli without harmful effects, and that if the bacteria multiply and cause inflammation of the membranes in a pregnant woman it can threaten both foetus and mother, and if chorioamnionitis develops and is allowed to worsen then the ensuing septicemia and septic shock would be fatal to both. At what point along this continuum would the professor perceive a genuine risk to life? Because if the good professor was in fact the clinician, that is the point at which a direct or indirect abortion becomes legal (assuming the antibiotics have failed and a live caesarean delivery is out of the picture).
Even if the wrong antibiotics had been used, due to the particular resistance of the E Coli not being recognised, the abortion would still be legal if the clinician genuinely believed it was necessary at the time.

volchitsa

recedite wrote: »

This quote is directly from the Dr. Gunter link

Look, the end of her article says this :

What we do know is that a young, pregnant, woman who presented to the hospital in a first world country died for want of appropriate medical care. Whether it’s Irish Catholic law or malpractice, only time will tell; however, no answer could possibly ease the pain and suffering of Ms. Halappanavar’s loved ones.

****

Since posting this piece I learned that Ms. Halappanavar’s widower reported that she was leaking amniotic fluid and was fully dilated when first evaluated. There is no medically defensible position for doing anything other than optimal pain control and hastening delivery by the safest means possible.

The distinction you are failing to see is that something can be medically indefensible, but legally correct. That is the problem with the abortion law in Ireland - it renders doctors' medical judgment subject to legal criteria of a level at which lawyers are not competent to decide. Something that is medical malpractice in the U.S., where Dr Gunter works, may be a legal obligation elsewhere. The complete ban on abortion in several central and southern American countries for example will mean that U.S. malpractice will be simple Prolife refusal to terminate in Nicaragua and elsewhere.

She is referring to malpractice in the US sense, not the Irish/Catholic one.

recedite

Granted, Dr Gunter may not be aware of the difference between the Canon Law position and the Irish law position. But if she was convinced that abortion was available, if needed, as an option if the mothers life was at risk, then that only leaves malpractice as the reason for a failure to act while the life threatening infection was "brewing".

obplayer

recedite wrote: »

Granted, Dr Gunter may not be aware of the difference between the Canon Law position and the Irish law position. But if she was convinced that abortion was available, if needed, as an option if the mothers life was at risk, then that only leaves malpractice as the reason for a failure to act while the life threatening infection was "brewing".

But not under Irish Law! Not Canon Law but Real Law! Irish Law condemned that woman to death, how many times must you be told this before you attempt to listen?

volchitsa

recedite wrote: »

Granted, Dr Gunter may not be aware of the difference between the Canon Law position and the Irish law position. But if she was convinced that abortion was available, if needed, as an option if the mothers life was at risk, then that only leaves malpractice as the reason for a failure to act while the life threatening infection was "brewing".

She doesn't know Irish law, and doesn't pretend to, she has only ever claimed to discuss the case from the general point of view of what an obstetrician in the USA would expect to do in similar cases, and with the proviso that she only knows the facts that have been made public to all of us, she hasn't had access to the medical file in the way that Peter Boylan has. So she doesn't claim to know when exactly in Ireland, abortion becomes available - only that it would be the normal practice, in the U.S. as and Canada etc, to propose a termination in those cases.

But since Boylan also says the law was the problem, nothing she says is contradicted by his Expert testimony, except as I say, where her expectations of what a doctor can or should do is radically different from what doctors in Ireland do. Personally I think that is evidence that the current law is a disaster for women because it prevents Irish health care professionals from following internationally tested and accepted best practice procedures in maternity care.
Or else it just allows them to do so, while blaming the law. Either way, women are the victims.

recedite

obplayer wrote: »

how many times must you be told this before you attempt to listen?

Try putting "Dr." or "Professor" in front of your username for more effect
Seriously though, try giving a reason, or try backing up your assertions.

volchitsa

recedite wrote: »

Try putting "Dr." or "Professor" in front of your username for more effect
Seriously though, try giving a reason, or try backing up your assertions.

I must say I found your sudden reference to what canon law had to say about Savita Halappanavar puzzling too - I thought the pro-lifers here all firmly believed that the constitutional amendment had nothing to do with catholic theology at all, at all!

In any case, the problem in GUH wasn't what canon law said, it was what Irish legislation - no doubt influenced by theology, but still - said.

No?

obplayer

recedite wrote: »

Try putting "Dr." or "Professor" in front of your username for more effect
Seriously though, try giving a reason, or try backing up your assertions.

Try reading previous posts.

recedite

volchitsa wrote: »

In any case, the problem in GUH wasn't what canon law said, it was what Irish legislation - no doubt influenced by theology, but still - said.

No?

As you pointed out, the staff there seemed to be obsessed with monitoring the foetal heart beat, on the basis that they could not carry out a procedure until it was dead. That corresponds with catholic canon law, and is being portrayed incorrectly by some as being Irish law.
If they had been more concerned with Irish law, they would have been monitoring the mother more closely, so as to begin the procedure as soon as a risk to her life was perceived.

volchitsa

recedite wrote: »

As you pointed out, the staff there seemed to be obsessed with monitoring the foetal heart beat, on the basis that they could not carry out a procedure until it was dead. That corresponds with catholic canon law, and is being portrayed incorrectly by some as being Irish law.
If they had been more concerned with Irish law, they would have been monitoring the mother more closely, so as to begin the procedure as soon as a risk to her life was perceived.

You could, I suppose, be right but since no-one mentioned canon law in any of the investigations, it's a bit of a stretch to speculate that the doctors in GUH would know enough about canon law to be able to refer to it in their decision making.

I think the problem is that there was no actual real law for this situation at the time, there was just the constitution and a certain amount of jurisprudence, but nothing directly applicable to this case, as far as medical criteria were concerned. Other than that her life had to be at substantive risk.

Just saying "as soon as her life is at risk" is not specific enough to be useful to a doctor - any pregnancy is a (small) risk to the woman's life, but not a reason for an abortion.

So it really wasn't clear at what point they could legally intervene while the fetus was still alive, and for whatever reason, Dr Astbury wasn't prepared to take the risk of being accused by Pro-Life groups of having destroyed the fetus before the mother's life was measurably at risk.

She also said she'd never performed a D and E, which I'd have thought was a major gap for someone at that level of responsibility in Obstetrics - but then since abortion is banned, presumably very few trainee OBs-Gyn in Ireland do get a chance to learn - so that may also have been a problem for her.

Whereas if the fetus died, that would have solved her problem as far as the law was concerned anyway. Hence the constant checking on the fetal heartbeat.

It's the only explanation I can find for that behaviour - not negligence, but an inability to act.

ProfessorPlum

recedite wrote: »

Granted, Dr Gunter may not be aware of the difference between the Canon Law position and the Irish law position. But if she was convinced that abortion was available, if needed, as an option if the mothers life was at risk, then that only leaves malpractice as the reason for a failure to act while the life threatening infection was "brewing".

"While a life threatening infection is brewing" - I think you may have stumbled on the crux of the problem there. How to we know it is brewing? How well brewed will it become? At what point can we consider it to be brewed? These are the difficult and somewhat fluid clinical scenarios that doctors faced in this case. As with most investigations after the fact, it is usually easy for people (who really should know better) to draw (in many cases their own personal, and often inconsistent) lines in the sand as to the point where it was in fact deamed to be sufficiently brewed. Unfortunately, doctors working in real time don't have the benefit of the retrospectiscope. The legislation enacted after this case is of some guidance, but unfortunately remains constrained by the constitution.

Btw, feel free to change your username, but it doesn't really add anything to an argument unless there is weight behind one's assertions.
Also, I'm a great Cluedo fan. 'Reverend Green' just didn't seem appropriate.

obplayer

recedite wrote: »

As you pointed out, the staff there seemed to be obsessed with monitoring the foetal heart beat, on the basis that they could not carry out a procedure until it was dead. That corresponds with catholic canon law, and is being portrayed incorrectly by some as being Irish law.
If they had been more concerned with Irish law, they would have been monitoring the mother more closely, so as to begin the procedure as soon as a risk to her life was perceived.

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

Dr Boylan told the court that under Irish abortion law, doctors had to wait until her life was at risk until they could intervene, but by that stage it was too late to save her.

Please note that he does not speak of Canon Law, just Irish Law. So how about I agree not to call myself doctor or professor and you agree not to contradict experts. However I have every confidence you will dispute this in some stupid way. What problem do you have in admitting that you have been completely wrong?

Absolam

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Keep wriggling there The devil is in the detail after all.
I would think that the law does indeed prevent the removal of the foetal membranes, as it is not possible to do it without procuring a miscarraige, which is illegal.

I'm sure if you thought you could make an argument for it you would, but in the meantime I think I need not worry too much about wriggling

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

I am interest to know though, what do you think the diagnosis was ?

You are? I thought you wanted to leave the medical stuff to the actual medics? Though you have yet to attribute your diagnosis to one......

ProfessorPlum

Absolam wrote: »

I'm sure if you thought you could make an argument for it you would, but in the meantime I think I need not worry too much about wriggling

You are? I thought you wanted to leave the medical stuff to the actual medics? Though you have yet to attribute your diagnosis to one......

Let me spell it out to you. Slowly. (Feel free to reread multiple times)
It is not my diagnosis. It is written into the public record. It is not in dispute - at least not anywhere except inside your head. You really are getting tiresome.

Absolam

obplayer wrote: »

But not under Irish Law! Not Canon Law but Real Law! Irish Law condemned that woman to death, how many times must you be told this before you attempt to listen?

In fairness, Dr Gunter specified 'Irish Catholic law or malpractice'.
She may not be aware that there is no such thing as Irish Catholic Law; there is Irish Law, and there is Canon Law, which is as close as you get to Catholic Law.
Ruling out Irish Catholic Law as being non existent leaves malpractice; she eschewed the capital M in favour of the lower case, which makes me think she intended the comment as being her opinion that the medical team behaved improperly or negligently by her standards ( a rather unfair conclusion without access to all the facts, and one which doesn't account for other standards), and not a definitive statement that anyone on the team engaged in Malpractice, which would be a difficult sell all told.
Anyways, Irish law didn't condemn her to death, that's just hyperbole.

ProfessorPlum

Absolam wrote: »

In fairness, Dr Gunter specified 'Irish Catholic law or malpractice'.
She may not be aware that there is no such thing as Irish Catholic Law; there is Irish Law, and there is Canon Law, which is as close as you get to Catholic Law.
Ruling out Irish Catholic Law as being non existent leaves malpractice; she eschewed the capital M in favour of the lower case, which makes me think she intended the comment as being her opinion that the medical team behaved improperly or negligently by her standards ( a rather unfair conclusion without access to all the facts, and one which doesn't account for other standards), and not a definitive statement that anyone on the team engaged in Malpractice, which would be a difficult sell all told.
Anyways, Irish law didn't condemn her to death, that's just hyperbole.

This post is probably the best case of confirmation bias I have ever come across. Goodnight and god bless (don't read too much into the lower case 'g')

Absolam

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Let me spell it out to you. Slowly. (Feel free to reread multiple times)It is not my diagnosis. It is written into the public record. It is not in dispute - at least not anywhere except inside your head. You really are getting tiresome.

It is the diagnosis you offered. You said

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

the primary diagnosis was chorioamnionitis

Not "the public record states" or anything similar, no link to any medical authority stating what 'the primary diagnosis was'.
You made the statement, without any attribution. Until you show us who made the diagnosis, how can we possibly consider it to be anything other than your diagnosis? There's no evidence present of anyone else having made it.
We can decide whether it ought to be in dispute or not once we know it's origin

Absolam

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

This post is probably the best case of confirmation bias I have ever come across. Goodnight and god bless (don't read too much into the lower case 'g')

In fairness I only have her blog posts to go on, so like Volchitsa I'll read them and consider what is presented in the light of my own understanding.
As always though, if there's something specific I've posted that you'd like to engage with, I'm happy to discuss it...

volchitsa

Absolam wrote: »

In fairness, Dr Gunter specified 'Irish Catholic law or malpractice'.
She may not be aware that there is no such thing as Irish Catholic Law; there is Irish Law, and there is Canon Law, which is as close as you get to Catholic Law.
Ruling out Irish Catholic Law as being non existent leaves malpractice; she eschewed the capital M in favour of the lower case, which makes me think she intended the comment as being her opinion that the medical team behaved improperly or negligently by her standards ( a rather unfair conclusion without access to all the facts, and one which doesn't account for other standards), and not a definitive statement that anyone on the team engaged in Malpractice, which would be a difficult sell all told.
Anyways, Irish law didn't condemn her to death, that's just hyperbole.

She was referring to the explanation which the Halappanavars were given, that the abortion requested would be illegal because "this is a catholic country".

They were told that, so it was a perfectly reasonable comment for Dr Gunter, as a non Irish resident who doesn't claim to know the law here, to make. She took the staff member's comment as exact. Why wouldn't she?

Love the speculation based around malpractice vs Malpractice, by the way. Do you have a source for that legal nuance, other than your own head?