Abortion Discussion

eviltwin

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Something to do with the blood, its one of the reasons a woman who has ever been pregnant can't donate platelets.

Overheal

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Post-natal care is an entire thing.

sinead88

eviltwin wrote: »

Something to do with the blood, its one of the reasons a woman who has ever been pregnant can't donate platelets.

If women ever end up being penalised for having an abortion abroad on the basis of a blood test, it's definitely dystopian novel time. Hopefully we become more progressive relatively soon.

volchitsa

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well, I meant in the short term after the birth/termination: a medical examination of the woman is a real giveaway - what they usually can't tell is whether the woman has had a miscarriage or has deliberately terminated the pregnancy. But it's how they identify a woman who has recently given birth whenever an abandoned baby is found.

Physically there are all sorts of clues: an open cervix and abundant blood loss, an enlarged,but empty uterus, and also the appearance of the breasts (specially from the second trimester on, when there is often milk production).

Two Sheds

Cabaal wrote: »

What happens if a women does keep it secret and perhaps a decade later people find out, should she be jailed for what the pro life crowd see as murder.?

Im sure its important to them that a warning is sent out to all women, even those that are forced to travel in secret in relation to fatal fetal abnormalities.

It was the Left (Labour) in government who introduced the threat of 14 years imprisonment for women who have abortions - Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013

Pro-Life Lucinda Creighton fought them on this and tried to get it reduced to 5 years. Labour literally laughed at her.

volchitsa

Two Sheds wrote: »

It was the Left (Labour) in government who introduced the threat of 14 years imprisonment for women who have abortions - Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013

Pro-Life Lucinda Creighton fought them on this and tried to get it reduced to 5 years. Labour literally laughed at her.

But surely,the justification for preventing women from ending a pregnancy if they want to is the belief that killing an unborn child is morally pretty much identical to killing a newborn? In which case, how can Lucinda possibly justify a maximum sentence of five years? Does she also think 5 years would be plenty for someone who abducts a child and kills it?

Perhaps it's the complete contradiction between the two, and her lack of awareness of just how incoherent her arguments were that made her a laughing stock?

Not a NSA agent

Yeah it would be difficult to implement but I don't see why it would stop pro life campaigners from not treating the unborn the same as the born and doing their best to save all those lives, surely even if it saves one life its worthwhile.

I dont know what would happen if I asked for a country that would allow me to kill a 2 year old and then booked flights there but I doubt people would shrug their shoulders as pro life campaigners do.

Either it would be incredibly unpopular and fail, making Ireland look a bit less pro life than they claim or they dont even believe it.

sinead88

Not a NSA agent wrote: »

Yeah it would be difficult to implement but I don't see why it would stop pro life campaigners from not treating the unborn the same as the born and doing their best to save all those lives, surely even if it saves one life its worthwhile.

I dont know what would happen if I asked for a country that would allow me to kill a 2 year old and then booked flights there but I doubt people would shrug their shoulders as pro life campaigners do.

A 2 year old and a fetus are nowhere near the same thing. For example, I am vehemently pro choice but morally against the death penalty. There really isn't a logical argument for the death penalty. Once we teach people that violence isn't ok, logic should be the humanist action. As far as I'm concerned, as long as you're not hurting others, your feelings should be up to you.

Not a NSA agent

sinead88 wrote: »

A 2 year old and a fetus are nowhere near the same thing. For example, I am vehemently pro choice but morally against the death penalty. There really isn't a logical argument for the death penalty. Once we teach people that violence isn't ok, logic should be the humanist action. As far as I'm concerned, as long as you're not hurting others, your feelings should be up to you.

I agree completely. I'm not actually supporting the above, I'm just wondering why they aren't being treated the same by those who think they are equal.

Peregrinus

For decades now we've had separate sentencing limits for infanticide, and of course we have always had separate offences, and separate sentences, for murder and manslaughter. There's probably an interesting discussion to be had around this, but basically we have never believed that all killings in all circumstances are the same, and must get the same sentencing regime. I don't share Lucinda Creighton's views, but the fact that she doesn't think that, legally,abortion should be assimilated to common law murder doesn't seem to me to invalidate her views, or to found any meaningful criticism of them.

Absolam

Deleted User wrote: »

Your original point is still too general to be relevant (as echoed by my farcical amputation example). You suggested that 'any pregnancy at all that is aborted increases the likelihood, on balance of probability, that the potential mother will not die, because being pregnant is inherently more life threatening than not being pregnant'. Which is of course a truism.

I can't really help that you think it's not relevant (though I thought you'd like how your farcical example still demonstrated the point); it does seem to me that if we're presented with the notion that two unspecified obstetricians involved in the investigation into her death both said that an abortion would have given her the best chance of surviving, the fact that any obstetrician will agree that any woman who has an abortion has a better chance of surviving than a woman who doesn't is relevant.

Deleted User wrote: »

Yet you attach it to a post discussing Boylan's utterly specific & non-general suggestion. Care to suggest why? It reads very much as though it's to diminish the value of his words. (especially given the preface of : 'Which doesn't really say a great deal').I assume you'll agree that he wasn't discussing 'any pregnancy at all' though, given that he was discussing a specific situation where the prognosis of the pregnancy was extremely bleak.

Because Dr Boylans statement is the only one I'm aware of that comes close to the assertion about the two obstetricians, which makes it worth noting; especially since according to Dr Boylan the decision to abort the child would have had to have been taken before there was any risk to the life of the mother in order to be (part of) an effective action to save her life. Hence, it didn't say a great deal.

Deleted User wrote: »

Let's try the amputation analogy once more.
A person <...> utterly unsuccessful.

Did it not quite work out the way you wanted last time? I'll agree if you keep reworking your analogy you will eventually come up with one sufficiently well hedged to give the impression that the only logical conclusion is that elective abortion considered in the light of carefully constructed amputation analogies is a great idea
For this particular one, do you think it maybe hinges on the notion that there is a universally recommended treatment for unsalvageable limbs which is not accepted in the State, and that is therefore analagous to abortion?
In the case of abortion of course, the treatment is not universally recommended; only States that permit abortion in the case of a threat to a mothers health recommend abortion as a part of the treatment regime for sepsis. And according to the UN, 33% of States do not permit abortion in the case of a threat to a mothers health, so universal is more than a bit of a stretch; it's flat out not true.
And of course, let's not forget that Ms Halappanavar hadn't been diagnosed as having sepsis at the time an abortion would have been effective in helping combat sepsis; according to Dr Boylan by the time it was known she had sepsis an abortion would not have saved her life.

Deleted User wrote: »

One might feel it's entirely fair to suggest that the law which dictates that we must wait until the patient's prognosis is bleak enough so as to undertake a procedure has a higher burden of blame for the outcome than the insufficient treatment that occurred downstream of that law.

So does one feel we ought not to wait until someone has a sufficiently serious infection in their arm before we amputate it? Should we simply lop it off before the prognosis becomes bleak enough to require it, without trying to save the arm with antibiotic treatments and suchlike first?

Deleted User wrote: »

A manager who makes a bad decision which is then badly implement usually faces more blame than the employee who failed to implement the choice.

Which I think probably overstretches the analogy to be fair...

Deleted User wrote: »

Boylan's point was not a trivial truism as you presented it to be, his point was that our current 'regime' can only perpetuate the scenario described. And surely we can all see the inhumanity and risk in that?

Not that I presented it as a trivial truism, but what I take from the point is that abortion was not the panacea it has been offered up as by some posters. The only way abortion could have been an element in saving the life of Ms Halappanavar would have been by accident; an abortion in response to sepsis would have been too late, so only an abortion in response to a desire to end the life of her doomed child could have occurred in time to incidentally help treat the sepsis that hadn't occurred at that point. I can certainly see the inhumanity in prematurely ending the life of someone who hasn't asked for it, and the risk in it.

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

A health system which chooses to ban certain medical interventions unless and until the patient's life in under threat - as opposed to "just" their health - takes on a much greater responsibility for the final outcome of that situation than one where the patient has the final say in his/her treatment.

I really must disagree; a health system should be equally responsible for the final outcome of all situations under it's care. The fact that a patient is or isn't capable of refusing to assent to care (which is more accurate than the notion of a patient having the final say in his/her treatment) ought not to affect in the slightest the systems responsibility for the care it provides.

volchitsa wrote: »

In fact that is the thinking behind the very concept of informed consent, something which forms the basis of all ethical medical treatment nowadays. With a very few exceptions - one being the treatment of pregnant and childbearing women in Ireland.

Not really true though; informed consent is substantially different from having the final say in one's treatment. A foetus can't give informed (or otherwise) consent to it's destruction; I think it's therefore a lot more appropriate to leave that decision in the hands of an impartial doctor than of someone who may have a reason to favour a course not in the child's best interests.

volchitsa wrote: »

When you remove a woman's right to what is the internationally recognized appropriate medical treatment for her medical condition, fig leaves such as "well maybe she would have died anyway" are a poor excuse. In fact I'd say they fool only those who are determined to be fooled anyway.

Internationally recognised, but not universally recognised? Lest we get to fooling ourselves with the whole 'only the Irish health care system forbids doctors from ending a pregnancy because the woman's health is at risk' nonsense again....

volchitsa wrote: »

Addendum: I'd also point out that Absolam's description of a naive Dr Astbury in ignorance of Mrs Halappanavar's septic state is unconvincing in the extreme. This has all been thrashed out many times before, so someone who still continues to cling to the anti-choice narrative that ignores various facts such as the multiple checking and rechecking of the fetal heartbeat specifically in order to ascertain whether or not a D and E could be carried out is, to put it bluntly, lying at this point. Though I believe the technical term is "mental reservation".

I'd like to point out that I never described (or even implied a description of) Dr Astbury as naive, that's just something else Volchitsa is making up.

Dr Astbury was clearly aware that whilst killing Ms Halappanavar's child in order to safeguard Ms Halappanavar's health was both illegal and unethical, removing the remains of the child once dead was in the best interests of Ms Halappanavar's health, and both legal and ethical. That's not 'clinging to the anti-choice narrative that ignores various facts such as the multiple checking and rechecking of the fetal heartbeat specifically in order to ascertain whether or not a D and E could be carried out'; that's simply understanding the facts without viewing and presenting them through the lens of an agenda.

Dr Astbury was also clearly aware that if Ms Halappanavar's life were threatened and removing the child whether alive or dead would likely save Ms Halappanavar's life, an abortion should be carried out, again, both legally and ethically. Which she actually did decide to do as soon as she was aware of the infection, and told the inquest she would have done so earlier had she known about the infection earlier.

There's no reason to imagine Dr Astbury was naive or unaware of the conditions she was working under, only that she was unaware of the risk to Ms Halappanavar's life until it was too late to take sufficient action to avert her death.

Absolam

I'll be terse

Absolam wrote: »

I can't really help that you think it's not relevant (though I thought you'd like how your farcical example still demonstrated the point); it does seem to me that if we're presented with the notion that two unspecified obstetricians involved in the investigation into her death both said that an abortion would have given her the best chance of surviving, the fact that any obstetrician will agree that any woman who has an abortion has a better chance of surviving than a woman who doesn't is relevant.

The irrelevancy (or perhaps over-generality) is of your follow on, not of Boylan's statement.

Absolam wrote: »

Because Dr Boylans statement is the only one I'm aware of that comes close to the assertion about the two obstetricians, which makes it worth noting; especially since according to Dr Boylan the decision to abort the child would have had to have been taken before there was any risk to the life of the mother in order to be (part of) an effective action to save her life. Hence, it didn't say a great deal.

If you take it in an extreme general context perhaps. But given that he was being utterly specific then yes it's quite important.

Absolam wrote: »

Did it not quite work out the way you wanted last time? I'll agree if you keep reworking your analogy you will eventually come up with one sufficiently well hedged to give the impression that the only logical conclusion is that elective abortion considered in the light of carefully constructed amputation analogies is a great idea

The importance of the first analogy was to discuss the idea that 'big general' approaches don't apply when considered in the specific. The second analogy was with the idea of an extremely bleak prognosis for the limb, one such that though it might not be the sought after path, the best course of action would have been to remove it.

Absolam wrote: »

For this particular one, do you think it maybe hinges on the notion that there is a universally recommended treatment for unsalvageable limbs which is not accepted in the State, and that is therefore analagous to abortion?

No it's analogous in showing that state interference with best practice in medicine can be barbarous. Of course some best practice is certainly blunted by law. Consider siamese twins and the balancing of rights in separation. How does that work?

Absolam wrote: »

In the case of abortion of course, the treatment is not universally recommended; only States that permit abortion in the case of a threat to a mothers health recommend abortion as a part of the treatment regime for sepsis. And according to the UN, 33% of States do not permit abortion in the case of a threat to a mothers health, so universal is more than a bit of a stretch; it's flat out not true.

Is the UN the source of best practice? Are the 67% of states modern developed states? Argumentum ad populum surely?

Absolam wrote: »

And of course, let's not forget that Ms Halappanavar hadn't been diagnosed as having sepsis at the time an abortion would have been effective in helping combat sepsis; according to Dr Boylan by the time it was known she had sepsis an abortion would not have saved her life.

Correct. How did she develop sepsis? Would she have developed sepsis if her unviable pregnancy had been ended?

Absolam wrote: »

So does one feel we ought not to wait until someone has a sufficiently serious infection in their arm before we amputate it? Should we simply lop it off before the prognosis becomes bleak enough to require it, without trying to save the arm with antibiotic treatments and suchlike first?
Which I think probably overstretches the analogy to be fair...

Of course. But that's not in question. The analogy presented a case where there was no available treatment for the arm. The patient presented with an un-salvageable limb. Just as there was no solution to save Savita's unborn.

Absolam wrote: »

Not that I presented it as a trivial truism,

You absolutely did! How else ought one read 'Which doesn't really say a great deal'?

Absolam wrote: »

but what I take from the point is that abortion was not the panacea it has been offered up as by some posters. The only way abortion could have been an element in saving the life of Ms Halappanavar would have been by accident; an abortion in response to sepsis would have been too late, so only an abortion in response to a desire to end the life of her doomed child could have occurred in time to incidentally help treat the sepsis that hadn't occurred at that point. I can certainly see the inhumanity in prematurely ending the life of someone who hasn't asked for it, and the risk in it.

Agree that an abortion in response to sepsis would have been too late. I've never maintained that that was the correct response though.
If a termination of the pregnancy had been permissible upon discovery of the bleak prognosis for the fetus, and the pain that it was causing Savita, that would have been highly likely enough to prevent her death.

Two Sheds

volchitsa wrote: »

But surely,the justification for preventing women from ending a pregnancy if they want to is the belief that killing an unborn child is morally pretty much identical to killing a newborn? In which case, how can Lucinda possibly justify a maximum sentence of five years? Does she also think 5 years would be plenty for someone who abducts a child and kills it?

Perhaps it's the complete contradiction between the two, and her lack of awareness of just how incoherent her arguments were that made her a laughing stock?

I notice that you choose to ignore the hypocrisy of the Left, who formed the legislation and instead focus on somebody who had no hand in attempting to jail women for 14 years.

lazygal

Two Sheds wrote: »

I notice that you choose to ignore the hypocrisy of the Left, who formed the legislation and instead focus on somebody who had no hand in attempting to jail women for 14 years.

What about all the women who travel to kill the unborn elsewhere? Should we repeal their rights to do so?

alaimacerc

Two Sheds wrote: »

I notice that you choose to ignore the hypocrisy of the Left, who formed the legislation and instead focus on somebody who had no hand in attempting to jail women for 14 years.

By "attempting to jail women for 14 years", you apparently mean "reduce the sentence from life in imprisonment". Not to mention significantly restricting the scope of the "offence", and actually providing a degree of legal clarity to the previous "let's perform abortions, but not call them that" roulette.

Your diagnosis of "hypocrisy" seems wholly mistaken.

Two Sheds

alaimacerc wrote: »

By "attempting to jail women for 14 years", you apparently mean "reduce the sentence from life in imprisonment". Not to mention significantly restricting the scope of the "offence", and actually providing a degree of legal clarity to the previous "let's perform abortions, but not call them that" roulette.

Your diagnosis of "hypocrisy" seems wholly mistaken.

It wasn't life imprisonment. The Left (Labour) increased the term beyond the 12 years originally allowed by Fianna Fail and greatly in excess of that wanted (by way of compromise) by pro-life politicians like Creighton.
The legislation was welcomed by many Left politicians who are now jumping on another bandwagon and claiming that such legislation should be withdrawn.

The hypocrisy of the Left knows no bounds.

oldrnwisr

Two Sheds wrote: »

It wasn't life imprisonment. The Left (Labour)increasedthe term beyond the 12 years originally allowed by Fianna Fail and greatly in excess of that wanted (by way of compromise) by pro-life politicians like Creighton.

Actually it was life imprisonment.

The legislation which covered abortion prior to the introduction of the 2013 Act was the Offences against the Person Act 1861, specifically section 58, procuring abortion:

Every woman, being with child, who, with intent to procure her own miscarriage, shall unlawfully administer to herself any poison or other noxious thing, or shall unlawfully use any instrument or other means whatsoever with the like intent, and whosoever, with intent to procure the miscarriage of any woman, whether she be or be not with child, shall unlawfully administer to her or cause to be taken by her any poison or other noxious thing, or shall unlawfully use any instrument or other means whatsoever with the like intent, shall be guilty of felony, and being convicted thereof shall be liable . . . to be kept in penal servitude for life . . .


Can't blame Labour for that one.

Two Sheds

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Actually it was life imprisonment.

The legislation which covered abortion prior to the introduction of the 2013 Act was the Offences against the Person Act 1861, specifically section 58, procuring abortion:

Every woman, being with child, who, with intent to procure her own miscarriage, shall unlawfully administer to herself any poison or other noxious thing, or shall unlawfully use any instrument or other means whatsoever with the like intent, and whosoever, with intent to procure the miscarriage of any woman, whether she be or be not with child, shall unlawfully administer to her or cause to be taken by her any poison or other noxious thing, or shall unlawfully use any instrument or other means whatsoever with the like intent, shall be guilty of felony, and being convicted thereof shall be liable . . . to be kept in penal servitude for life . . .


Can't blame Labour for that one.

You're probably right. I was remembering the FF effort to reduce it to 12 years.

But claiming that a reduction from Life to 14 years is praiseworthy is utterly laughable - many lifers spend a lot less than 14 years in prison.

No - Labour wants to be harder on women that FF and much harder than any pro-Life individual or group.

robdonn

Two Sheds wrote: »

But claiming that a reduction from Life to 14 years is praiseworthy is utterly laughable - many lifers spend a lot less than 14 years in prison.

Well any sentence of 14 years to life is open to parole at year 7, so any chance of release is relatively equal, although at least a 14 year sentence has a maximum value. A 12 year sentence would have been mildly better as it would offer parole at year 6.

Parole Board of Ireland - Citizen's Information

alaimacerc

Two Sheds wrote: »

You're probably right. I was remembering the FF effort to reduce it to 12 years.

You mean the FF/PD attempt to reverse the X judgement, and embed vast swathes of McDowellisms in an Act only modifiable by constitutional referendum. It seems you were remembering it very partially -- as well as entirely wrongly.

No - Labour wants to be harder on women that FF and much harder than any pro-Life individual or group.

This is incredibly thin reaching, with the usual excessive rhetoric. The FG/Lab legislation is self-evidently a liberalising measure, in every respect. It doesn't do as far as Labour would on its own would have done, very clear. Making cherrypicking comparisons with past proposals that a) failed, and b) would not have been generally liberalising, is completely ludicrous.

"Pro-Life" individuals and groups are free to agitate for a reduction in the penalty for abortion any time they like. No hearing much of that. Merely hand-wringing about doing so when some other measure is on the table is hardly the same. And it won't require a constitutional referendum to do so by this route, either, as it would have done with the MMcD monstrosity.

PopePalpatine

alaimacerc wrote: »

"Pro-Life" individuals and groups are free to agitate for a reduction in the penalty for abortion any time they like. No hearing much of that. Merely hand-wringing about doing so when some other measure is on the table is hardly the same. And it won't require a constitutional referendum to do so by this route, either, as it would have done with the MMcD monstrosity.

You don't hear pro-life campaigners make much noise about El Salvador imprisoning women who've had miscarriages, never mind abortions.

Two Sheds

alaimacerc wrote: »

You mean the FF/PD attempt to reverse the X judgement, and embed vast swathes of McDowellisms in an Act only modifiable by constitutional referendum. It seems you were remembering it very partially -- as well as entirely wrongly.


This is incredibly thin reaching, with the usual excessive rhetoric. The FG/Lab legislation is self-evidently a liberalising measure, in every respect. It doesn't do as far as Labour would on its own would have done, very clear. Making cherrypicking comparisons with past proposals that a) failed, and b) would not have been generally liberalising, is completely ludicrous.

"Pro-Life" individuals and groups are free to agitate for a reduction in the penalty for abortion any time they like. No hearing much of that. Merely hand-wringing about doing so when some other measure is on the table is hardly the same. And it won't require a constitutional referendum to do so by this route, either, as it would have done with the MMcD monstrosity.

I don't carry any torch for FF but I recall the 12 years.

You can call the LP actions whatever you like, but the fact is that they proposed and voted for up to 14 years imprisonment for women who have abortions, even when they were under no obvious pressure to do so. That's not rhetoric - it's fact.

If that's the LP version of a 'liberalising measure', I hate to think what they'd do if they wanted to make an example of somebody.

alaimacerc

Two Sheds wrote: »

I don't carry any torch for FF but I recall the 12 years.

Indeed. And forgot (or "forgot") everything else about that proposal, it would seem. As I've just pointed out.

You can call the LP actions whatever you like, but the fact is that they proposed and voted for up to 14 years imprisonment for women who have abortions, even when they were under no obvious pressure to do so. That's not rhetoric - it's fact.

The pressure is pretty obvious to anyone not desperately struggling to spin this in some sort of tenuous "Labour bad" light. They're in a coalition government. The FG component is by far the larger, were reversing their own pre-election undertakings, and lost several TDs overboard to the social-conservative right in the process even so. Bringing us neatly back to the Saintly Lucinda, grandstanding to the Right on an issue already rejected by popular referendum. Twice.

Though why you can see to make such a big deal of the difference between 12 years and 14, while seeking to minimise that between 14 and life is itself quite the question. Even skipping over the small matter of the 12 years never having been in effect.

If that's the LP version of a 'liberalising measure', I hate to think what they'd do if they wanted to make an example of somebody.

Do something other than "considerably reduce the maximum sentence, materially reduce the scope of the offence, and introduce a formal procedure for doing the whole thing legally", I'd imagine.

recedite

sinead88 wrote: »

Even if her situation hadn't been life threatening, she was in extreme pain and begging for an abortion. As the baby was definitely going to die anyways, wouldn't the humane thing to do be to offer an abortion? She shouldn't have had to be in agony and under extreme stress for days, against her will. This isn't how I would want to be treated in hospital.

You are right, and a similar viewpoint was expressed in the judgement during the (later) case of the brain-dead woman carrying a barely living foetus. The court said it was futile to keep the foetus alive. Switching off life support is always a more "passive" act than performing an abortion, which the Savita Hal. case would have involved.
But when the risk that the sepsis posed to the mother (Savita Hal.) was taken into account, along with the futility of trying to save the baby, then IMO there was no compelling ethical, medical or legal argument for standing idly by while she died. Pro-choice groups will of course cite 8th amendment, lack of legal clarity and obsolete abortion legislation as legal constraints, but when the totality of the situation is taken into account, the chances of the doctor being convicted for unlawful killing of the foetus under those circumstances was virtually zero.

alaimacerc

recedite wrote: »

Pro-choice groups will of course cite 8th amendment, lack of legal clarity and obsolete abortion legislation as legal constraints, but when the totality of the situation is taken into account, the chances of the doctor being convicted for unlawful killing of the foetus under those circumstances was virtually zero.

Anyone with a thought in their head will cite such things. The theory "ah sure, what are the chances?" may sound grand to you, but how reassuring is the confidence of after-the-fact opinion on the internet to people in the position of making the actual decision, and themselves facing the consequences? Legal and otherwise.

What the precise components of legal "chilling effect", the doctors' own personal biases and preconceptions, and sheer malpractice are may not be possible to identify with any precision. Especially with the "cover own and others' asses" reflexes of the medical practice. But anyone saying the law played no role at all is plainly speaking from their own wishful thinking.

volchitsa

recedite wrote: »

when the totality of the situation is taken into account, the chances of the doctor being convicted for unlawful killing of the foetus under those circumstances was virtually zero.

Very easy to type those words. I won would you feel as much at ease if you might be the unfortunate person who for some reason ended up in the wrong side of that "virtually zero" risk.

recedite

A doctor told me how he was on a plane one time, when somebody had some kind of fit. The air hostess called out "is there a doctor on board" and he continued reading the newspaper. After a while some first aider had a go at putting the patient in recovery position and keeping the airways clear etc.. and all was well. As the doctor said to me, there was no possible upside to him personally by intervening, and if something went wrong, the patient might sue.

Now you can say what you like about the hippocratic oath blah blah.. but at the end of the day some people will think of themselves first, and some people will rush to help others without even thinking about the consequences.
You can't legislate for empathy or courage. Anyone practicing medicine takes risks with other peoples health all the time, which in itself carries a risk of litigation or prosecution, but they get well paid for shouldering that responsibility. All these guys carry professional indemnity insurance while at work anyway.
In circumstances where the patient is in agony and possibly dying, any doctor that stands back because they are worried about "the chilling effect" of legislation or a "virtually zero" risk to themselves is not the kind of doctor I would want around me if I was sick.

MrPudding

recedite wrote: »

All these guys carry professional indemnity insurance while at work anyway.
In circumstances where the patient is in agony and possibly dying, any doctor that stands back because they are worried about "the chilling effect" of legislation or a "virtually zero" risk to themselves is not the kind of doctor I would want around me if I was sick.

PII does not indemnify the holder against criminal offences, criminal charges nor any penalties that may result. It is also pretty sh1t at stopping them from being struck off.

MrP

volchitsa

recedite wrote: »

Anyone practicing medicine takes risks with other peoples health all the time, which in itself carries a risk of litigation or prosecution, but they get well paid for shouldering that responsibility. All these guys carry professional indemnity insurance while at work anyway.
In circumstances where the patient is in agony and possibly dying, any doctor that stands back because they are worried about "the chilling effect" of legislation or a "virtually zero" risk to themselves is not the kind of doctor I would want around me if I was sick.

You're entirely missing the point. It's got nothing to do with being sued, or with improvised intervention without information or equipment in a medical emergency when you are on holiday.

The point is that no-one should be at risk (however small a poster on the internet thinks it) of having a criminal record for doing their job well. Criminal records should be a risk only for those who do their jobs dangerously badly.