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

woman refused abortion - Mod Note in first post.

Options
1…910121415…95

Comments

  • Options
    #332
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Phoebas wrote: »
    That reporting is at odds with what the Indo are saying.

    Not really both are saying the panel said she was suicidal, her life was at risk, but decided to wait until foetus was viable.


  • Options
    #333
    ProfessorPlum
    Registered Users Posts: 1,812 ✭✭✭ProfessorPlum


    conorh91 wrote: »
    I am in agreement that where a mother is unhappy with being pregnant, then she may avail of the Protection of Life in Pregnancy Act 2013, and have her pregnancy terminated.

    The act is a wee bit more restrictive than that.


  • Options
    #334
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    conorh91 wrote: »
    I am in agreement that where a mother is unhappy with being pregnant, then she may avail of the Protection of Life in Pregnancy Act 2013, and have her pregnancy terminated.

    What she cannot do, and quite rightly, is be able to turn around and say "WELL it's not just that I don't want this viable foetus for myself, I want this viable foetus to be made to die after he is born"

    Nobody has the right to demand the death of another human being in this way.


    There's no evidence that she argued this position at all. Where did you get that from?


  • Options
    #335
    Phoebas
    Registered Users Posts: 9,371 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    Turtwig wrote: »
    Not really both are saying the panel said she was suicidal, her life was at risk, but decided to wait until foetus was viable.
    I must be reading a different version of the Indo reporting to you (re waiting for the foetus to be viable).
    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/baby-delivered-as-woman-refused-abortion-under-law-30512513.html


  • Options
    #336
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    I can't understand how the 'experts' concluded that this woman had suicidal thoughts, but them deemed it appropriate to force her to keep the pregnancy until it was viable. If she was suicidal, surely under the legislation she should have been allowed an abortion as soon as possible?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #337
    conorh91
    Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    If I may point you to the relevant section of the Act that applies here -

    Source: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2013/en/act/pub/0035/sec0009.html#sec9

    You're neglecting to embolden the most crucial part, though
    9. Risk of loss of life from suicide
    (1) It shall be lawful to carry out a medical procedure in respect of a pregnant woman in accordance with this section in the course of which, or as a result of which, an unborn human life is ended where—
    (a) subject to section 19, three medical practitioners, having examined the pregnant woman, have jointly certified in good faith that—
    (i) there is a real and substantial risk of loss of the woman's life by way of suicide, and
    (ii) in their reasonable opinion (being an opinion formed in good faith which has regard to the need to preserve unborn human life as far as practicable) that risk can only be averted by carrying out the medical procedure,

    Also s.22 of the Act
    (1) It shall be an offence to intentionally destroy unborn human life.

    In other words, the death of a foetus must remain a misfortunate externality, an unavoidable consequence of the transaction.
    There's no evidence that she argued this position at all. Where did you get that from?
    Obviously that is not a bloody transcript of the conversation.
    Jesus christ...


  • Options
    #338
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 CMod ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Flying Fox wrote: »
    I can't understand how the 'experts' concluded that this woman had suicidal thoughts, but them deemed it appropriate to force her to keep the pregnancy until it was viable. If she was suicidal, surely under the legislation she should have been allowed an abortion as soon as possible?

    Nah it's ok we can keep her locked up and forcibly hydrated and then give birth. not traumatising at all


  • Options
    #339
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Phoebas wrote: »
    I must be reading a different version of the Indo reporting to you (re waiting for the foetus to be viable).
    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/baby-delivered-as-woman-refused-abortion-under-law-30512513.html

    This is kind of needless pedantry. Anyway, the consultant obstetrician is part of the panel. Psychiatrists determined she was suicidal but ultimately the panel, including obstetrician, decided to wait until the foetus was viable.

    The woman was assessed by a panel of three experts, It was agreed that she had suicidal thoughts.

    3 experts (2 psychs?) 1 obs
    rte: The woman was assessed by a panel of three experts, It was agreed that she had suicidal thoughts.The panel said that it would be best to wait to have the baby delivered when it was considered viable.

    indo: The psychiatrists on the panel determined her life was at risk as she had suicidal thoughts. But the consultant obstetrician said the baby could be delivered as it was far enough into the pregnancy.



    Same thing.


  • Options
    #340
    ProfessorPlum
    Registered Users Posts: 1,812 ✭✭✭ProfessorPlum


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    If I may point you to the relevant section of the Act that applies here -





    Source: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2013/en/act/pub/0035/sec0009.html#sec9

    The wording doesn't say "termination of a pregnancy". It specifically states "an unborn human life is ended".

    Any decisions taken thereafter as regards the welfare of the baby will most likely disregard the will of the mother in favour of what authorities will deem is in the best interests of the child.

    9.1.ii confirms miss no stars is correct. As is the opinion of the Masters of the maternity hospitals, and the medical Council guidelines on the issue. Nobody is entitled to an abortion where the foetus is viable.

    (ii) in their reasonable opinion (being an opinion formed in good faith which has regard to the need to preserve unborn human life as far as practicable) that risk can only be averted by carrying out the medical procedure,


  • Options
    #341
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    bluewolf wrote: »
    Nah it's ok we can keep her locked up and forcibly hydrated and then give birth. not traumatising at all to the foetus

    fixed. :P


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #342
    Phoebas
    Registered Users Posts: 9,371 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    bluewolf wrote: »
    Nah it's ok we can keep her locked up and forcibly hydrated and then give birth. not traumatising at all
    What's the evidence that she was locked up?


    Also - the Indo reported that the High Court order was to prevent her from starving herself. I guess people shouldn't in general be prevented from starving themselves if that's what they want to do, but if they've admitted themselves into the care of the HSE then they do have some duty of care to their patient.
    Indo wrote:
    The HSE went to the High Court to get a care order to prevent her from starving herself


  • Options
    #343
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Logcabin100 wrote: »
    What's your opinion on forcibly killing an unborn child?

    At the time the panel examined her it was not a "child", it was an unviable foetus.


  • Options
    #344
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Flying Fox wrote: »
    At the time the panel examined her it was not a "child", it was an unviable foetus.

    It wasn't viable for a delivery at the time but it wasn't an unviable foetus. As the delivery showed it was in fact viable. Though it will be interesting to see if such an early delivery has an knock-on impacts to its quality of life.

    We don't really know the timescales or periods involved either.


  • Options
    #345
    Phoebas
    Registered Users Posts: 9,371 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    Turtwig wrote: »
    This is kind of needless pedantry. Anyway, the consultant obstetrician is part of the panel. Psychiatrists determined she was suicidal but ultimately the panel, including obstetrician, decided to wait until the foetus was viable.

    The woman was assessed by a panel of three experts, It was agreed that she had suicidal thoughts.

    3 experts (2 psychs?) 1 obs
    rte: The woman was assessed by a panel of three experts, It was agreed that she had suicidal thoughts.The panel said that it would be best to wait to have the baby delivered when it was considered viable.

    indo: The psychiatrists on the panel determined her life was at risk as she had suicidal thoughts. But the consultant obstetrician said the baby could be delivered as it was far enough into the pregnancy.



    Same thing.
    Not at all the same thing.
    The RTE report has her having to wait. The Indo reporting has a viable foetus then and there.


  • Options
    #346
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,799 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Phoebas wrote: »
    What's the evidence that she was locked up?


    Also - the Indo reported that the High Court order was to prevent her from starving herself. I guess people shouldn't in general be prevented from starving themselves if that's what they want to do, but if they've admitted themselves into the care of the HSE then they do have some duty of care to their patient.

    It would be pretty irresponsible to send a suicidal pregnant woman home.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #347
    Sittingpretty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,872 ✭✭✭Sittingpretty


    Flying Fox wrote: »
    At the time the panel examined her it was not a "child", it was an unviable foetus.

    I sometimes wonder when reading threads like this if people are actually aware of what happens in the process to terminate an "unviable foetus" at 24 weeks gestation.

    Irrespective of my own opinion, I just often wonder this when reading abortion debates.


  • Options
    #348
    miss no stars
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,957 ✭✭✭miss no stars


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    If I may point you to the relevant section of the Act that applies here -

    ...
    The wording doesn't say "termination of a pregnancy". It specifically states "an unborn human life is ended".


    It doesn't state that they have to end the life of the foetus/baby. Just that the procedure is still legal even if it does cause the life of the unborn to be ended.

    FWIW, I think what they did was awful. They look a vulnerable person and trampled all over her, battered her, and denied her timely access to her legal rights. But I don't think the consequence of the termination of pregnancy MUST be the death of the unborn...


  • Options
    #349
    Phoebas
    Registered Users Posts: 9,371 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    SW wrote: »
    It would be pretty irresponsible to send a suicidal pregnant woman home.
    ... which doesn't amount to evidence that she was locked up.


  • Options
    #350
    Phoebas
    Registered Users Posts: 9,371 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    Sittingpretty wrote: »
    I sometimes wonder when reading threads like this if people are actually aware of what happens in the process to terminate an "unviable foetus" at 24 weeks gestation.
    Why would it matter? I'm sure its not pretty, but no surgical procedure is pretty.


  • Options
    #351
    UCDCritic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 272 ✭✭UCDCritic


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    It depends on your perspective really. The baby's life was saved by ignoring the will of the person on whom the baby was dependent upon to keep it alive in the first place, until such a time as the baby could be removed by mutilating the person whom was forced to continue to nourish the baby, while authories -

    1. Ignored the fact that she was suicidal

    2. Obtained a court order to force feed her to nourish the baby

    3. Carved her open to take out the baby at the earliest opportunity before she put it at any further risk.

    But yeah, baby saved, we're not supposed to care that the end in no way justifies the means, not to mention the uncertain future that this woman is faced with, let alone the child she was forced to give birth to against her will, who won't always be a cute ickle baby, but will grow up to become an adult who's mother never wanted to give birth to them in the first place.

    I think you're being incredibly short sighted that you haven't thought about these things tbh.



    No you're the one who is short sighted.

    It is the nature of women to shared their bodies with another human being.

    It's feminist man haters who have confused so many women of their true nature.

    A life has been saved, that is the most important thing here.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #352
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,799 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Phoebas wrote: »
    ... which doesn't amount to evidence that she was locked up.

    it actually does if she wasn't free to leave. Which the doctors would make sure she wasn't if they were concerned for her safety due to them considering her suicidal.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #353
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Phoebas wrote: »
    Not at all the same thing.
    The RTE report has her having to wait. The Indo reporting has a viable foetus then and there.

    You're right, I missed that completely. Apologies :o


  • Options
    #354
    Phoebas
    Registered Users Posts: 9,371 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    SW wrote: »
    it actually does if she wasn't free to leave. Which the doctors would make sure she wasn't if they were concerned for her safety due to them considering her suicidal.
    What is the evidence that she wasn't free to leave? I don't think there is automatic committal of all patients who express suicidal thoughts, is there?


  • Options
    #355
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    UCDCritic wrote: »
    No you're the one who is short sighted.

    It is the nature of women to shared their bodies with another human being.

    It's feminist man haters who have confused so many women of their true nature.

    A life has been saved, that is the most important thing here.

    A life has potentially been ruined too through long term psychological damage.


  • Options
    #356
    Sittingpretty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,872 ✭✭✭Sittingpretty


    Phoebas wrote: »
    Why would it matter? I'm sure its not pretty, but no surgical procedure is pretty.

    It doesn't matter to you, fair enough, your prerogative.


  • Options
    #357
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    UCDCritic wrote: »
    No you're the one who is short sighted.

    It is the nature of women to shared their bodies with another human being.

    It's feminist man haters who have confused so many women of their true nature.

    A life has been saved, that is the most important thing here.

    Wow - I don't even know where to start.

    Women are actual people you know, with their own minds, personalities, ambitions, wants. And the capability to make choices. Not incubators.


  • Options
    #358
    takamichinoku
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,110 ✭✭✭takamichinoku


    UCDCritic wrote: »
    No you're the one who is short sighted.

    It is the nature of women to shared their bodies with another human being.

    It's feminist man haters who have confused so many women of their true nature.

    A life has been saved, that is the most important thing here.
    :eek:

    I'd write a reply beyond that but, Jesus, there's absolutely no point. You're either trolling or... I hope you're trolling.
    "their true nature"


  • Options
    #359
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    UCDCritic wrote: »
    No you're the one who is short sighted.

    It is the nature of women to shared their bodies with another human being.

    It's feminist man haters who have confused so many women of their true nature.

    A life has been saved, that is the most important thing here.


    Not to put too fine a point on it sir, but, well, you're talking utter shíte.

    Your "opinion", for what it's worth, is hardly even worth entertaining. It's not a new, unique, or original perspective either. It's an opinion held by many people for centuries, and is still quite a popularly held opinion today. Your intention to inflame the discussion has miserably failed at this point.


  • Options
    #360
    conorh91
    Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    SW wrote: »
    it actually does if she wasn't free to leave.
    You're drawing certain conclusions, not on the basis of objective evidence, but merely because it suits your chosen propaganda over another type of propaganda.

    It's entirely possible that this woman was subject to treatment comparable to any hospital patient who has suicidal thoughts. Using emotive language like "locked up" is not fooling anybody.

    I genuinely believed, when I read this story last night, that pro-choice people, of which I am one, would be celebrating the fact that the legislation works.

    The woman's life was first adjudged to not be in unavoidable danger, but when it was subsequently adjudged to be in unavoidable danger, her pregnancy was terminated.

    This is exactly what we wanted… isn't it??


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #361
    miss no stars
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,957 ✭✭✭miss no stars


    UCDCritic wrote: »
    No you're the one who is short sighted.

    It is the nature of women to shared their bodies with another human being.

    It's feminist man haters who have confused so many women of their true nature.

    A life has been saved, that is the most important thing here.

    What's my true nature?

    You know me so well, so describe my nature to me.


Advertisement