woman refused abortion - Mod Note in first post.

Delirium

Phoebas wrote: »

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?

The woman presented herself as suicidal as agreed by the doctors. They decided not to allow an abortion to take place. The woman then went on hungerstrike.

I take it from that she couldn't leave. It's a good thing that the doctors took her threat seriously compared to the alternative of her leaving and committing suicide. The unfortunate thing is that it made sure that she continue with a pregnancy against her wishes.

Phoebas

SW wrote: »

The woman presented herself as suicidal as agreed by the doctors. They decided not to allow an abortion to take place. The woman then went on hungerstrike.

I take it from that she couldn't leave.

I can't see for the life of me how you could take it from that that she would be forcibly detained.

Delirium

conorh91 wrote: »

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??

If the woman wasn't free to leave the hospital, then she is essentially "locked up". This is a good thing when it involves a suicidal person. It's the responsible course of action for any doctor to take when they believe someone will kill themselves IMHO.

Phoebas

SW wrote: »

If the woman wasn't free to leave the hospital, then she is essentially "locked up". This is a good thing when it involves a suicidal person. It's the responsible course of action for any doctor to take when they believe someone will kill themselves IMHO.

This is entirely your own assumption based on - from what I can see - not a lot.

Delirium

Phoebas wrote: »

I can't see for the life of me how you could take it from that that she would be forcibly detained.

because I believe the doctors would do their best to make sure that she didn't kill herself. This would include some level of additional observation on the patient, and if needs be, forcible restraint.

Delirium

Phoebas wrote: »

This is entirely your own assumption based on - from what I can see - not a lot.

Agreed. I'm assuming certain procedures in a hospital.

The alternative is that the woman is diagnosed suicidal and allowed to leave after the diagnosis. This makes no sense at all. Why allow someone out of the hospital to potentially carry out their promise of suicide? It's extremely unprofessional. People would be outraged if such a tragedy came to pass and it was uncovered doctors did nothing to stop it.

PopePalpatine

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.

Don't you have drivel to write, Mr. Waters? This is like something from Neckbeard MRA Central, "Return of Kings".

Phoebas

SW wrote: »

because I believe the doctors would do their best to make sure that she didn't kill herself. This would include some level of additional observation on the patient, and if needs be, forcible restraint.

But on what basis do you believe this would happen?
Is it common practice for hospitals in Ireland to forcibly detain patients who present with suicide ideation? Can you point to a policy document that outlines the practice.
Is there even legislation that gives them this power of detention under these specific circumstances?

conorh91

SW wrote: »

If the woman wasn't free to leave the hospital, then she is essentially "locked up".

Aren't a lot of psychiatric in-patients admitted voluntarily? I see no mention of involuntary admission, let alone being "locked up" which as I said is unhelpful and emotive language in respect of any psychiatric in-patient.

The reason the woman was on hunger striking was because of the hospital's prior refusal to accede to a termination of the woman's pregnancy,not because she wanted to be free of any clinical treatments.

There is no reason to believe she objected to being present in the hospital—she was keen to engage the clinical services of the health authorities, after all.

Delirium

Phoebas wrote: »

But on what basis do you believe this would happen?

In other countries, a person will be admitted to hospital and not free to go until a doctor is satisfied they are no longer a threat to themselves.

Is it common practice for hospitals in Ireland to forcibly detain patients who present with suicide ideation? Can you point to a policy document that outlines the practice.
Is there even legislation that gives them this power of detention under these specific circumstances?

Currently searching for information.

Delirium

conorh91 wrote: »

Aren't a lot of psychiatric in-patients admitted voluntarily? I see no mention of involuntary admission, let alone being "locked up" which as I said is unhelpful and emotive language in respect of any psychiatric in-patient.

The reason the woman was on hunger striking was because of the hospital's prior refusal to accede to a termination of the woman's pregnancy,not because she wanted to be free of any clinical treatments.

There is no reason to believe she objected to being present in the hospital—she was keen to engage the clinical services of the health authorities, after all.

She probably admitted herself. But I would hope that doctors are able to stop her signing herself out once it's established she is suicidal.

Czarcasm

miss no stars wrote: »

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...

This woman didn't ask just for a termination of her pregnancy, she asked for an abortion. She was forced to have a cesarean section instead, meaning that these medical professionals decided the right to life of the unborn, was more important than the welfare of a woman who was already suicidal and willing to starve herself to death before she would be forced to give birth.

I would have to wonder just how unbiased were these medical professionals that they went ahead with their decision and put the mother's life in grave danger for the sake of the unborn child she was carrying within her womb.

This case has all the hallmarks of tactics used by CPC's in the US.

0O0

A distressed* pregnant woman is a HUGE health risk to both mum & foetus.

Dr's have voiced this concern over & over & we still have women buying extremely unsafe abortion pills online etc.

Religion is fücked up & our govn is weak for using it as an excuse to pacify the bigots - the ones who pick & choose what to follow from the bible.


* actual, mental severe stress not the usual worry etc.

Phoebas

SW wrote: »

Currently searching for information.

I've no doubt that there are circumstances that patients can be committed (probably the Mental Health Act) and I don't doubt that you'll turn up some cases where people have been committed in the past.
But aren't you now searching for evidence that backs up a position that you already held without the evidence and aren't you then going to present evidence that she might have been prevented from leaving the hospital to back up an assertion you made that she couldn't leave the hospital?

Delirium

Phoebas wrote: »

I've no doubt that there are circumstances that patients can be committed (probably the Mental Health Act) and I don't doubt that you'll turn up some cases where people have been committed in the past.
But aren't you now searching for evidence that backs up a position that you already held without the evidence and aren't you then going to present evidence that she might have been prevented from leaving the hospital to back up an assertion you made that she couldn't leave the hospital?

I'm searching to see if Ireland has the same policies regarding suicide as other countries.

I was presuming that the doctors would act in the best interests of the patient rather than let her out of the hospital to kill herself. It's not an unreasonable assumption to make.

ProfessorPlum

Czarcasm wrote: »

This woman didn't ask just for a termination of her pregnancy, she asked for an abortion. She was forced to have a cesarean section instead, meaning that these medical professionals decided the right to life of the unborn, was more important than the welfare of a woman who was already suicidal and willing to starve herself to death before she would be forced to give birth.

I would have to wonder just how unbiased were these medical professionals that they went ahead with their decision and put the mother's life in grave danger for the sake of the unborn child she was carrying within her womb.

This case has all the hallmarks of tactics used by CPC's in the US.

This woman may have asked for an abortion, but as the foetus was viable, that is not an option under our current legislation / constitution. The only option to terminate the pregnancy (which was what she was entitled to) was to make every reasonable effort to deliver a live baby. The personal opinion of the treating medical team is neither here nor there in this case.

conorh91

SW wrote: »

She probably admitted herself. But I would hope that doctors are able to stop her signing herself out once it's established she is suicidal.

You're probably more optimistic about psychiatric care in Ireland than I, but I take your point.

I am countering the statement, admittedly made by another poster, which implied that this woman was "locked up", with the further implication that she was being locked up purely with the intention of getting a baby out of her, or something mediaeval like that.

Phoebas

SW wrote: »

I'm searching to see if Ireland has the same policies regarding suicide as other countries.

I was presuming that the doctors would act in the best interests of the patient rather than let her out of the hospital to kill herself. It's not an unreasonable assumption to make.

So no evidence that this woman was 'locked up'.

That was the assertion that you were supporting earlier - downgraded massively now.

RDM_83 again

Czarcasm wrote: »

This woman didn't ask just for a termination of her pregnancy, she asked for an abortion. She was forced to have a cesarean section instead,

Thats an interesting viewpoint your putting forwards here, from what I can gather your view is that a woman has the right to end fetal life, not just the right to end the pregnancy?
Can you explain why this is the case because I am having trouble getting my head around why the right to end viable fetal life when the pregnancy can be halted is something that should be regarded as a right?
Even taking into account the fetus/baby issue, if the umbilical cord is severed at some point during the operation the entity would instantly then be regarded as a human being.
I'm surprised at the outrage around this, as I said earlier (depending on dates) in most European countries the outcome would have been similar.

Delirium

conorh91 wrote: »

You're probably more optimistic about psychiatric care in Ireland than I, but I take your point.

Quite possibly. It might be an unfortunate reality that suicidal people are released from hospital even when doctors consider them a danger to themselves.

I am countering the statement, admittedly made by another poster, which implied that this woman was "locked up", with the further implication that she was being locked up purely with the intention of getting a baby out of her, or something mediaeval like that.

It would be the only alternative I could see available to the doctors working with the presumption that they were keeping in the hospital on suicidewatch.

Delirium

Phoebas wrote: »

So no evidence that this woman was 'locked up'.

That was the assertion that you were supporting earlier - downgraded massively now.

No evidence yet. It's not exactly easy to find national hospital policy for dealing with suicidal patients.

And just to be clear, you're suggesting that the doctors were willing to let a suicidal pregnant woman leave the hospital. That they were not keeping her in the hospital for her the safety of herself and the foetus?

the_syco

Phoebas wrote: »

Is there even legislation that gives them this power of detention under these specific circumstances?

I'm pretty sure that a certification for involuntary detention under the Mental Health Act only requires two doctors; a GP and a Consultant Psychiatrist? And since three doctors are already in the deciding should the woman be given an abortion or not, I'd say it'd be possible that two of the three doctors thought it'd be in her best interests not to allow her to leave.

Molester Stallone II

mrsbyrne wrote: »

When I started this thread the most up to date info eas that she wasn't suicidal. Check the link I posted. It's even more disturbing that the babies life was only spared because an obstetric couldnt kill it.

I think perhaps you should wait until tomorrow, more news will become available in the a.m. and you may have to shift position again

Delirium

(via Twitter) Sunday Times page 1 News: Pregnant rape victim believes state denied her abortion, until foetus became viable.

Czarcasm

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

This woman may have asked for an abortion, but as the foetus was viable, that is not an option under our current legislation / constitution. The only option to terminate the pregnancy (which was what she was entitled to) was to make every reasonable effort to deliver a live baby. The personal opinion of the treating medical team is neither here nor there in this case.

What's actually here nor there is the viability of the unborn baby once there is a risk to the life of the mother by suicide. The decision was taken to deliver the baby despite the fact that current legislation allows for abortion once certain conditions are met. In this case the conditions were met, but doctors decided to force the woman to proceed with the pregnancy and give birth against her wishes by performing a cesarean section -

The woman became deeply distressed after the refusal and the baby was delivered by caesarean.

The suicide clause of the law – section 9 of the act – was one of the most contentious parts of the legislation.

Due to the 1992 X case, there is no time limit in the 2013 act as to when a pregnancy can be brought to an end.

But there is no obstacle in the act to prevent doctors from delivering a baby where the pregnancy is viable.

There may be no obstacle in the act to prevent doctors from delivering a baby where the pregnancy is viable, but in order to do this, they must disregard the wishes of the woman who does not want to give birth.

That is why I would question the objectivity of the medical team that chose to ignore the risk of suicide of the mother in favour of forcing her to give birth to a baby when what she actually wanted was an abortion. That is why I compared it to the CPC tactics in the US - because time is of the utmost importance in these cases, and delaying tactics can be used to delay an abortion.

Phoebas

SW wrote: »

No evidence yet.

Then why did you support an assertion that this woman was locked up based on 'no evidence yet'?

SW wrote: »

And just to be clear, you're suggesting that the doctors were willing to let a suicidal pregnant woman leave the hospital. That they were not keeping her in the hospital for her the safety of herself and the foetus?

I'm only suggesting that there is no evidence that this woman was 'locked up'.

the_syco wrote: »

I'm pretty sure that a certification for involuntary detention under the Mental Health Act only requires two doctors; a GP and a Consultant Psychiatrist? And since three doctors are already in the deciding should the woman be given an abortion or not, I'd say it'd be possible that two of the three doctors thought it'd be in her best interests not to allow her to leave.

I've no doubt that its possible for a suicidal person to be detained under the Mental Health Act. But with over 500 actual suicides every year in Ireland - god knows how many people with suicidal ideation - I'd be pretty confident that it isn't a policy to detain every person presenting to the HSE with suicidal ideation.
So, while its possible, there isn't any evidence that that decision was made about this woman.

Delirium

Phoebas wrote: »

Then why did you support an assertion that this woman was locked up based on 'no evidence yet'?

Based on policy in other countries. I presumed Ireland would also take the threat of suicide seriously.

I'm only suggesting that there is no evidence that this woman was 'locked up'.

There's circumstantial evidence that she was in that she admitted to hospital, was diagnosed suicidal, denied an abortion and went on hungerstrike.

Stheno

Phoebas wrote: »

I'm only suggesting that there is no evidence that this woman was 'locked up'.
So, while its possible, there isn't any evidence that that decision was made about this woman.

What about the fact that the HSE went to court firstly to seek an order allowing them to force the woman be hydrating, and secondly to present a plan for the c-section?

They would need to have her under their care for that surely?

bumper234

SW wrote: »

(via Twitter) Sunday Times page 1 News: Pregnant rape victim believes state denied her abortion, until foetus became viable.

Shocking if true.

Phoebas

Stheno wrote: »

What about the fact that the HSE went to court firstly to seek an order allowing them to force the woman be hydrating, and secondly to present a plan for the c-section?

They would need to have her under their care for that surely?

Of course she was under their care - she went to them. That doesn't mean she was 'locked up' by them.