woman refused abortion - Mod Note in first post.

lazygal

bumper234 wrote: »

Shocking if true.

I'm not even slightly shocked. I fully expected the "system" put in place to change nothing about abortion in Ireland and force women to avoid the Irish hooha and go abroad. This will only be solved or addressed when someone dies because she wasn't able to travel for financial or other reasons.

Phoebas

SW wrote: »

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

Rape victim - that's a new dimension.

Stheno

Phoebas wrote: »

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

I'd be of the opinion that she was prevented from leaving the hospital, probably under involuntary committal tbh, hard to see how else the HSE could keep her there in a distressed state/on hunger strike/subject to court mandated orders.

conorh91

Czarcasm wrote: »

...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 -

You have this completely arseways czarcasm.

1. The Act does not allow for abortion. The Act allows for terminations where saving the life of the foetus shall be pursued
2. The Act recognizes that sometimes saving the foetus/child's life will be unsuccessful,despite the best efforts of the medical team.
3. In this case, (1) and (2) did not initially arise, since the mother did not meed the criteria of there being an unavoidable, substantial risk to the mother's life
4. When, subsequently, circumstances did change, and a substantial, unavoidable risk to the mother's health was detected, at that stage, a termination was offered.

This would be a full-blown, legitimate scandal if the mother's life was in unavoidable and substantial danger, and she was not offered a termination.

That didn't happen.

The law works as intended.

Lets be happy about that.

Turtwig

While people may not always behave logically one could expect someone who is on a hunger strike to actually try leave the hospital if they were talking about force feeding her. If she couldn't leave or refuse treatment then she was effectively confined to the authority of the hospital. 'Locked up' may be emotional but it is somewhat reflective of the loss of autonomy you'd expect.

Delirium

Phoebas wrote: »

Rape victim - that's a new dimension.

yep. Poor woman didn't have a choice about becoming pregnant, nor the choice to terminate the pregnancy

lazygal

Turtwig wrote: »

While people may not always behave logically one could expect someone who is on a hunger strike to actually try leave the hospital if they were talking about force feeding her. If she couldn't leave or refuse treatment then she was effectively confined to the authority of the hospital. 'Locked up' may be emotional but it is somewhat reflective of the loss of autonomy you'd expect.

All women in Ireland lose their autonomy while pregnant. You must remain pregnant under all circumstances, even if you've been raped or your health is at risk or you are carrying a dying foetus. Unless your life is at risk your body is not your own, regardless of whether you wish to remain pregnant.

Czarcasm

RDM_83 again wrote: »

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.

I'm only surprised you can't remember my stance from another thread in a similar vein to this one. I can't quote directly from a locked thread -


http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90379451&postcount=1009

Phoebas

Turtwig wrote: »

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.

Interesting - RTE have since changed this report.

Earlier:

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.

The woman was alleged to have commenced hunger strike on hearing this.

The Health Service Executive sought an order from the High Court preventing the woman from starving herself.

Now:

The woman was assessed by a panel of three experts, It was agreed that she had suicidal thoughts and a decision was made to terminate the pregnancy by caesarean section.

It is believed that the woman wanted to have an abortion and began a hunger strike.

The Health Service Executive sought an order from the High Court to allow it to hydrate her by giving fluids.

The Sunday Times have picked up the story that she was made to wait.

Turtwig

Phoebas wrote: »

Interesting - RTE have since changed this report.

Earlier:

Now:

The Sunday Times have picked up the story that she was made to wait.

They must be reading our exchanges.
:P

Phoebas

Turtwig wrote: »

While people may not always behave logically one could expect someone who is on a hunger strike to actually try leave the hospital if they were talking about force feeding her. If she couldn't leave or refuse treatment then she was effectively confined to the authority of the hospital. 'Locked up' may be emotional but it is somewhat reflective of the loss of autonomy you'd expect.

She was metaphorically 'locked up', not actually 'locked up'. :-)

Everything else was real, right?

Phoebas

Turtwig wrote: »

They must be reading our exchanges.
:P

Social media ftw.

suicide_circus

We are clearly not in full possession of the facts here

qdawg86

Look at the mess we have gotten ourselves into now.

Instead of allowing women to have early abortions, we have ended up with some crack pot legislation where women can potentially look for an abortion late in the 2nd -3rd trimester.

How is this progress ????!!!!

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Phoebas wrote: »

She was metaphorically 'locked up', not actually 'locked up'. :-)

Everything else was real, right?

You're a wee bit hung up on the exact phrase "locked up", which was a poor and emotive choice of words (and that's been conceded) rather than any major misrepresentation of what can be inferred from the facts we have so far. From what we can gather the woman was pregnant and suicidal, under the care of the HSE (as in legally not under her own care or that of her next of kin), and being force fed. There may not have been a literal lock on the door, but common sense surely indicates that if she could have left, she would have.

Really, really hope it's not true that she was a rape victim, but can't say I'd be the least surprised.

lazygal

I've had two c sections. It's pretty major surgery and carries some serious risks, including for future pregnancies and deliveries. I had to sign consent forms both times and I was happy to do so as there was no safe way to deliver vaginally. I wonder how the consent to a c section was handled. Did she refuse to sign those forms? Did she have the risks outlined to her? Was she forced into theatre? Did she have to have a general anesthetic or did she have any one with her while she went through the surgery?

qdawg86

lazygal wrote: »

All women in Ireland lose their autonomy while pregnant. You must remain pregnant under all circumstances, even if you've been raped or your health is at risk or you are carrying a dying foetus. Unless your life is at risk your body is not your own, regardless of whether you wish to remain pregnant.

That post disgusts me.

lazygal

qdawg86 wrote: »

That post disgusts me.

Why? It's the truth.

Stheno

lazygal wrote: »

I've had two c sections. It's pretty major surgery and carries some serious risks, including for future pregnancies and deliveries. I had to sign consent forms both times and I was happy to do so as there was no safe way to deliver vaginally. I wonder how the consent to a c section was handled. Did she refuse to sign those forms? Did she have the risks outlined to her? Was she forced into theatre? Did she have to have a general anesthetic or did she have any one with her while she went through the surgery?

The newspaper article in the indo does say she agreed to the c section, which to me implies consent on her part.

While it may have been under severe duress I imagine it would still count as consent

Czarcasm

conorh91 wrote: »

You have this completely arseways czarcasm.

1. The Act does not allow for abortion. The Act allows for terminations where saving the life of the foetus shall be pursued
2. The Act recognizes that sometimes saving the foetus/child's life will be unsuccessful,despite the best efforts of the medical team.
3. In this case, (1) and (2) did not initially arise, since the mother did not meed the criteria of there being an unavoidable, substantial risk to the mother's health
4. When, subsequently, circumstances change and a substantial, unavoidable risk to the mother's health was detected, at that stage a termination was offered.

I think you're making this up as you go along tbh. Nowhere in the Act is the word "termination" mentioned (and I double checked this just now, by doing a search for the word "termination", and all that came up was that it was part of the word "determination").

The Act specifically allows for -

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—

That particular phrase is mentioned three times.


I don't know where you're getting 1. and 2. above from, but in the case of 3., I would say a woman starving herself and at risk of suicide would present a substantial risk to her health that would meet the criteria set down in section 9 of the act.

As for 4. - The substantial risk was already present. Doctors ignored it, and convinced the woman to have a cesarian section when the baby could be viable.

This would be a full-blown, legitimate scandal if the mother's life was in unavoidable and substantial danger, and she was not offered a termination.

That didn't happen.

That's exactly what happened here, and that's why this IS making the rounds in the media. The Government will happily ignore it though.

The law works as intended.

Indeed it does. It gives medical professionals with a certain bias the ability to delay a termination of a pregnancy until the baby becomes viable, forcing her to give birth against her will.

Lets be happy about that.

I'm not so sure the woman in this case is too happy about being forced to give birth against her will.

mrsbyrne

SW wrote: »

yep. Poor woman didn't have a choice about becoming pregnant, nor the choice to terminate the pregnancy

But the pregnancy was terminated.By the C Section.

Phoebas

Gustavo CoolS Quote wrote: »

You're a wee bit hung up on the exact phrase "locked up", which was a poor and emotive choice of words (and that's been conceded) rather than any major misrepresentation of what can be inferred from the facts we have so far. From what we can gather the woman was pregnant and suicidal, under the care of the HSE (as in legally not under her own care or that of her next of kin), and being force fed. There may not have been a literal lock on the door, but common sense surely indicates that if she could have left, she would have.

This debate is full of people - on all sides - who are only too willing to throw out emotive words designed to generate heat rather than light.
I'm more than happy to pull them up on it.

lazygal

Stheno wrote: »

The newspaper article in the indo does say she agreed to the c section, which to me implies consent on her part.

While it may have been under severe duress I imagine it would still count as consent

I know of many cases where women agreed to things under duress in labour that they regretted later but the attitude is that getting the baby out is the priority and the woman has no grounds for complaint if she and the baby are healthy. The maternity services in Ireland are as hit and miss as many other health services.

hotmail.com

The issue is forcing a woman to do something she doesn't want to do.

qdawg86

lazygal wrote: »

Why? It's the truth.

It's actually not true.....it's your opinion.

You mean to say that you can't tell your own opinion from fact ? How arrogant.

Your post DISGUSTED ME !!!

Who do you think you are ?? You do not have the right to make claims about MY BODY.

And thankfully, you never will

Phoebas

lazygal wrote: »

I've had two c sections. It's pretty major surgery and carries some serious risks, including for future pregnancies and deliveries. I had to sign consent forms both times and I was happy to do so as there was no safe way to deliver vaginally. I wonder how the consent to a c section was handled. Did she refuse to sign those forms? Did she have the risks outlined to her? Was she forced into theatre? Did she have to have a general anesthetic or did she have any one with her while she went through the surgery?

Would there be any reason to presume that the normal procedures for any woman who has a caesarian wouldn't be followed in this case?

ProfessorPlum

Czarcasm wrote: »

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 -




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.

I'm afraid you're wrong there - the viability certainly does impact on how the pregnancy is terminated. You don't have to like it, but that's the law as it stands. The wishes of the woman have no standing in law, just a real and substantial risk to her life.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Phoebas wrote: »

This debate is full of people - on all sides - who are only too willing to throw out emotive words designed to generate heat rather than light.
I'm more than happy to pull them up on it.

Aye but the fact that it was a poor choice of words was acknowledged and you continued to debate it. Reading your posts it comes across like you're arguing that she was free to leave. That's possibly true, but it's by a far sight the less likely scenario.

Delirium

mrsbyrne wrote: »

But the pregnancy was terminated.By the C Section.

She didn't request a c-section. And there's now talk of the termination being withheld until the foetus was viable. Will have to see what is reported in the papers in the morning.

lazygal

Phoebas wrote: »

Would there be any reason to presume that the normal procedures for any woman who has a caesarian wouldn't be followed in this case?

I'm wondering what happens if a woman refuses to sign the consent forms for the surgery.