woman refused abortion - Mod Note in first post.

lazygal

qdawg86 wrote: »

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

I do not understand your point.
A pregnant woman in Ireland must remain pregnant, no matter what the circumstances of conception, the risks to her health or the viability of the foetus, unless her life is at risk. That is the law. It disgusts me that women must remain pregnant, regardless of their wishes.

Stheno

lazygal wrote: »

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.

I don't disagree with you, my interpretation of what happened here given that it has been reported that the HSE went to court with a second plan to "terminate" the pregnancy via c-section prior to the woman agreeing to the c-section, is that the woman was in the unfortunate position of being forced to having treatment to keep her hydrated, was probably told the HSE would go to court to get court approval to perform the c-section, and under that level of duress agreed to the procedure.

Essentially a case of "the panel have said the baby is viable, and we can force the issue via a court order" resulting in her agreeing.

Given the reporting is vague on this, if it was a case of this happening over the space of a week or two, I'd be torn on this, and think it probably was the best option to deliver given viability. If however the patient presented at e.g. 17 weeks (roughly halfway through second trimester) and had to wait 6-8 weeks until the baby was viable for the c-section, I'd see this as medics on the non pro choice side, seeing a risk that might occur, that they could mitigate against by having the patient under their/the HSEs care until as long as it took to deliver the baby.

The two main questions for me would be:

1. Exactly how far along in weeks was the patient when she presented first to the panel?
2. Was she involuntarily committed to the HSE on the grounds of mental health care as a result of the panel interview or given any other options?

Phoebas

hotmail.com wrote: »

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

She wasn't forced to do anything - her choices were restricted.

I don't think (hardly) anyone would argue that there should be no restriction whatsoever on the provision of legal abortion services. We might be too restrictive, but there are hardly any other jurisdictions that provide abortion at 25 weeks.

mrsbyrne

lazygal wrote: »

I do not understand your point.
A pregnant woman in Ireland must remain pregnant, no matter what the circumstances of conception, the risks to her health or the viability of the foetus, unless her life is at risk. That is the law. It disgusts me that women must remain pregnant, regardless of their wishes.

Your being completely misunderstood.

Phoebas

lazygal wrote: »

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

They wouldn't have given her the surgery. What else could have happened?

Turtwig

SW wrote: »

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.

And hope those reports are accurate. . .

lazygal

Phoebas wrote: »

She wasn't forced to do anything - her choices were restricted.

I don't think (hardly) anyone would argue that there should be no restriction whatsoever on the provision of legal abortion services. We might be too restrictive, but there are hardly any other jurisdictions that provide abortion at 25 weeks.

In Canada it's between a woman and her doctor, there is no restriction. In the UK late abortion is allowed under certain circumstances, about 1%-2% of abortions take place after 24 weeks.

Delirium

Turtwig wrote: »

And hope those reports are accurate. . .

Of course.

lazygal

Phoebas wrote: »

They wouldn't have given her the surgery. What else could have happened?

She'd be forced to remain pregnant while being hydrated until labour started?

Czarcasm

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

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.

What you seem to be missing time and again -

1. The woman elected for an abortion.

2. A medical panel refused her an abortion on the grounds that while she was suicidal, she should be forced to continue her pregnancy.

3. She decided to starve herself.

4. The HSE obtained permission from the Courts to force fluids feeding.

5. Once the survival of the child was guaranteed, the woman was convinced to have a cesarean section (which in itself would present a real and substantial risk to her life).

6. The baby will most likely be taken into the care of the HSE and the mother will be left to fend for herself.

P_1

If the lady in question was a victim of rape that brings an entirely sinister dimension to this story. Until we know the facts then there's little to be gained from this topic other than a generator of rows.

Stheno

Phoebas wrote: »

They wouldn't have given her the surgery. What else could have happened?

THe HSE were due to go to court to request permission for their "care plan" which most likely included seeking approval for the c-section given that the agreement of the woman to the c-section prevented that second appearance in court, happens regularly in lots of cases, blood transfusions for Jehovah witnesses, most recent case was forced feeding of an anorexic woman. There's also a fairly horrid case of a young child with a terminal illness going through the courts as the HSE do not want to rescusitate the child next time they need it as they feel it is of no benefit to the child, but the parents wish to extend the life of the child for as long as possible

From the indo article

Concerns for the well-­being of her and her baby were heightened. The HSE went to the High Court to get a care order to prevent her from starving herself. A second court date was due for the HSE to set out its care plan.

However, in the intervening period, the woman agreed to have the baby delivered.

lazygal

Do the circumstances of conception matter? If a woman was suicidal because of becoming pregnant because of consensual sex would that be a different kettle of fish?

efb

http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2014/aug/07/pregnant-women-ireland-abortion-ban-suicide-document?CMP=twt_gu

c. the medical practitioners have, in good faith, had regard to the need to preserve
unborn human life where practicable.

Phoebas

lazygal wrote: »

She'd be forced to remain pregnant while being hydrated until labour started?

If there was any inkling that a pregnant woman presenting with suicidal ideation and requesting an abortion would be physically restrained for the remainder of her pregnancy until she gave birth then I'd be actively campaigning against the practice.

I think people are massively jumping the gun here.

efb

Phoebas wrote: »

If there was any inkling that a pregnant woman presenting with suicidal ideation and requesting an abortion would be physically restrained for the remainder of her pregnancy until she gave birth then I'd be actively campaigning against the practice.

I think people are massively jumping the gun here.

Due regard for the life of the child means that could happen

conorh91

Czarcasm wrote: »

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 word abortion isn't mentioned either. If you're basing the description on the exact wording contained in the Act, then you are wrong to use the word "abortion" in terms of such a procedure.

abortion
əˈbɔːʃ(ə)n
noun
the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks.

S.22(1) of the Protection of Life in Pregnancy Act 2013 states:

(1) It shall be an offence to intentionally destroy unborn human life.

Well, that rules out an abortion.

I am using the word "termination", since the Act creates an obligation (there is no choice) to save the life of the unborn foetus as far as is practicable, after that foetus is removed from the womb.

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.

On the limited information that is available, it appears the doctors would agree with you, as indeed would I.

The point of contention is the initial threat of suicide, which doctors using their professional clinical skills adjudged not to pose a real, substantial and unavoidable risk to the life of this extremely misfortunate woman.

Phoebas

lazygal wrote: »

In Canada it's between a woman and her doctor, there is no restriction.

There are.

bumper234

qdawg86 wrote: »

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 ????!!!!

Or on the other side

Rape victims will be forced.to give birth to the child of their attacker.

lazygal

Phoebas wrote: »

If there was any inkling that a pregnant woman presenting with suicidal ideation and requesting an abortion would be physically restrained for the remainder of her pregnancy until she gave birth then I'd be actively campaigning against the practice.

I think people are massively jumping the gun here.

I think it's entirely possible that due to panels deliberating and weeks of gestation being an issue that a woman would be effectively forced to continue to gestate a foetus even if her life is at risk.

Stheno

Phoebas wrote: »

If there was any inkling that a pregnant woman presenting with suicidal ideation and requesting an abortion would be physically restrained for the remainder of her pregnancy until she gave birth then I'd be actively campaigning against the practice.

I'm genuinely struggling to understand how the HSE could have gotten the order they did, unless they had applied to have the woman committed into their care tbh.

Otherwise, why wouldn't she have discharged herself and gone to the UK for an abortion (this is predicated on her being under the 24 week limit during the review/forced hydration period and having the funds to travel)

If it is a case that she was involuntarily committed to the care of the HSE, and not given the option of choosing to travel I would find that disturbing in the extreme.

lazygal

Phoebas wrote: »

There are.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Canada


There are no criminal restrictions. It is between a woman and her doctor.

NuMarvel

Stheno wrote: »

Given the reporting is vague on this, if it was a case of this happening over the space of a week or two, I'd be torn on this, and think it probably was the best option to deliver given viability.

I think even a week or two would be too long. It would be forcing a woman, who has already reportedly undergone the trauma of rape, to continue with a unwanted pregnancy for 7 to 14 more days; a pregnancy that the doctors agree is a threat to her life.

I have to speculate what would happen if the woman's life was at risk as a result of a physical illness instead of suicide. Would the doctors take the same approach and force the woman to continue with a pregnancy that jeopardises her life? Or would they give her the treatment she needed, even if it meant the death of the unborn?

Phoebas

Stheno wrote: »

THe HSE were due to go to court to request permission for their "care plan" which most likely included seeking approval for the c-section given that the agreement of the woman to the c-section prevented that second appearance in court, happens regularly in lots of cases, blood transfusions for Jehovah witnesses, most recent case was forced feeding of an anorexic woman. There's also a fairly horrid case of a young child with a terminal illness going through the courts as the HSE do not want to rescusitate the child next time they need it as they feel it is of no benefit to the child, but the parents wish to extend the life of the child for as long as possible

From the indo article

They were going to seek approval for a forced c-section against her will.
That's a massive claim you're making right there.

takamichinoku

qdawg86 wrote: »

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 ????!!!!

I believe most places where abortion is legalised have exceptions for late term abortions, and there absolutely should be too. It's not crackpot at all when you consider the kind of situations which are involved. Here's the NHS's stance on it It would be shockingly archaic to not have these exceptions imo.
An outright ban on them would lead to some awful situations, women carrying babies for weeks with the knowledge they have no chance of survival and the like, their own lives being put under risk...

efb

https://twitter.com/johnburnsst/status/500746784101371904

P_1

lazygal wrote: »

Do the circumstances of conception matter? If a woman was suicidal because of becoming pregnant because of consensual sex would that be a different kettle of fish?

To be perfectly honest I'd have to think that they would. In my eyes there's a world of difference between a pregnancy that's the result of consensual sex and a pregnancy that's the result of a rape. In the case of consensual sex you would have to assume that the lady would have an understanding that pregnancy was a potential possibility and had the power to proceed with the sex based on that understanding, an ability that is clearly not available if the lady is raped.

Stheno

NuMarvel wrote: »

I think even a week or two would be too long. It would be forcing a woman, who has already reportedly undergone the trauma of rape, to continue with a unwanted pregnancy for 7 to 14 more days; a pregnancy that the doctors agree is a threat to her life.

I have to speculate what would happen if the woman's life was at risk as a result of a physical illness instead of suicide. Would the doctors take the same approach and force the woman to continue with a pregnancy that jeopardises her life? Or would they give her the treatment she needed, even if it meant the death of the unborn?

For your second point, I believe that one of the three cases that went to the ECHR l was such a case, that C was undergoing chemotherapy, went into remission, and received inadequate advice from her gp leaving her no option but to go to the UK for an abortion

C had been undergoing chemotherapy for cancer for 3 years. She had wanted children, but advice from doctor's indicated that a foetus could be harmed during any ongoing chemotherapy. The cancer went into remission and she unintentionally became pregnant. While consulting her general practitioner on the impact of the pregnancy on her health and life and tests for cancer on the foetus, she alleged that she received insufficient information due to the chilling effect of the Irish legal framework. She researched the issues on the internet alone. Because she was unsure about the risks, she decided to go to the UK for an abortion. She could not find a clinic for a medical abortion, since she was a non-resident and the need for a follow up, so she needed to wait a further 8 weeks for a surgical abortion. The abortion was incompletely performed. She suffered prolonged bleeding and infection, and alleged the doctors provided inadequate medical care, and her general practitioner failed to refer to the fact after subsequent visits that she was no longer visibly pregnant.

The case of c was upheld by the ECHR as violation of human rights.

Judgment

The Court held that "Article 8 cannot... be interpreted as conferring a right to abortion".[5] It nevertheless considered that Ireland had violated article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights with regard to the third applicant, C. because it was uncertain and unclear whether she could have access to abortion in a situation where she believed that her pregnancy was life threatening. Rather than information being unavailable, the problem was that there was nowhere C could go to secure a legally authoritative determination of what her rights were in her situation.[6] In this regard it noted the "significant chilling"[7] effect of Irish legislation. All other complaints were dismisse

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/echr-rules-against-ireland-in-abortion-case-485911.html

However the current legislation really doesn't address this as it seeks as far as possible to preserve the life of the foetus, so I'd imagine the same situation exists still.

Stheno

takamichinoku wrote: »

I believe most places where abortion is legalised have exceptions for late term abortions, and there absolutely should be too. It's not crackpot at all when you consider the kind of situations which are involved. Here's the NHS's stance on it It would be shockingly archaic to not have these exceptions imo.
An outright ban on them would lead to some awful situations, women carrying babies for weeks with the knowledge they have no chance of survival and the like, their own lives being put under risk...

I know someone here who went through this, they found out at about 24 weeks that their child was brain dead and were advised (this year) by doctors in a maternity hospital in Ireland, that they could not have an abortion and arrangements were made for them to go to the UK.

There are specialist units in the Uk that deal with this, she had her own room, pre and post procedure counselling, (she was about 28 weeks and had to go through a delivery) and huge support, in terms of arranging a remembrance service etc.

Still not available here this year, despite the legislation, there are a lot of holes in that legislation.

I don't know her directly, rather through a family member, and they were all distraught at what she had to go through.

It was either travel, or wait until she went into labour

Phoebas

lazygal wrote: »

In Canada it's between a woman and her doctor, there is no restriction.

lazygal wrote: »

There are no criminal restrictions. It is between a woman and her doctor.

That's a big difference. Abortion is regulated in Canada on a regional basis.