woman refused abortion - Mod Note in first post.

hotmail.com

Barbaric freaks in this country that forced the woman to have the child.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

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?

It shouldn't matter, but if she was denied an abortion despite being suicidal and kept against her wishes under the care of the HSE until it was viable to perform a C-section then her being a rape victim levels the situation up from very disturbing to horrifying.

P_1

Stheno wrote: »

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

I have to say fair play to that doctor. I'd imagine quite a lot of doctors in Ireland would be wary of offering such advise considering the legal state of limbo and the potential risk to their careers by doing so.

Stheno

Phoebas wrote: »

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

They were going to seek approval for a "care plan"

That was stopped once she agreed to a c-section

Ergo, they needed approval to proceed, but didn't need to get it once she agreed to a c-section.

How can you read it any other way? Her agreeing to the c-section meant court approval for the HSE care plan was not required.

Now, is it a case that you are finding it hard to believe that this could even be a possibility?

I can easily see the argument:

"Your Honor, x has been assessed as having suicidal ideation, and wants an abortion, but the foetus is viable and the professional panel assessing her have advised a c-section will fulfill the requirements of the law. We would like to seek approval to proceed against X's wishes to perform the procedure and remove the risk to her life due to the continuation of the pregnancy, and her suicidal ideation as a result"

hotmail.com

P_1 wrote: »

I have to say fair play to that doctor. I'd imagine quite a lot of doctors in Ireland would be wary of offering such advise considering the legal state of limbo and the potential risk to their careers by doing so.

aren't they legally allowed to provide information?

ProfessorPlum

Czarcasm wrote: »

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.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, what you seem to have missed is that a woman carrying a foetus which is at or past the stage of independant viability cannot elect to have an abortion. It's that simple.

Phoebas

Stheno wrote: »

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.

She placed herself under the care of the HSE when she voluntarily presented to them. There isn't any suggestion that she was being detained by the HSE or being any way held against her will. Being under the care of the HSE doesn't give you the right to get whatever treatment you demand, but it does place a burden of care on the HSE e.g. they can't just eject you if you don't like the services on offer.

But there is nothing to suggest that she couldn't have just walked out the door. At this point of course its possible that the HSE might have taken an action to commit her for her own good, but we'd be gone way down the 'might have happened' road now.

Stheno

P_1 wrote: »

I have to say fair play to that doctor. I'd imagine quite a lot of doctors in Ireland would be wary of offering such advise considering the legal state of limbo and the potential risk to their careers by doing so.

I'm fairly certain it was a case of "your baby is brain dead, and we can do nothing about it, your only option is the UK" and that they got advice from one of the many organisations here who provide it.

Sorry should have been clearer in my post. It only added to the ordeal.

takamichinoku

Stheno wrote: »

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.

[....]

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

The idea that there are people who think it should be banned for cases like that depresses the hell out of me, let alone the fact that there's actual laws in my country banning it.
Assume that option costs an absolute fortune for Irish people to avail of too, can anyone find any figures for that?



Can anyone link me to some articles from the last few hours with these additional bits of info I'm seeing here? If it's as bad as it sounds like it is, I'm... I've no clue, that possibility has been disturbing the hell out of me since I read about this last night and have been basically dismissing it because it sounds too awful to me.

Phoebas

Stheno wrote: »

They were going to seek approval for a "care plan"

That was stopped once she agreed to a c-section

Ergo, they needed approval to proceed, but didn't need to get it once she agreed to a c-section.

How can you read it any other way? Her agreeing to the c-section meant court approval for the HSE care plan was not required.

Now, is it a case that you are finding it hard to believe that this could even be a possibility?

I can easily see the argument:

"Your Honor, x has been assessed as having suicidal ideation, and wants an abortion, but the foetus is viable and the professional panel assessing her have advised a c-section will fulfill the requirements of the law. We would like to seek approval to proceed against X's wishes to perform the procedure and remove the risk to her life due to the continuation of the pregnancy, and her suicidal ideation as a result"

I can easily see the Judge's response:

"Get out of my court. As she doesn't satisfy the requirements for an abortion, don't give her one. She is free to choose an available service - you are not free to foist a service that she doesn't want upon her "


Seriously folks - lets get a bit real here.

Stheno

Phoebas wrote: »

I can easily see the Judge's response:

"Get out of my court. As she doesn't satisfy the requirements for an abortion, don't give her one. She is free to choose an available service - you are not free to foist a service that she doesn't want upon her "


Seriously folks - lets get a bit real here.

Can you seriously not imagine the judge (who potentially granted the order to forcibly hydrate the woman on hunger strike) granting an order to schedule the c-section?

Have you never read of the orders granted forcing blood transfusions for Jehovah Children, forced feeding for anorexics, etc?

It does genuinely happen here. All done on the basis of saving life, just like this case.

Nodin

Phoebas wrote: »

.............


Seriously folks - lets get a bit real here.

If the Sunday Times story relates to this woman I'd imagine things will indeed get real quite soon.

efb

Nodin wrote: »

If the Sunday Times story relates to this woman I'd imagine things will indeed get real quite soon.

Its the same case

ProfessorPlum

Stheno wrote: »

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

Unfortunately, our legislation, reflecting 40.3.3 of the constitution, has no relevance in cases of fatal foetal defects. There is no availability of abortion in this country in these circumstances. To our great shame.

Phoebas

Nodin wrote: »

If the Sunday Times story relates to this woman I'd imagine things will indeed get real quite soon.

The Sunday Times are saying nothing about a forced c-section.

LETHAL LADY

Stheno wrote: »

I'm fairly certain it was a case of "your baby is brain dead, and we can do nothing about it, your only option is the UK" and that they got advice from one of the many organisations here who provide it.

Sorry should have been clearer in my post. It only added to the ordeal.

I presume because there was a foetal heartbeat they wouldn't abort? I've a family member who had a non-viable pregnancy and the same option was given to her. I think this practice of forcing women to travel abroad when there is no chance survival for the baby is barbaric to say the least.

Stheno

Phoebas wrote: »

I can easily see the Judge's response:

"Get out of my court. As she doesn't satisfy the requirements for an abortion, don't give her one. She is free to choose an available service - you are not free to foist a service that she doesn't want upon her "


Seriously folks - lets get a bit real here.

I just looked this up for you

Forcefeeing of an anorexic and orders committing her to hospital This one was a woman who was involuntarily detained by order and force fed, and her progess reported to the court.

Court orders blood transfusion of Jehovahs witness child over parents objections

HSE seek order not to rescusitate child despite parents objections

So involuntary commitment, and court ordered treatment do happen here against patient/parent objections in lots of circumstances

Nodin

Phoebas wrote: »

The Sunday Times are saying nothing about a forced c-section.

What did I say?

"If the Sunday Times story relates to this woman I'd imagine things will indeed get real quite soon. "

There's nothing in the snippet to indicate one way or the other.

Stheno

LETHAL LADY wrote: »

I presume because there was a foetal heartbeat they wouldn't abort? I've a family member who had a non-viable pregnancy and the same option was given to her. I think this practice of forcing women to travel abroad when there is no chance survival for the baby is barbaric to say the least.

That was it exactly, the child was brain dead, but had a heart beat

Nodin

efb wrote: »

Its the same case

Might I inquire as to how you know this?

Czarcasm

conorh91 wrote: »

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:


Well, that rules out an abortion.

Best quote the full context of that section -

Destruction of unborn human life

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

(2) A person who is guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on indictment to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years, or both.

(3) A prosecution for an offence under this section may be brought only by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Offence by body corporate

23. (1) Where an offence under this Act is committed by a body corporate and it is proved that the offence was committed with the consent or connivance, or was attributable to any wilful neglect, of a person who was a director, manager, secretary or other officer of the body corporate, or a person purporting to act in that capacity, that person, as well as the body corporate, shall be guilty of an offence and may be proceeded against and punished as if he or she were guilty of the first-mentioned offence.

(2) Where the affairs of a body corporate are managed by its members, subsection (1) applies in relation to the acts and defaults of a member in connection with his or her functions of management as if he or she were a director or manager of the body corporate.

This section was included to prevent unapproved institutions from performing these medical procedures. The Appropriate Institutions are mentioned in the Schedule.

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.

The 2013 Act doesn't do that. The 8th Amendment is what you're talking about -

3° The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.

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.

That right there is indeed the point of contention, as it has been throughout, whenever cases like this arise. The problem though, as has been pointed out many times already, is that some doctors on the panel do not possess the professional clinical skills to make that determination -

Some clinicians, including one of the Irish Republic's leading psychiatrists, said the rules would leave women "at the mercy of a local, moral and political lottery". Veronica O'Keane, professor of psychiatry at Trinity College Dublin, said a woman could potentially have to see up to seven medical experts before getting a decision on her right to an abortion.

The United Nations Human Rights Committee, which has also been shown the document, has described the guidance on dealing with women contemplating suicide as "an excessive degree of scrutiny by medical professionals".

The guidelines were drawn up after the Irish government introduced legislation last year to allow for abortion in extremely limited circumstances. The law followed the death of Savita Halappanavar, 31, who was denied an emergency termination that could have saved her life.

Pro-choice campaigners are concerned that conservative attitudes among health professionals will put more women's lives at risk. More than 100 Irish psychiatrists – nearly one in three in the country – signed a statement last year opposing any kind of abortion reform, including those cases of women at risk of suicide.

The 108-page guide does not include provisions for an independent committee to make decisions on treating those with "suicidal intent", which was a key demand among campaigners for reform. They argue an independent committee would be more objective than local medics and allow women more privacy.

Pro-choice doctors are also concerned that the language in the first few pages of the guidelines is more stridently anti-abortion than last year's law. In its introduction, the document states that "the purpose of this act is to restate the general prohibition on abortion in Ireland". Medical professionals are also advised on the first page that the act provides "a clear criminal prohibition on abortion".

On page 10, a diagram explaining the procedure for applying for a termination makes clear to Irish doctors that the initial referral for women including those with "suicidal intent" begins with her own GP.

If the GP agrees, he or she will refer the woman to three doctors – including one obstetrician and two psychiatrists – who will decide whether there is a real risk to the woman's life through suicide. If her request is rejected, she will go through an appeal system involving another two psychiatrists and another obstetrician.

The guidance states that the first psychiatrist to assess the woman has the right to "seek a second psychiatric assessment" or appoint a psychiatrist of their own choice. Critics say this will allow anti-abortion psychiatrists to recommend a colleague sharing the same views.

On the same page it advises that any of three medical experts, including an obstetrician, can assess a woman with suicidal intent and certify whether or not the woman should be allowed an abortion – although obstetricians have no mental health training.

O'Keane, a consultant psychiatrist for more than 21 years, said because there was no national body to rule on these cases vulnerable women were left "at the mercy of a local, moral and political lottery. They could come up against anti-choice physicians who in effect become conscientious obstructors to abortion."

She added: "The repeated examination of a woman's mental state by at least four doctors, and possibly seven, the repeated questioning specifically about suicidal ideation and intent, will not only be overly invasive, confusing and distressing emotionally, it will also be time-consuming in a period of crisis when a suicidal woman needs access to a termination as soon as possible."

She called the guidelines "completely inappropriate". "I would have preferred a national review panel to make these decisions because Ireland is a small country," she said. "It would have been better in terms of privacy and access to mental health professionals who are committed to enacting the spirit of the legislation. We have a very strong anti-choice lobby in psychiatry and there should have been procedures put in place to allow women to bypass them and their moral, political, theocratic obstacles."

O'Keane pointed out that the section called "Risk to life from Suicidal Intent" means pregnant women have to state explicitly that they are going to kill themselves before being considered for a termination.

"This is very bad practice because if psychiatrists are practising within these guidelines then that will be the stipulation, that the woman in question must state that. Yet in the majority of cases of suicide that psychiatrists deal with there is no stated intention of killing themselves.

"The terms of reference are too narrow and dangerous, and we in Ireland have very high rates of suicide and even a government drive to reduce suicide numbers. In these guidelines, what we are actually doing is saying to Irish women, 'You have to actually tell us that you're going to kill yourself or you won't get that abortion.' It is completely contrary to good psychiatric practice."

Source: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/07/pregnant-women-ireland-abortion-ban-suicide?view=classic

Phoebas

Stheno wrote: »

Can you seriously not imagine the judge (who potentially granted the order to forcibly hydrate the woman on hunger strike) granting an order to schedule the c-section?

Have you never read of the orders granted forcing blood transfusions for Jehovah Children, forced feeding for anorexics, etc?

It does genuinely happen here. All done on the basis of saving life, just like this case.

I personally can't see it and I think the comparisons with forced c-sections and forced transfusions for minors aren't really tenable.

All of this of course is 'what ifs'. The fact is that the woman in this case wasn't forced to have a c-section - she agreed to one. Nor was any court asked to force her to have a c-section. Nor do we know of any plan to ask a court to force her to have a c-section.

Let's try to stick somewhere around what we actually know.

strandroad

Nodin wrote: »

Might I inquire as to how you know this?

ST were tweeting that they are going to expand on this week's story as they found the reporting inaccurate

Stheno

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Unfortunately, our legislation, reflecting 40.3.3 of the constitution, has no relevance in cases of fatal foetal defects. There is no availability of abortion in this country in these circumstances. To our great shame.

What added to the distress in this case, is this was a much wanted child, a first grandchild, very looked forward to. Having to go through what they did was horrendous, having to deal with the grief of the loss, while making arrangements to travel etc.

efb

Nodin wrote: »

Might I inquire as to how you know this?

https://twitter.com/mktighe/status/500648134390059008

strandroad

Phoebas wrote: »

The fact is that the woman in this case wasn't forced to have a c-section - she agreed to one.

"You can have a c-section or we will force feed you until you deliver, your choice"

Stheno

Phoebas wrote: »

Let's try to stick somewhere around what we actually know.

There are too many unanswered questions at the moment, but I'm comforted by your post earlier, that if it is the case that she was involuntarily committed/denied her freedom/prevented from leaving the care of the HSE you'll be actively campaigning against it.

Or would it just be in the case of her being tied down? Not enough to restrict her movements/force her to be under the care of the HSE?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91762537&postcount=436

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.

Phoebas

Nodin wrote: »

What did I say?

"If the Sunday Times story relates to this woman I'd imagine things will indeed get real quite soon. "

There's nothing in the snippet to indicate one way or the other.

I only know what you know. The ST story (the one where the tweet was referenced earlier on this thread) looks to be the same story that is being discussed in this thread.

That story mentions a rape (not referenced elsewhere) but doesn't reference a possibility of a forced CS (speculated on in this thread).
We are in danger of the known facts and the reporting and the speculation all being mixed up in one big mess.

conorh91

Czarcasm wrote: »

This section was included to prevent unapproved institutions from performing these medical procedures.

The intention of the Oireachtas in enacting this legislation is not immediately relevant. The point is that s.22(1) carries full effect in respect of all procedures, carried out in the Republic of Ireland, whereby pregnancies are terminated for reasons set out in s.7, s.8 or s.9 of the Act.

conorh91 wrote:

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.

The 2013 Act doesn't do that. The 8th Amendment is what you're talking about -

No. You are wrong. The Act does create the above obligation.

Read s.9(1)(a)(ii)

(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,

The underlined part is the part from which i have drawn my wording, also having regard to s.22(1) as stated.

The problem though, as has been pointed out many times already, is that some doctors on the panel do not possess the professional clinical skills to make that determination -

Who are you to say that the medics in question to not possess the requisite competence?

Phoebas

mhge wrote: »

"You can have a c-section or we will force feed you until you deliver, your choice"

Is that a direct quote?

Here's one I made up:
"You don't qualify for an abortion under the legislation. We can offer a c-section or we can provide other prenatal care for you. Or you are free to leave"