woman refused abortion - Mod Note in first post.

strandroad

conorh91 wrote: »

Yes, it could.

She was under the care of a hospital, seeking a medical procedure. As long as a patient remains under the care of a clinical team at a hospital, even voluntarily, the hospital has certain duties towards that patient, even if they go against his or her immediate wishes.

The law on medical negligence is too well advanced for that not to have been a consideration.

Do you think it was her choice to stay and be forcefully hydrated, instead of walking out?

Phoebas

mhge wrote: »

Do you think it was her choice to stay and be forcefully hydrated, instead of walking out?

She wasn't forcefully hydrated.

conorh91

mhge wrote: »

Do you think it was her choice to stay and be forcefully hydrated, instead of walking out?

Isn't it impossible to say, by reason of the fact that a re-examination of her case commenced when she began abstaining from fluids and food, and further in light of the fact that a termination was subsequently granted?

I really have no place commenting on that; nor do you.

Czarcasm

conorh91 wrote: »

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.

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

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

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

We've been over this a dozen times already. You'll say I'm wrong, I'll say you're wrong, ad nauseum.

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

I would rather you wouldn't take my word for it actually, which is why I linked to that article in my earlier post. I bolded the bits I thought were most important, but it appears I wasn't selective enough, so here we go again. These are not just MY opinion, these are the opinion of medical professionals -

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 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.

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."

"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."

I hope I don't have to do that again, and that at least this time you might have taken time to read them.

strandroad

conorh91 wrote: »

Isn't it impossible to say, by reason of the fact that a re-examination of her case commenced when she began abstaining from fluids and food, and further in light of the fact that a termination was subsequently granted?

I really have no place commenting on that; nor do you.

And so it can't be claimed that she was free to go, which I'm arguing against.

Stheno

State ‘denied abortion’ to rape victim
Mark Tighe Published: 17 August 2014

Comment (0)
Print

A WOMAN who became pregnant as a result of rape believes the state denied her access to an abortion for months, until the foetus became viable. Earlier this month, the baby was delivered prematurely through a Caesarean section, which was authorised under the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act.

The young woman, a foreign national with limited English, was not able freely to travel abroad for an abortion because of her legal status in Ireland.

She discovered she was expecting about eight weeks into the pregnancy, and immediately sought an abortion because she had been the victim of a traumatic rape. Months later, the woman believed she had been effectively refused an abortion, or the ability to travel abroad for such a procedure, by the state. She then went on a hunger and liquid strike.

From http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/homeV2/article1447800.ece

If this is true, it is horrific, she knew she was pregnant in the first trimester , couldn't travel due to limitations on her visa, and couldn't do anything but wait due to our laws.

Can't imagine the times reporting on it if it's not true.

Jesus, raped and forced by the state to stay pregnant for 16/17 weeks

conorh91

Czarcasm wrote: »

We've been over this a dozen times already. You'll say I'm wrong, I'll say you're wrong, ad nauseum.

Except it isn't just me who says you're wrong.

The plain wording of the Act is at odds with what you are claiming.

Abortion is not legal in Ireland.

S.22(1) could not be any clearer

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

Where a pregnancy is terminated, the medical team must always try to save the life of the unborn foetus/ child as far as is practicable.

This, despite your earlier assertions, which I notice you have now quietened down upon, is plain English, and is to be found in ss.7, 8 and 9 of the Act.

It can not be in dispute.

If abortion is to have the meaning ascribed to it by English dictionaries and common understanding, then Ireland does not permit abortion. Full stop.

Stheno

Phoebas wrote: »

She wasn't forcefully hydrated.

A court order allowing her to be hydrated against her will is not forced hydration?

Are you just trolling now?

That poor, poor woman

Stheno

conorh91 wrote: »

Where a pregnancy is terminated, the medical team must always try to save the life of the unborn foetus/ child as far as is practicable.

.

That to me suggests that where it is not practicable the life of the foetus can be terminated.

The legisation just doesn't go far enough due to our weak government

takamichinoku

Sounds like the Times have got the info from a very solid source, possibly the woman herself? Whole other layer to the problems with the whole depending on England so as to avoid a controversial referendum that I never even thought of before.

What would even have to be involved in getting a visa to leave the country to head to England in a situation like that? Would it involve England having to grant her permission too?

strandroad

Stheno wrote: »

From http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/homeV2/article1447800.ece

If this is true, it is horrific, she knew she was pregnant in the first trimester , couldn't travel due to limitations on her visa, and couldn't do anything but wait due to our laws.

Can't imagine the times reporting on it if it's not true.

Jesus, raped and forced by the state to stay pregnant for 16/17 weeks

I wonder if she'll turn out to be an asylum seeker or similar.
Ireland effectively bans people who are in care from accessing abortions, rape and health risks included.

Czarcasm

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

You seem to have a lot more confirmed details of this case than is in the public domain at present. Nowhere has it been confirmed that there was a delay in order to bring the pregnancy into the 'viable' range. The initial report (from RTE, from memory) that suggested there may have been a delay was revised to the original report as per the Independent - links posted by another poster here. I am loath to comment on an individual case, particularly as there are only very scant details, but your posts on your interpretation of the law on this issue upto this point have been wrong. Quoting the Irish Statue Book, or anywhere else does not make you right.

It's been confirmed now, though the official statement from the HSE (if there is to be one, seeing as they don't comment on individual cases either) will maintain your stance that there was no delay in order to bring the pregnancy into the viable range.

If there was a delay, that maybe an entirely different issue. If, as has been reported, she presented somewhere between 23 and 25 weeks, one could argue that the foetus was viable throughout this timeframe, and so every effort needed to be made to deliver a live infant. If there was no immediate risk of self destruction (woman in a secure environment for example), then it could very well be argued that in order to balance the equal right to life of both woman and child, that a delay in order to give the foetus time to mature (along with meds that can be given prior to delivery to help mature the foetal respiratory system) was the right decision. Without knowing the exact details of this case however, it is purely speculation.

You're right, it IS pure speculation on your part, and as loath as you are to comment on an individual case, particularly as there are only very scant details - you're doing a bang up job of making it up as you go along and reinterpreting legislation to suit your argument. Whatever way we may disagree on our interpretation of the legislation, I at least haven't filled in quite nearly as many blanks as you've attempted to do.

Phoebas

Stheno wrote: »

A court order allowing her to be hydrated against her will is not forced hydration?

Are you just trolling now?

The order wasn't enforced.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

If that article in the times is true, that's absolutely barbaric. I know it wasnt her child's fault but forcing her to carry her rapists child for 5 months? Forcing her to become a mother, god. Shouldn't have to jump through hoops to have choices over your own body.

conorh91

Stheno wrote: »

That to me suggests that where it is not practicable the life of the foetus can be terminated.

Not intentionally.

I accept that the situation, pre-viability, is a little Jesuitical, but a deliberate termination of the life of the foetus, even pre-viability, is not permissible, in accordance with s.22.

It would be marginally interesting to observe whether this affects specific types of procedures which might be carried out in accordance with the Act, but that does not arise in this case where, thankfully, the little boy is healthy and well.

Stheno

takamichinoku wrote: »

Sounds like the Times have got the info from a very solid source, possibly the woman herself? Whole other layer to the problems with the whole depending on England so as to avoid a controversial referendum that I never even thought of before.

What would even have to be involved in getting a visa to leave the country to head to England in a situation like that? Would it involve England having to grant her permission too?

Yes it would.

mhge wrote: »

I wonder if she'll turn out to be an asylum seeker or similar.
Ireland effectively bans people who are in care from accessing abortions, rape and health risks included.

I'd definitely say someone under visa restriction at least.

Shocking, I cannot believe it.

God love that poor woman.

Again if that story is true, imagine knowing you are gone beyond chemical abortion, then low risk abortion, then a delivery.

How the **** did it take from eight weeks to 25 to deal with this.

There are few things that will get me protesting, but if the reporting is true, I'll be at every protest and emailing my TDs

miss no stars

oh my god

Mountainsandh

Clandestine wrote: »

If the abortion law hadn't been so restrictive it wouldn't have gone that far in the first place.

+1 it is barbaric

ProfessorPlum

Czarcasm wrote: »

It's been confirmed now, though the official statement from the HSE (if there is to be one, seeing as they don't comment on individual cases either) will maintain your stance that there was no delay in order to bring the pregnancy into the viable range.




You're right, it IS pure speculation on your part, and as loath as you are to comment on an individual case, particularly as there are only very scant details - you're doing a bang up job of making it up as you go along and reinterpreting legislation to suit your argument. Whatever way we may disagree on our interpretation of the legislation, I at least haven't filled in quite nearly as many blanks as you've attempted to do.

I'm not in the business of 'reinterpreting legislation' - my interpretation is the same as the Medical Council which is the body who give guidance to practitioners in such circumstances. As has need pointed out to you several times, it is your lack of understanding of the law which is at fault.

As I said, if there indeed was a delay (still unconfirmed) it may very well change the right or wrongs of this case. I'm sure the medical council would look very harshly if practitioners did indeed let their own morals interfere with their care of any patient as it is clearly against their guidelines

Conscientious Objection
In regard to the question of conscientious objection, the view of the Medical Council is:
1. Legislation and/or regulations should set out clear criteria for enabling the exercise of an individual’s right to conscientious objection.
The Medical Council’s Guide to Professional Conduct and Ethics for Registered Medical Practitioners states:
10.1 ’As a doctor you must not allow your personal moral standards to influence your treatment of patients’.
10.2 ’If you have a conscientious objection to a course of action, you should explain this to the patient and make the names of other doctors available to them’.
2. The right to conscientious objection must be balanced against the right of the patient – particularly in the case of a medical emergency.
The Medical Council’s Guide to Professional Conduct and Ethics for Registered Medical Practitioners states:
10.3 ’Conscientious objection does not absolve you from responsibility to a patient in emergency circumstances.’

takamichinoku

Does anyone know if I'm allowed to post a screengrab of the full article? I've found one on twitter.

Kiwi in IE

mrsbyrne wrote: »

No. It was refused as she was deemed not suicidal. Of course the baby would have been aborted if she'd been genuinely suicidal. Theres no limit.

As a mental health professional I can tell you it is nearly impossible to accurately assess suicidality. Unfortunately it will probably take a woman or two committing suicide after being inaccurately assessed to bring Ireland's abortion laws in line with the rest of the First World.

conorh91

takamichinoku wrote: »

Does anyone know if I'm allowed to post a screengrab of the full article? I've found one on twitter.

uh probably not, but go on!!

miss no stars

If what they're reporting is true, surely forcing a woman who cannot leave the jurisdiction to remain pregnant with her attacker's child after a violent rape constitutes a crime against humanity?

I'm usually opposed to outside interference in a state's sovereignty, but if what's reported is true, this country has gone too far. I am stunned. I can't believe that ANYONE would think that what's reported to have happened is okay.

NuMarvel

conorh91 wrote: »

The intention of the Oireachtas in enacting this legislation is not immediately relevant.

The intention is crystal clear: it is to give legislative effect to the 1992 Supreme Court X Case judgement, which established "that an abortion in this case would not be unlawful" and that "On the facts of this case, the mother is not to be prevented from having an abortion".

Regardless of what the legislation says, the Constitution has been interpreted as allowing abortions, as you are defining them, where the mother's right to life is at risk. And as everyone should know, rights under the Constitution trump those set out in legislation.

Nodin

Phoebas wrote: »

Nodin,
I challenge you to demonstrate where I made this 'pro make women do what you want' argument.

Where did I say what I want women to do and where did I say I want to make them do what I want?

Are you against abortion?

conorh91

NuMarvel wrote: »

the Constitution has been interpreted as allowing abortions, as you are defining them, where the mother's right to life is at risk.

No it doesn't. You're misreading X, and/or the Protection of Life in Pregnancy Act 2013.

Czarcasm

conorh91 wrote: »

Except it isn't just me who says you're wrong.

The plain wording of the Act is at odds with what you are claiming.

Abortion is not legal in Ireland.

Abortion & Irish Law

Abortion is legal in Ireland when there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the pregnant woman, this includes the risk of suicide.

There are no guidelines available in Ireland to assist doctors to determine whether a woman’s life is threatened by her pregnancy and as a result abortion is inaccessible for most women in Ireland on these grounds.

Abortion is not legal in Ireland in cases of rape, incest or foetal abnormalities.
Abortion is also criminalised in most circumstances in Northern Ireland.

There are some pregnancy counselling services whose sole purpose is to prevent women from having abortions. They misinform and intimidate women to achieve their aim. If you have been in contact with one of these agencies please contact the IFPA pregnancy helpline 1850 49 50 51.

http://www.ifpa.ie/Pregnancy-Counselling/Abortion-Irish-Law

S.22(1) could not be any clearer

It doesn't apply in this case.

Where a pregnancy is terminated, the medical team must always try to save the life of the unborn foetus/ child as far as is practicable.

This, despite your earlier assertions, which I notice you have now quietened down upon, is plain English, and is to be found in ss.7, 8 and 9 of the Act.

It can not be in dispute.

I've quitened down on it because it's like beating my head off a brick wall. Your idea of plain english and mine seem to be equally at odds as our interpretation of Irish Legislation.

The medical team will use whatever means are deemed reasonable/practicable and necessary to terminate a pregnancy to try and save the life of the unborn foetus/child. In this case, they decided to terminate the pregnancy by cesarean section, when the woman in question could have had an abortion to terminate her pregnancy. It was considered by the panel that despite the risk of suicide, and despite the risk of starving herself and putting her health and by extension the baby's health at risk; it was decided by the panel that she would continue her pregnancy.

If abortion is to have the meaning ascribed to it by English dictionaries and common understanding, then Ireland does not permit abortion. Full stop.

"Full stop" has about the same effect in a discussion as "FACT!"

NuMarvel

conorh91 wrote: »

No it doesn't. You're misreading X, and/or the Protection of Life in Pregnancy Act 2013.

I have quoted directly from the judgement. How am I can be misreading it?

takamichinoku

This guy's twitter is worth a read...

Leo Vradkar and Frances Fitzgerald were briefed, but played no role in the events.

Edit: what the hell, the whole article is in his image section (images can be enlarged by getting the direct links if you're squinting like crazy there). It seems like the high court order doesn't allow whatever happened between week 8 and the last two weeks from being mentioned, by the looks of how it's laid out.