woman refused abortion - Mod Note in first post.

miss no stars

Why the fcuk does the life of the unborn even feature first in the text, ahead of an already living human being. It should be that the state acknowledges the right to the HEALTH of the MOTHER, and also the right to LIFE of the unborn.


WHY THE FCUK SHOULD I - A LIVING BREATHING HUMAN BEING - PLAY SECOND FIDDLE TO AN UNVIABLE FOETUS.

I can't believe it.


Equality my arse.

Phoebas

Nodin wrote: »

Are you against abortion?

ffs Nodin, a few posts ago you were saying I was making a 'pro make women do what you want' argument.

Can you not make your case on positions I've actually expressed, not opinions you think I might hold.




Not that its important, but I'd be pro-choice.

conorh91

Czarcasm wrote: »

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

The IFPA are misusing the term abortion, and that's not exactly a surprise. Abortion, given its dictionary definition, is not legal in Ireland in light of the Xcase, and in light of the 2013 Act prohibiting it.

It doesn't apply in this case.

Yes it does.

s.22(1) applies universally. You just don't get Law 101. I can't help you with that, nor am I willing to.

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.

No, the logical inference (unless there is negligence) is that the initial risk of suicide was either (a) not sufficient enough as to be substantial, or real, or (b) was avoidable by taking other clinical steps to assist the woman.

Kiwi in IE

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

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.

I was only a few pages into the thread when I posted this! I have just read the last couple of pages. What is being reported is shocking beyond words.

I take back what I said about it taking someone to commit suicide before the ridiculous abortion laws are changed. If what is being reported is true, it's time for Europe to step in. This cannot go on. If these claims are substantiated, Ireland has completely breached that woman's human rights.

Czarcasm

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

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.’

You do realise they can always deny they had any conscientious objections, right?


http://www.irishcentral.com/news/top-doctor-denies-telling-savitas-family-ireland-is-a-catholic-country-202089161-237579211.html

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/apr/08/abortion-refusal-death-ireland-hindu-woman

mirrorwall14

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I was only a few pages into the thread when I posted this! I have just read the last couple of pages. What is being reported is shocking beyond words.

I take back what I said about it taking someone to commit suicide before the ridiculous abortion laws are changed. If what is being reported is true, it's time for Europe to step in. This cannot go on. If these claims are substantiated, Ireland has completely breached that woman's human rights.

This is so, so much worse reading than what I imagined. If it is confirmed it is an absolute disgrace for the country

sfcdub

Sickened reading the story. Confirms that out society just seems to treat women as vessels or tools. That poor woman has been violated in almost every way possible. Not that it will help her but I hope someone on her behalf sues the state/HSE/hospital for everything they've got.

Btw, kudos to the Sunday Times. Not an easy story to cover I'm sure, but important to bring it to light as opposed to the one sided leak to the Indo.

strandroad

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I was only a few pages into the thread when I posted this! I have just read the last couple of pages. What is being reported is shocking beyond words.

I take back what I said about it taking someone to commit suicide before the ridiculous abortion laws are changed. If what is being reported is true, it's time for Europe to step in. This cannot go on. If these claims are substantiated, Ireland has completely breached that woman's human rights.

There was another woman who died last year after abortion, bled out in a taxi in UK where she travelled from Ireland. Not Irish though, she was a foreign student. Left a husband and a child.
Lack of aftercare and forced travel are risk factors too.

shruikan2553

If true its like another Savita. I wonder how many women have to suffer until proper legislation is brought in that recognises the health of the woman.

efb

miss no stars wrote: »

Why the fcuk does the life of the unborn even feature first in the text, ahead of an already living human being. It should be that the state acknowledges the right to the HEALTH of the MOTHER, and also the right to LIFE of the unborn.


WHY THE FCUK SHOULD I - A LIVING BREATHING HUMAN BEING - PLAY SECOND FIDDLE TO AN UNVIABLE FOETUS.

I can't believe it.


Equality my arse.

Women were always 2nd class citizens in the Irish constitution.

Now go back to the kitchen sink barefoot and pregnant

conorh91

takamichinoku wrote: »

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.

That's interesting.

The report only makes a mention of one application for a S.9 termination of pregnancy. Not two.

The woman did make two applications, but nowhere does that article state that the initial application mentioned any danger to the life of the mother.

I think we are going to have to revise our understanding of this case.

efb

sfcdub wrote: »

Sickened reading the story. Confirms that out society just seems to treat women as vessels or tools. That poor woman has been violated in almost every way possible. Not that it will help her but I hope someone on her behalf sues the state/HSE/hospital for everything they've got.

Btw, kudos to the Sunday Times. Not an easy story to cover I'm sure, but important to bring it to light as opposed to the one sided leak to the Indo.

The Indo were against the legislation and would do anything to undermine it

ProfessorPlum

Czarcasm wrote: »

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.

She, nor anybody else cannot 'choose' between having an abortion or a c section. If the baby has any chance at viability, then the medical team is obliged to do all that is practical to safe guard it's life - usually meaning delivery by Caesarian at the early stages of viability. If the foetus has no practical chance of survival, then to force a Caesarian would be unethical and a direct termination may be carried out (as has happened in many cases where there was a substantial risk to life of the mother).

The question of weather there was a deliberate and substantial delta is another matter entirely, and if true, would also be deeply unethical, and as already pointed out, against the councils guidelines. If true, the practitioners in question should be struck off.

I would think that there is more to this case/ these cases than has been reported.

Czarcasm

conorh91 wrote: »

The IFPA are misusing the term abortion, and that's not exactly a surprise. Abortion, given its dictionary definition, is not legal in Ireland in light of the Xcase, and in light of the 2013 Act prohibiting it.


Yes it does.

s.22(1) applies universally. You just don't get Law 101. I can't help you with that, nor am I willing to.

OK, everybody else is wrong but you and the Professor.

No, the logical inference (unless there is negligence) is that the initial risk of suicide was either (a) not sufficient enough as to be substantial, or real, or (b) was avoidable by taking other clinical steps to assist the woman.

I noticed how you used the words "initial risk of suicide". Crazy how the medical professionals you earlier deferred to as the experts didn't take this woman seriously enough the first time they assessed her as a suicide risk. Instead they went to extraordinary measures to ensure that the child would be born. They don't seem at any point to have thought about assisting the woman or giving due regard to her welfare. Their only immediate concern seems to have been the welfare of the unborn child she was carrying within her womb.

sfcdub

efb wrote: »

The Indo were against the legislation and would do anything to undermine it

Tbf to them, one of the ones reporting it (dearbhail) is very pro choice.

ST journos hinting that HSE/Gov leaked their watered down side to the Indo today because the ST had been working on it all week for today's paper.

conorh91

Czarcasm wrote: »

OK, everybody else is wrong but you and the Professor.

Every legal journal or record I've ever read on this topic informs my position.

The primary database for annotated legislation, used by legal practitioners in Ireland, is where I am getting this.

Nobody is areeing with you except people who have not properly informed themselves of the provisions of the Act.

I noticed how you used the words "initial risk of suicide". Crazy how the medical professionals you earlier deferred to as the experts didn't take this woman seriously enough the first time they assessed her as a suicide risk.

The Sunday Times article, insofar as I have read it, implies that the first time the woman presented, she did not present as a s.9 suicide risk.

NuMarvel

sfcdub wrote: »

Tbf to them, one of the ones reporting it (dearbhail) is very pro choice.

ST journos hinting that HSE/Gov leaked their watered down side to the Indo today because the ST had been working on it all week for today's paper.

The ST Editor has specifically said it wasn't the HSE: https://twitter.com/FrankSunTimes/status/500758439346597888

Czarcasm

conorh91 wrote: »

Every legal journal or record I've ever read on this topic informs my position.

The primary database for annotated legislation, used by legal practitioners in Ireland, is where I am getting this.

Nobody is areeing with you except people who have not properly informed themselves of the provisions of the Act.

Oh look, an e-penis measuring contest. I'll pass, thanks.

I'm not overly concerned with who does or doesn't agree with me on an internet forum either. My only concern is for the welfare of the woman in question in this particular case.

The Sunday Times article, insofar as I have read it, implies that the first time the woman presented, she did not present as a s.9 suicide risk.

Indeed. "Insofar as you have read it" is right.

Usually the first time someone says they want an abortion, I tend to take them seriously as one of the first things on my mind is that they are a possible suicide risk if they are told that an abortion is not an option and it would be better to continue with the pregnancy.

Mountainsandh

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

The question of weather there was a deliberate and substantial delay is another matter entirely, and if true, would also be deeply unethical, and as already pointed out, against the councils guidelines. If true, the practitioners in question should be struck off.

I would think that there is more to this case/ these cases than has been reported.

I for one do not trust the HSE to disclose the real version of events. The Irish establishment has shown itself less than trustworthy in that regard.
How many such cases does there need to be before Europe intervenes ?

conorh91

Czarcasm wrote: »

Oh look, an e-penis measuring contest. I'll pass, thanks.

You stated that I was alone in my understanding.

Now that I mention that I am basing my understanding on a legal database used by practitioners, you are no longer interested in furthering your criticism.

Right so.

I'm not overly concerned with who does or doesn't agree with me on an internet forum either.

Just as well.

Usually the first time someone says they want an abortion, I tend to take them seriously as one of the first things on my mind is that they are a possible suicide risk

Lets take a step back here.

You were claiming that the medics "didn't take this woman seriously enough the first time they assessed her as a suicide risk."

What if she never presented as a suicide risk?

Any medic who is interested in adhering to the law could not have assessed a woman under S.9 of the act, unless she presented to him as a suicide risk.

takamichinoku

NuMarvel wrote: »

The ST Editor has specifically said it wasn't the HSE: https://twitter.com/FrankSunTimes/status/500758439346597888

Here's the full dialogue there
Frank Fitzgibbon @FrankSunTimes · 3h
Frank Fitzgibbon @FrankSunTimes · 3h




...and some other stuff related to the article
Frank Fitzgibbon @FrankSunTimes · 4h
Frank Fitzgibbon ‏@FrankSunTimes 4h

Unsure where the leaking to the Independent part is mentioned anywhere, unless it's that tweet about PR people?

NuMarvel

conorh91 wrote: »

That's interesting.

The report only makes a mention of one application for a S.9 termination of pregnancy. Not two.

The woman did make two applications, but nowhere does that article state that the initial application mentioned any danger to the life of the mother.

I think we are going to have to revise our understanding of this case.

Where was it reported that she made two applications under the Act?

_Whimsical_

conorh91 wrote: »

Every legal journal or record I've ever read on this topic informs my position.

The primary database for annotated legislation, used by legal practitioners in Ireland, is where I am getting this.

Nobody is areeing with you except people who have not properly informed themselves of the provisions of the Act.

The Sunday Times article, insofar as I have read it, implies that the first time the woman presented, she did not present as a s.9 suicide risk.

I would think likewise.

I really hope the facts of this case emerge clearly and honestly and not through the lens of any political or moral perspective. Already the facts are muddied in this article as it really should explicitly state whether or not she was suicidal during the earlier part of her pregnancy rather than let the public deduce the the truth by omission of detail,particularly when it's such an emotive case.
Agenda alert sounding me thinks.

conorh91

NuMarvel wrote: »

Where was it reported that she made two applications under the Act?

Tomorrow's ST article states that she made two requests for a termination/ abortion.

In terms of the first request, the article says the woman "believes" she had been "effectively" refused an abortion, but it makes no mention of a s.9 (suicide) request.

Subsequently, she made a s.9 (suicide) request, and this was granted.

As I said earlier, this may not be the full picture. That is all I have seen of the article so far. Bits of information are available on twitter.

Mountainsandh

conorh91 wrote: »

You were claiming that the medics "didn't take this woman seriously enough the first time they assessed her as a suicide risk."

What if she never presented as a suicide risk?

Any medic who is interested in adhering to the law could not have assessed a woman under S.9 of the act, unless she presented to him as a suicide risk.

The law always comes as such a great comfort blanket for people who make harrowing mistakes, or in this case, who potentially make decisions based on their moral judgement rather than medical.

NuMarvel

takamichinoku wrote: »

Unsure where the leaking to the Independent part is mentioned anywhere, unless it's that tweet about PR people?

That's in the very first tweet, from DavyG. Franks' response, coupled with his tweet yesterday about PR people who tell competitors about stories, would give a very strong indication that he's referring to the Indo's coverage of this story.

conorh91

Mountainsandh wrote: »

The law always comes as such a great comfort blanket for people who make harrowing mistakes, or in this case, who potentially make decisions based on their moral judgement rather than medical.

I agree with you, actually. Too often the law is used as an ex-post justification of a morally unforgivable act or omission.

Nevertheless, medics are obliged to act in accordance with the law. In many cases, they will agree with the current law, as formulated.

So you shouldn't just assume that people are using the law as a comfort blanket. I myself have problems with the conservative nature of the law, but in the instant case, I admire the outcome: a woman no longer has to bear an intolerable pregnancy, and a healthy child has survived.

strandroad

conorh91 wrote: »

Tomorrow's ST article states that she made two requests for a termination/ abortion.

In terms of the first request, the article says the woman "believes" she had been "effectively" refused an abortion, but it makes no mention of a s.9 (suicide) request.

Subsequently, she made a s.9 (suicide) request, and this was granted.

As I said earlier, this may not be the full picture. That is all I have seen of the article so far. Bits of information are available on twitter.

Where does it mention the second request exactly?..

Czarcasm

conorh91 wrote: »

You stated that I was alone in my understanding.

Now that I mention that I am basing my understanding on a legal database used by practitioners, you are no longer interested in furthering your criticism.

Right so.

I didn't. Go back and read my post again -

Czarcasm wrote: »

OK, everybody else is wrong but you and the Professor.

I also already stated that -

Czarcasm wrote: »

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.

Lets take a step back here.

You were claiming that the medics "didn't take this woman seriously enough the first time they assessed her as a suicide risk."

What if she never presented as a suicide risk?

Let's at least try and stick to discussing what we DO know about this particular case rather than heading off on "What if?" tangents, because that could go anywhere, and probably nowhere good.

Any medic who is interested in adhering to the law could not have assessed a woman under S.9 of the act, unless she presented to him as a suicide risk.

She did, and she was assessed (eventually) as a suicide risk, and then the HSE obtained a court order to forcefully hydrate her, and then they decided to offer her the option of delivering the baby prematurely via cesarean section.

How... kind, of them.

(you can tell I mean that sarcastically, right?)

strandroad

conorh91 wrote: »

but in the instant case, I admire the outcome: a woman no longer has to bear an intolerable pregnancy, and a healthy child has survived.

Or, a woman bears months of mental torture driving her suicidal, undergoes a comparatively risky procedure and a child is force delivered prematurely.
You have no way of knowing that the baby is healthy, the article only says it is receiving ongoing medical attention.