woman refused abortion - Mod Note in first post.

conorh91

Czarcasm wrote: »

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

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

I also already stated that -

Your idea of plain english and mine seem to be equally at odds as our interpretation of Irish Legislation.

But you are wrong, and it isn't just me or another poster who says this. From the annotated legislation database I mentioned:

http://login.westlaw.ie/maf/wlie/app/document?src=doc&linktype=ref&&context=4&crumb-action=replace&docguid=I5B86CDF35E9649A5BF5FB4A595360158

there are no term limits on the right to termination. If three doctors certify that the woman is entitled to a termination, every effort must be made to save the life of the foetus, once the termination has occurred.

(my emphasis)

Further, I don't see how s.22(1) can be open to any alternative interpretation that that which arises from the plain-English reading of this section:

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

The issue here is that you are BS-ing.

conorh91

mhge wrote: »

Or, a woman bears months of mental torture driving her suicidal, undergoes a comparatively risky procedure and a child is force delivered prematurely.

Like I said, I admire the outcome, I didn't say I admire the awful process by which she and baby arrived at that outcome.

If I am wrong about the baby being healthy then I apologize and I hope he, or she, achieves their full health.

gctest50

religion-obsessed filth strike again - well done little island

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

I'm not sure why else she would have been presenting for an abortion at eight weeks other than as a suicide risk though? My understanding is that there has to be a threat to the life of the mother, if she had some other condition that meant the pregnancy was life-threatening surely the Sunday Times would have mentioned it if it has an agenda? I'm not trying to be smart I just genuinely don't know if I'm missing something.

Mountainsandh

conorh91 wrote: »

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.

It's true, I shouldn't assume ; but I do : I am like a great proportion of our population who have no trust left for people who are in charge, medically or otherwise (politically...).

I have my own personal experience at the hands of Irish medical professionals initially feeding that mistrust (again, like many others in Ireland), and the few publicised cases confirm it IMO.

I absolutely do not by any stretch of the imagination agree that it is a satisfactory outcome. A C-section is serious surgery, can be traumatic even in a different scenario (I had two, I know), it can affect the rest of your life,and it is something this woman should not have been coerced into.

Czarcasm

conorh91 wrote: »

But you are wrong, and it isn't just me or another poster who says this. From the annotated legislation database I mentioned:

http://login.westlaw.ie/maf/wlie/app/document?src=doc&linktype=ref&&context=4&crumb-action=replace&docguid=I5B86CDF35E9649A5BF5FB4A595360158

(my emphasis)

there are no term limits on the right to termination. If three doctors certify that the woman is entitled to a termination, every effort must be made to save the life of the foetus, once the termination has occurred.

What you're talking about there is after the fact, not beforehand. That's after the pregnancy has been terminated, by whatever means the medical professionals deemed necessary, to preserve the right to life of the unborn. It's on the tip of my tongue to say I hope it's not Family Law or Human Rights Law you practice, but jesus, this would be one of those occasions when I really hope I am wrong!

Further, I don't see how s.22(1) can be open to any alternative interpretation that that which arises from the plain-English reading of this section:



The issue here is that you are BS-ing.

I've already given you an alternative interpretation that's a hell of a lot more applicable than the one you're trying to wedge in there. If you truly believe that I'm BS'ing, then it's probably for the best that we park the discussion there. I can see that you're unlikely to be moved from your position so I shan't waste any more of your time and my time with this.

NuMarvel

mhge wrote: »

Where does it mention the second request exactly?..

Yeah, I'm not seeing it either. From what I've read the timeline is like this:

• She found out she was pregnant at 8 weeks, and made an immediate application.
• Months later (roughly 14 weeks by my calculations), she still didn't have a decision, so she went on a hunger & liquid strike.
• The HSE went to court to get an emergency order to forcibly administer fluids.
• There was a second court hearing a week later, during which it emerged that the panel had issued a Section 9 certificate to carry out a medical procedure.
• The medical procedure, a c-section, was carried out the following day.
• And at some point during this, the woman claimed the devil was inside her and that she would commit suicide if the pregnancy went to term.

There's no reference to a second application from what I can see. There may have been one, but none of the reports so far make reference to it. And if there was a second application, there's still the matter that she never got a decision on her first application.

strandroad

NuMarvel wrote: »

Yeah, I'm not seeing it either. From what I've read the timeline is like this:

That's exactly how it seems to me as well. They mention a second hearing (of the same case), perhaps that's where the confusion is coming from.

conorh91

NuMarvel wrote: »

[*]Months later (roughly 14 weeks by my calculations), she still didn't have a decision, so she went on a hunger & liquid strike.

That is not clear.

The article says the woman arrived at the belief that she was "effectively" refused an abortion, months after seeking one.

It is unclear, at this stage, whether that means no decision was issued, or whether a decision was issued which was (a) unclear to this woman or (b) the HSE/ hospital/ attending doctor sought further information from this woman or (c.) simply negative

However, you are quite right to correct me on the fact that a second application may never have occurred. I wrongly inferred that.

Czarcasm

NuMarvel wrote: »

Yeah, I'm not seeing it either. From what I've read the timeline is like this:

• She found out she was pregnant at 8 weeks, and made an immediate application.
• Months later (roughly 14 weeks by my calculations), she still didn't have a decision, so she went on a hunger & liquid strike.
• The HSE went to court to get an emergency order to forcibly administer fluids.
• There was a second court hearing a week later, during which it emerged that the panel had issued a Section 9 certificate to carry out a medical procedure.
• The medical procedure, a c-section, was carried out the following day.
• And at some point during this, the woman claimed the devil was inside her and that she would commit suicide if the pregnancy went to term.

There's no reference to a second application from what I can see. There may have been one, but none of the reports so far make reference to it. And if there was a second application, there's still the matter that she never got a decision on her first application.

From my reading of it, and my understanding of the process, she would have made the first application and had it turned down, then she would've made an appeal and been assessed as being a suicide risk on appeal, and then the HSE would have gone after a court order to forcefully hydrate her, and then they could only at that point offer her a cesarean to deliver the baby prematurely, or carry the child to term. She really didn't have much of a choice at that point other than to opt for a cesarean before she was forced to go through the procedure by another HSE obtained court order.

strandroad

Indo has their version up. They say she became aware of the pregnancy very late into it, they barely mention the rape and don't mention the visa issue. The suggestion is that she was afraid of her family.

Mountainsandh

8 weeks is not very late IMO.

strandroad

Mountainsandh wrote: »

8 weeks is not very late IMO.

They say "second trimester" or "late". It's at odds with what ST says.

ETA: BBC picked it up already.
http://m.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28823433

SpaceTime

Honestly there are times I just want to emigrate to somewhere normal!!

What kind of insane country ties itself into these kinds of abstract, moralising, unrealistic legal knots?!

All I see is a history of abuse, abuse and more abuse all justified by a shill, preaching, holier than thou establishment that's never really gone away despite all the progress over the last few decades.

I actually find our recent history around all of this stuff totally embarrassing. Things like the fact that condoms were banned severely restricted in the late 20th century is impossible to explain to anyone not from this insane island.

The Magdalene Laundry history actually makes me extremely angry to even think about and the symphisiotomy scandal just makes me feel sick to the stomach tbh.

An aspect of Ireland is just extremely illogical, uncaring and prepared to inflict pain, suffering and general unpleasantness on citizens so that they're able to pretend that life conforms to their religiously-inspired, puritanical view of the world.

Mountainsandh

This paper is very interesting and relevant here I think : http://humanrights.ie/gender-sexuality-and-the-law/caesarean-section-refusal-in-ireland/
It deals with a woman's right to refuse a c-section.

CrazyRabbit

Awkward Badger wrote: »

How can you be undecided ? If its wrong to abort a foetus because its a potential life and tough shít for those who's contraception fails then how does the manner of the conception change anything ?

In rape there was no choice to have sex. In all other cases, the choice was made and the risk of pregnancy (even with contraception) was accepted.

In cases of abortion, I would only accept it very early in the pregnancy, before the brain has developed enough for any level of consciousness. No consciousness = no life IMHO.

I'm not 'pro life', I'm 'pro responsibility for your own actions'.

NuMarvel

conorh91 wrote: »

That is not clear.

The article says the woman arrived at the belief that she was "effectively" refused an abortion, months after seeking one.

It is unclear, at this stage, whether that means no decision was issued, or whether a decision was issued which was (a) unclear to this woman or (b) the HSE/ hospital/ attending doctor sought further information from this woman or (c.) simply negative

During the second hearing, her legal team argued that her right to an abortion under the Act wasn't facilitated in a timely manner. That, and her own actions and statements, would indicate that she didn't have a clear decision, if any, from the panel at the time of the hunger strike, if not later. And it couldn't have been a refusal, because that would mean the panel issued two contradictory decisions based on one assessment.

Czarcasm wrote: »

From my reading of it, and my understanding of the process, she would have made the first application and had it turned down, then she would've made an appeal and been assessed as being a suicide risk on appeal, and then the HSE would have gone after a court order to forcefully hydrate her, and then they could only at that point offer her a cesarean to deliver the baby prematurely, or carry the child to term. She really didn't have much of a choice at that point other than to opt for a cesarean before she was forced to go through the procedure by another HSE obtained court order.

Given how much media coverage there was about the prospect of a suicidal woman being assessed by up to 6 doctors (i.e. two panels), I think the media coverage would have mentioned at some point if her first application was refused. And as I said above, there's also the fact that her legal team highlighted the delays in getting a decision.

Lou.m

conorh91 View Post
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.

Your post infuriates me.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152265133226121&set=a.10150829820521121.386367.691381120&type=1&theater

She was a rape victim.

She went on a hunger and liquid strike. She was obviously very disturbed by the idea of carrying a rapists child.

The doctors who did this are ****ing evil....they do not deserve to to be walking free. ...the rapist the doctors the hse are all beasts.

How DARE they cut a woman's body without her permission.

This country is an abusive entity to it's citizens.

RDM_83 again

Czarcasm, sorry I had forgotten (hungover head) about that though I don't think the page you linked to has anything to do with our discussion.

Gustavo CoolS Quote wrote: »

I'm not sure why else she would have been presenting for an abortion at eight weeks other than as a suicide risk though? My understanding is that there has to be a threat to the life of the mother, if she had some other condition that meant the pregnancy was life-threatening surely the Sunday Times would have mentioned it if it has an agenda? I'm not trying to be smart I just genuinely don't know if I'm missing something.

You see this is why i am going to bow out of this discussion, because we don't know at the minute, I'm probably fairly pro-life/anti-choice on the boards.ie spectrum, in real life though I have argued with very pro-choice friends of mine to have them espouse strict term limits like 16 weeks so I think once you examine individual areas its much more of a grey area. But if she was presenting at 8 weeks as a risk thats surely a concern with our current legislation.
At this moment the timeline is changing very fast.

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 understand how this my close and extend family are involved in the mental health field is an issue but from this I understand that a lot of evalutation involves a weighing up of probabilities, can I ask though , in your view is there any way of having a restrictive regime in relation to abortion and having an evaluation relating to psychiatric distress? and in relation to this idea, if someone is a what is judged as a serious risk to themselves or others why coercive confinement should not be an applied either the risk is serious or its not and from my knowledge I don;t think termination of pregnancy is recommended with any DSM, you can correct me if I am wrong but I don;t think this is the case.

Lou.m

I think as more and more come out the HSE is looking like a medieval organization.

Whatever your stance this woman needed more compassion.

FouxDaFaFa

If what the Sunday Times is reporting is true, this country has absolutely failed this woman.

Even if she wasn't held in a facility against her will and forcibly hydrated, she was effectively being held in a legal limbo in Ireland, unable to leave and have an abortion in England because of her pending visa.

I'm sick of hearing these stories about women going through the most horrific, mentally-scarring ordeals because Ireland is too fcuking squeamish to put on its big-boy socks and confront abortion head-on.

How are we allowing this to happen? We have couples travelling to England for abortions after finding out the pregnancy will not result in a live birth and then trying to sneak the remains back on ferries.

Lone women travelling to London, too scared to tell anyone why they are going.

And we have women who cannot leave because they are too young, too poor or because they are asylum seekers and they are at the mercy of a State that likes to pretend there is no abortion in Ireland and that every pregnancy is wanted and every pregnancy works out.

I hope this woman can move on with her life.

Lou.m

FouxDaFaFa wrote: »

If what the Sunday Times is reporting is true, this country has absolutely failed this woman.

Even if she wasn't held in a facility against her will and forcibly hydrated, she was effectively being held in a legal limbo in Ireland, unable to leave and have an abortion in England because of her pending visa.

I'm sick of hearing these stories about women going through the most horrific, mentally-scarring ordeals because Ireland is too fcuking squeamish to put on its big-boy socks and confront abortion head-on.

How are we allowing this to happen? We have couples travelling to England for abortions after finding out the pregnancy will not result in a live birth and then trying to sneak the remains back on ferries.

Lone women travelling to London, too scared to tell anyone why they are going.

And we have women who cannot leave because they are too young, too poor or because they are asylum seekers and they are at the mercy of a State that likes to pretend there is no abortion in Ireland and that every pregnancy is wanted and every pregnancy works out.

I hope this woman can move on with her life.

Agreed. I am waiting really for details and a clear timeline. The HSE has a LOT to answer for. There is a CLEAR patriarchal anti-woman agenda here.

Czarcasm

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Czarcasm, sorry I had forgotten (hungover head) about that though I don't think the page you linked to has anything to do with our discussion.

I'll just post it here again the question you asked, and why I offered the post I linked to as an explanation of my viewpoint regarding your question. You asked me -

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?

And I replied with the post that explained that you are correct in saying that my view is that the woman should have a right to terminate the unborn baby growing inside her if she does not want to give birth, and I expanded on that opinion in my post that I linked you to, rather than having to type all that out again -

Czarcasm wrote: »

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

The general gist of it I introduced in the first paragraph, which should have been enough to answer your question -

I am not endorsing abortion. I am endorsing a person's right to choose what happens with their own body. I would prefer if there was an easier way for a woman to end her pregnancy, but there isn't. If she wants to end her pregnancy, it is her body, and her right to choose whether she wants to continue a pregnancy or not. If she does not, and she does not want to give birth, and she does not want to be a mother, then it is her right to say how she wants her pregnancy to end.

It is the pregnant woman's right to say how she wants her pregnancy to end. It's not my right, it's not your right. We can have an opinion, but our opinions aren't worth jack shít really because it is the woman who chooses what she does with her own body, and if she wants to end her pregnancy, it is better for her and the unborn child to support her in finding a way to end her pregnancy as humanely and safely as possible rather than the risk of her ending her own life to end her pregnancy and running the risk that she will be unsuccessful in both endeavours - leaving her incapacitated, and having to give birth to a child with severe defects or abnormalities.

lazygal

The unfortunate reality is that all women in Ireland who become pregnant as a result of rape or have a foetus incompatible with life has no option but to remain pregnant. Unless you have the means and ability to travel you must remain pregnant unless your life is at risk. If I was raped tomorrow and became pregnant as a result I would not be allowed to terminate such a pregnancy in Ireland unless my life was at risk.

myshirt

I find the attitude to abortion here on boards very, very unsettling.. and it is hard to post without being accused of trolling.

Is there anyone else here pro-life at all?

shruikan2553

myshirt wrote: »

I find the attitude to abortion here on boards very, very unsettling.. and it is hard to post without being accused of trolling.

Is there anyone else here pro-life at all?

Loads, they just disappeared when ST started to release info.

myshirt

ST?

lazygal

myshirt wrote: »

I find the attitude to abortion here on boards very, very unsettling.. and it is hard to post without being accused of trolling.

Is there anyone else here pro-life at all?

I'm pro-life. I have two children. I'm also pro-choice. If someone wants to remain pregnant I'm ok with that, if someone doesn't want to remain pregnant but must against their will I'm not ok with that, especially if the woman didn't consent to sex or is carrying a foetus incompatible with life or her health is threatened by the pregnancy.

myshirt

What about the baby lazygal?

What crime did that child commit?

It is the scumbag who raped that is the criminal. It is an appalling, appalling crime. Undoubtedly. But don't let the reaction be to kill a child is my plea, please.

The death of a child is never a good outcome. It does not resolve it. Abortion in that case lends to a culture of a one stop solution for women; which is a lie; it's failing them when they need resources; and it kills babies.

There are so many better outcomes that can occur from traumatic or difficult situations.

cletus van damme

myshirt wrote: »

I find the attitude to abortion here on boards very, very unsettling.. and it is hard to post without being accused of trolling.

Is there anyone else here pro-life at all?

I would be pro-life.
I generally don't post much on these threads cos it's just a internet mob .

essentially I don't know the full details and to be fair nobody knows the full story due to reporting restrictions but given what I know
The woman had a c section and the baby survived at 25weeks.

The 2 lives were saved.

It beggars belief that people here think the child should have been aborted when it clearly could (and did) survive outside the womb.

The child was removed from the woman , inside of being killed it was allowed live. It would have been repugnant to abort at that stage.