woman refused abortion - Mod Note in first post.

Phoebas

krankykitty wrote: »

We do know. She was raped. Should be reason enough

Perhaps. But it isn't reason enough under our legislation.
The doctors can only work within the legislation and the medical regulations.

RobertKK

lazygal wrote: »

You make it sound as though the place where I gestated my fetuses is totally separate from me. A womb can kill you while you're pregnant.

Yes, if there are medical problems it is upto medics to decide, they are the experts if there is a health problem.
If the mother's life is in danger, the law always allowed the mother's life to be saved, pointless trying to save the unborn if there is no mother to keep the unborn alive.

lazygal

RobertKK wrote: »

We see in this world on the news everyday how some people treat life as expendable.
There are people who see her current life as being how she viewed her abortion, luckily she is not in areas of the world controlled by Islamic State.

Why is that relevant?
You referred to a woman who regretted her abortion, I referred to one who didn't. You seem to think the experience of those who regret having an abortion is the only valid reference.

strandroad

volchitsa wrote: »

Actually I think delivering the baby at 25 weeks is possibly the worst option of all. It's likely to be a complete disaster for all concerned, including the baby.

She presented at 8 weeks, they just dithered and kept her waiting... The 25 weeks situation was entirely of HSE creation.

Phoebas

mhge wrote: »

She presented at 8 weeks, they just dithered and kept her waiting... The 25 weeks situation was entirely of HSE creation.

That's a whole lot of speculation.
Unless she presented as suicidal at 8 weeks they couldn't have granted her an abortion.

We just don't have the full facts here.

NuMarvel

Phoebas wrote: »

We don't know the full facts of what her reasons were for looking for the abortion when she first presented. But we can't expect doctors to ignore the legislation.

Despite the differences in the various media reports, they all agree that the panel of doctors certified that her life was at risk due to suicide. While we may not know the exact specifics, and nor do we need to, we can reasonably conclude that she applied under the Act because of the threat of suicide.

As for doctors ignoring the legislation, if the Sunday Times article is correct, they left the woman in question waiting for months on an answer to her application; a woman that two psychiatrists assessed as being suicidal. They put both the woman's and unborn's right to life at risk, and she only seems to have gotten movement on the matter because of the threat of a hunger strike. If that's not a case of ignoring the legislation, I don't know what is.

P_1

Phoebas wrote: »

Its a gamble aright but with only bad cards to play - the choices were to perform an abortion or to perform a c-section i.e. no chance of saving the life or some change of saving the life.

Obviously there was a third option - physically forcing the woman to go to term - but I don't think anyone would favour that. Or they could have shown her the door of the hospital. Again, nobody would favour that.

True but one does have to question what sort of life has been saved. What sort of life will this child have? Will it be one spent constantly in a hospital bed, not being able to do anything whatsoever for example?

RobertKK

RobertKK wrote: »

Yes, if there are medical problems it is upto medics to decide, they are the experts if there is a health problem.
If the mother's life is in danger, the law always allowed the mother's life to be saved, pointless trying to save the unborn if there is no mother to keep the unborn alive.

Yes, and once the unborn is born, the mother can go jump.

She'll be handed powerful psychotropic drugs (because all psychotropic drugs are powerful, there is no such thing as a "mild antidepressant")
She'll then join the HSE queue for counselling, which is months long.
Maybe instead she'll be admitted to a psychiatric ward, for more drugs.

And then packed off to wherever home is.
See ya, thanks. Good luck.

P_1

volchitsa wrote: »

The Sunday Independent posts a different version, they say that just three weeks passed between her request for a termination and the birth. I wonder where they got that from, and how to explain the difference. Because it is a huge difference. (I suspect that someone has been spinning but maybe I'm wrong)

To be honest I'd trust the outside perspective rather than the Irish one on this. We've seen the Irish papers playing all too cosy with the powers that be on far too many occasions at this stage to give them blind trust.

Phoebas

NuMarvel wrote: »

Despite the differences in the various media reports, they all agree that the panel of doctors certified that her life was at risk due to suicide. While we may not know the exact specifics, and nor do we need to, we can reasonably conclude that she applied under the Act because of the threat of suicide.

There's no doubt of that - but there is doubt over the timing.

NuMarvel wrote: »

As for doctors ignoring the legislation, if the Sunday Times article is correct, they left the woman in question waiting for months on an answer to her application; a woman that two psychiatrists assessed as being suicidal. They put both the woman's and unborn's right to life at risk, and she only seems to have gotten movement on the matter because of the threat of a hunger strike. If that's not a case of ignoring the legislation, I don't know what is.

Do the ST actually assert this or is it an interpretation of what the ST say?

Phoebas

P_1 wrote: »

True but one does have to question what sort of life has been saved. What sort of life will this child have? Will it be one spent constantly in a hospital bed, not being able to do anything whatsoever for example?

The reports are that the child is 'doing well'. That's good, isn't is?

Phoebas

volchitsa wrote: »

No we don't, but if she presented, pregnant at 8 weeks after a traumatic rape, it is unlikely that she was in a normal state of mind.

As I understand it, the legislation doesn't allow for a termination without suicidal ideation; it requires more than not being in a 'normal state of mind'.

volchitsa wrote: »

And if we are going to go down the same road as what happened to poor Ms Halappanavar, where the consultant felt she wasn't "close enough" to death before being able to act (a 51% risk of death was mentioned, I believe!) then there will inevitably be deaths. Is that acceptable?

Hopefully not.

NuMarvel

Phoebas wrote: »

is it an interpretation of what the ST say?

Is there another interpretation for the woman saying she was effectively denied an abortion for months, and for her legal team telling the High Court that her right to an abortion hadn't been facilitated in a timely manner?

dharma200

I wouldn't say it is good either for the child's mother, or the child's father.. Or infact for any other woman who finds herself raped and forced to give birth to the products of that rape. That the child is doing well is irrelevant anyway.

The treatment of the woman is an abomination. Anyone who can use a pro life stand to justify this is disgusting. The horrors of this story show exactly how insidious the pro life stance has become on our society. this was bound to happen with the ridiculous law brought in too try to appease mostly religious pressure groups. it is an immediate rights issue and contrary to European law. there will be more and more of these story's of women treated with savage disdain by our health system, perhaps a few more deaths and a few more force fed held down and ripped open uteruses before women I ireland have the basic right to their own choice of their own body. Don't agree with abortion??? Don't effing have one... Don't be the cause of suffering and the suppression of women and their bodies for mostly religious moral beliefs... The health care system here is a joke, I totally agree with the poster above who points out the chances are this woman's I'll be treated even worse in our mental health care system.. She will be seen by dinosaur doctors , nun like nurses, she will be judged at every turn. I for one will be stepping up my own involvement it in the campaigns to make sure my own two daughters will NEVER be treated like this. Shame on our health care system here and shame on those pressure groups who have no empathy or understanding of the horrors this woman has needlessly gone through because of their own ideology and beliefs.

padd b1975

Couple of questions need answering......

Was the rape reported to the Gardai, and if it was, why was the morning after pill not administered?

Is this rape now being investigated?

There must have been a major change in this girl's behaviour after being raped, where the hell was her family and friends??

Did she tell the HSE she was raped when she presented herself or did it only come to light when the suicide "reason" was denied?

strandroad

I think this case will be quickly forgotten, like the woman whe bled out in a taxi. Who cares about women bleeding to death, force fed, suicidal and ignored, forced to endure unviable pregnancies... Vessels.
And families are not interested in exposing this all (statistically there must be many more cases) because of the "shame" associated. Savita was an exception because her husband wanted justice.

lazygal

padd b1975 wrote: »

Couple of questions need answering......

Was the rape reported to the Gardai, and if it was, why was the morning after pill not administered?

Is this rape now being investigated?

There must have been a major change in this girl's behaviour after being raped, where the hell was her family and friends??

Did she tell the HSE she was raped when she presented herself or did it only come to light when the suicide "reason" was denied?

The morning after pill, even if taken in time, is not always effective and furthermore pharmacists and doctors are allowed to refuse to administer it if they object. For example Catholics aren't allowed to dispense contraception under their faith.

padd b1975

lazygal wrote: »

The morning after pill, even if taken in time, is not always effective and furthermore pharmacists and doctors are allowed to refuse to administer it if they object. For example Catholics aren't allowed to dispense contraception under their faith.

Any recent Irish examples?

B0jangles

padd b1975 wrote: »

Any recent Irish examples?

Here you go:

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/health/woman-denied-pill-on-religious-basis-129181.html

myshirt

What about convenience abortions?

'Not the right time in my life', or 'I'm too young at 23', or 'I've just applied to be on Big Brother' type stories.

Does anyone support those?

eviltwin

Pretty shocked at this story, leaving aside the issue of the circumstances of her pregnancy the State has a duty of care to people in direct provision, this woman might not have been legally able to have an abortion here but they could and should have provided her with the means to travel to the UK. Letting it drag on this far just made things more expensive, more traumatic for the woman and her family and if her pregnancy was as the result of a crime I am sick to think this is how our "care" system treats victims.

padd b1975

B0jangles wrote: »

Here you go:

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/health/woman-denied-pill-on-religious-basis-129181.html

No mention of her being a rape victim though.

Try again.

The Corinthian

Not sure what the fuss is all about. Different countries have different abortion laws; if you live somewhere where it's legal up to 15 weeks and you're past that point, you'll have to travel to a jurisdiction where it's allowed later, despite it being legal where you live. Happens all the time in continental Europe.

mrsbyrne wrote: »

Because we decided that if you are suicidal then you must be allowed an abortion ? Why have all the expenses and inconvenience of going to UK when you don't have to?

So convenience has become a human right?

Maybe this thread is better off in Consumer Issues?

padd b1975

myshirt wrote: »

What about convenience abortions?

'Not the right time in my life', or 'I'm too young at 23', or 'I've just applied to be on Big Brother' type stories.

Does anyone support those?

Sadly for the unborn, there is.

B0jangles

padd b1975 wrote: »

No mention of her being a rape victim though.

Try again.

Hang on, you specifically asked about the morning after pill being refused due to the befiefs of the doctor/pharmacist. You said nothing whatsoever about rape.

Stop moving the goal-posts.

strandroad

The morning after pill is actually available OTC (with consultation) now. Still, the fact that a vulnerable young woman did not get it or it didn't work for her, has no bearing whatsoever on the abortion request proceedings.

eviltwin

padd b1975 wrote: »

No mention of her being a rape victim though.

Try again.

Not all rape victims have the presence of mind to get the map, a lot don't even go to their doctor to be checked for std's.

Molester Stallone II

padd b1975 wrote: »

No mention of her being a rape victim though.

Try again.

You didn't ask for a rape victim,
Please try gain

P_1

myshirt wrote: »

What about convenience abortions?

'Not the right time in my life', or 'I'm too young at 23', or 'I've just applied to be on Big Brother' type stories.

Does anyone support those?

In my eyes a pregnancy is a massive undertaking for a woman to make. Don't do it right and there is the potential for the child to suffer a miserable life with health complications and the like. If a woman isn't committed to undertake the pregnancy and all that that entails then personally I think it is for the best that she doesn't.

Now obviously there's a cut off point before this decision has to be made, but at the early stages of pregnancy I'd view an abortion in the same light as I'd view wearing a condom or taking the morning after pill. Obviously some folk will disagree with this but that's my take on the matter.

P_1

Phoebas wrote: »

The reports are that the child is 'doing well'. That's good, isn't is?

What is 'doing well' though?