woman refused abortion - Mod Note in first post.

Phoebas

NuMarvel wrote: »

A request is not an application. There are only three grounds to make an application, and there's nothing that suggests she made more than one application.

Pedantic much!

I doubt very many patients presenting at Irish hospitals approach the receptionist quoting the section of health legislation that they are seeking care under.

The Corinthian

gctest50 wrote: »

never heard of that before - have you one for unit 731 ? - its probably a bit closer to it

It's just a Internet adage citing when someone doesn't have a particularly good argument, so turns to a Nazi 'appeal to emotion' or simelar instead.

Both sides of the abortion debate will do this sooner or later in a discussion, I've noticed.

rainbowtrout

The Corinthian wrote: »

Who is forcing anyone to do anything, or are we just going to get hysterical about the topic? "The state won't pay for my abortion, ergo I have no other option but to raise the child myself".

The Sunday Times (UK) are reporting that she was not free to travel because of her legal status in Ireland

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.

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




So not directly asking the state to pay for it. She couldn't travel abroad, so her only option was to seek an abortion in Ireland, and that option is extremely limited.

Chattastrophe!

padd b1975 wrote: »

I'm saying that due to the emotional turmoil that she was going through, she may not have known her own mind.

Oh ffs. That is seriously patronising and disrespectful.

By the same logic, couldn't you argue that a woman pregnant as the result of a traumatic rape, who chooses to continue with the pregnancy, might "not know her own mind" as the result of the emotional turmoil and should be forced to go through an abortion?

Which, by the way, I would of course completely and absolutely disagree with. Because, unlike you, I respect that women generally do know their own minds and generally are fully capable of making their own decisions about their own lives and their own bodies.

P_1

padd b1975 wrote: »

Standard keyboard atheist windbagging.

Well you consider my atheism to be 'windbagging' and in the interests of politeness I won't go further into describing my views on organised religion and thus we reach an impasse. How about you do your own thing and I'll do mine and we won't try to impose our views on each other. Wouldn't life be so much simpler if everyone was to do this?

The Corinthian

rainbowtrout wrote: »

The Sunday Times (UK) are reporting that she was not free to travel because of her legal status in Ireland

Give me a break; I've been a 'foreign national, not able freely to travel abroad' and have had no problem sneaking in and out for a few days or a week. I don't believe for a moment that she had no option to do so.

Are we talking about 2 different cases here? In the Independent articles, she only realised she was pregnant when in the second trimester. The article seems to suggest that she was between 20 and 23 weeks pregnant at that time and the time frame up to the delivery was three weeks. Other posts here suggest she first requested the abortion at 8 weeks, so is it the same person?

myshirt

P_1, no it wouldn't.

Bad things happen when good men sit idly by and do nothing. Inevitably, we will all lock horns on something.

It hurts me to reply to you, you share the same username as one of my favourite polishes (Gtechniq P_1)

Turtwig

The Corinthian wrote: »

Give me a break; I've been a 'foreign national, not able freely to travel abroad' and have had no problem sneaking in and out for a few days or a week. I don't believe for a moment that she had no option to do so.

Doesn't matter unless you or someone with your reasoning was there to tell her this. If she felt she couldn't travel then she'd likely never attempt it. You have past experiences of it so it's far far easier.

Calina

The Corinthian wrote: »

Give me a break; I've been a 'foreign national, not able freely to travel abroad' and have had no problem sneaking in and out for a few days or a week. I don't believe for a moment that she had no option to do so.

I think a lot depends on the circumstances under which your movements were restricted and where you were going.

There isn't enough information here but visa restricted poor English says a) non-EU and b) probably not economically very strong. I'm inclined to wonder if it's not just a question of not being able to leave Ireland, but not necessarily being able to enter another country. Without knowing her nationality, you cannot be sure that she had even the freedoms that you had.

NuMarvel

Deleted User wrote: »

Are we talking about 2 different cases here? In the Independent articles, she only realised she was pregnant when in the second trimester. The article seems to suggest that she was between 20 and 23 weeks pregnant at that time and the time frame up to the delivery was three weeks. Other posts here suggest she first requested the abortion at 8 weeks, so is it the same person?

It's likely to be the same person. In both cases, the woman was assessed as being suicidal, she had a c-section, she was the subject of a high court care order, she went on hunger and thirst strike, and it all occurred during in the last few months. What differs is the time frame and sequence of events.

The Corinthian

Turtwig wrote: »

Doesn't matter unless you or someone with your reasoning was there to tell her this. If she felt she couldn't travel then she'd likely never attempt it. You have past experiences of it so it's far far easier.

So she's organized enough to seek an abortion but not to slip over the border? As I said, I don't buy it for a second.

Even if true, what you're doing is arguing is on the basis of rare cases and then applying to all. When you have such cases, then you legislate to deal with their special circumstances, not suddenly legislate for all on the basis of those exceptions.

Lou.m

Saying no to a woman's request for an abortion is one thing.

Cutting her abdomen open to preform a caesarian with consent and not for health reasons is another.

It is clear though that there are many desperate women out there that the HSE sweep under the carpet.

How many more cases will there be before we get a referendum?

Cases like this are just swaying the public towards abortion anyway.

Turtwig

The Corinthian wrote: »

So she's organized enough to seek an abortion but not to slip over the border?

Is that really so implausible or have you not actually met humans before?

This is a woman who experienced a severe trauma and was likely under a hell of a lot of duress. She likely felt incredibly helpless about her entire situation. Whether it was possible for her leave the country is secondary to whether she actually felt she could. It's really common for people who feel helpless in a situation to have an exaggerated fear towards averse outcomes. Regardless of how slim those outcomes may be.

P_1

myshirt wrote: »

P_1, no it wouldn't.

Bad things happen when good men sit idly by and do nothing. Inevitably, we will all lock horns on something.

It hurts me to reply to you, you share the same username as one of my favourite polishes (Gtechniq P_1)

Dafuq? We're talking about allowing women the liberty to terminate a pregnancy if said pregnancy proves to be detrimental to their physical or mental well being not the rail schedules of Silesia circa 1943.

Corkfeen

The Corinthian wrote: »

So she's organized enough to seek an abortion but not to slip over the border? As I said, I don't buy it for a second.

For a person who is not an Irish national, it seems pretty imposing that they would have to smuggle themselves to England, particularly for a person who has limited knowledge on Irish and English law in regard to crossing borders. Presenting yourself at an Irish hospital is infinitely more straight forward. Just don't because you don't buy it, doesn't make you right...

NuMarvel

The Corinthian wrote: »

So she's organized enough to seek an abortion but not to slip over the border? As I said, I don't buy it for a second.

I don't see how sorting out travel, accommodation, and medical procedures in Britain or another country for someone with visa restrictions compares in ease to walking into a hospital or doctor's office in the country, and probably county, that you're living in.

And just because you were willing to break your visa restrictions doesn't mean that everyone else will be willing to do so too. Anyone can break speed limits if they want to, but most people choose not to.

takamichinoku

The Corinthian wrote: »

Give me a break; I've been a 'foreign national, not able freely to travel abroad' and have had no problem sneaking in and out for a few days or a week. I don't believe for a moment that she had no option to do so.

I dunno, it seems to me pretty possible that illegal aliens (which she would be in England, I'd imagine?) may not be allowed to have abortions under the NHS, at least not without it having some repercussions.


Then there's financial restrictions which may be on the woman (I'd imagine she'd definitely need another person with her, which she may not have had, and it's probably pretty hard for asylum seekers to get any kind of loan too), not being adequately informed of her options* and whatever else.


*As an aside here, some form of communication breakdown between the woman and the HSE may have played a big part here, if they left her in a situation where she was thinking that they were going to get back to her over the months, like. Don't know if anyone's brought up that possibility yet.

rainbowtrout

The Corinthian wrote: »

Give me a break; I've been a 'foreign national, not able freely to travel abroad' and have had no problem sneaking in and out for a few days or a week. I don't believe for a moment that she had no option to do so.

Well good for you that you are able to enter and exit countries illegally. Not everyone will chance it.

She may be an asylum seeker, poor English and travel restrictions suggest non-EU, and even if she was able to take a flight or a ferry out of Ireland she might not be allowed in to another country.

Czarcasm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Who is forcing anyone to do anything, or are we just going to get hysterical about the topic? "The state won't pay for my abortion, ergo I have no other option but to raise the child myself".

Nobody's actually getting hysterical about the topic (in comparison to previous threads regarding the issue of abortion, this one has been positively measured responses for the most part). Let's try and stick to the parameters of this specific case as our guideline though so we don't get into hysterics like "free abortions for all". In this specific case, a pregnant woman was denied an abortion as it was decided by an obstetrician that the baby could be delivered by cesarean section between 23-25 weeks. Cesarean sections aren't free, GP's aren't free, the opinions of six experts aren't free, legal and administrative costs aren't free... Need I go on? Nothing hysterical there.

The State already provides for means tested medical care, and in certain circumstances will pay for medical procedures to be carried out in other countries. In the case of someone seeking an abortion to be paid for by the state, the assessment criteria should be no different to someone on the waiting list for any other medical procedure. Time would of course be of the essence, and one of the current issues with the current system is that a woman seeking an abortion has to go through lengthy and time delaying interviews at three different stages - her GP, a first panel of three medical professionals, and then a second panel of three medical professionals. None of these people work for free, and the more hoops a pregnant woman at risk of suicide has to go through, the more the costs mount up (notwithstanding the effect these procedures are having on her mental health).

Nothing hysterical so far.

That's not how the economics of medical care works, I'm afraid. If you want to do a financial analysis, you need to look at the number who would go through with the birth rather than go to the UK or elsewhere and pay, versus the cost of free abortion for all. If you can demonstrate that enough would do that, then I'll be happy to concede the point.

That is exactly how the economics of medical care works when a pregnant woman requests an abortion in the early stages of her pregnancy and the State regards the right to life of the unborn as equal to that of the mother - "Force her to deliver the baby prematurely by caesarean section. The baby will be viable at 23 weeks and it can be done". In this case, the right to life of the unborn seems to have been regarded as more imperative than the right to life of a woman at risk of suicide who requested an abortion. It's economically justifiable though apparently, as the medical professionals who determined the course of action as it has been reported, weren't the people paying for her treatment. The HSE was, ergo you and I, the taxpayer, were paying for the State to deny a woman her right to an abortion under Section 9 of the Protection of Life during Pregnancy Act 2013. The same Act that on paper at least, was supposed to apply equally to protect the life of the pregnant woman as well as the unborn child. Anyone who considers a caesarean section at 23 weeks a " practicable measure" to protect the life of the mother and the unborn child, honestly needs their head examined (not by an obstetrician though, as they have no psychological or psychiatric training, doesn't stop them wanting to play God though with human life).

If I want to do a financial analysis, you know damn well how difficult that would be to obtain figures for how many pregnant women seeking an abortion in the UK would be, let alone trying to determine how many would actually avail of an abortion in this country given our appalling record thus far in how the medical profession we depend upon has failed so many pregnant women already. Every fcuking day I'm thankful I'm not a woman in this country, let alone a woman who is pregnant through no fault of her own and does not want to give birth.


Your "free abortion for all" is the hysterical straw-man here Corinthian, and you sure as hell are smart enough to have known that much.

P_1

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Well good for you that you are able to enter and exit countries illegally. Not everyone will chance it.

She may be an asylum seeker, poor English and travel restrictions suggest non-EU, and even if she was able to take a flight or a ferry out of Ireland she might not be allowed in to another country.

Plus getting put onto the UK system, which I presume one must do to avail of an abortion, isn't the most prudent of things for an asylum seeker to be doing.

There's a big difference between popping across the border for a spot of shopping and crossing the border for a medical procedure.

If she was afraid of being killed for being pregnant, then why the Hell was she considering suicide?

efb

Deleted User wrote: »

If she was afraid of being killed for being pregnant, then why the Hell was she considering suicide?

Most insensitive post I have ever read! And in AH that takes some doing

P_1

Deleted User wrote: »

If she was afraid of being killed for being pregnant, then why the Hell was she considering suicide?

I don't even know where to start with this one...

ProfessorPlum

Czarcasm wrote: »

Nothing hysterical so far.



That is exactly how the economics of medical care works when a pregnant woman requests an abortion in the early stages of her pregnancy and the State regards the right to life of the unborn as equal to that of the mother - "Force her to deliver the baby prematurely by caesarean section. The baby will be viable at 23 weeks and it can be done". In this case, the right to life of the unborn seems to have been regarded as more imperative than the right to life of a woman at risk of suicide who requested an abortion. It's economically justifiable though apparently, as the medical professionals who determined the course of action as it has been reported, weren't the people paying for her treatment. The HSE was, ergo you and I, the taxpayer, were paying for the State to deny a woman her right to an abortion under Section 9 of the Protection of Life during Pregnancy Act 2013. The same Act that on paper at least, was supposed to apply equally to protect the life of the pregnant woman as well as the unborn child. Anyone who considers a caesarean section at 23 weeks a " practicable measure" to protect the life of the mother and the unborn child, honestly needs their head examined (not by an obstetrician though, as they have no psychological or psychiatric training, doesn't stop them wanting to play God though with human life).

This entire paragraph reeks of hysteria! There is no evidence that a woman was denied her right to an aborition. What would you consider to be a practical measure to comply with the situation of a suicidal pregnant woman at 23 weeks lawfully, other than to deliver a viable foetus?
And obstetricians do have some training in psychiatry, like all qualified doctors. And do you really think they 'want to play God'? These are very difficult cases that most doctors would much prefer not to have to deal with. But they must. And by and large, they do it to the best of their ability, in a very difficult legal situation.

Czarcasm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If she was afraid of being killed for being pregnant, then why the Hell was she considering suicide?

Suicide would give her the choice to die by her own will. Someone else killing her would be someone else making that decision for her.

It's a bit like the way she chose to have an abortion, and instead was forced into giving birth prematurely by cesarean section.

The decision was effectively taken out of her hands, the same way as if she were killed, instead of choosing to die by suicide.

TomoBhoy

The story was leaked to the sindo via a HSE source, ST Have been working on this the past week, the sindo have to give an opposing side (hse) saying she only found out during 2nd trimester, ST say 8 weeks I believe the latter.

Czarcasm

Czarcasm wrote: »

Suicide would give her the choice to die by her own will. Someone else killing her would be someone else making that decision for her.

It's a bit like the way she chose to have an abortion, and instead was forced into giving birth prematurely by cesarean section.

The decision was effectively taken out of her hands, the same way as if she were killed, instead of choosing to die by suicide.

I suppose it just shows the dilemma the poor girl was facing and the horror of her situation. I hope they're both ok.

RobertKK

krankykitty wrote: »

Sorry you're wrong there. Pro choice people did not kill the unborn baby. The woman chose to abort. Her experience of feeling it was worse than rape does not speak for every raped woman everywhere. BTW by what you're saying you'd think women love abortions. Nobody actually WANTS to be in that position

Both are wrong, in the C case she never wanted an abortion, she has publicly stated this.

She didn't want to keep the baby, the HSE understood that to mean she wanted an abortion. Her parents tried to stop the abortion and went to court but the state knew best...
Speaking on the Pat Kenny show she said at 13 years of age she didn't know what an abortion was, and just wanted to give the baby away for adoption.
She asked to see her baby after the abortion, not understanding she was dead, she had wanted to see her baby before she gave her away.
She said that when she had said at the time she didn't want it, she didn't mean for her unborn girl to be killed.

The state forced an abortion on her and didn't give regard to her parents. It was presumed given she was raped she wanted an abortion.
She said she never wanted an abortion.

---

The current case is different and the obstetrician preferred to save life rather than take it, given the baby is alive and 'doing well'.
I don't see why the unborn would have to die for the sins of the father when he/she along with the mother are both equally innocent.
I just hope the woman is getting the mental health care she requires, and the baby in time when healthy enough to leave hospital finds a good family.

Nodin

RobertKK wrote: »

Both are wrong, in the C case she never wanted an abortion, she has publicly stated this.

She didn't want to keep the baby, the HSE understood that to mean she wanted an abortion. Her parents tried to stop the abortion and went to court but the state knew best...
Speaking on the Pat Kenny show she said at 13 years of age she didn't know what an abortion was, and just wanted to give the baby away for adoption.
She asked to see her baby after the abortion, not understanding she was dead, she had wanted to see her baby before she gave her away.
She said that when she had said at the time she didn't want it, she didn't mean for her unborn girl to be killed.

The state forced an abortion on her and didn't give regard to her parents. It was presumed given she was raped she wanted an abortion.
She said she never wanted an abortion.

.

The situation and her demands at the time were sworn, witnessed and attested to. The fact that she seems to have changed her story in the interim can be presumably put down to mental trauma, as theres no evidence whatsoever that your conspiracy theory has any basis in fact.