woman refused abortion - Mod Note in first post.

Pappacharlie

All I can say is that it's time that we as a society grew up and realise that issues like this are not black and white. Abortion should never have been dealt with in our constitution. I am by no means pro abortion but at the same time there are situations where it should be available to women. Strict guidelines, not a method of contraception. In cases of rape, incest and where there is no hope of the baby surviving it should be available here. All I can say what has to happen for us to "grow up" as a society?
The Government should go to the people on this issue for once and for all.

strandroad

conorh91 wrote: »

Here's another one: the claim, or implication, that the psychiatrist and the medical team are incompetent. Classic cognitive dissonance.

When psychiatrists and obstetricians were coming out in their droves supporting the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill's legislative embryology, we were all applauding them and remarking how far medicine in Ireland has progressed. Now that anyone dares make a clinical decision which is at odds with what liberalism dictates must be required (we're liberals; no medical training is needed), there is online hysteria at doctors apparently enforcing their personal moral views on imprisoned females.

That's a strawman argument. Who are the people you are talking about exactly, and why should they have identical opinions on all experts in the field and all of their actions?

conorh91

mhge wrote: »

That's a strawman argument.

Can you explain why you think that (with reference to your understanding of the term 'straw man'?

For clarity, I am trying to convey grounds for believing that even if it was paternalistic and sexist in the past, the face of Irish medicine would appear to have changed for the better; particularly in relation to women and their reproductive choices.

strandroad

conorh91 wrote: »

In other words, I'm suggesting that we have seen a new side to Irish medical practitioners. It is probably safe to assume there are very few dogmatic catholic doctors practicing at specialist registration level or above in Ireland.

There were certainly enough of them to sign open letters around the time of Savita scandal, not even 2 years ago.

efb

Interesting point:
@TimForde: Did Frances Fitzgerald give her UN testimony in full knowledge that these events were unfolding back here.

strandroad

conorh91 wrote: »

Can you explain why you think that (with reference to your understanding of the term 'straw man'?

For clarity, I am trying to convey grounds for believing that even if it was paternalistic and sexist in the past, the face of Irish medicine would appear to have changed for the better; particularly in relation to women and their reproductive choices.

I explained in the part you cut off...
As to changing times - this whole case defies this claim. What kind of improved, compassionate towards women practitioner treats a woman the way she was, and is, treated?

Nodin

conorh91 wrote: »

Can you explain why you think that (with reference to your understanding of the term 'straw man'?

For clarity, I am trying to convey grounds for believing that even if it was paternalistic and sexist in the past, the face of Irish medicine would appear to have changed for the better; particularly in relation to women and their reproductive choices.

Do you support access to Abortion?

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

conorh91 wrote: »

What I'm saying is that we should have some confidence in a profession which showed broad support for the Act. There are people here rounding on the competence of the medics in question, and throwing words like incompetence around, and that seems to be without foundation, and it further seems irrational.

And unfortunately, that kind of thing tends to get accepted or ignored, simply because the person perpetuating it happens to stand on the same side of the fence as us.

It shouldn't go on.

As far as I can see, there are three scenarios here.
A) The woman presented at eight weeks as a suicide risk. Heels were dragged for months, eventually a C-section was performed.

The woman requested an abortion at eight weeks because she had been raped and/or feared for her life if a certain member of her family found out about the pregnancy. The law didn't allow for an abortion in those circumstances, she later became suicidal, went on hunger strike and eventually a C-section was performed to end the pregnancy as the foetus was at that stage viable.

C) She didn't request an abortion until a couple of weeks ago, either because she didn't realise she was pregnant or for some other reason.

Scenario A seems the least likely, but IF that's what happened, her medical team deserve criticism, and stating "if that's what happened, they're incompetent and unfit for their profession" isn't at all irrational or over the top, as long as that qualifier is in there. Like I say, Scenario A does seem the most far-fetched, but it's not "without foundation" either, it's going on some of what's been reported in the papers.

strandroad

The Irish Times mentions 8 weeks also today, so looks like scenario C is only supported by the Indo.

opiniated

Flying Fox wrote: »

I would have thought it was obvious, but the reason she was suicidal was because she was pregnant by her rapist and didn't want to give birth to his child.

Since the post I responded to was made before there was any mention of the word rape in the media, it wasn't remotely obvious at the time.

It's a horrendous case, and my heart bleeds for the poor woman.
I can't even imagine what she has been/is still going through.

Having said that - there is, based on the information available at this time (and I haven't gotten past page 33 on this thread) - no real objective way, at this time, for either of us to comment with any degree of accuracy on the ultimate effects on the poor womans mental health, or suicide risk.

There is just no way to determine whether an abortion, or termination of pregnancy, (deliberate distinction) would have/will resolve the womans mental health issues/suicide ideation.
To suggest otherwise is being overly simplistic, imho.
It's not as if the distress caused by the rape is going to disappear now that she is no longer pregnant. Neither is it true that she was ever going to forget being pregnant by her rapist, whether she was granted a termination, or an abortion.

You seem to be of the opinion that an abortion would automatically resolve her mental health issues?

I don't believe that is necessarily the case. In fact, I strongly doubt it.

conorh91

mhge wrote: »

As to changing times - this whole case defies this claim. What kind of improved, compassionate towards women practitioner treats a woman the way she was, and is, treated?

Again you're completely misreading the point. I am not defending the legislative framework, per se, I am suggesting that there are certain out-dated perceptions of medical doctors which seem misplaced.

Criticizing the Act is one thing, but there have been some really outlandish criticisms of the medical team in this thread, and elsewhere online, and it is getting a little hysterical.

Gustavo CoolS Quote wrote: »

Scenario A seems the least likely, but IF that's what happened, her medical team deserve criticism, and stating "if that's what happened, they're incompetent and unfit for their profession" isn't at all irrational or over the top, as long as that qualifier is in there.

i agree with you, and if that's as far as the "incompetence" remarks went, there would be no issue.

SpaceTime

conorh91 wrote: »

You're living in a dreamworld, or you haven't read the Act, or both.

Yup, I'm living in a dream world Conor91 ... obviously I am just entirely imagining this major international news story about Ireland, yet again, behaving totally irrationally when it comes to someone who finds themselves in a situation like this.

The recent legislation was extremely minimalist in approach and is completely hamstrung by the constitutional amendment anyway, so it's rather inevitable that it's going to be incredibly narrow to start with.

We as a country have just dragged a suicidal woman through a long drawn out process involving panels of people making decisions and wringing their hands about her situation by the looks of it until it was way beyond a stage where an early termination would even have been possible.

How exactly the Government ever thought that the Irish medical system / HSE would be able to decide anything in that kind of timeframe is beyond me. This is the same organisation that has spent about 10 years and wasted €40m being unable to decide where to build a hospital and that regularly has ridiculous wait times for just about anything.

Nodin

conorh91 wrote: »

Again you're completely misreading the point. I am not defending the legislative framework, per se, I am suggesting that there are certain out-dated perceptions of medical doctors which seem misplaced.

Criticizing the Act is one thing, but there have been some really outlandish criticisms of the medical team in this thread, and elsewhere online, and it is getting a little hysterical.

i agree with you, and if that's as far as the "incompetence" remarks went, there would be no issue.

Do you support access to abortion. If so, under what circumstances?

conorh91

SpaceTime wrote: »

Yup, I'm living in a dream world Conor91 ... obviously I am just entirely imagining this major international news story about Ireland, yet again, behaving totally irrationally when it comes to someone who finds themselves in a situation like this.

The recent legislation was extremely minimalist in approach and is completely hamstrung by the constitutional amendment anyway, so it's rather inevitable that it's going to be hamstrung to start with.

I was referring to your claim that "every pregnancy must go to full term regardless of risk", and the frankly crazy assertion that there is "a strong element of 'sex = dirty' stuck in the system"..

I'm not even trying to convince you out of your beliefs that Irish society is sexually repressed or somehow fanatically dogmatic, as the above suggestions would imply. Mostly I'm bemused. People believe all kinds of stuff.

conorh91

Nodin wrote: »

Do you support access to abortion. If so, under what circumstances?

Would you give it a rest Paxman.

Yes I support abortion, up until viability, even in circumstances where the mother's health is not at risk.

strandroad

conorh91 wrote: »

Again you're completely misreading the point. I am not defending the legislative framework, per se, I am suggesting that there are certain out-dated perceptions of medical doctors which seem misplaced.

Criticizing the Act is one thing, but there have been some really outlandish criticisms of the medical team in this thread, and elsewhere online, and it is getting a little hysterical.

What you're saying is that the team here should be trusted if someone had good opinion of experts who presented in Savita's case.
That's not at all reasonable.
The horrific circumstances of this case, as well as many opinions presented by various professionals around Savita case, do not justify such trust in the slightest.

SpaceTime

conorh91 wrote: »

I was referring to your claim that "every pregnancy must go to full term regardless of risk", and the frankly crazy assertion that there is "a strong element of 'sex = dirty' stuck in the system"..

I'm not even trying to convince you out of your beliefs that Irish society is sexually repressed or somehow fanatically dogmatic, as the above suggestions would imply. Mostly I'm bemused. People believe all kinds of stuff.

Have you actually ever read any Irish recent history? Based on your user name, I'm assuming you were born in 1991 and think that Ireland of the old days was the 1990s.

This country was about as morally right wing on anything to do with sex as Iran until the 1990s!

No other country in the western world had bans on condoms, contraception etc into the 1980s and we still had restrictions on sales in the 1990s.

To assume that there's still an element of that kind of thinking in Ireland's establishment is very reasonable. I can't see how it would have just suddenly gone away at the flick of a switch in the 1990s.

conorh91

mhge wrote: »

What you're saying is that the team here should be trusted if someone had good opinion of experts who presented in Savita's case.

No.

I'm saying there is no prima facie reason to assume Catholic nut jobs were this woman's medical team. I think many people will have observed doctors through their personal experiences, or during the last two years of intense media attention, and they will agree that catholic nut jobs tend not to be representative of the profession. Just like most professions.

SpaceTime

Conor91:

You're also forgetting that a big chunk of the medical services in this country are still provided by hospitals that are religious ethos based "voluntary hospitals" i.e. mostly state funded, but basically still owned by Catholic religious institutions.

So, to assume that Catholic teaching on abortion doesn't play a huge part in their ethics committees would be a little naive to say the least.

conorh91

SpaceTime wrote: »

Have you actually ever read any Irish recent history? Based on your user name, I'm assuming you were born in 1991 and think that Ireland of the old days was the 1990s.

This country was about as morally right wing on anything to do with sex as Iran until the 1990s!

No other country in the western world had bans on condoms, contraception etc into the 1980s and we still had restrictions on sales in the 1990s.

To assume that there's still an element of that kind of thinking in Ireland's establishment is very reasonable. I can't see how it would have just suddenly gone away at the flick of a switch in the 1990s.

Since you're trying to hold my age against me, can I ask you about yours?

Because extreme paranoia about Catholicism is something I've noticed in certain categories of individuals between the ages of 35 and 50. They have very legitimate points to make about how horrible a place Ireland was back in the day, but are often so preoccupied with that, they never look out the window and see how much has changed, and how the world has moved on without them.

strandroad

conorh91 wrote: »

No.

I'm saying there is no prima facie reason to assume Catholic nut jobs were this woman's medical team. I think many people will have observed doctors through their personal experiences, or during the last two years of intense media attention, and they will agree that catholic nut jobs tend not to be representative of the profession. Just like most professions.

No need for representative, just present. All it takes is one conservative among the panel(s) deciding to end up with a horrific case like this.

Mountainsandh

conorh91 wrote: »

Yeah I'm not talking about the aftermath; I'm talking about the (largely positive) contributions of the masters of the maternity hospitals and other medical professionals to the PLP Bill, as it then was, and how their coolheaded, professional contributions were generally welcomed at the time.

In other words, I'm suggesting that we have seen a new side to Irish medical practitioners. It is probably safe to assume there are very few dogmatic catholic doctors practicing at specialist registration level or above in Ireland.


As I said above, it isn't that people were necessarily celebrating the Bill/Act itself, it was the medical world's (broad) support for *any* legislation that would protect women, which people saw as a welcome departure from the old, paternalistic decisions which may have featured in previous generations of medical practice.

What I'm saying is that we should have some confidence in a profession which showed broad support for the Act. There are people here rounding on the competence of the medics in question, and throwing words like incompetence around, and that seems to be without foundation, and it further seems irrational.

And unfortunately, that kind of thing tends to get accepted or ignored, simply because the person perpetuating it happens to stand on the same side of the fence as us.

It shouldn't go on.

Completely disagree with the bold, completely, utterly.
Conorh91 it is disingenuous to pretend that all doctors in Ireland right now are all highly competent professionals who critically appraise their practice.

That is wrong, very wrong, and is proven wrong by all the cases brought to justice, all the pay outs to families' who are caring for babies who suffer for a lack of care or plain incompetence at their birth.

My own experience of the Irish medical system and practice is dire. I told my GP after my daughter was born how incompetent and backwards the treatment I had received in hospital was, and he assured me my obstetrician was of high renown, blah blah blah... the usual crap.
It has only recently emerged that same obs was responsible for a pay out of millions for a baby who is now disabled for life (and is lucky to be alive) for the obs incompetence at the time of birth. This was 10 days after birth of my daughter. I was in same hospital at that time suffering with consequences of incompetence too, while my baby was minded at home.

Not all, but a lot of doctors in Ireland are incompetent, or behave in an incompetent manner, and sugarcoating mistakes or blanketing incompetence or a dire functioning of the medical system in Irish hospitals is outrageous.

It happens every day.
It needs to stop.

If the delay in this case is real, well then there is no sugarcoating it and excusing it on a legal basis because this or that or the other ... it was a horrible display of incompetence, in either moving things along, or being biased by personal moral compass in a professional situation.

As you can probably tell, that makes me furious. I'm sick of all the BS in Ireland in that regard, the never ending excuses, the blinkers.

Never mind the cognitive dissonance supposition.
People are more aware these days of what is happening around them, they question what happens more, and it's a good thing. People disagree with what is happening simply because they can see and understand, they have access to research, and have the guts to say that they think it is wrong.

That same obs who followed me for the birth of my daughter had a great reputation, simply because women under his care were compliant enough not to ask questions, they hadn't a clue and had no way to find out about obstetrics. He "saved" them from situations they thought naturally happened. In hindsight, how many of these situations were possibly the result of his incompetence ?

So yes, incompetence is well and truly there, and was possibly displayed once again in this case. That some doctors are highly competent and compassionate in Ireland does not negate the above.

SpaceTime

conorh91 wrote: »

Since you're trying to hold my age against me, can I ask you about yours?

Because extreme paranoia about Catholicism is something I've noticed in certain categories of individuals between the ages of 35 and 50. They have very legitimate points to make about how horrible a place Ireland was back in the day, but are often so preoccupied with that, they never look out the window and see how much has changed, and how the world has moved on without them.

No you can't ask about my age because I don't publish it in my username.
I'm under 35 though.

As I've stated over and over on this thread, yes Ireland has moved on, but not in every respect. This is the one area that it's firmly stuck where it was in 1983 (which was like 1953 for most of the rest of the world).

The world has certainly moved on, but Ireland most definitely hasn't on this issue.

I'd suggest you have a read of the Irish constitution sometime.

Or, attend an Oireachtas meeting. Do you know every one of them still starts with a prayer and blessing yourself for example?

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

conorh91 wrote: »

No.

I'm saying there is no prima facie reason to assume Catholic nut jobs were this woman's medical team. I think many people will have observed doctors through their personal experiences, or during the last two years of intense media attention, and they will agree that catholic nut jobs tend not to be representative of the profession. Just like most professions.

If you speak to women who've given birth, been on the pill, accessed the MAP, miscarried etc, you might be very unpleasantly surprised at what many people have observed about doctors through their personal experiences.

conorh91

SpaceTime wrote: »

No you can't ask about my age because I don't publish it in my username.
I'm under 35 though.

Good for you. I'm 91. I can claim I know more than you because I claim to have lived longer.

Czarcasm

conorh wrote:

Can you explain why you think that (with reference to your understanding of the term 'straw man'?

For clarity, I am trying to convey grounds for believing that even if it was paternalistic and sexist in the past, the face of Irish medicine would appear to have changed for the better; particularly in relation to women and their reproductive choices.

The face of Irish medicine has definitely overall changed for the better conor, but a case like this highlights the fact that the medical profession still has a long way to go in this country when according to reports in the media, the obstetrician involved in the case could disregard the opinions of the two other consultant psychiatrists on the case who deemed the woman met the criteria under Section 9 for a termination of her pregnancy.

The obstetrician judged that despite the risk of suicide, the woman should continue her pregnancy. Without unanimous agreement among the panel, the woman was denied a termination of her pregnancy under Section 9.

For clarity, and so you might understand that not all posters here are liberal minded whatever so and so, the cognitive dissonance for me stems from the fact that I am a conservative RC, but also I am a humanitarian, and in this instance, you've got a whole lot going on between my religious beliefs, my compassion for the woman in question (I really am struggling to empathise with the medical, legal, and social care professionals involved in this case tbh), my struggle to remain objective despite my experience of some of the elements involved in this case...

As difficult as the discussion on this thread has been for me personally, I can't even begin to imagine the humiliation, pain and suffering that this woman must have gone through, so, so unnecessarily, that could so easily have been prevented if she had been treated as any human being suffering such pain would hope to be treated - with compassion, dignity and respect. None of which is evident in this case.

SpaceTime

Just to give you a little flavour of how religious Ireland is in 2014 (institutionally speaking)

96% of schools are in religions patronage i.e. owned by religious organisations.

Constitution starts with :

In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred,

We, the people of Éire,
Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial,
Gratefully remembering their heroic and unremitting struggle to regain the rightful independence of our Nation,
And seeking to promote the common good, with due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity, so that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured, true social order attained, the unity of our country restored, and concord established with other nations,
Do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this Constitution.

Every meeting of the Dail and Seanad starts with blessing yourself and :

Prayer

Direct, we beseech Thee, O Lord, our actions by Thy holy inspirations and carry them on by Thy gracious assistance; that every word and work of ours may always begin from Thee, and by Thee be happily ended; through Christ our Lord. Amen.

The above prayer is said at the commencement of each day's business in the Dáil by the Ceann Comhairle, and in the Seanad by the Clerk of the Seanad.

...

So, yeah it's just 35-50 year olds being paranoid that Ireland still a theocracy or at least heavily religiously influenced in terms of how social policy and public policy is formed.
It's grand! Modern, 21st century, modern, secular paradise where nothing like this headline international news story about denying a rape victim an abortion would possibly ever happen.

ProfessorPlum

Most, the vast majority of doctors in Ireland are competent, compassionate and do their jobs to the best of their ability. It might surprise many to know the ridiculous conditions they have to work with regarding overwork/understaffing/under resourcing in the health service. And also the restrictions and difficulties they are placed under while trying to act within the law. It is grossly unfair, in my opinion, to scapegoat the medics in a case such as this, when there is no evidence that they have done anything except act within the law and to the best of their ability.

ProfessorPlum

SpaceTime wrote: »

Just to give you a little flavour of how religious Ireland is in 2014 (institutionally speaking)

96% of schools are in religions patronage i.e. owned by religious organisations.

Constitution starts with :



Every meeting of the Dail and Seanad starts with blessing yourself and :



The above prayer is said at the commencement of each day's business in the Dáil by the Ceann Comhairle, and in the Seanad by the Clerk of the Seanad.

...

So, yeah it's just 35-50 year olds being paranoid that Ireland still a theocracy or at least heavily religiously influenced in terms of how social policy and public policy is formed.
It's grand! Modern, 21st century, modern, secular paradise where nothing like this headline international news story about denying a rape victim an abortion would possibly ever happen.

Yeah, and all that pisses me off too. But it doesn't have any relevance to the discussion at hand.

SpaceTime

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Most, the vast majority of doctors in Ireland are competent, compassionate and do their jobs to the best of their ability. It might surprise many to know the ridiculous conditions they have to work with regarding overwork/understaffing/under resourcing in the health service. And also the restrictions and difficulties they are placed under while trying to act within the law. It is grossly unfair, in my opinion, to scapegoat the medics in a case such as this, when there is no evidence that they have done anything except act within the law and to the best of their ability.

Not to mention that many of them are also working largely in hospitals with religious ethos-driven ethics committees at the top making maters even more complicated.

The older voluntary hospitals are mostly religious. It's only more modern institutions or ones that came from a different origin i.e. old poor law hospitals or other non-religious origins are genuinely public hospitals run by the HSE.