woman refused abortion - Mod Note in first post.

ProfessorPlum

efb wrote: »

Up to 1984

It seems it wasn't an 'encouraged' procedure after 1966. That's not to say it didn't happen. Also there may have been very rare cases when it was actually indicated. but I think all of that is for another day.

ProfessorPlum

efb wrote: »

The ethos of discouraging CS as it reduced further child birth would be another reason for it's low take up in Ireland

No, it really wouldn't in the 1990's. It was around that time that it was realised that vaginal birth after caesarian section was safe and so the same catholic paranoia surrounding c section wasn't evident.

conorh91

Czarcasm wrote: »

So either it was incompetence, or it wasn't? If there's one thing I know about the HSE, it's that they will bury you in bureaucratic procedures and paperwork. They love their paperwork, in triplicate copies and double signed, so the idea that her request got lost under the photocopier or whatever nonsense they're going with this time, it's simply inexcusable given everything else they put this woman through.

You really are defending the indefensible at this stage conor, and clutching at straws to do so.

You're actually unbelievable.

I politely respond to your claim that the obstetrician disagreed with the psychiatric opinion, and you're trying to ignore that or turn it around to claim that I am the one in the wrong?

I have no idea if there is incompetence on behalf of any medic attached to this case, nor do you. That's the point.

I'm not defending anything, because it's not yet clear where any wrongdoing is alleged to lie.

Czarcasm

conorh91 wrote: »

You're actually unbelievable.

I politely respond to your claim that the obstetrician disagreed with the psychiatric opinion, and you're trying to ignore that or turn it around to claim that I am the one in the wrong?

I have no idea if there is incompetence on behalf of any medic attached to this case, nor do you. That's the point.

I'm not defending anything, because it's not yet clear where any wrongdoing is alleged to lie.

The reason conor I ignored it was because I simply refuse to be dragged down another interpretative rabbit hole with you. We'll end up in the same position again where you interpret things one way, and I interpret them another, and neither of us is willing to concede an inch on our difference of opinion.

irishpancake

Gustavo CoolS Quote wrote: »

Looking at the Irish Times article, it seems like the panel were pretty well hamstrung by the law the time she got to them. Someone cocked up earlier though, seeing as it appears that she got an examination at eight weeks, decided immediately that she wanted an abortion, and then three months elapsed before she was referred to a panel.

Even if one thinks the PLP legislation is adequate, things were not operating as they should have been even within that very restrictive framework. It also shows up the PLP for the crock of shít that it is, at eight weeks and as a rape victim, surely to god a GP should have been able to deal with the situation at their discretion. In combination this means that a woman who could have taken a few tablets in a doctor's office ended up on hunger strike and undergoing surgery to delivery a horribly premature child who will now (if they survive, and that's a pretty big if) be taken into care. Anybody who thinks that's right needs to... I don't even know what they need to do.

And the question arises as to the child's legal position within Ireland.

The mother is an asylum seeker, and the rapist father is not in this country apparently. I think these are right.

So, as well as being in care, does this child also face difficulties in regard to residency and citizenship.

It is most definitely a mess.

conorh91

Czarcasm wrote: »

The reason conor I ignored it was because I simply refuse to be dragged down another interpretative rabbit hole with you. We'll end up in the same position again where you interpret things one way, and I interpret them another, and neither of us is willing to concede an inch on our difference of opinion.

There is simply no other interpretation!

There is no report in any media outlet of any obstetrician being in disagreement with any other medical practitioner, in respect of this woman's treatment.

What part of that is unclear?

Any time you're proven wrong you retreat into some corner where you just keep repeating "that's your interpretation, I have mine", without your interpretation having any conceivable basis.

irishpancake

Here is Kitty Holland's IT article:

Woman sought abortion at eight weeks

Czarcasm

conorh91 wrote: »

There is simply no other interpretation!

There is no report in any media outlet of any obstetrician being in disagreement with any other medical practitioner, in respect of this woman's treatment.

What part of that is unclear?

Any time you're proven wrong you retreat into some corner where you just keep repeating "that's your interpretation, I have mine", without your interpretation having any conceivable basis.

Right, against my better judgement then, let's try this one more time. What reason do you think the obstetrician would have had for saying this -

conorh91 wrote: »

My understanding is that the obstetrician said "the baby is capable of being delivered alive", not that he or she was in disagreement with the psychiatric opinion on any psychiatric diagnosis.

if, as you claim, there was no disagreement with the two clinical psychologists that in their opinion there were justifiable grounds for an abortion.

It was refused even though the consultant psychiatrists on the three-person panel believed that an abortion was justified on suicide grounds, notwithstanding the advanced gestation.

Source: http://humanrights.ie/constitution-of-ireland/suicide-and-the-protection-of-life-in-pregnancy-act-2013/

conorh91

Czarcasm wrote: »

Right, against my better judgement then, let's try this one more time. What reason do you think the obstetrician would have had for saying this -

The obstetrician is the one expert who has the requisite clinical competence over the viability of the foetus outside the womb.

My reading of the (very vague) news reports is that all three consultants agreed to a termination.

But an obstetrician, who was able to see that life was viable, then submitted the particular type of termination that was necessary, if the medical team were to act to preserve both lives "as far as practicable", as per s.9 and s.22 of the Act.

So any notion of a disagreement between the parties does not appear to arise.

The obstetrician agreed to a termination. If life was viable, he had no right to go along with a clinical procedure which would have destroyed viable life. He had to submit that in this case, a Caesarian was the procedure demanded, and that a live child would have to be delivered.

Clearly the psychiatrists and the obstetrician were in agreement, because unanimity is an obligation of the Act, as Mairead Enright correctly observed, in the link above.

Nodin

irishpancake wrote: »

Here is Kitty Holland's IT article:

Woman sought abortion at eight weeks

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/woman-sought-abortion-at-eight-weeks-1.1899851
(my bold, where present)

Right -

He said the woman had been seeking information about abortion from authorities for up to three months before approaching a GP herself last month. The GP referred her to hospital.
Pregnant It was reported over the weekend she had been in her second trimester when she found out she was pregnant and asked for an abortion. This is disputed by her friend and a medical source familiar with the case, who said the woman found out she was pregnant four months ago and she requested an abortion then.
She arrived in the State this year. Her friend, who works in a university here, said the woman had been raped in her own country and found out she was pregnant when she underwent a medical assessment “a week or two after she arrived” in the State. “She told them immediately, ‘I do not want this. I am too young to be a mother. I am not ready,’” he said. She also feared for her safety as a result of the pregnancy.

He said she was not given information as to how to obtain an abortion and as the pregnancy continued she became increasingly distressed. He was advised she should go to a GP, which she did in mid-July. The GP gave her a letter for a hospital, he said, and she was admitted. She was told in hospital on July 22nd an abortion was not possible as the pregnancy was too far advanced.

Sources within the HSE confirmed it was not aware of her situation until mid-July by which stage she was at over 20 weeks. "
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/woman-sought-abortion-at-eight-weeks-1.1899851

So the question is, who are the "authorities" she was talking to prior to the GP visit, and what's their reason for failure to send or provide her with sufficient information as to know that she should go to a GP?

myshirt

Ok, here we go again...

This could well beat the Garth Brooks thread..

lazygal

myshirt wrote: »

Ok, here we go again...

This could well beat the Garth Brooks thread..

Seriously? A raped suicidal pregnant woman was put through a c section after a hunger strike and a Garth Brooks joke is appropriate? Grow up.

Soft Falling Rain

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Is it?

We get lots of people declaring how precious the childs life is before it's born but it seems like these people stop giving a **** when it is born. It's hypocrisy plain and simple. The consequences of bringing an unwanted child into the world aren't ever given much consideration.

I think this is an unfair thing to level at "pro-lifers" as I think most will hope that a child is brought up in a loving environment.

No-one can take a personal interest in every child but we have a profession that society has entrusted this responsibility with. You might have heard of them; they're called social workers.

lazygal

Soft Falling Rain wrote: »

I think this is an unfair thing to level at "pro-lifers" as I think most will hope that a child is brought up in a loving environment.

No-one can take a personal interest in every child but we have a profession that society has entrusted this responsibility with. You might have heard of them; they're called social workers.

Prolifers take an interest in every woman's uterus though.

efb

conorh91 wrote: »

The obstetrician is the one expert who has the requisite clinical competence over the viability of the foetus outside the womb.

My reading of the (very vague) news reports is that all three consultants agreed to a termination.

But an obstetrician, who was able to see that life was viable, then submitted the particular type of termination that was necessary, if the medical team were to act to preserve both lives "as far as practicable", as per s.9 and s.22 of the Act.

So any notion of a disagreement between the parties does not appear to arise.

The obstetrician agreed to a termination. If life was viable, he had no right to go along with a clinical procedure which would have destroyed viable life. He had to submit that in this case, a Caesarian was the procedure demanded, and that a live child would have to be delivered.

Clearly the psychiatrists and the obstetrician were in agreement, because unanimity is an obligation of the Act, as Mairead Enright correctly observed, in the link above.

I would agree with Conor here. All were in agreement the pregnancy should be terminated- as the baby was viable it was c sectioned in accordance with the guidelines

RDM_83 again

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Your post is very hard to read, but from what I can glean you are suggesting forcibly confining suicidal pregnant women who request abortions and forcing them to continue the pregnancy and give birth against their will whilst confined? I hope I am misunderstanding because I find it extremely hard to believe that anyone who thinks like that has an ounce of kindness, decency or humanity.

No thats not what I am saying: at present Ireland has a highly restrictive abortion regime this may or may not change.
From my outsiders understanding of psychiatric evaluation for issues like Suicidal Ideation where you may not see any clear physical/neurological/hormonal evidence they are made on a balance of probabilities obviously putting great weight on a persons statements.
My question is, as some-one involved in this field, leaving aside your personal views do you consider it possible for an assessment of a woman presenting herself as a suicide risk due to pregnancy to be refused termination without there being some level of risk that she is a genuine risk.

My point in relation to coercive confinement is that if some-one is judged as a serious suicide risk there is a place for pro-active intervention by professionals. As AFAIK termination is not considered a treatment within the DSM for this issue and termination is often (and often isn;t before I get killed for this) a traumatic experience, if some-one is regarded as a serious suicide risk whether or not the termination is provided as a solution in a functioning system is likely to require intervention whatever the outcome of the pregnancy.

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

Chattastrophe!

Phoenix wrote: »

Was the lady seeking information in her home country or here or attending a GP in her home country or in Ireland??and was she resident here previous ?

Oooh is there a chance we can again export our problem abroad?

From what I've read, the woman was raped in her home country, sought asylum in Ireland, and then this happened to her. Some refuge. She certainly picked the wrong country if she was hoping to avoid further physical and mental violation.

AudreyHepburn

green_screen wrote: »

Not many people have the guts of a thousand euro available at the drop of a hat? Also, if she was truly suicidal (I don't know her, so can't comment on that), the abortion legislation should have given her the right to have one in Ireland.

But she wasn't suicidal, she was evaluated and found not to be in danger of hurting herself.

It must have been a horrible situation to be in, to be pregnant with a rapists' baby. But if the child was viable and the mother's life was in no danger than there was no reason for a termination.

The child shouldn't have to suffer because of what it's father did.

I'm all for women having the choice but it does need to be regulated as it was here.

We can't just start handing out abortions willy nilly like it's just another form of contraception.

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

padd b1975

Chattastrophe! wrote: »

Oooh is there a chance we can again export our problem abroad?

From what I've read, the woman was raped in her home country, sought asylum in Ireland, and then this happened to her. Some refuge. She certainly picked the wrong country if she was hoping to avoid further physical and mental violation.

What country did she come from?

It would be interesting to compare....

zl1whqvjs75cdy

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

But she wasn't suicidal, she was evaluated and found not to be in danger of hurting herself.

It must have been a horrible situation to be in, to be pregnant with a rapists' baby. But if the child was viable and the mother's life was in no danger than there was no reason for a termination.

The child shouldn't have to suffer because of what it's father did.

I'm all for women having the choice but it does need to be regulated as it was here.

We can't just start handing out abortions willy nilly like it's just another form of contraception.

The reports I heard this morning stated she was found to be suicidal?

Chattastrophe!

padd b1975 wrote: »

What country did she come from?

It would be interesting to compare....

Why would it be interesting to compare?

I hope you're not saying that, well, if she'd been treated similarly in her home country, it's fine for her to come for refuge in Ireland and be treated in the exact same way as she would have been in a third world country.

Is this what you're saying?

Akrasia

The 2013 law is such a rubbish law that almost guarantees a terrible outcome.

The number of hoops to jump through to prove that a woman is suicidal means that the most humane option, early term abortion, is unavailable. The later in the term the worse it is for everyone.

Now we have a terrible situation where a mentally distressed woman was forced to give birth against her will, a baby was born without a father, a mother, or even a nationality, and as an extremely early term baby, he/she will be at a hugely increased risk of health problems for life.

The mental distress this poor mother must feel, first she is raped and impregnated, and now she might have to live with the guilt of feeling that she has 'abandoned her child'. If Our abortion laws were in any way progressive, this woman would have had a termination at 2 weeks and would have been able to begin the process of recovery

I really hope that the baby has no health problems and that somehow, he/she will find him/herself in a secure loving family environment and not get lost in the care system like so many children do.

Molester Stallone II

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

But she wasn't suicidal, she was evaluated and found not to be in danger of hurting herself.

It must have been a horrible situation to be in, to be pregnant with a rapists' baby. But if the child was viable and the mother's life was in no danger than there was no reason for a termination.

The child shouldn't have to suffer because of what it's father did.

I'm all for women having the choice but it does need to be regulated as it was here.

We can't just start handing out abortions willy nilly like it's just another form of contraception.

She was confirmed as being suicidal

padd b1975

Chattastrophe! wrote: »

Why would it be interesting to compare?

I hope you're not saying that, well, if she'd been treated similarly in her home country, it's fine for her to come for refuge in Ireland and be treated in the exact same way as she would have been in a third world country.

Is this what you're saying?

No, just wanted to compare health systems.

NuMarvel

From reading the Irish Times article, it seems that, when taken in isolation, the Act works as it is intended. There doesn't seem to be any undue delay in her application being assessed, and the panel were able to make a determination that her life was at risk from suicide. And as an aside, their decision to deliver early discredits the Pro Life Campaign's claims that the legislation allows abortion up to 9 months. The concern I'd have on this aspect is that it seems she was told she couldn't have an abortion before the panel convened, but that may be just the way the article is worded.

However, there are still questions to be answered, particularly about the period up to her being admitted to hospital. Was she referred to maternity services when the pregnancy was first discovered? Was she referred to the appropriate agency when she said she didn't want to continue the pregnancy? If she was referred to these services, was she given information on her rights and options? It seems none of this happened until last month, and if that's correct, why the delay?

As another poster said, there's no guarantee that an application at 8 weeks would have resulted in a termination, but she would at least have been in contact with maternity services, and mental health services if needed. The woman was clearly in a distressed state from the beginning, and if delays on the part of State agencies exacerbated that, then we need to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Akrasia

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

But she wasn't suicidal, she was evaluated and found not to be in danger of hurting herself.

It must have been a horrible situation to be in, to be pregnant with a rapists' baby. But if the child was viable and the mother's life was in no danger than there was no reason for a termination.

The child shouldn't have to suffer because of what it's father did.

I'm all for women having the choice but it does need to be regulated as it was here.

We can't just start handing out abortions willy nilly like it's just another form of contraception.

Abortion is already available 'willy nilly' for women with the means to take a ryanair flight to the U.K. and pay the medical costs.

Its only the poor, the young, the immigrants and refugees who are forced to endure the trauma of dealing with the cold repressive regime in Ireland that is regularly condemned by international human rights organisations as a serious breach of human rights.

takamichinoku

padd b1975 wrote: »

What country did she come from?

It would be interesting to compare....

Would it? Can't see what's to be gained from comparing Ireland to a (presumably) less developed country. "If you think we suck, then why does this other place suck more?"

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

But she wasn't suicidal, she was evaluated and found not to be in danger of hurting herself.

She was deemed suicidal by a panel of three doctors.

bumper234

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

But she wasn't suicidal, she was evaluated and found not to be in danger of hurting herself.

It must have been a horrible situation to be in, to be pregnant with a rapists' baby. But if the child was viable and the mother's life was in no danger than there was no reason for a termination.

The child shouldn't have to suffer because of what it's father did.

I'm all for women having the choice but it does need to be regulated as it was here.

We can't just start handing out abortions willy nilly like it's just another form of contraception.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/babys-delivery-in-abortion-case-unethical-bishop-30515545.html

The two psychiatrists on the three-person panel deemed the termination necessary, however, the consultant obstetrician involved in the decision-making process differed and the baby was delivered by caesarean section.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/woman-sought-abortion-at-eight-weeks-1.1899851

The psychiatrists agreed she was suicidal, while the obstetrician said the baby could be delivered. The Caesarean was carried out in the last fortnight.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0816/637562-abortion-refusal/

The woman was assessed by a panel of three experts, It was agreed that she had suicidal thoughts and a decision was made to terminate the pregnancy by caesarean section. It is believed that the woman wanted to have an abortion and began a hunger strike.