woman refused abortion - Mod Note in first post.

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

KindOfIrish

Berserker wrote: »

And I was talking from a medical and legal perspective. The personal opinion aspect doesn't really come into play in a professional capacity.

Those who sent Jews to gas chambers in Nazi Germany thought in about the same lines. The Law introduced by idiots and child rapists is not an excuse.

Penny Tration

KindOfIrish wrote: »

Those who sent Jews to gas chambers in Nazi Germany thought in about the same lines. The Law introduced by idiots and child rapists is not an excuse.

I fully believe the woman should have been given an abortion, but comparing this to the Holocaust is bonkers.

Berserker

KindOfIrish wrote: »

Those who sent Jews to gas chambers in Nazi Germany thought in about the same lines. The Law introduced by idiots and child rapists is not an excuse.

I give up, I really do. What an incredibly ignorant post.

SpaceTime

DeadHand wrote: »

Abortion... The Irish solution: "Arrah, we'll a kinda half have it".

Meanwhile, Irish women continue to fly to London in their droves as we export that which our leaders are too cowardly to deal with conclusively to the English. This sanctimonious, hypocritical nonsense from a country with a shameful record in the official treatment of children that have been born.

Horror stories like this one will continue to appear until we mature as a nation and legalise abortion.

Also, public opinion has changed radically on these issues over the last 30 years and the last time that the public had any kind of say on this in reality was 1983.

My concern though is that we won't actually get a "legalise" or "don't legalise" type question if there is any kind of referendum. It'll be another convoluted mess that we'll be asked to vote on some obscure aspect of.

Even in 2014, you'd have a good % of Irish political establishment types running in fear of the reaction of very conservative elements.

tritium

KindOfIrish wrote: »

Those who sent Jews to gas chambers in Nazi Germany thought in about the same lines. The Law introduced by idiots and child rapists is not an excuse.

Oooh you Godwined it! Good job! Yes let's equate it to the holocaust. Because ireland is really a repressive dictatorship where the vast hordes of populace are screaming for the law to be changed. Its just "da man" who holds us back!


What a truely dumb comparison.

lazygal

SpaceTime wrote: »

Also, public opinion has changed radically on these issues over the last 30 years and the last time that the public had any kind of say on this in reality was 1983.

My concern though is that we won't actually get a "legalise" or "don't legalise" type question if there is any kind of referendum. It'll be another convoluted mess that we'll be asked to vote on some obscure aspect of.

Even in 2014, you'd have a good % of Irish political establishment types running in fear of the reaction of very conservative elements.

And you've got people like Peter Mathews who thinks its all grand because we're all going to die anyway.

Berserker

SpaceTime wrote: »

My concern though is that we won't actually get a "legalise" or "don't legalise" type question if there is any kind of referendum. It'll be another convoluted mess that we'll be asked to vote on some obscure aspect of.

Even in 2014, you'd have a good % of Irish political establishment types running in fear of the reaction of very conservative elements.

And you are correct, in my opinion. Next time round we will have two of FF, FG & SF in power for the most-part. Neither coalition has the will or the power to take on the RCC on this issue. We might get another wishy-washy referendum to appease the masses at best.

ProfessorPlum

SpaceTime wrote: »

Also, public opinion has changed radically on these issues over the last 30 years and the last time that the public had any kind of say on this in reality was 1983.

My concern though is that we won't actually get a "legalise" or "don't legalise" type question if there is any kind of referendum. It'll be another convoluted mess that we'll be asked to vote on some obscure aspect of.

Even in 2014, you'd have a good % of Irish political establishment types running in fear of the reaction of very conservative elements.

I hope not. I hope the only question is something along the lines of 'agree to removal of article 40.3.3 from the constitution'

The constitution is no place to mention abortion in any way.

RDM_83 again

Can some one thats gone through the maternity system in ireland confirm this but isn't normal to register and consult with a gp etc when you discover your pregnant?

lazygal

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Can some one thats gone through the maternity system in ireland confirm this but isn't normal to register and consult with a gp etc when you discover your pregnant?

First time I knew I was pregnant (had it confirmed by a maternity hospital), went to GP and then decided on private consultant led care, so I had no further scheduled contact with my GP apart from a flu jab. On my second pregnancy I booked with my consultant directly and had no contact with my GP apart from a whooping cough vaccine (which I decided to have) and towards the end of the pregnancy when my consultant was on holidays and I needed a sick cert for work.

So no, it is not normal or indeed necessary to register with a GP. Most women do, and some maternity services require a letter confirming the pregnancy, but I know of many women who didn't confirm anything with a GP, especially on second and subsequent pregnancies when they feel it is a waste of time and/money (some will charge for the visit, others don't).

Shenshen

I won't claim I'm aware of the fact of this case.
All I know is that a woman who was assessed by two medical professionals to be suicidal and was therefore recommended to be allowed an abortion instead had, on the instructions of another medical professional, an early c-section and the baby is alive and well.

That in itself is bad enough. What really galled me though was that newstalk interviewed a bishop of dunnowhere this morning, and it would appear that even this isn't quite enough for some of those blokes.
He stated that in his view, an early termination of the pregnancy really carried too much risk for the baby, and the woman should have been forced to carry the pregancy to term.

It was all I could do not to tear my radio out and throw it out of the car window.
The poor woman is suicidal and carrying an unwanted pregnancy, she's in a terrible place mentally and probably physically, but no, for the man in the dress it's not an option to allow her any relief at all....

lazygal

That is Catholic teaching though. It's uncomfortable and reprehensible that a foetus gets more rights than a woman, but that is what Catholic teaching is, no abortion, no way, no how.

I do wonder why a bishop's view is relevant in this case.

SpaceTime

lazygal wrote: »

That is Catholic teaching though. It's uncomfortable and reprehensible that a foetus gets more rights than a woman, but that is what Catholic teaching is, no abortion, no way, no how.

I do wonder why a bishop's view is relevant in this case.

Because if it's the National Maternity Hospital, the Archbishop of Dublin is the chairman.

DeadHand

Berserker wrote: »

And you are correct, in my opinion. Next time round we will have two of FF, FG & SF in power for the most-part. Neither coalition has the will or the power to take on the RCC on this issue. We might get another wishy-washy referendum to appease the masses at best.

Is the RCC really such a force anymore?

In my opinion, it's more the innate conservatism and cowardice of our political classes that is the major obstacle to common sense on this issue. The all conquering fear of losing voters. That's why they are terrified of this emotive, polarising issue and only ever address it when some disaster occurs and they absolutely need to and even then only in a half baked, indecisive manner. To the majority of Irish politicians gaining and maintaining votes is more important than doing the right thing.

Czarcasm

conorh91 wrote: »

The obstetrician is the one expert who hasthe 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.

The disagreement was in the method of termination of the pregnancy -

Abortion - No baby.

Cesarean - Baby.

That still doesn't answer the question as to why the obstetrician and the HSE were going to seek a High Court order to compel the woman to undergo a cesarean when even by your understanding, the pregnancy could have been terminated 16 weeks later as the woman would have given birth naturally.

What was the rush to force her to undergo an unnecessary and invasive medical procedure that put her life, and the life of the unborn child at risk, if, as you say, they were all in agreement upon a termination of the pregnancy?

I merely wish to understand why a cesarean section at 24 weeks was justified as a practicable measure that regarded the life of the mother as equal to that of the unborn child when two consultant psychiatrists recommended an abortion, and the obstetrician recommended that the woman continue with the pregnancy, despite the risk of suicide.

efb

Czarcasm wrote: »

The disagreement was in the method of termination of the pregnancy -

Abortion - No baby.

Cesarean - Baby.

That still doesn't answer the question as to why the obstetrician and the HSE were going to seek a High Court order to compel the woman to undergo a cesarean when even by your understanding, the pregnancy could have been terminated 16 weeks later as the woman would have given birth naturally.

What was the rush to force her to undergo an unnecessary and invasive medical procedure that put her life, and the life of the unborn child at risk, if, as you say, they were all in agreement upon a termination of the pregnancy?

I merely wish to understand why a cesarean section at 24 weeks was justified as a practicable measure that regarded the life of the mother as equal to that of the unborn child when two consultant psychiatrists recommended an abortion, and the obstetrician recommended that the woman continue with the pregnancy, despite the risk of suicide.

I don't think the psychs recommended an abortion, only the termination of the pregnancy- which occurred

Kiwi in IE

SpaceTime wrote: »

Because if it's the National Maternity Hospital, the Archbishop of Dublin is the chairman.

I'm sorry but in what other Western country is a f*^%#n Bishop deemed to be an expert on issues of Obstetrics and Gynaecology? And here lies the root cause of the entire abortion law fiasco in this country! In fact here lies the root cause of every issue that has, and continues to make Ireland look socially backward in comparison to the rest of the developed world!

RobertKK

lazygal wrote: »

That is Catholic teaching though. It's uncomfortable and reprehensible that a foetus gets more rights than a woman, but that is what Catholic teaching is, no abortion, no way, no how.

I do wonder why a bishop's view is relevant in this case.

Everyone is entitled in society to give their viewpoint, unless one wants censorship.


Both have rights, and catholic teaching is the life of the mother has to be saved if her life is in danger even if it means the unintentional killing of the unborn.

However the church doesn't support the suicide argument, and a lot of other people don't either.

Shenshen

RobertKK wrote: »

Everyone is entitled in society to give their viewpoint, unless one wants censorship.


Both have rights, and catholic teaching is the life of the mother has to be saved if her life is in danger even if it means the unintentional killing of the unborn.

However the church doesn't support the suicide argument, and a lot of other people don't either.

Why, though? Do they assume it's better if she kills herself and takes the unborn with her?

rainbow kirby

Why should RC doctrine be the law of the land? Republic, not theocracy.

CroatoanCat

Guardian editorial:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/17/guardian-view-abortion-ireland-no-choice

RobertKK

Shenshen wrote: »

Why, though? Do they assume it's better if she kills herself and takes the unborn with her?

They don't.

Abortion is not a treatment for suicidal ideation.

RobertKK

rainbow kirby wrote: »

Why should RC doctrine be the law of the land? Republic, not theocracy.

People voted to give the unborn the right to life.

In a civilised progressive society this is what one would expect.

lazygal

RobertKK wrote: »

They don't.

Abortion is not a treatment for suicidal ideation.

You can keep repeating this pro-life mantra but it's simply a glib remark.

RobertKK

lazygal wrote: »

You can keep repeating this pro-life mantra but it's simply a glib remark.

So are you a psychiatrist?

http://www.thejournal.ie/psychiatrists-abortion-legislation-suicide-885632-Apr2013/

ALMOST 90 PER CENT of respondents to a nationwide survey of psychiatrists have expressed concern with the Government’s plan to include the risk of suicide as grounds for an abortion under forthcoming legislation.
113 of 127 psychiatrists, who took part in a survey organised by four of their peers, said they agreed with a statement that they were “deeply concerned” about plans to legislate for suicidality as grounds for an abortion being carried out.

They also affirmed that the proposals “must be based on a rigorous appraisal of the available psychiatric research and medical evidence”.

“We as psychiatrists are being called upon to participate in a process that is not evidence-based and we do not believe that this should be asked of the profession,” the statement further added.

Akrasia

RobertKK wrote: »

They don't.

Abortion is not a treatment for suicidal ideation.

Not this ****e again

lazygal

RobertKK wrote: »

So are you a psychiatrist?

http://www.thejournal.ie/psychiatrists-abortion-legislation-suicide-885632-Apr2013/

Are you?

And that "survey" was conducted by Patricia Casey and other anti choice cronies. No responsible psychiatrists bothered with it.

RobertKK

Akrasia wrote: »

Not this ****e again

We can all believe in fairy tales that it is evidence based if one chooses.

Shenshen

RobertKK wrote: »

They don't.

Abortion is not a treatment for suicidal ideation.

So the RCC is happy to see both mother and child dead by simply refusing to accept that some women will choose to kill themselves rather than carry an unwanted pregnancy to term?

Wow.