woman refused abortion - Mod Note in first post.

lazygal

mrsbyrne wrote: »

Things have changed then. use to need a pregnancy confirmed by a GP. I presume that's still the route for most. Where I live the nearest maternity unit is 40km, so most women do dual care.

It depends on the hospital but I'm in Dublin and most women I know self referred to one of the main hospitals, be it for public, midwife led, semi private or private care.

Phoebas

Muise... wrote: »

And wanting to kill yourself is a bit hard to prove to a panel who are probably terrified of making a decision. Medical facts of FFA, which can be proven - well you've to go to England to sort that out as here we prefer arguing in circles about nonsense while women are left hanging. :mad:

In the only case that we know about - this one - the woman did prove to the panel that she was suicidal.

Ralphdejones

Phoebas wrote: »

In the only case that we know about - this one - the woman did prove to the panel that she was suicidal.

Has there been any figures published as to how many women have had an abortion under the new legislation to date ?

Phoebas

Ralphdejones wrote: »

Has there been any figures published as to how many women have had an abortion under the new legislation to date ?

I haven't seen any figures. I did read somewhere that this was the first, but its hard to take as verbatim anything that has been written about this case.

Ralphdejones

Phoebas wrote: »

I haven't seen any figures. I did read somewhere that this was the first, but its hard to take as verbatim anything that has been written about this case.

Months back I thought I read in the Irish Times the first one had been carried out just after the legislation came out. They are supposed to publish the figures every July 31st, but I can find no trace of them.

NuMarvel

Ralphdejones wrote: »

Months back I thought I read in the Irish Times the first one had been carried out just after the legislation came out. They are supposed to publish the figures every July 31st, but I can find no trace of them.

The Department of Health will probably be able to give you a definitive answer: info@health.gov.ie.

Ralphdejones

NuMarvel wrote: »

The Department of Health will probably be able to give you a definitive answer:

They are supposed to publish them for everyone, not just me

Phoebas

Ralphdejones wrote: »

Months back I thought I read in the Irish Times the first one had been carried out just after the legislation came out. They are supposed to publish the figures every July 31st, but I can find no trace of them.

From Wikipedia:

The Irish Times reported on 23 August 2013 that the first abortion under the terms of the Act had been performed several weeks earlier at the NMH.[34][95] In fact, although the act had been passed, it had not commenced.[96] The NMH story was investigated for possible breach of information privacy law.[97] On 31 August, The Irish Times withdrew its story and stated "the case described in the article did not happen".[95]

Calina

Ralphdejones wrote: »

Months back I thought I read in the Irish Times the first one had been carried out just after the legislation came out. They are supposed to publish the figures every July 31st, but I can find no trace of them.

This wouldn't be that story where the Irish Times subsequently admitted that in fact, no abortion had taken place at all, and certainly not as described in their front page story suggesting one had, involving twins?

In the mean time, we still are left with the situation that if women are entitled to an abortion in this country, they still have to jump through hoops to get one. The more complex you make a process like this, the more likely it is that something will go wrong in the process.

This case demonstrates it perfectly.

NuMarvel

Ralphdejones wrote: »

They are supposed to publish them for everyone, not just me

And maybe they did and people just don't know about it. Asking them would be the simplest, quickest way to find out for sure.

Ralphdejones

Phoebas wrote: »

From Wikipedia:

Good old Irish media eh, as trustworthy as ever.

Regardless of ones views, I'd love to see some proper factual investigative journalism emerge in this country some day, journalism that reported all the facts accurately in an unbiased manner so people can make their own minds up. Instead all we get from Irish 'journalists' are worthless slanted and lazy opinion pieces.

bumper234

Ralphdejones wrote: »

Good old Irish media eh, as trustworthy as ever.

Regardless of ones views, I'd love to see some proper factual investigative journalism emerge in this country some day, journalism that reported all the facts accurately in an unbiased manner so people can make their own minds up. Instead all we get from Irish 'journalists' are worthless slanted and lazy opinion pieces.

You think this is unique to Ireland?

Ralphdejones

bumper234 wrote: »

You think this is unique to Ireland?

No but it seems to be particularly rampant here, and just because its not unique to Ireland, does not mean that we should not demand better standards of Journalism.

When's the last time you seen some good thorough factual investigative journalism done about any of the recent scandals in Ireland ?

irishpancake

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?

Hi, and please forgive me if this has already been stated in the thread, I have not had time to read it completely......

but, I suppose it could be argued that you are correct, strictly speaking.

We, the people, did accept the PL Amendment, 40.3.3, way back in 1983, over 30 years ago.

The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.

Of course, the X Case came along in 1992, whereby the young, teenage, raped suicidal girl was injuncted by the then AG, and he proposed to detain her in the State, for nine months, to vindicate the right of the unborn to life and protection, as per his reading of 40.3.3.

This was appealed to the SC, and in an historic Ruling, they, in their collective wisdom ruled, with one dissenting Justice, that 40.3.3 meant the young girl had in fact, a right to a termination, in Ireland, due to her suicide ideation being a threat to her life, with due regard and, as far as practicable to protection of the life of the fetus, the unborn.

This is the ruling from Chief Justice Finlay, from the Judgement document:

Attorney General -v- X

Finlay C.J.

I, therefore, conclude that the proper test to be applied is that if it is established as a matter of probability that there is a real and substantial risk to the life, as distinct from the health, of the mother, which can only be avoided by the termination of her pregnancy, such termination is permissible, having regard to the true interpretation of Article 40, s. 3, sub-s. 3 of the Constitution.

We, the people subsequently upheld the Judgement, and rejected it's removal, in two Referenda.

There was no Legislation introduced by any Government to give effect to the legal reality of Termination/Abortion, in the restricted form allowed by the Constitution, as interpreted by the SC in "X", until last year, despite the SC's stated wish, in the X Judgement, that the Government should introduce such regulation.

So, to coin a phrase, we are where we are.

Thanks.

Calina

Ralphdejones wrote: »

Good old Irish media eh, as trustworthy as ever.

Regardless of ones views, I'd love to see some proper factual investigative journalism emerge in this country some day, journalism that reported all the facts accurately in an unbiased manner so people can make their own minds up. Instead all we get from Irish 'journalists' are worthless slanted and lazy opinion pieces.

There is some research done in the US - which is a particularly polarised place on several subjects - to suggest that people who have an inherent bias see bias in any piece which doesn't agree with their worldview, no matter how carefully balanced it is.

While there are a large number of Irish journalists whose output I truly don't appreciate - David Quinn, Breda O'Brien and John Waters are on that list along with Barry Egan and Niamh Horan, some of the RTE journalists have done extraordinary work in terms of reporting on organised crime, the Magdalen laundries to mention just two.

So I think it's wrong to blanket Irish journalists in the way which you have. They are not all of a piece.

In any case, that's of limited relevance to this case at present given that a lot of the information you are demanding is covered by legislation regarding patient and client confidentiality.

Calina

irishpancake wrote: »

We, the people, did accept the PL Amendment, 40.3.3, way back in 1983, over 30 years ago.

I was ten years old at that time. I'd argue that it's not accurate to say "we the people" when most of the people who are affected by it didn't accept it but had it foisted on them by a previous generation.

MrPudding

Ralphdejones wrote: »

A 'mercy' killing ? How very civilised of you.

I think we probably have very different ideas about what constitutes mercy or compassion. Do I think it is more merciful or compassionate to have an abortion where there is a FFA? Yes I do. You think you hold the moral high ground here, but you don't. The idea that you would force a woman to carry a foetus that will die in pain shortly after birth isn't in the slightest bit moral.

I beleive in life, I love life, but I don't think it should be at any cost. I also happen to think quality of life is an important consideration.

Does this mean I think a foetus found to be disabled should be aborted? No. But the mother should have that choice.

Do I feel a foetus with a FFA should be automatically aborted. No, but again there should be a choice. This is actually a good illustration of the difference between us. Because I advocate woman having a choice in their reproductive rights, and this means some will have abortions you equate this with me supporting the killing of babies. As a result, you likely think I am not a particularly good person. Similarly, when someone decides to continue with a pregnancy when the born child will suffer pain until they mercifully die, for what I consider a selfish reason like they want to cuddle it (the child gets no benefit from this) I think they are bad people. The difference is I won't try to force my view on them. Yes, I think they are selfish and cruel and I can't imagine why they would want to put something which they apparently love through the torture of a painful death, but they have that choice and I would not try to take it away from them.

MrP

Godge

Ralphdejones wrote: »

It's not another agency its a medical consultant panel, and rightly only a GP after medically examining a person can arrange that. That's where the process starts, and it took 16 weeks (8 weeks after she sought help from the HSE and IFPA, before someone, her friend, told a woman with serious medical issues to to get to a GP pronto. That's appaling.

I see that you are very concerned with the delay that happened in this case.

Wouldn't the delay be eliminated if we simplified the process and allowed the abortion before 18-20 weeks on the say-so of the woman that she is suicidal? No need for GPs, no need for panels, just turn up at a clinic or at A&E? This would very adequately address your concerns about the delay. By not doing so, we are already labelling women as liars, a typical mysoginist position.

Ralphdejones

Calina wrote: »

In any case, that's of limited relevance to this case at present given that a lot of the information you are demanding is covered by legislation regarding patient and client confidentiality.

So why have so many personal details and snippets already been reported?

Calina

Ralphdejones wrote: »

So why have so many personal details and snippets already been reported?

Possibly because the person concerned who has the right to decide whether those details get released has decided so.

In other words, you can ask for information but that doesn't mean you'll get it; but the person who has and owns it may decide whether to release it or not.

Ralphdejones

Calina wrote: »

Possibly because the person concerned who has the right to decide whether those details get released has decided so.

In other words, you can ask for information but that doesn't mean you'll get it; but the person who has and owns it may decide whether to release it or not.

So why have the HSE given out additional information about the case ?

eyescreamcone

mrsbyrne wrote: »

Are you suggesting that citizens over certain age not be allowed to vote???

Everybody over 18 should be allowed to vote.
However, only people over 49 years of age had the opportunity to vote on the 8th Ammendment (and only 50% bothered to do so).
We need to revisit this legal abomination as soon as possible and put in place a law that is suitable for modern women of child bearing age.

Any of you anti-choice gang who don't think that we need another referendum on this matter, can I add anti-democratic and cowardly to your list of qualities.

lazygal

What's to fear from another referendum? Surely if those on the prolifw side think they are on the majority side they'll be able to win the argument for keeping the eighth amendment? And if they're not in a majority they'll have to accept the decision of the majority and democracy will prevail.

Neyite

mrsbyrne wrote: »

Its odd that you got to see an oby/gcynae without being referred by a GP

mrsbyrne wrote: »

Things have changed then. use to need a pregnancy confirmed by a GP. I presume that's still the route for most. Where I live the nearest maternity unit is 40km, so most women do dual care.

A GP is optional. In my case, I was going public system, so went to my GP. My home pregnancy test was more sensitive than the surgery ones, so it was really just a form filling exercise for Combined Care and a reminder to take folic acid.

If you go private, then you just ring up the consultant you wish to treat you and book with their secretary.

However...

Many hospitals are cutting back on the number of ante-natal visits where they can. The 12 week dating scan is no longer done in my hospital, and the average waiting time for your first ante-natal appointment in 2012 was at 21 weeks. That was when you first went to speak to a midwife and discuss your care. Over on the pregnancy forum the reduction in number of scans and midwife visits is a regular topic that crops up.

In addition, many hospitals have a wait-and-see policy for threatened miscarriage. For my first one, I was point-blank refused an appointment over the phone with my local early pregnancy unit. Despite the fact I was 9 weeks along with a surviving twin I desperately wanted to save.

With my second miscarriage, mere months after Savita Halappanaver presented at the same hospital, my GP faxed a letter to the early pregnancy unit at 8am Monday Morning, I had begun bleeding during the night. Within hours I got a phone call, the midwife calling me to schedule an appointment for Tuesday of the following week, no earlier because she explained that the appointment is only to establish if the miscarriage is complete, not to attempt to save a pregnancy. The sole exam I got during this appointment was a pregnancy test dipped in my urine.

On my third miscarriage, My GP and I agreed I'd be wasting my time to try to attend the early pregnancy unit so I didnt bother.

I got referred to the hospital at that time to check for a reason for miscarriage. 10 months later I got my appointment. They asked a bunch of questions and did blood tests which revealed nothing. And I was discharged from outpatients. The end. As far as the HSE are concerned.

I found this process - to have very much planned and wanted pregnancies - a frustrating and confusing experience of being given the runaround through departments and doctors and not being told what they can do. And I am Irish, well used to our HSE system, growing up with the political hot potato of Abortion in this country on the news every other week, in my language, surrounded by other women who have vast family knowledge of procedures, HSE red tape, I too remember the censors in magazines in the '90s, and the fact that the only options to terminate are in the UK for Irish women and I'm twice the age of the woman we are discussing with no language barrier, 20 years into attending a GP for routine reproductive checks, smears and familiar with those. I can only imagine how sodding confusing it was to someone young and foreign and traumatised.

During the experiences above, I've had doctors directly contradict what the one at the previous appointment said. I've had a medical secretary berate me for not calling to make an appointment when I actually tried to and was refused. I've been 'examined' and discharged by a doctor who never physically touched me, not even to palpate my uterus, or take my temperature. I've had referral letters lost in the system, and only when I chased them up did anything get done.

Our gynaelogical and maternity services in this country were never stellar, but in recent years have been cut back a lot, and meanwhile, women suffer, and women die.

eyescreamcone

lazygal wrote: »

What's to fear from another referendum? Surely if those on the prolifw side think they are on the majority side they'll be able to win the argument for keeping the eighth amendment? And if they're not in a majority they'll have to accept the decision of the majority and democracy will prevail.

But Iona/Prolife/RCC were never fans of democracy.
Look how hard they fought the introduction of the recent legislation.

Ralphdejones

The more referenda the merrier. I much prefer a bit of direct democracy rather than being ruled by less than honest Irish politicans and their party whips.

Or we could make it like the EU referenda, where we are kept re-voting untill the the govenment gets the result they desire.

Neyite

Ralphdejones wrote: »

The more referenda the merrier. I much prefer a bit of direct democracy rather than being ruled by less than honest Irish politicans and their party whips.

Or we could make it like the EU referenda, where we are kept re-voting untill the the govenment gets the result they desire.

A Neverendum. Sounds like a solution our government would go for all right.

irishpancake

Calina wrote: »

I was ten years old at that time. I'd argue that it's not accurate to say "we the people" when most of the people who are affected by it didn't accept it but had it foisted on them by a previous generation.

Hi Calina.

May I ask have you read anything else in my post at all, which is a pro-choice, and pro-abortion as per the SC decision in the X case?

I was 10 too, in 1966, but when I reached the age of 40, or whatever adult age you are, I can't recall feeling that decisions by the people voted on when I was 10 were invalid because I had no vote at the time.

It's an interesting concept you have.

Are you in favour of revisiting all decisions made by "we the people" on a regular basis, that all Constitutional decisions made in Referenda, including the 1937 Constitution itself, should be revisited anew every x years, you can nominate x, to ensure you have a personal say in what the Constitution says.

Are you going to propose how this should be organised, so that each new generation will have a say in amending

our Basic Law with sufficient regularity, so as to allow each such citizen the input you want for yourself and those you cite as having a Constitutional amendment foisted upon them, as if there were no democracy involved at all.

Other than your opening objection, do you have any thoughts as to the veracity if what I actually posted?

BTW, you have an ally here

Piliger

Ralphdejones wrote: »

The more referenda the merrier. I much prefer a bit of direct democracy rather than being ruled by less than honest Irish politicans and their party whips.

Or we could make it like the EU referenda, where we are kept re-voting untill the the govenment gets the result they desire.

Definitely. It's called democracy.

Godge

Ralphdejones wrote: »

The more referenda the merrier. I much prefer a bit of direct democracy rather than being ruled by less than honest Irish politicans and their party whips.

Or we could make it like the EU referenda, where we are kept re-voting untill the the govenment gets the result they desire.

This has nothing to do with the case.

Ralphdejones wrote: »

Does anyone want to discuss the actual case ?

Yes, of course we do. Maybe you could answer the following question you have neatly avoided?

Godge wrote: »

I see that you are very concerned with the delay that happened in this case.

Wouldn't the delay be eliminated if we simplified the process and allowed the abortion before 18-20 weeks on the say-so of the woman that she is suicidal? No need for GPs, no need for panels, just turn up at a clinic or at A&E? This would very adequately address your concerns about the delay. By not doing so, we are already labelling women as liars, a typical mysoginist position.