Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

woman refused abortion - Mod Note in first post.

Options
1…7172747677…95

Comments

  • Options
    #2192
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Ralphdejones wrote: »
    How can you avail of correct medical treatment without seeing a Doctor ?


    Well, let me see, a hard question now.

    Sometimes, I get the dentist to deal with my medical issue, other times I visit the physio.

    If I have a minor cold or ailment I often discuss that with my pharmacist. There was also a nurse in one of my former workplaces and I have been know to spend time in triage in A&E, on at least one occasion there was no need for a doctor.

    I think you will agree that restricting access to a certain procedure except by way of a GP and two panels of consultants is just a complicated way that ordinary women can be prevented from quickly and safely accessing the procedure?


  • Options
    #2193
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    Ralphdejones wrote: »
    How can you avail of correct medical treatment without seeing a Doctor ?

    You never answered me on this.

    Do you go to the doctor for every pain, ahce, sniffle, cough?


  • Options
    #2194
    Calina
    Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Calina


    irishpancake wrote: »
    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.

    If I am understanding your post correctly, you turned 40 sometime during the 1970s.

    Compared to when you turned 40 and when I turned 40, the constitution has been subject to proportionately more amendments. This would suggest that for most of the period that you were heading towards the age of 40 the constitution reasonably reflected society at the time. Most of the period to my 40th birthday it has been piling on amendments, suggesting that the constitution no longer reasonably reflects society and our legislative needs.
    irishpancake wrote: »
    It's an interesting concept you have.

    The idea that legislation can be revisited as time and society changes?

    I'm not sure what problem anyone might reasonably have; and a key example is the implementation of divorce in this country.
    irishpancake wrote: »
    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.

    I am in favour of revisiting decisions in general if it is obvious that the decisions do not serve people well. Are you suggesting to me that just because something was voted in 1983, we should shrug and live with it forever? Why then did we revisit divorce?
    irishpancake wrote: »
    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?

    Your point appears to be we are where we are. This in no way contributes to a discussion about where we might go in the future.

    I'm not in favour of abortion in terms of the X case. I'm in favour of abortion being a decision between a woman and her family and her doctor. In absolute terms, the constitution is not the place to be making rules regarding health related treatment.

    In general terms, a basic law which needs to be regularly changed to facilitate general legislation is not really a basic law. The number of amendments to the constitution has shot up significantly in the period since 1983. In my view, this suggests that the constitution may no longer fit for purpose. Ultimately, if you were 10 in 1966, the constitution had been subject to far fewer amendments by the time you reached 40 than it was by the time I reached 40. Arguably, it was more fit for purpose and more reflective of Irish society then than it was now.

    I do believe that old legislation which is no longer relevant should be revisited. If your objection to that is practicality, well then, again, it comes back to a cold assessment of the constitution itself needing to be reviewed with a view to ensuring that it sustains legislation rather than needing to be updated increasingly frequently to allow legislation to be implemented.

    However, this is broadly off topic and mindful of the request of the mods in post one, to bring it back to the case under point:

    Most people understood the 2013 act to deal with abortion and the right to abortion. It actually doesn't. It deals with the right to termination and what is now clear - and proven painfully clear in this case - is that termination includes live delivery.

    Now, we may well be where we are but we have the freedom to revisit this legislation. We are where we are is an excuse that gets pulled out, in my experience, when people don't necessarily want things to be different.

    So yes, I think the "we the people" argument is a poor choice of words, I think the matter could well be revisited in terms of a referendum and it would not be unique for this to happen with respect to social legislation and the constitution itself may also be subject to review.

    In the meantime, I abhor the idea that we are where we are is any sort of a reasonable response to this case. There needs to be recognition that even within the terms of what might be possible under X, this legislation is limited and poor. It's also worth noting that the highest profile votes against it were not because it was poor, limited legislation, but because it included the risk of suicide.

    If we are being honest about where we are, we are where we are because Irish legislation does not trust women to make decisions which best reflect their needs in life when it comes to being pregnant. There are other issues. There was a case in Tralee a few weeks ago with respect to consent in which the patient, a pregnant woman, had her lack of consent to a specific event in her care over ruled.

    I do not know what your view is, but ultimately, consent is a highly important matter when it comes to any sort of medical care.


  • Options
    #2195
    P_1
    Registered Users Posts: 14,681 ✭✭✭✭P_1


    mrsbyrne wrote: »
    Are you suggesting that citizens over certain age not be allowed to vote???

    No I don't think so however it is a tad unfair to force people to follow a rule that was decided on by a democratic vote, that they themselves had no say on.

    I don't understand why politicians are so afraid of letting people decide on the issue once and for all. It's not going to lead to anarchy on the streets now is it?


  • Options
    #2196
    Ralphdejones
    Closed Accounts Posts: 581 ✭✭✭Ralphdejones


    bumper234 wrote: »
    You never answered me on this.

    Do you go to the doctor for every pain, ahce, sniffle, cough?

    If you really think this woman’s condition was equivalent to "every pain, ache, sniffle, cough", then perhaps you should work for the IFPA, who she went to for medical help with a very serious medical issue at 8 weeks. Thankfully her friend got her to the doctor, but not untill 16 weeks.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2197
    zl1whqvjs75cdy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,042 ✭✭✭zl1whqvjs75cdy


    From the other thread
    We have been given information that the migrant woman at the centre of the current forced pregnancy was 'committed' to a psychiatric hospital following her initial request for termination. It’s already known that the initial request was made when she was 8 weeks pregnant.

    It was this crucial period in which she was being held incommunicado which led directly to the Caesarian option being possible to impose as an ‘alternative’ to allowing her to access the abortion she had asked for.

    All those running the system which imposed such barbaric treatment on this women don’t want to talk about individual cases. Of course they don’t, when you can get away with speaking in broad generalisations you can avoid facing up to the barbaric situations created by the laws you administer and maintain. The victims of this system become a mere statistic.


  • Options
    #2198
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Ralphdejones wrote: »
    If you really think this woman’s condition was equivalent to "every pain, ache, sniffle, cough", then perhaps you should work for the IFPA, who she went to for medical help with a very serious medical issue at 8 weeks. Thankfully her friend got her to the doctor, but not untill 16 weeks.

    You seem to have missed the revelation where the IFPA referred her back to the HSE in May.


  • Options
    #2199
    Ralphdejones
    Closed Accounts Posts: 581 ✭✭✭Ralphdejones


    Nodin wrote: »
    You seem to have missed the revelation where the IFPA referred her back to the HSE in May.

    So in other words they all played pass the parcel untill her friend got her first medical help at 16 weeks


  • Options
    #2200
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Ralphdejones wrote: »
    So in other words they all played pass the parcel untill her friend got her first medical help at 16 weeks

    No, it seems the IFPA referred her to the HSE. We don't know why no action was taken at the stage.


  • Options
    #2201
    conorh91
    Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    Godge wrote: »

    I think you will agree that restricting access to a certain procedure except by way of a GP and two panels of consultants is just a complicated way that ordinary women can be prevented from quickly and safely accessing the procedure?
    It's hardly complicated, though, is it?

    I mean the rule is pretty clear: "Doctors decide". You can explain it clearly in four syllables.

    Why did the iFPA refer this woman, who apparently was suicidal, to a nurse?

    There are three big questions.

    1. How, and why, does an NGO refer people to "a nurse"?

    2 Did the IFPA inform the nurse of the problem? Remember, this woman has very bad English.

    3. Did the woman in question attend the meeting with the nurse?

    You really have to wonder what the iFPA were playing at here.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2202
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    conorh91 wrote: »
    It's hardly complicated, though, is it?

    I mean the rule is pretty clear: "Doctors decide". You can explain it clearly in four syllables.

    Why did the iFPA refer this woman, who apparently was suicidal, to a nurse?

    There are three big questions.

    1. How, and why, does an NGO refer people to "a nurse"?

    2 Did the IFPA inform the nurse of the problem? Remember, this woman has very bad English.

    3. Did the woman in question attend the meeting with the nurse?

    You really have to wonder what the iFPA were playing at here.

    If you're pregnant you are under midwife or consultant led care usually linked to a maternity hospital. I had no need to contact my gp during either pregnancy. Why, if a consultant is in charge of every aspect of my prenatal care, would I ever need to see a gp as first point of contact for any difficulties I'm facing, except to create another layer of difficulty.


  • Options
    #2203
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    conorh91 wrote: »
    It's hardly complicated, though, is it?

    I mean the rule is pretty clear: "Doctors decide". You can explain it clearly in four syllables.

    Why did the iFPA refer this woman, who apparently was suicidal, to a nurse?

    There are three big questions.

    1. How, and why, does an NGO refer people to "a nurse"?

    2 Did the IFPA inform the nurse of the problem? Remember, this woman has very bad English.

    3. Did the woman in question attend the meeting with the nurse?

    You really have to wonder what the iFPA were playing at here.

    It is complicated.

    We have a history of complicating it. Back in the 1970s, you could only get condoms with a prescription.


  • Options
    #2204
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Ralphdejones wrote: »
    So in other words they all played pass the parcel untill her friend got her first medical help at 16 weeks


    She shouldn't have needed to see her GP. She should have been able to go to someone and get an abortion at 8 weeks without needing to see her GP.

    Just like I can go to A&E, directly to some consultants, to the pharmacy or to the dentists depending on the nature of my medical condition.

    You, and others like you, are denying the woman her rightful options.


  • Options
    #2205
    conorh91
    Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    lazygal wrote: »
    I had no need to contact my gp during either pregnancy.
    Were you at any stage seeking a termination?

    We are not aware of this woman having a medical team assigned to her.

    She was seeking a complicated medico-legal solution to a horrendous personal tragedy, and she should have seen a doctor. The IFPA, morally if not legally, had a duty to ensure she got the appropriate care.
    Godge wrote: »
    It is complicated.
    It isn't in this particular respect: refer to a GP. Not a nurse.

    I've no idea why you're bringing up the contraceptives rule. Again: the rule is clear when it comes to the legislation on abortion: doctors decide. We may dislike that, but that's the rule, and I like many others would like to know what the iFPA were playing at.


  • Options
    #2206
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    conorh91 wrote: »

    It isn't in this particular respect: refer to a GP. Not a nurse.

    I've no idea why you're bringing up the contraceptives rule. Again: the rule is clear when it comes to the legislation on abortion: doctors decide. We may dislike that, but that's the rule, and I like many others would like to know what the iFPA were playing at.

    I am glad you dislike the rule that requires referral to a GP.

    My view is that it overcomplicates the issue, demeans women, and does not provide a simple solution.


  • Options
    #2207
    conorh91
    Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    Godge wrote: »

    My view is that it overcomplicates the issue, demeans women, and does not provide a simple solution.
    But that's irrelevant. That's a matter of ongoing political debate.

    It doesn't address the particular aspects of this case where, for reasons that seem at odds with common sense, the IFPA referred this woman not to a doctor, but to a nurse.


  • Options
    #2208
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    conorh91 wrote: »
    But that's irrelevant. That's a matter of ongoing political debate.

    It doesn't address the particular aspects of this case where, for reasons that seem at odds with common sense, the IFPA referred this woman not to a doctor, but to a nurse.

    You are falling into the trap that the issue is that didn't follow the long detailed complicated instructions designed to frustrate the process which isn't the real issue - the real issue is why is it so complicated?


  • Options
    #2209
    conorh91
    Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    Godge wrote: »
    You are falling into the trap that the issue is that didn't follow the long detailed complicated instructions designed to frustrate the process which isn't the real issue - the real issue is why is it so complicated?
    Listen: these are the " long detailed complicated instructions designed to frustrate the process"

    1. Ring a doctor. Make an appointment.

    That's literally it.


  • Options
    #2210
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    conorh91 wrote: »
    Listen: these are the " long detailed complicated instructions designed to frustrate the process"

    1. Ring a doctor. Make an appointment.

    That's literally it.

    Incorrect. Find a doctor. Find money for fee if you don't have a medical card. Find friend to translate who can come with you. Visit doctor to explain situation. Doctor contact then occurs with two consultant psychiatrists and a consultant obstetrician. But wait! There's more! In between you're moved. To direct provision! You've no money and your friends who can translate are living somewhere else!
    Only someone who's never been pregnant and had to negotiate the mess that is the maternity system and psychiatric services in Ireland would be so glib about a suicidal pregnant rape victim who was only 18 and didn't speak English.


  • Options
    #2211
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    lazygal wrote: »
    Incorrect. Find a doctor. Find money for fee if you don't have a medical card. Find friend to translate who can come with you. Visit doctor to explain situation. Doctor contact then occurs with two consultant psychiatrists and a consultant obstetrician. But wait! There's more! In between you're moved. To direct provision! You've no money and your friends who can translate are living somewhere else!
    Only someone who's never been pregnant and had to negotiate the mess that is the maternity system and psychiatric services in Ireland would be so glib about a suicidal pregnant rape victim who was only 18 and didn't speak English.


    ...actually was under 18 at the time, as afar as I understand it, and thus a minor, complicating matters yet further.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2212
    geret
    Registered Users Posts: 100 ✭✭geret


    lazygal wrote: »
    Incorrect. Find a doctor. Find money for fee if you don't have a medical card. Find friend to translate who can come with you. Visit doctor to explain situation. Doctor contact then occurs with two consultant psychiatrists and a consultant obstetrician. But wait! There's more! In between you're moved. To direct provision! You've no money and your friends who can translate are living somewhere else!
    Only someone who's never been pregnant and had to negotiate the mess that is the maternity system and psychiatric services in Ireland would be so glib about a suicidal pregnant rape victim who was only 18 and didn't speak English.

    can you link to show she didn't speak English?
    from the it article she choose to move
    "She moved shortly thereafter as she hoped she might get more help elsewhere."


    why make up stuff?-is the case not bad enough for you as it's presented?


  • Options
    #2213
    MrPudding
    Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    geret wrote: »
    can you link to show she didn't speak English?
    from the it article she choose to move
    "She moved shortly thereafter as she hoped she might get more help elsewhere."


    why make up stuff?-is the case not bad enough for you as it's presented?

    Seriously? How about you read any of the links that have already been posted.

    MrP


  • Options
    #2214
    geret
    Registered Users Posts: 100 ✭✭geret


    MrPudding wrote: »
    Seriously? How about you read any of the links that have already been posted.

    MrP

    I have


  • Options
    #2215
    geret
    Registered Users Posts: 100 ✭✭geret


    MrPudding wrote: »
    Seriously? How about you read any of the links that have already been posted.

    MrP

    which article says she can't speak English? neither the irish times nor the independent do


  • Options
    #2216
    Ralphdejones
    Closed Accounts Posts: 581 ✭✭✭Ralphdejones


    lazygal wrote: »
    Incorrect. Find a doctor. Find money for fee if you don't have a medical card. Find friend to translate who can come with you. Visit doctor to explain situation. Doctor contact then occurs with two consultant psychiatrists and a consultant obstetrician. But wait! There's more! In between you're moved. To direct provision! You've no money and your friends who can translate are living somewhere else!
    Only someone who's never been pregnant and had to negotiate the mess that is the maternity system and psychiatric services in Ireland would be so glib about a suicidal pregnant rape victim who was only 18 and didn't speak English.

    So what was the HSE/IFPA doing for 8 weeks, untill her friend got her to a Doctor for help ?


  • Options
    #2217
    Piliger
    Registered Users Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Piliger


    lazygal wrote: »
    Incorrect. Find a doctor. Find money for fee if you don't have a medical card. Find friend to translate who can come with you. Visit doctor to explain situation. Doctor contact then occurs with two consultant psychiatrists and a consultant obstetrician. But wait! There's more! In between you're moved. To direct provision! You've no money and your friends who can translate are living somewhere else!
    Only someone who's never been pregnant and had to negotiate the mess that is the maternity system and psychiatric services in Ireland would be so glib about a suicidal pregnant rape victim who was only 18 and didn't speak English.

    Mixing two completely different issues doesn't help anything. We have an essentially free healthcare service paid for by the tax payers. If someone comes to the country who can't speak English I don't believe it is our responsibility to fix that. if she has no money then she shouldn't be coming here in the first place. This kind of appalling entitlement mind set is an abomination im my view. I do not believe our system should be there to fix every ill and every issue for everyone. People have a responsibility to deal with some things themselves.

    The abortion issue surrounding what happened to this women, basically a case of intimidation and of intentional institutional procrastination, is a separate matter and one which I am completely and totally upset with.


  • Options
    #2218
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Piliger wrote: »
    Mixing two completely different issues doesn't help anything. We have an essentially free healthcare service paid for by the tax payers. If someone comes to the country who can't speak English I don't believe it is our responsibility to fix that. if she has no money then she shouldn't be coming here in the first place. This kind of appalling entitlement mind set is an abomination im my view. I do not believe our system should be there to fix every ill and every issue for everyone. People have a responsibility to deal with some things themselves. ..........

    As we signed those articles of the Geneva convention relating to asylum, yes, it most certainly is our responsibility.


  • Options
    #2219
    Piliger
    Registered Users Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Piliger


    Ralphdejones wrote: »
    So what was the HSE/IFPA doing for 8 weeks, until her friend got her to a Doctor for help ?

    No amount of upset by us here is going to answer any of these questions until we get official statements imho.

    Clearly the HSE is covering it's arse right now, as any organisation will, and the individuals involved are probably doing the same as well as consulting legal advice of their own, so nothing in the papers or the media can really be trusted until the report comes out.


  • Options
    #2220
    Piliger
    Registered Users Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Piliger


    Nodin wrote: »
    As we signed those articles of the Geneva convention relating to asylum, yes, it most certainly is our responsibility.

    Well I don't believe it is. Can you substantiate that ?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2221
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    conorh91 wrote: »
    Listen: these are the " long detailed complicated instructions designed to frustrate the process"

    1. Ring a doctor. Make an appointment.

    That's literally it.

    I haven't had reason to visit a doctor for over 12 years, my job insists i get one for insurance reasons. I rang around 7 before i could get an appointment and then it was only because they knew i was a tax payer and there would be cash in it. My appointment is for August 27th and i mad it last week. Not as easy as you make it out to be.


Advertisement