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…6791112…95

Comments

  • Options
    #242
    Phoebas
    Registered Users Posts: 9,371 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    In any case, her wishes were ignored in favour of forcing her to give birth against her will. What she wanted was an abortion, not a caesarean.
    An abortion wasn't available to her and she agreed to a caesarian.
    There are very few jurisdictions that would allowed an abortion at the stage of pregnancy she was at.
    Czarcasm wrote: »
    She had no choice but to agree to a caesarean when it was decided that despite the risk of suicide, she could still be force fed and forced to give birth.
    You call it 'forced to give birth'. I call it not being provided with an abortion service.
    Czarcasm wrote: »
    This decision completely contradicts legislation that allows for abortion if the woman is at risk of dying by suicide.
    The law allows the pregnancy to be ended, either by abortion or by birth. I don't think any law was broken here.


  • Options
    #243
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,227 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    _Whimsical_ wrote: »
    This is what we legislated for.
    It's amazing how many people did not understand exactly what the legislation being passed was.

    Also countless evidence was given on peer reviewed research that found that abortion is not a cure for suicidal ideation. It does not make a mother less likely to commit suicide afterwards and does not end her mental health problems.

    And you can provide documentation to back that up? To show that in every single occasion where a woman has become depressed/suicidal because of an unwanted pregnancy (say in the case of rape), that an abortion has not changed their mental health at all?

    And you can also prove the converse as well i suppose? That being refused an abortion has never made a woman depressed or suicidal?


  • Options
    #244
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,227 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    Phoebas wrote: »
    An abortion wasn't available to her and she agreed to a caesarian.
    There are very few jurisdictions that would allowed an abortion at the stage of pregnancy she was at.


    You call it 'forced to give birth'. I call it not being provided with an abortion service.


    The law allows the pregnancy to be ended, either by abortion or by birth. I don't think any law was broken here.

    I might have missed it but I haven't seen where it stated how pregnant she was when she initially requested an abortion.


  • Options
    #245
    ProfessorPlum
    Registered Users Posts: 1,812 ✭✭✭ProfessorPlum


    _Whimsical_ wrote: »
    It is such a messy situation. I have never experienced mental illness and I am very grateful for that but I have seen other people I have known well go through it. One thing that I've seen be distinct in those people at the time was that they were not themselves, they made decisions they would not have sanely made, spent money they wouldn't have spent sanely,destroyed relationships with close friends and family because of paranoia.They were not periods in which the could make rational decisions with long reaching consequences.

    I personally think a mid-late term abortion is an enormous decision to put in the hands of a person with severe mental illness. What if when they're better they are consumed by grief over a decision they'd never normally have made ?What if even worse their baby is delivered early as in this case but suffers disability because of the premature birth? How would the mother go on to live with that guilt and pain when she is again well, particularly if its a decision made in a haze of mental illhealth and she wouldn't have made otherwise?

    A psychiatrist job is to act in the best interests of their patient. If they felt that the decision to have a abortion was truly and cleat not in the patients best interest, (say, the woman was a patient well known to the psychiatrist and had long expressed the wish to have a child but has to come off meds as many are harmful to the foetus), then there may well be a case to make the woman a ward of court and take the decision out of their hands. Many mentally ill patients are incapable of making rational decisions about their care, but in many more cases, being depressed does not make one incapable of making decisions.


  • Options
    #246
    Phoebas
    Registered Users Posts: 9,371 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    Morag wrote: »
    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/hospital-sought-court-order-to-force-mother-to-have-csection-29120379.html
    So just your own speculation, because that article wasn't about abortion at all (she wanted to deliver naturally - the doctors judged it to be too dangerous) and nor was there a court order to force a caesarian given in that case.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #247
    fro9etb8j5qsl2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,391 ✭✭✭fro9etb8j5qsl2


    Grayson wrote: »

    I might have missed it but I haven't seen where it stated how pregnant she was when she initially requested an abortion.

    It only says second trimester. That could be anything after 13-14 weeks.


  • Options
    #248
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    _Whimsical_ wrote: »
    It's not "meaningless trope" at all. It is the result of a huge volume of respected, peer reviewed research on the subject. It's not opinion, it's objective fact. It is not disputed by anyone on any side of the argument.

    it is irrelevant, whats done is done.


  • Options
    #249
    Phoebas
    Registered Users Posts: 9,371 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    Kaiden Dead Penlight wrote: »
    It only says second trimester. That could be anything after 13-14 weeks.
    What we know is that the obstetrician on the panel deemed that the woman was far was enough into the pregnancy for the baby to be delivered and that the baby was delivered at 25 weeks.

    So 13-14 weeks just doesn't add up.


  • Options
    #250
    P_1
    Registered Users Posts: 14,681 ✭✭✭✭P_1


    I think the crux of the issue is that the pregnancy was beyond the 'tipping point' for an abortion to be the logical answer. If the foetus was viable at this point then I'd have to say that it makes more sense to deliver a live baby than to abort it. I mean wouldn't the lady in question pretty much have to have essentially the same medical procedure done either way. This way she had the option of putting the baby up for adoption if she doesn't want to keep it.

    TL;DR no sense in wasting healthy organs at this stage of the pregnancy.


  • Options
    #251
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    This is the article in todays Indo. She was the subject of a court order. Sad case.
    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/baby-delivered-as-woman-refused-abortion-under-law-30512513.html


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #252
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 CMod ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    mirrorwall14 wrote: »
    Hang on the panel of psychiatrists ruled she was a suicide risk and they refused the abortion?! That is completely out of line with the legislation.

    And they had time to assess her, make a ruling, her go on hunger strike, HSE take her to the high court and a second date to be set before this happened. There's no way that happened in less than a month in this country so it seems like she was in early second trimester when this all began.

    It really reads like they were afraid to give her the termination even with the new legislation so they delayed and persuaded her long enough for the child to be ~24 weeks when they could take a middle ground

    No abortions for anyone ever.

    Okay abortions for some if you're suicidal or genuine death risk. We'll put that into law now. But not if the fetus is already dead or dying with 0% chance at life.

    Actually no, you can't have those either. F*ck you AND the law!


  • Options
    #253
    fro9etb8j5qsl2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,391 ✭✭✭fro9etb8j5qsl2


    Phoebas wrote: »
    What we know is that the obstetrician on the panel deemed that the woman was far was enough into the pregnancy for the baby to be delivered and that the baby was delivered at 25 weeks.

    So 13-14 weeks just doesn't add up.

    For someone who was lambasting another poster for speculating, you sure are good at it yourself.


  • Options
    #254
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,227 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    Deleted User wrote: »
    This is the article in todays Indo. She was the subject of a court order. Sad case.
    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/baby-delivered-as-woman-refused-abortion-under-law-30512513.html

    So if it had've been at 10 weeks it would have gone ahead, but because it was so late, it was refused.

    I'd like to know a more specific timeline, but if it was late enough I'd have to agree that abortion shouldn't have been an option. It's possible in this case that she could have been 22-23 weeks pregnant when she approached the doctors.

    I do think it's messed up though. I can't imagine telling a woman who was suicidal (A panel of three doctors said so) that she has to have a baby and that she may be force-fed if necessary.


  • Options
    #255
    _Whimsical_
    Registered Users Posts: 7,953 ✭✭✭_Whimsical_


    Grayson wrote: »
    I do think it's messed up though. I can't imagine telling a woman who was suicidal (A panel of three doctors said so) that she has to have a baby and that she may be force-fed if necessary.

    Could you imagine as a doctor deciding to end the life of a baby who would have survived and lived a happy life with adoptive parents but for your intervention?

    Deciding to do an operation to end a life or a similar operation to save a life. I know which I'd chose.


  • Options
    #256
    Phoebas
    Registered Users Posts: 9,371 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    Kaiden Dead Penlight wrote: »
    For someone who was lambasting another poster for speculating, you sure are good at it yourself.
    For her to have presented at 13-14 weeks and given birth at 25 weeks, her case would have to be ongoing for 11-12 weeks.

    There's common sense, there's speculation and there's just craziness.
    The idea that someone presented seeking an abortion at 13-14 weeks and they took 11-12 weeks to deal with the case is just craziness imho.


  • Options
    #257
    _Whimsical_
    Registered Users Posts: 7,953 ✭✭✭_Whimsical_


    Phoebas wrote: »
    For her to have presented at 13-14 weeks and given birth at 25 weeks, her case would have to be ongoing for 11-12 weeks.

    There's common sense, there's speculation and there's just craziness.
    The idea that someone presented seeking an abortion at 13-14 weeks and they took 11-12 weeks to deal with the case is just craziness imho.

    Is there any evidence this happened?


  • Options
    #258
    Morag
    Registered Users Posts: 8,427 ✭✭✭Morag


    Phoebas wrote: »
    So just your own speculation, because that article wasn't about abortion at all (she wanted to deliver naturally - the doctors judged it to be too dangerous) and nor was there a court order to force a caesarian given in that case.

    REally?

    So saying to someone, hey either consent to a c section or we will drag you to the high court, were once the judgement is found against you, you will have to pay the costs, so do you have 50 grand+ to try protest with, is forcing a c section?

    :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #259
    gctest50
    Registered Users Posts: 9,605 ✭✭✭gctest50


    _Whimsical_ wrote: »
    Could you imagine as a doctor deciding to end the life of a baby who would have survived and lived a happy life with adoptive parents but for your intervention?
    ...

    Would you know next week lotto numbers too ?


  • Options
    #260
    _Whimsical_
    Registered Users Posts: 7,953 ✭✭✭_Whimsical_


    Grayson wrote: »
    And you can provide documentation to back that up? To show that in every single occasion where a woman has become depressed/suicidal because of an unwanted pregnancy (say in the case of rape), that an abortion has not changed their mental health at all?

    No I can't , clearly you aren't familiar with scientific/medical research.:rolleyes:
    I never said in every single case, I said that was the result of vast amounts of research on the subject. I did not say it was my personal opinion or my interpretation of the research.


  • Options
    #261
    Phoebas
    Registered Users Posts: 9,371 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    _Whimsical_ wrote: »
    Is there any evidence this happened?
    There is no evidence whatsoever. We know that she presented in her third trimester and that the baby was delivered in week 25.

    Everything else on the timeline is speculation. But some speculation (she presented not very long before the caesarian) is more likely that other speculation (she presented 11-12 weeks before the caesarian).


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #262
    _Whimsical_
    Registered Users Posts: 7,953 ✭✭✭_Whimsical_


    gctest50 wrote: »
    Would you know next week lotto numbers too ?

    Ok then, you'd kill a living,viable baby on the off chance it would not have a happy life ?
    Is that your contribution?
    On that basis why have any medical treatment that might save a life? People recovering from cancer might have lousy marriages and troublesome children. Best just leave them die in case ?


  • Options
    #263
    _Whimsical_
    Registered Users Posts: 7,953 ✭✭✭_Whimsical_


    Phoebas wrote: »
    There is no evidence whatsoever. We know that she presented in her third trimester and that the baby was delivered in week 25.

    Everything else on the timeline is speculation. But some speculation (she presented not very long before the caesarian) is more likely that other speculation (she presented 11-12 weeks before the caesarian).

    I agree with you.


  • Options
    #264
    Phoebas
    Registered Users Posts: 9,371 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    Morag wrote: »
    REally?

    So saying to someone, hey either consent to a c section or we will drag you to the high court, were once the judgement is found against you, you will have to pay the costs, so do you have 50 grand+ to try protest with is forcing a c section?

    :rolleyes:
    That case had nothing to do with this case or with abortion. You just see a newspaper article with the words c-section and high court and try to present it as evidence that "They would have went to the High Court and got an order to preform the C Section against her will."

    I see that the rolleyes emoticons are in play - that's usually a bad sign!


  • Options
    #265
    P_1
    Registered Users Posts: 14,681 ✭✭✭✭P_1


    Phoebas wrote: »
    That case had nothing to do with this case or with abortion. You just see a newspaper article with the words c-section and high court and try to present it as evidence that "They would have went to the High Court and got an order to preform the C Section against her will."

    Well that opens a separate can of worms. Currently under our system the HSE can bring you to court to force you to be kept alive against your will (if you make the choice to end things by starvation).


  • Options
    #266
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 CMod ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    P_1 wrote: »
    Well that opens a separate can of worms. Currently under our system the HSE can bring you to court to force you to be kept alive against your will (if you make the choice to end things by starvation).

    Also if a midwife wants to do random procedures that are not beneficial and may be harmful because they're on a schedule that's ok and screw you, apparently


  • Options
    #267
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    bluewolf wrote: »
    Also if a midwife wants to do random procedures that are not beneficial and may be harmful because they're on a schedule that's ok and screw you, apparently

    And if you're not happy, forget about complaints because once you've a (relatively) healthy woman and baby you've no grounds for giving out.


  • Options
    #268
    _Whimsical_
    Registered Users Posts: 7,953 ✭✭✭_Whimsical_


    bluewolf wrote: »
    Also if a midwife wants to do random procedures that are not beneficial and may be harmful because they're on a schedule that's ok and screw you, apparently

    Such as?
    You can refuse medical procedures, the only way to force you is by court order.


  • Options
    #269
    conorh91
    Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    From the tiny bit of information that has been released via the Indo, the new law seems to have worked very well.

    In this country, there is no possibility of aborting viable life in pregnancy.

    This woman was offered a termination—a termination of her pregnancy—which ended in a healthy infant being born, it seems.

    Great.

    Why are people so angry about this? I'm not seeing the problem.


  • Options
    #270
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    Phoebas wrote: »
    An abortion wasn't available to her and she agreed to a caesarian.
    There are very few jurisdictions that would allowed an abortion at the stage of pregnancy she was at.


    An abortion was denied to her, and she was left with no choice but to agree to a caesarean. There are even fewer jurisdictions where when someone asks for an abortion, they are instead given a choice between a caesarean and a natural birth.

    You call it 'forced to give birth'. I call it not being provided with an abortion service.


    What does a woman forced by the State to give birth against her will call it? The State decided to provide an abortion service to a woman at risk of suicide, and then when a woman at risk of suicide wants to avail of the service she is told she will not be offered an abortion, but will instead be forced to give birth, whether through natural means, or by means of a caesarean, she will give birth whether she wants to or not, even if she has to be carved open to make sure she does no harm to the baby by doing no harm to herself.

    The law allows the pregnancy to be ended, either by abortion or by birth. I don't think any law was broken here.


    The law says it allows for a woman at risk of suicide to have an abortion at any stage of her pregnancy. You can read a more general overview of the relevant legislation here -

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Life_During_Pregnancy_Act_2013


    The laws weren't broken, they were always going to be inadequate in the first place. Much like the way if a woman at risk of suicide asks for an abortion and she's offered a caesarean, it's not breaking the letter of the law, but it sure as hell isn't acting in the spirit of the law, nor is it acting in her best interests, nor the interests of the child. It's only serving the interests of people who have no regard for the woman in question, and would rather force two people to suffer than alleviate the suffering of one.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #271
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,227 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    _Whimsical_ wrote: »
    No I can't , clearly you aren't familiar with scientific/medical research.:rolleyes:
    I never said in every single case, I said that was the result of vast amounts of research on the subject. I did not say it was my personal opinion or my interpretation of the research.

    but you didn't provide any research or facts to back it up.

    See, to get an abortion it has to be determined by three professionals that the woman life is in danger from suicide if she doesn't get one.

    personally, I feel completely ok leaving it the hands of professionals who can make a determination on a case by case basis.


Advertisement