woman refused abortion - Mod Note in first post.

volchitsa

Gatica wrote: »

some, just some, very minimal progress. All that's actually changed is that they can't stop you from leaving Ireland to have an abortion elsewhere. As this case has shown, there's still not enough there to protect vulnerable women, partly slow legislation and partly no-one wanting to be in the line of fire when it comes to carrying out necessary terminations.

This thread seems to have died a death, and while I realize there is a lack of reliable information about much of what happened, it's something that needs to be kept in the public eye, in my view. Unlike Praveen Halappanavar, this young woman may be less able to defend herself from a determined attempt by the HSE to cover things up.

One thing I haven't seen discussed is the report that the court action the HSE were instructed to drop was about the legality of the actual termination after she had been certified suicidal.

http://www.newstalk.com/Department-of-Health-told-HSE-to-call-of-forcible-feeding-of-Miss-Y

Why would they need to do that, go to court I mean? And without first referring the question to their immediate superiors at the HSE?

Surely if they had any doubts about the correct course of action, shouldn't their own bosses have been the ones to ask before going straight to the courts?

The Strawman Argument

Here's a timeline of it all from only about a week ago http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/timeline-of-ms-y-case-1.1951699

Primary flaws/errors I can see in it are:

• A crazy number of parties involved tossing the case about between them
• This constant need for reconfirmation that she still wants to terminate from the guys sorting out the travel documents. When time's of the essence couldn't you sort out the documents regardless asap and sure if she changes her mind, fix whatever needs to be fixed then.
• Leaving too much of it in the woman's hands (assuming most of the communication gaps are due to her being nonresponsive, there's at least one party listed who seems a bit iffy though)
• No evidence anywhere that anyone actually paused to go "of course, we've no idea how you could afford to go abroad for this procedure after we sort out the necessary documents"
• Just how awful the whole suicide assessment thing is
• ...and, um, our constitution?

volchitsa

Something very striking in hindsight about that timeline is that it completely leaves out her visit to Liverpool, also reported by Kitty Holland about a week later, when she was actually held for several hours by UK immigration services.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/ms-y-held-in-uk-after-failing-to-obtain-abortion-here-1.1959893

So not quite true that there was no finance for it, though there was apparently still a problem with documents.
One thing I'm still wondering is whether the timeline was based entirely on the HSE draft report, which would explain the absence of any mention of the arrest in Liverpool.

Edit : yes, I see the Timeline specifically says that it draws on the draft report.

Interesting.

What else does the draft report not tell us?

Gatica

The thing that seems to emerge from this is that it's constantly highlighted that she is a suicide risk. In spite of this there are several mention of having her bring child to term, or being force fed by court order in order to protect the foetus, or to wait until 30 weeks for caesarian section....
Is this not completely contrary to what the constitution changes were for??
I have absolutely no faith in the medical system in Ireland or a lot of their staff, not just maternity.

Sure, you're better off being pregnant in Ireland that in some 3rd world African country, but what kind of a comparison is that? One can hardly be proud of just being better than the worst.

volchitsa

Nodin posted this in the Abortion thread, but I thought it was also worth posting in the discussion specifically about Ms Y.

(Hope that doesn't count as spamming).

Nodin wrote: »

"The Health Service Executive has "paused" its inquiry into the treatment of Ms Y after a medical report found she was not well enough to participate."

"The development is another setback for the HSE, which has been criticised over its handling of the Ms Y case, which is now the subject of two reviews. As well as the review of her care, a second review is under way into the "reasonableness or otherwise" of the "legal approach" taken by the health authority."
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/ms-y-too-fragile-to-help-inquiry-into-her-treatment-30710561.html

Not the best situation in the world, but if shes not up to it, shes not up to it.

I can't help wondering where this leaves the investigation. What if she isn't able to testify for months? And what does it say about the draft report which had omissions and errorsm yet the HSE felt it was ready to be made available to the public?

It looks to me like there needs to be an investigation into the investigation.
Somehow I can't quite see that happening though.

PopePalpatine

I'd say the only way we could get an objective investigation is by getting a team from outside of this country to do it.

volchitsa

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I'd say the only way we could get an objective investigation is by getting a team from outside of this country to do it.

I'd agree except that going by their record in organizing blatant cover-ups, I'd say the HSE would be quite capable of bringing in an expert from the Vatican...

volchitsa

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/report-on-ms-y-case-to-include-journey-to-liverpool-to-seek-abortion-1.1991580

Development (well, sort of) in the investigation - the visit to Liverpool, where Miss Y was arrested by the UK police apparently for not having correct travel documents, is now to be included in the investigation in Ireland.

The Liverpool incident is recorded in neither the draft HSE report nor the Department of Justice’s records on the case.
However, it has now emerged that the Garda bureau last month provided the HSE report team with contact details for the “appropriate point of contact” within the United Kingdom’s Immigration Compliance and Enforcement Office, following a request from the HSE team.

This request from the HSE followed inquiries to it by Ms Y’s solicitor, Caoimhe Haughey, as to why this incident was not included in the report’s scope.

How could there have been no mention of it in any of the documents the HSE was working from ref the enquiry, when the HSE already had the contact details of the UK authority she had been in contact with?

volchitsa

And now there's this from RTE :

Nearly nine months into the review, RTÉ News has learned that lawyers for Miss Y, a teenage asylum-seeker, have not yet been consulted in relation to the review. ...
The HSE sought to have Miss Y forcibly hydrated, and was planing to seek court approval for an early delivery of her baby. ...
The issue of her seeking a termination of pregnancy and being provided with a Caesarean Section is a matter of dispute.

The Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013 does not mention Caesarean Section.

Draft guidelines on the Act published by the Department of Health in July 2014 did not mention C-section, however revised guidelines issued in September 2014, after the Miss Y case, included Caesarean Section as a suitable alternative means of terminating a pregnancy, where the woman's life is at risk.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0608/706653-miss-y/

Is it legal to defend an action (enforced C-section) on retrospectively-written guidelines? I thought retroactive law wasn't possible under the constitution?

The main question I'd have anyway, is how can the HSE stand over a review whose (leaked?) draft was shown to contain so many inaccuracies when they have spoken neither to Miss Y nor to her legal team?

Nodin

volchitsa wrote: »

And now there's this from RTE :


Is it legal to defend an action (enforced C-section) on retrospectively-written guidelines? I thought retroactive law wasn't possible under the constitution?

The main question I'd have anyway, is how can the HSE stand over a review whose (leaked?) draft was shown to contain so many inaccuracies when they have spoken neither to Miss Y nor to her legal team?

Well if there was no law covering it at the time, they won't have to defend it.

volchitsa

Nodin wrote: »

Well if there was no law covering it at the time, they won't have to defend it.

There was a law, Protection of life during pregnancy, which said she was entitled to a termination. It didn't say a c-section was included in that definition (it normally isn't, internationally) and it didn't set time limits for termination/abortion, whereas Miss Y says she was told (erroneously) that at that stage of pregnancy, everywhere, "even in the USA", she had passed the time limit for a legal abortion.

So since she was given the "choice" of "consenting" to a c-section or else sedation and forcible hydration, there seems to be a real question as to how freely given her consent was.

There are other queries too, of course, as to why she wasn't seen by the panel earlier when her apparent attempted suicide was considered worrying enough for a doctor from Spirasi to write to the centre where she was staying requesting that she not be left alone.

seenitall

Horrible, horrible stuff. I can't even read about it without my blood pressure going sky-high. That poor girl.

I'd say much more but I'm too emotional about it, and that's not a great state to be posting in on here.

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

There was a law, Protection of life during pregnancy, which said she was entitled to a termination. It didn't say a c-section was included in that definition (it normally isn't, internationally) and it didn't set time limits for termination/abortion, whereas Miss Y says she was told (erroneously) that at that stage of pregnancy, everywhere, "even in the USA", she had passed the time limit for a legal abortion.

The POLDPA doesn't actually say she was entitled to a termination.
It says
"It shall be lawful to carry out a medical procedure in respect of a pregnant woman in accordance with this section in the course of which, or as a result of which, an unborn human life is ended where subject to section 19, three medical practitioners, having examined the pregnant woman, have jointly certified in good faith that there is a real and substantial risk of loss of the woman’s life by way of suicide, and in their reasonable opinion (being an opinion formed in good faith which has regard to the need to preserve unborn human life as far as practicable) that risk can only be averted by carrying out the medical procedure, and that medical procedure is carried out by an obstetrician at an appropriate institution."
So any medical procedure which would fulfil the above conditions would be appropriate under the Act; a C Section is definitely a medical procedure.

volchitsa

Absolam wrote: »

The POLDPA doesn't actually say she was entitled to a termination.
It says
"It shall be lawful to carry out a medical procedure in respect of a pregnant woman in accordance with this section in the course of which, or as a result of which, an unborn human life is ended where subject to section 19, three medical practitioners, having examined the pregnant woman, have jointly certified in good faith that there is a real and substantial risk of loss of the woman’s life by way of suicide, and in their reasonable opinion (being an opinion formed in good faith which has regard to the need to preserve unborn human life as far as practicable) that risk can only be averted by carrying out the medical procedure, and that medical procedure is carried out by an obstetrician at an appropriate institution."
So any medical procedure which would fulfil the above conditions would be appropriate under the Act; a C Section is definitely a medical procedure.

Oh a C section is a medical procedure alright, but then so are lots of things, including administering an injection or medication.

Is it a "medical procedure in the course of which, or as a result of which, an unborn human life is ended"?

Clearly not.

captbarnacles

Mountainsandh wrote: »

It's heartening that everyone at this stage of the discussion seems to agree that abortion should indeed be available, at will, up to 12 weeks, and under very strict conditions beyond that, including people who appeared more "pro-life" initially.
Abortion on demand up to 12 weeks is what is available and availed of in most developed countries, how strict other conditions are (beyond the 12 weeks) can then be debated.

It is disheartening that although it seems pretty obvious that this aspect of the constitution needs to be changed to reflect the current "opinion" of most, it will take another while, possibly hurting more women in the meantime.

This referendum can't come soon enough.

I really want to see the end of that expression. It sounds terrible and I think the pro-lifers came up with it. I mean it's accurate obviously but 'on demand' puts a negative slant on anything or a trivial slant 'sky on demand'. How about 'abortion if requested'?

inocybe

captbarnacles wrote: »

I really want to see the end of that expression. It sounds terrible and I think the pro-lifers came up with it. I mean it's accurate obviously but 'on demand' puts a negative slant on anything or a trivial slant 'sky on demand'. How about 'abortion if requested'?

I agree. You don't hear about tonsillectomies on demand, or insulin injections on demand.
And if you truly believe that abortion is murder then 'on demand' is meaningless, as no reason should be good enough. It's only used by those who are in favour of abortions only for women who 'deserve' it somehow.

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

Oh a C section is a medical procedure alright, but then so are lots of things, including administering an injection or medication.
Is it a "medical procedure in the course of which, or as a result of which, an unborn human life is ended"?
Clearly not.

But the legislation doesn't require that a unborn human life is ended; it only allows that it is lawful under the circumstances?
Whether or not the medical procedures permitted under the POLDPA actually do result in the ending of an unborn human life, contrary to your assertion the POLDPA didn't say Miss Y was entitled to a termination, only that a medical procedure could be carried out that in the course of which, or as a result of which, an unborn human life was ended. Which does not preclude a C Section.

jank

captbarnacles wrote: »

I really want to see the end of that expression. It sounds terrible and I think the pro-lifers came up with it. I mean it's accurate obviously but 'on demand' puts a negative slant on anything or a trivial slant 'sky on demand'. How about 'abortion if requested'?

The term exists because of the evolutionary history surrounding abortion in many jurisdictions.

volchitsa

Absolam wrote: »

But the legislation doesn't require that a unborn human life is ended; it only allows that it is lawful under the circumstances?
Whether or not the medical procedures permitted under the POLDPA actually do result in the ending of an unborn human life, contrary to your assertion the POLDPA didn't say Miss Y was entitled to a termination, only that a medical procedure could be carried out that in the course of which, or as a result of which, an unborn human life was ended. Which does not preclude a C Section.

I don't know, but I think neither do you nor anyone else. In fact I suspect that will depend on a court judgment. More money for the 4 Goldmines over these badly written or just badly thought out laws yet again. A conspiracy theorist might think it was all deliberate. :rolleyes:

I look at the exact words in the legislation (since you are hung up on the fact that it didn't say "termination", which is of course correct. That was the term widely used by politicians and journalists to describe the procedure she was given at the time, though).

So, having refreshed our memories let's now stick with the exact words - and the words appear to say "a medical procedure ... in the course of which, or as a result of which, an unborn human life is ended". Not "may be ended".

So I don't know. After all, not all medical procedures on pregnant women come under the POLDPA, do they? That would be crazy. What about an amniocentesis? An ultrasound scan? Prescription of antibiotics? Treatment of pregnancy-related hypertension or diabetes?

If all medical procedures on pregnant women must now be signed off by two doctors etc etc, the Act would either become meaningless or our maternity wards would be completely overwhelmed by the extra paperwork required of doctors.

And remember that the HSE must be informed of every single case. How could that possibly be done for the millions of "medical procedures" carried out on pregnant women in the course of which an unborn life is not ended? Or even, in the case of amniocenteses or emergency C sections etc, "may or may not be ended"?

Is it your belief that these all have to follow the fairly complex procedure outlined in the POLDPA?
Or only those "in the course of which, or as a result of which, an unborn human life is ended"?

volchitsa

An addendum on the terminology used to discuss the actual medical procedures involved, since the legislators didn't have the maturity necessary to actually define them, I see the Indo today has an article about Miss Y, which ends with this :

Health Minister Leo Varadkar is to produce the first annual report on the legislation later this month.
This will detail the number and type of terminations which were carried out under the Act which allows for pregnancy to be ended where there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother, including risk of suicide. It is understood a number of terminations were carried out on physical grounds in hospital to save mother's lives.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/miss-ys-solicitor-is-left-dumbfounded-by-behaviour-of-hse-31287709.html

I wonder how many of the many C Sections that are regularly carried out where the resulting child is born alive will appear in the report, and indeed how many other medical procedures? None?

The problem is the deliberate ambiguity in the wording, as with the 8th amendment. A law allowing certain procedures but which doesn't define the procedures it allows and those it bans can only lead to problems. And court cases. Paid for by the tax payer. Wonderful. :mad:

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

I don't know, but I think neither do you nor anyone else. In fact I suspect that will depend on a court judgment. More money for the 4 Goldmines over these badly written or just badly thought out laws yet again. A conspiracy theorist might think it was all deliberate. :rolleyes:

I wouldn't worry, I don't think it's too likely anyone is going to bring a court case to see if the POLDPA precludes doctors from performing a C section; especially since the act actually defines what a medical procedure is in the context. So far it seems neither badly written or thought out, just badly read :rolleyes:

volchitsa wrote: »

I look at the exact words in the legislation (since you are hung up on the fact that it didn't say "termination", which is of course correct. That was the term widely used by politicians and journalists to describe the procedure she was given at the time, though).

Actually, I was pointing out that it didn't say what you said it did. Not hung up on it so much as trying to stick to the facts. I can't actually recall any journalists or politicians saying she received a termination (as distinct from her pregnancy was terminated, lest you want to get into that distinction again), but if they did, I doubt they claimed the POLDPA said she was entitled to a termination, which is what you said.

volchitsa wrote: »

So, having refreshed our memories let's now stick with the exact words - and the words appear to say "a medical procedure ... in the course of which, or as a result of which, an unborn human life is ended". Not "may be ended".So I don't know. After all, not all medical procedures on pregnant women come under the POLDPA, do they? That would be crazy. What about an amniocentesis? An ultrasound scan? Prescription of antibiotics? Treatment of pregnancy-related hypertension or diabetes?

Well, none of those are prohibited by the POLDPA are they? And you're the one who introduced the POLDPA as being the law that covered the situation. Have you changed your mind?

volchitsa wrote: »

If all medical procedures on pregnant women must now be signed off by two doctors etc etc, the Act would either become meaningless or our maternity wards would be completely overwhelmed by the extra paperwork required of doctors.

I don't think it says they must. Since you've refreshed your memory, can you point out where it does?

volchitsa wrote: »

And remember that the HSE must be informed of every single case. How could that possibly be done for the millions of "medical procedures" carried out on pregnant women in the course of which an unborn life is not ended? Or even, in the case of amniocenteses or emergency C sections etc, "may or may not be ended"?

Every single medical procedure on pregnant women? I don't think it says that either.

volchitsa wrote: »

Is it your belief that these all have to follow the fairly complex procedure outlined in the POLDPA? Or only those "in the course of which, or as a result of which, an unborn human life is ended"?

I'm fairly certain that the POLDPA sets out when it is lawful to carry out medical procedures on a pregnant woman in the course of which, or as a result of which, an unborn human life is ended. But it's your contention that it is the legislation governing the c section performed on Miss Y. Perhaps you're mistaken?

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

The problem is the deliberate ambiguity in the wording, as with the 8th amendment. A law allowing certain procedures but which doesn't define the procedures it allows and those it bans can only lead to problems. And court cases. Paid for by the tax payer. Wonderful. :mad:

Which wording is ambiguous, exactly? You're obviously exercised by the ambiguity of the term termination, but that one as we've established doesn't actually occur in the Act.
Some might take the term as being the number of pregnancies terminated regardless of the methodology; even including terminations that result in a live mother and child.
Others might take it as the number of pregnancies terminated by terminating the life of the foetus.
Neither really makes the POLDPA more or less ambiguous.

ThinkProgress

Whatever happened to that abortion ship they used to have..?

I forget what it was called now..."HMS baby killer" or something like that. :P