Clinicaly dead pregnant woman on life support

MrPudding

RobertKK wrote: »

So were their fears justified so you can say the 8th amendment applied?

It was clear she was dead. It would be like a car accident and the driver was over the alcohol limit and he crashes into another car killing themselves and the driver of the other car, and the guards arresting the dead person to charge the dead driver with the death of the other driver and driving over the alcohol limit.
You don't apply law to dead people. The hospital applied law to a dead person, it was clear the high court was going to say turn off the machines for dignity in death.
People who used the 8th amendment in the first place and applied it were proven wrong.
So we have people here using something applied wrongly as if it was used correctly to argue it should be removed.
Yes if the ruling had been the machines stay running, then you would have an argument. You can't use something applied wrongly to argue the fears were justified and the 8th amendment was the problem, when it was very poor judgment that was the problem.
This moves the issue to what it was about which is dignity in death and how law doesn't apply to dead people.

Read the ****ing judgement. The 8th did apply. This has been explained again and again. Simply ignoring these explanations and repeating the same incorrect assertions does not make your wilful misrepresentation correct. You are wrong. Deal with it.

MrP

volchitsa

RobertKK wrote: »

So were their fears justified so you can say the 8th amendment applied?

It was clear she was dead. It would be like a car accident and the driver was over the alcohol limit and he crashes into another car killing themselves and the driver of the other car, and the guards arresting the dead person to charge the dead driver with the death of the other driver and driving over the alcohol limit.
You don't apply law to dead people. The hospital applied law to a dead person, it was clear the high court was going to say turn off the machines for dignity in death.
People who used the 8th amendment in the first place and applied it were proven wrong.
So we have people here using something applied wrongly as if it was used correctly to argue it should be removed.
Yes if the ruling had been the machines stay running, then you would have an argument. You can't use something applied wrongly to argue the fears were justified and the 8th amendment was the problem, when it was very poor judgment that was the problem.
This moves the issue to what it was about which is dignity in death and how law doesn't apply to dead people.

No, you can't claim that just because the court decided one way, there was never any need for the court case in the first place. The problem wasn't that she was dead, it was that the fetus wasn't dead, and in Ireland (uniquely) the fetus has its own right to life, which may conflict with the woman's rights. That is because of the 8th, and only because of that.

HSE lawyers were unable to tell the doctors they could turn off the life support, that's why it went to court , so it wasn't the doctors who were wrong, if anything it was the HSE legal team. And they didn't even have costs against them, which again indicates that they did the right thing in letting the question be referred to court.

So no, your comparison is just wrong. It wasn't "poor judgment" or the court would have made them pay the costs of the case - which must have been significant, over the holiday season.

marienbad

RobertKK wrote: »

So were their fears justified so you can say the 8th amendment applied?

It was clear she was dead. It would be like a car accident and the driver was over the alcohol limit and he crashes into another car killing themselves and the driver of the other car, and the guards arresting the dead person to charge the dead driver with the death of the other driver and driving over the alcohol limit.
You don't apply law to dead people. The hospital applied law to a dead person, it was clear the high court was going to say turn off the machines for dignity in death.
People who used the 8th amendment in the first place and applied it were proven wrong.
So we have people here using something applied wrongly as if it was used correctly to argue it should be removed.
Yes if the ruling had been the machines stay running, then you would have an argument. You can't use something applied wrongly to argue the fears were justified and the 8th amendment was the problem, when it was very poor judgment that was the problem.
This moves the issue to what it was about which is dignity in death and how law doesn't apply to dead people.

And we wonder why change is so difficult . People become so invested in a point of view they are incapable of seeing or accepting opposing viewpoints even when delivered by a Judge.

Robert I have no doubt you are a sincere person and you hold these views in good faith but you and others like you make the repeal of the 8th inevitable ( no matter how long it takes) as you will not tolerate any compromise .

In the long run you are your own worst enemy,

RobertKK

MrPudding wrote: »

Read the ****ing judgement. The 8th did apply. This has been explained again and again. Simply ignoring these explanations and repeating the same incorrect assertions does not make your wilful misrepresentation correct. You are wrong. Deal with it.

MrP

Why was there a high court case?

RobertKK

marienbad wrote: »

And we wonder why change is so difficult . People become so invested in a point of view they are incapable of seeing or accepting opposing viewpoints even when delivered by a Judge.

Robert I have no doubt you are a sincere person and you hold these views in good faith but you and others like you make the repeal of the 8th inevitable ( no matter how long it takes) as you will not tolerate any compromise .

In the long run you are your own worst enemy,

people are using this case for political means. The family went to the high court to allow their family member to rest in peace given she was dead.

Call me Al

RobertKk, have you read any of the legal analysis on this morning's papers? By legal experts who work in law and would I think be fairly up to date on what rights a mother and a fetus have in cases like this? There's a great article in this mornings Irish Times for starters. Unless you're legally qualified to comment on whether or not the consultants were technically correct in bringing this case to end treatment? Or maybe you really just have a belief or a sense that they can take the law into their own hands and just should not worry about any consequences.

By the way the fact that this woman was allowed legal representation in court, who in turn argued that the life support be maintained to facilitate the pregnancy, would indicate that technically in legal terms she was still alive although we all agree this life was being artificially maintained.

lazygal

RobertKK wrote: »

people are using this case for political means. The family went to the high court to allow their family member to rest in peace given she was dead.

And they had to do so because of the eighth amendment, no other reason.

RobertKK

lazygal wrote: »

And they had to do so because of the eighth amendment, no other reason.

The family had to because the hospital and HSE were wrong.

Baggy Trousers

Does the high court decision force a change to the constitution or is it solely up to the FG/Lab government to decide if they will bother legislating?

Call me Al

RobertKK wrote: »

The family had to because the hospital and HSE were wrong.

The hospital and the HSE had no other option if they wanted to ensure they were operating within the confines of the constitution.

lazygal

It's ironic, the eighth amendment was supposed to put paid to any abortion of any kind here and end the debate for once and for all. Only by doing so we've been forced to deal with one abortion issue after another for 30 years and families are being put through the legal system because of it, yet there are still people who defend putting prescriptive ideology on medical practice into the constitution and keeping it there.

RobertKK

Call me Al wrote: »

RobertKk, have you read any of the legal analysis on this morning's papers? By legal experts who work in law and would I think be fairly up to date on what rights a mother and a fetus have in cases like this? There's a great article in this mornings Irish Times for starters. Unless you're legally qualified to comment on whether or not the consultants were technically correct in bringing this case to end treatment? Or maybe you really just have a belief or a sense that they can take the law into their own hands and just should not worry about any consequences.

By the way the fact that this woman was allowed legal representation in court, who in turn argued that the life support be maintained to facilitate the pregnancy, would indicate that technically in legal terms she was still alive although we all agree this life was being artificially maintained.

Irish Times is a very biased newspaper.

Baggy Trousers

Call me Al wrote: »

The hospital and the HSE had no other option if they wanted to ensure they were operating within the confines of the constitution.

Is it true that there were similar cases in the past where the doctors turned off the machine rather than seek legal advice?

I actually think the HSE were excessively cruel in this case given the circumstances. Maybe they needed to make a point.

lazygal

Baggy Trousers wrote: »

Does the high court decision force a change to the constitution or is it solely up to the FG/Lab government to decide if they will bother legislating?

Courts only rule on law, they don't make it. But this case may open up the debate on termination of pregnancy where a foetus won't survive for other reasons.

Bruthal

RobertKK wrote: »

So were their fears justified so you can say the 8th amendment applied?

It was clear she was dead. It would be like a car accident and the driver was over the alcohol limit and he crashes into another car killing themselves and the driver of the other car, and the guards arresting the dead person to charge the dead driver with the death of the other driver and driving over the alcohol limit.
You don't apply law to dead people. The hospital applied law to a dead person, it was clear the high court was going to say turn off the machines for dignity in death.
People who used the 8th amendment in the first place and applied it were proven wrong.
So we have people here using something applied wrongly as if it was used correctly to argue it should be removed.
Yes if the ruling had been the machines stay running, then you would have an argument. You can't use something applied wrongly to argue the fears were justified and the 8th amendment was the problem, when it was very poor judgment that was the problem.
This moves the issue to what it was about which is dignity in death and how law doesn't apply to dead people.

Hindsight is handy alright.

RobertKK

lazygal wrote: »

It's ironic, the eighth amendment was supposed to put paid to any abortion of any kind here and end the debate for once and for all. Only by doing so we've been forced to deal with one abortion issue after another for 30 years and families are being put through the legal system because of it, yet there are still people who defend putting prescriptive ideology on medical practice into the constitution and keeping it there.

This wasn't an abortion issue.

lazygal

RobertKK wrote: »

The family had to because the hospital and HSE were wrong.

Why did the parties all argue the same points then? It wasn't an adversarial hearing like some American courtroom drama

lazygal

RobertKK wrote: »

This wasn't an abortion issue.

Yes it was. You can keep saying it wasn't but you're wrong. And I know you'll never admit you're wrong and that abortion is and should be part of normal clinical practice in dealing with pregnant women, but you're wrong.

Call me Al

RobertKK wrote: »

This wasn't an abortion issue.

No it's an 8th amendment issue, yet again.

lazygal

Call me Al wrote: »

No it's an 8th amendment issue, yet again.

Which was introduced to stop so called permissive abortion law here.

RobertKK

lazygal wrote: »

Yes it was. You can keep saying it wasn't but you're wrong. And I know you'll never admit you're wrong and that abortion is and should be part of normal clinical practice in dealing with pregnant women, but you're wrong.

Who in court argued this woman wanted an abortion?

Bruthal

Baggy Trousers wrote: »

I actually think the HSE were excessively cruel in this case given the circumstances. Maybe they needed to make a point.

They likely felt they needed to ensure they were practising within the law, which was not perfectly clear in this uncommon case.

Call me Al

RobertKK wrote: »

Irish Times is a very biased newspaper.

Is that it? Our of my whole large two paragraphs is that the only thinly you feel you want to mention.
I asked were you legally more qualified than those who wrote this morning's many legal contributions?

And the fact that you don't mention my point that she was legally still alive.... Does that mean you concur?

lazygal

RobertKK wrote: »

Who in court argued this woman wanted an abortion?

Council for the foetus argued in regard to its right to life. If the medics thought it could be considered a termination of.pregnancy under the eighth amendment to turn off life support they wouldn't do so as they'd face 14 years in jail.
I don't know why I'm bothering to respond though as you seem to think the eighth amendment is grand and somehow protects women and tiny unborn babies.

Call me Al

Baggy Trousers wrote: »

Is it true that there were similar cases in the past where the doctors turned off the machine rather than seek legal advice?

I actually think the HSE were excessively cruel in this case given the circumstances. Maybe they needed to make a point.

I don't know.... Is it? Were any previous cases brought up in the courtroom the last day?

RobertKK

Bruthal wrote: »

Hindsight is handy alright.

Look back on my posts before the ruling. I have been consistent in my views.

lazygal

RobertKK wrote: »

Look back on my posts before the ruling. I have been consistent in my views.

Yes, you'll never admit you're wrong.

RobertKK

lazygal wrote: »

Council for the foetus argued in regard to its right to life. If the medics thought it could be considered a termination of.pregnancy under the eighth amendment to turn off life support they wouldn't do so as they'd face 14 years in jail.
I don't know why I'm bothering to respond though as you seem to think the eighth amendment is grand and somehow protects women and tiny unborn babies.

Required by law to argue. But this was not about abortion. It was a court case taken by the family so their family member could be allowed die naturally and with dignity due to the HSE being wrong in what they did.

Bruthal

RobertKK wrote: »

Look back on my posts before the ruling. I have been consistent in my views.

You said the hospital applied law to a dead person. The law was tested with regard to an unborn feotus and right to life.

If it had been a dead non pregnant person, you think your dead person law would have been tested here?

RobertKK

lazygal wrote: »

Yes, you'll never admit you're wrong.

I am not changing my opinion to something I don't believe so you can feel you are right.
I believe in what I argue as you do with your argument. I am not asking you to admit you are wrong so I can feel I won some debate.
We both believe what we believe and that is what is allowed in a free society.

RobertKK

Bruthal wrote: »

You said the hospital applied law to a dead person. The law was tested with regard to an unborn feotus and right to life.

If it had been a dead non pregnant person, you think your dead person law would have been tested here?

It wouldn't. But the unborn was not going to survive with a dead mother. Keeping her on a life support machine was a violation of her right to a dignified natural death, something we all hope we receive when it is our own time to depart this world.

Shenshen

RobertKK wrote: »

Required by law to argue. But this was not about abortion. It was a court case taken by the family so their family member could be allowed die naturally and with dignity due to the HSE being wrong in what they did.

The HSE were acting on legal advise. If the situation had been as clear-cut and obvious as you pretend it was, it never would have needed to go to court in the first place. It would not have required a court ruling.

As the law stands at the moment, every similar situation arising will most likely have to be dragged to the courts as well, as no doctor and no hospital in their right minds will risk turning off the machines without the full assurance of a court decision.
The risk of it coming to the courts after mother and foetus are dead and the judge then deciding they should have kept her alive as the foetus may have been viable is just too great.

Bruthal

RobertKK wrote: »

Required by law to argue. But this was not about abortion. It was a court case taken by the family so their family member could be allowed die naturally and with dignity due to the HSE being wrong in what they did.

In my opinion the HSE were correct to ensure acting within law. Just because judges judged in agreement with your prediction, does not mean you are acting within the law before a judgement is made.

The fault here is with the laws themselves, not those who are unclear as to their position while trying to practice within them.

This decision doesn't really offer perfect clarity for any future cases either.

Bruthal

RobertKK wrote: »

It wouldn't. But the unborn was not going to survive with a dead mother. Keeping her on a life support machine was a violation of her right to a dignified natural death, something we all hope we receive when it is our own time to depart this world.

We won't all be pregnant when death comes.

Its easy to say it was a violation. But would you simply switch off a machine in similar situations without question and with unclear legal position? Simple when hypothetically from an armchair I'd imagine.

What if advances in medical practice mean a feotus can survive no problem, what then, switch off anyway?

marienbad

RobertKK wrote: »

people are using this case for political means. The family went to the high court to allow their family member to rest in peace given she was dead.

You keep saying that but it is a meaningless statement ,how do you know their motives ? You attribute to them what you need to see to support your view .

Some would say you are the most political poster in this discussion .

Baggy Trousers

Call me Al wrote: »

I don't know.... Is it? Were any previous cases brought up in the courtroom the last day?

I heard on the radio that this scenario was known to have happened at least twice before in Ireland but the doctors chose to simply turn off the machines rather than seek legal approval. If I recall correctly, one case was in UCHG.

Call me Al

Baggy Trousers wrote: »

I heard on the radio that this scenario was known to have happened at least twice before in Ireland but the doctors chose to simply turn off the machines rather than seek legal approval. If I recall correctly, one case was in UCHG.

Do you have a link? When was it? Were the circumstances identical? Genuinely I don't know.

Baggy Trousers

Call me Al wrote: »

Do you have a link? When was it? Were the circumstances identical? Genuinely I don't know.

No link - it was either Newstalk or Radio 1. It was about a week ago.
I think the foetus might have been younger in both cases.

ProfessorPlum

Baggy Trousers wrote: »

I heard on the radio that this scenario was known to have happened at least twice before in Ireland but the doctors chose to simply turn off the machines rather than seek legal approval. If I recall correctly, one case was in UCHG.

That case and another on Wsterford was mentioned in the Sunday times last week. The foetus died first, and life support was withdrawn after, for obvious reasons. In the case in Watrford it was reported that the hospital approached the AG for advice, the advice given was that the doctors could make the decision without recourse to the courts. The foetus again died, but it wasn't clear weather this happened before a decision was made.

Edit: according to an IT article from Dec 23, the foetus in Waterford died, and afterwards the machine was turned off. So both cases were similar to this, but they were resolved by the death of the foetus.

Baggy Trousers

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

That case and another on Wsterford was mentioned in the Sunday times last week. The foetus died first, and life support was withdrawn after, for obvious reasons. In the case in Watrford it was reported that the hospital approached the AG for advice, the advice given was that the doctors could make the decision without recourse to the courts. The foetus again died, but it wasn't clear weather this happened before a decision was made.

Edit: according to an IT article from Dec 23, the foetus in Waterford died, and afterwards the machine was turned off. So both cases were similar to this, but they were resolved by the death of the foetus.

Ok they must be different cases because the cases I heard about were not referred to any legal entities. They were simply cases where the mother was pregnant when she died and they turned off the life support machine as per next-of-kin wishes. The suggestion on the radio was that the doctors could have acted illegally depending on the outcome of this latest case (which was unknown at the time of radio broadcast).

Baggy Trousers

Re above the point being made was why the doctors chose this case over the other two to challenge a legal standpoint.

Call me Al

Baggy Trousers wrote: »

Re above the point being made was why the doctors chose this case over the other two to challenge a legal standpoint.

I don't think the doctors here chose this case to make any legal point. Did you read the evidence given by the medical experts involved in her care? They're not heartless animals without emotions for the lady in question. But they face a jail sentence if they act in contradiction to the Constitution, and their legal advice didnt guarantee them anything

Baggy Trousers

Call me Al wrote: »

I don't think the doctors here chose this case to make any legal point. Did you read the evidence given by the medical experts involved in her care? They're not heartless animals without emotions for the lady in question. But they face a jail sentence if they act in contradiction to the Constitution, and their legal advice didnt guarantee them anything

I was asking about the previous cases that never went through the courts where the doctors took matters into their own hands. If people haven't heard about those 2 incidents, then fair enough - I don't wish to be argumentative about this case because the correct decision was made, albeit after a long delay.

By the way, it wasn't me making the point about why the doctors chose this case, it was someone on a radio talk show panel who questioned the timing.

Call me Al

Baggy Trousers wrote: »

I was asking about the previous cases that never went through the courts where the doctors took matters into their own hands. If people haven't heard about those 2 incidents, then fair enough - I don't wish to be argumentative about this case because the correct decision was made, albeit after a long delay.

By the way, it wasn't me making the point about why the doctors chose this case, it was someone on a radio talk show panel who questioned the timing.

But you did say a couple of posts back that you felt that the HSE were excessively cruel and you suggested that maybe they were just making a point.

Baggy Trousers

Call me Al wrote: »

But you did say a couple of posts back that you felt that the HSE were excessively cruel and you suggested that maybe they were just making a point.

Yes I believe that given what I have heard. I feel the inevitable decision was prolonged and dragged through the courts and media far too long.

Call me Al

Baggy Trousers wrote: »

Yes I believe that given what I have heard. I feel the inevitable decision was prolonged and dragged through the courts and media far too long.

Well I'd think the doctors involved would completely agree with you there. I'm sure there is nothing they'd have appreciated more than to have had legal certainty and have been able to act quickly in the best interests of the mother and allow her a dignified death.
Can I ask if you were in their position would you have switched off the machine with legal doubts hanging over your head and a threat of jailtime lurking there in the background. Not to mention the professional and other personal consequences it'd have for you.
They aren't legal professionals with the ability to interpret Constitutional technicalities. They were in uncharted territory legally and as such, even though it was a medical matter, it's not for them to decide how section 8 can be interpreted.

And that's why it ended up the sorry mess that it did.

JRant

RobertKK wrote: »

I am not changing my opinion to something I don't believe so you can feel you are right.
I believe in what I argue as you do with your argument. I am not asking you to admit you are wrong so I can feel I won some debate.
We both believe what we believe and that is what is allowed in a free society.

A free society? Are you serious?

We live in anything but a free society. Well i suppose it is "free" when you agree with all the restrictions placed on private citizens.
Want an abortion? Tough shïte, get the boat.

What business does the constitution have in interfering in personal medical decisions?

ProfessorPlum

Baggy Trousers wrote: »

I was asking about the previous cases that never went through the courts where the doctors took matters into their own hands. If people haven't heard about those 2 incidents, then fair enough - I don't wish to be argumentative about this case because the correct decision was made, albeit after a long delay.

By the way, it wasn't me making the point about why the doctors chose this case, it was someone on a radio talk show panel who questioned the timing.

I can find no mention in the press or anywhere else of these two 'other' cases. Nor were they mentioned in the recent court proceedings, which I find impossible to believe would happen if they actually existed. Would it be fair to suppose that either your self or the panel on the radio show got it wrong and were actually talking about the two know cases that I mentioned and were also mentioned during the court proceedings?


The doctors didn't 'choose' this case. It was the father of the woman involved who brought proceedings.

Baggy Trousers

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

I can find no mention in the press or anywhere else of these two 'other' cases. Nor were they mentioned in the recent court proceedings, which I find impossible to believe would happen if they actually existed. Would it be fair to suppose that either your self or the panel on the radio show got it wrong and were actually talking about the two know cases that I mentioned and were also mentioned during the court proceedings?

The doctors didn't 'choose' this case. It was the father of the woman involved who brought proceedings.

The story was just breaking but I know what I heard. I am sure it will come out in due course. It wouldn't be incredible to think that some doctor(s) decided to "do the right thing" rather than go to the courts for some interpretation. One of the cases was in UCH Galway (not Savita) if that helps. For the record, I am not advocating a witch-hunt by any means.

Fair play to the father though, at least this formal decision will prevent pointless heartache in the future. I think most do agree that the law is an ass and needs to be clarified.

lazygal

Baggy Trousers wrote: »

The story was just breaking but I know what I heard. I am sure it will come out in due course. It wouldn't be incredible to think that some doctor(s) decided to "do the right thing" rather than go to the courts for some interpretation. One of the cases was in UCH Galway (not Savita) if that helps. For the record, I am not advocating a witch-hunt by any means.

Fair play to the father though, at least this formal decision will prevent pointless heartache in the future. I think most do agree that the law is an ass and needs to be clarified.

This judgment very much takes only the precise circumstances of the situation into.consideration. I very much doubt this judgment will prevent similar but not identical cases coming before the courts. In fact, after this doctors may be even more cautious about how pregnant women are treated in case they end up in the high court. Why should they have to interpret the constitution when practicing medicine? The eighth amendment has to go.