Clinicaly dead pregnant woman on life support

Strazdas

If anything good is to come out of this, it is bringing into sharp focus what a horrendous shambles Ireland's abortion laws are (ditto with the case of an asylum seeker who was forced by law to carry her pregnancy through to full term despite being suicidal and a rape victim).

blacklilly

Strazdas wrote: »

If anything good is to come out of this, it is bringing into sharp focus what a horrendous shambles Ireland's abortion laws are

This case had nothing to do with abortion

marienbad

RobertKK wrote: »

If the 8th amendment did apply, what would have been the result?

You keep asking the wrong questions and reaching incorrect conclusions.

Because of the 8th amendment the court case was inevitable.

RobertKK

Magenta wrote: »

Have you ever actually read the 8th Amendment? You seem to know very little about it and now expect others to explain it to you. Have a read of it yourself.

Yes, and it didn't apply in this case. Maybe you think a dead person has an equal right to life. There was nothing equal when the mother was dead and being denied a dignified death.

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

The unborn had no mother, she was dead, and the unborn was not viable outside the womb so it didn't apply. The right to a dignified death was the real issue.

Magenta

RobertKK wrote: »

the unborn was not viable outside the womb so it didn't apply.

Savita Halappanavar's baby was not viable either and she still was refused having it removed...
You really haven't got a clue.

RobertKK

marienbad wrote: »

You keep asking the wrong questions and reaching incorrect conclusions.

Because of the 8th amendment the court case was inevitable.

You didn't answer the question, because the answer would be the machines would be still on if the 8th amendment had applied, but the people who have been using this woman to argue #appealthe8th should stop using this woman for their own ends.

The ruling shows the fears of the medical staff were wrong and she was entitled to a dignified death.

gctest50

RobertKK wrote: »

........ and the unborn was not viable outside the womb so it didn't apply.......

so it doesn't apply to any fetus that is not viable outside the uterus then ?

RobertKK

gctest50 wrote: »

so it doesn't apply to any fetus that is not viable outside the uterus then ?

Not in the case of a brain dead mother where the unborn is too far away from viability and where a dignified death is being denied.

lazygal

RobertKK wrote: »

Not in the case of a brain dead mother where the unborn is too far away from viability and where a dignified death is being denied.

What about a foetus that won't live outside the womb for other reasons?

marienbad

RobertKK wrote: »

You didn't answer the question, because the answer would be the machines would be still on if the 8th amendment had applied, but the people who have been using this woman to argue #appealthe8th should stop using this woman for their own ends.

The ruling shows the fears of the medical staff were wrong and she was entitled to a dignified death.

We only know they were wrong because of the court action . You cannot say otherwise .

MrPudding

RobertKK wrote: »

If the 8th amendment did apply, what would have been the result?

Seriously, I appreciate you have a lot invested in this, but your denial of reality is beginning to come across as a little desperate now. Do yourself a favour and read the whole judgement. It actually says that the 8th applies, and then goes onto discuss the relevance of 'as far as practicable'. The 8th was relevant to this case, it did apply to these circumstances and, further, it required a three judge panel of the high court, sitting in a special session, to determine if it was in the interests of the foetus, in light of art 40.3.3, for the machine to be turned off. To say the 8th did not have any relevance to this case is displaying such a degree of denial of reality that it is bordering on delusion

Also, the mother's right to dignity in death was also a factor, it was in fact mentioned and discussed in greater detail than your short out of context quote might suggest.

And one final point, even if something was found to be, by the courts, not a factor or not relevant, this does not necessarily mean someone made a mistake, as you are suggesting the HSE did. Nor does it mean that that 'thing' was not a factor in the circumstance or event under discussion. Whilst it is quite plain to see, to anyone willing to actually look, that the 8th is of enormous relevance to this case, and was discussed at length in the judgement, even if the judges said the 8th has nothing to do with this, which they didn't, that still would not mean the 8th had nothing to do with it. That the medical team 'thought' the 8th applied, whether they were correct or not, means that the 8th was a factor. Clearly the medical team and their legal representatives did not posses the legal certainty that you do, and they need clarification from the high court to ensure that the action they felt was correct was legal, in light of the foetus's 'constitutional rights'.

I take it, given your certainty that you sit on the Supreme Court? I appreciate that you probably can't give us your name, but given your certainty, and your dismissal of the actions taken by the medical and legal teams, as well as your apparent unconcern about the wording and content of the high court judgment, one can only assume you must be senior in the Supreme Court. Please tell us.

MrP

RobertKK

Magenta wrote: »

Savita Halappanavar's baby was not viable either and she still was refused having it removed...
You really haven't got a clue.

Look in a mirror and say it to the person you see, this is what I posted two days ago:

RobertKK wrote: »

It talks about right to life.
The mother is dead.

I have work to do so I will just say, let's wait for the judgement.
I think the machines will be switched off.

RobertKK wrote: »

Speak for yourself if you want to call someone a lost cause.

I have said the HSE made it a factor in the case. But the real story is about the right to a natural death.

So look at yourself if you want to talk about not getting it.
That said I wish you a happy Christmas.

RobertKK wrote: »

Yes, but the HSE didn't need to make the 8th amendment an issue as she was dead.
I await to see if the court sees it this way.

RobertKK wrote: »

Yes, the thing is the people who want the 8th amendment removed would need the judges to say the machines stay so they can use this poor woman.

The 8th amendment didn't stop the x case and I await to see if the 8th amendment applies in this case. I would put my money on it not applying.
Therefore the 8th amendment was not an issue that should have been used.
Will just have to wait and see.

RobertKK wrote: »

Looking at the HSE arguing the machines should be turned off, I would question why some employee of the HSE thought this had anything to with the unborn and the 8th amendment.

The 8th amendment doesn't require doctors to keep a dead person alive.

I expect this to be the result on Friday.

Yes I haven't a clue if I was to listen to you, the result of the High Court turned out as I said it would, it was about the right of the woman to a dignified death given she was dead and was being denied a natural death.

MrPudding

marienbad wrote: »

We only know they were wrong because of the court action . You cannot say otherwise .

They were not wrong, they simply lacked the legal clarity they required to proceed with what they considered to be the best course of action, medically. They .acked this clarity because they are doctors, not high court or Supreme Court justices.

MrP

RobertKK

MrPudding wrote: »

They were not wrong, they simply lacked the legal clarity they required to proceed with what they considered to be the best course of action, medically. They .acked this clarity because they are doctors, not high court or Supreme Court justices.

MrP

The doctors didn't argue for clarity in this. The family went to the High Court to turn the machines off.

[the court was awarding costs of the case to the woman’s family, and to the lawyers representing the interests of the woman and unborn, as it had raised issues of “great public importance”.

marienbad

RobertKK wrote: »

The doctors didn't argue for clarity in this. The family went to the High Court to turn the machines off.

Why did they have to go to the High Court ? You really are going to string this out aren't you ?

Matta Harri

volchitsa wrote: »

How about next time (because unfortunately there almost certainly will be a next time, with this disastrous law) you just assume that the family probably have more interest in the woman's welfare, and that of her unborn child, and you no longer feel entitled to go against their considered opinion?
Agreed. RIP

Hold on there now before you start pontificating to me. You've leapt on every poster that has expressed any opinion that was not identical to yours.

I said I was in agreement with her being kept on ventilator until I realised how far along the pregnancy was.

It was a difficult situation for all involved. Thr turning off of a life support machine is the most horrific thing I've ever witnessed.

RobertKK

marienbad wrote: »

Why did they have to go to the High Court ? You really are going to string this out aren't you ?

The family went to the high court not the HSE.

At least get the facts correct.

MrPudding

RobertKK wrote: »

The doctors didn't argue for clarity in this. The family went to the High Court to turn the machines off.

Are you serious? Why do you think they needed to go to court to get permission to turn off the machines keeping a brain dead woman 'alive'?

MrP

marienbad

RobertKK wrote: »

The family went to the high court not the HSE.

At least get the facts correct.

The façade begins to slip .

RobertKK

marienbad wrote: »

Why did they have to go to the High Court ? You really are going to string this out aren't you ?

I said two days ago the HSE was wrong to apply law to a dead person and I expected the machines to be turned off.

The family went to the High Court because the HSE were wrong in what they did, and it was found the machines should have been turned off to allow dignity in death.

RobertKK

marienbad wrote: »

The façade begins to slip .

Again speak for yourself, you believed it was the doctors/HSE who went to court for clarity.

RobertKK

MrPudding wrote: »

Are you serious? Why do you think they needed to go to court to get permission to turn off the machines keeping a brain dead woman 'alive'?

MrP

Because the HSE applied law to a dead person.

marienbad

RobertKK wrote: »

Again speak for yourself, you believed it was the doctors/HSE who went to court for clarity.

Another tangent .

pmasterson95

RobertKK wrote: »

I said two days ago the HSE was wrong to apply law to a dead person and I expected the machines to be turned off.

The family went to the High Court because the HSE were wrong in what they did, and it was found the machines should have been turned off to allow dignity in death.

Ok Robert my special little cherub I will use small words and simple speak for you.


Woman dead. Therefore yes you are right the 8th didn't apply to her. Have a cookie.


But you might have read or noticed that inside said dead woman is a fetus (ring any bells?)

the fetus wasn't dead. The 8th applied to the fetus.

The fetus that is inside the corpse.


Therefore corpse was kept on life support to save the fetus thanks to the 8th.




Is that too confusing? I dont think it can be dumbed down anymore.....I probably over simplified to try and teach you special one!

pmasterson95

marienbad wrote: »

Another tangent .

Hes a determined little sod. Cant admit defeat. Very unique debating style.

Cantremember

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Hes a determined little sod. Cant admit defeat. Very unique debating style.

It's not a debate. It's not that there is any interest in truth or human compassion. There is only consistency with the teachings of the church itself founded on revealed "truth". You cannot reason with the alleged deity.

pmasterson95

Cantremember wrote: »

It's not a debate. It's not that there is any interest in truth or human compassion. There is only consistency with the teachings of the church itself founded on revealed "truth". You cannot reason with the alleged deity.

I know wee Rob is unique but wouldn't call him a deity :P

humanji

pmasterson95 and cantremember, if you just want to badger other users or be patronising to them them find a different forum. If you can be civil, feel free to continue here.

volchitsa

RobertKK wrote: »

Not in the case of a brain dead mother where the unborn is too far away from viability and where a dignified death is being denied.

So before this ruling where was it written that there was an exception made for brain dead women only?

Also, what if the pregnancy had been a couple of weeks further on, but still not at viability, and the family had wanted the pregnancy to continue - should that wish have been refused on those grounds?

Strazdas

blacklilly wrote: »

This case had nothing to do with abortion

Indeed but the case was shaped by the 'right to life of the unborn' which is reflected in Ireland's draconian anti-abortion laws. Ireland is the only country in Europe (or probably the whole of the developed world) where the case of this poor unfortunate woman could have happened, thanks to the nonsensical and impractical laws covering the whole matter.