8th Amendment

No Voter And Proud

traprunner wrote: »

That is between the sinner and god.

You'd know you were not a man of faith.

traprunner

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

You'd know you were not a man of faith.

I don't need faith in a deity.

So why would anyone want to get between god and a sinner?

pmasterson95

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

Have you read the link?
The 8th didnt apply

Well yes. I was the one who told you the body was decomposing and then you claimed it wasn't before I repeatedly asked you and you eventually realised oh wow dead bodies decompose. You forget already.

volchitsa

Atlantis50 wrote: »

It was caused by a wrong decision by the doctors concerned, because, as Kearns makes clear:

Therefore, the 8th Amendment did not apply.

A referendum to get rid of the 8th will be defeated. And rightly so.

The court found it didn't apply in this case. The lawyers for the hospital had been unable or unwilling to reach that decision without going to court, so presuably they felt it could have gone either way.

In any case, it's not true that the 8th wasn't the cause of the problem - it was absolutely and completely the cause. Without the 8th, the doctors would have switched off the life support as soon as it because clear the woman was effectively dead and the baby was too damaged by all that had gone on trying the save the woman's life.

The 8th doesn't allow that decision to be taken on medical grounds alone, it has to be done on legal criteria - and yet the lawyers refused to decide too.

In no other European country would that have happened against the family's and doctors' opinions - only in Ireland, and only because of the 8th amendment.

volchitsa

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

No there was no abortion on demand.
But we are a different country now. More "progressive"

So your fear is that there is now enough support in the country for legalization of abortion.

Maybe we need a referendum then?

pmasterson95

volchitsa wrote: »

The court found it didn't apply in this case. The lawyers for the hospital had been unable or unwilling to reach that decision without going to court, so presuably they felt it could have gone either way.

In any case, it's not true that the 8th wasn't the cause of the problem - it was absolutely and completely the cause. Without the 8th, the doctors would have switched off the life support as soon as it because clear the woman was effectively dead and the baby was too damaged by all that had gone on trying the save the woman's life.

The 8th doesn't allow that decision to be taken on medical grounds alone, it has to be done on legal criteria - and yet the lawyers refused to decide too.

In no other European country would that have happened against the family's and doctors' opinions - only in Ireland, and only because of the 8th amendment.

If they immediately unplugged it "Proud and Atlantis" would scream about murdering babies and evil hospital and some of that ilk probably attempt to sue the doctor/hospital. But since sanity won that ilk just deny the case had anything to do with it. Even though they picketed the hospital and were against turning them off. Since they lost they just ignore it and try to spew different crap.

Delirium

Atlantis50 wrote: »

You'd have to ask the other medical professionals who expressed concern as they obviously know more about the case than I do.

And none of the concerns are that the psychiatrists were wrong, only that some information may not have been discussed. How is that an abuse of the Act?

pmasterson95

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

You'd know you were not a man of faith.

You'd know you were not a man of science when you dont understand biology.

frag420

traprunner wrote: »

That is between the sinner and god.

Only if you believe in her!! You mentioned earlier that you believe abortion it is wrong because it against the law yet now you say its becaise its a sin. Dont you ever get greedy, envious of your neighbors? Should you be punished for feeling that is 100% natural to feel as a human??

No Voter And Proud

The amount of anti-religious crap that is spouted here is ridiculous.

Kev W

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

The amount of anti-religious crap that is spouted here is ridiculous.

The amount of religious crap kind of balances it out though.

pmasterson95

The amount of disrespectful crap about forcing (physically assaulting/violence included) a woman to have a child is ridiculous.

Atlantis50

volchitsa wrote: »

The court found it didn't apply in this case.

Yes. This case is the only one we're discussing. Thanks for emphasising that.

The High Court also set out its rationale which is instructive for the future.

volchitsa wrote: »

The lawyers for the hospital had been unable or unwilling to reach that decision without going to court, so presuably they felt it could have gone either way.

They were wrong. The court set them straight.

volchitsa wrote: »

In any case, it's not true that the 8th wasn't the cause of the problem - it was absolutely and completely the cause. Without the 8th, the doctors would have switched off the life support as soon as it because clear the woman was effectively dead and the baby was too damaged by all that had gone on trying the save the woman's life.

The 8th doesn't allow that decision to be taken on medical grounds alone, it has to be done on legal criteria - and yet the lawyers refused to decide too.

In no other European country would that have happened against the family's and doctors' opinions - only in Ireland, and only because of the 8th amendment.

The doctors and hospital lawyers were wrong and the court set them straight.

Don't you find it remarkable that such misunderstandings and cases are exceedingly rare given that the 8th Amendment has now been in place for 32 years despite the impression you give where it would seem we should be seeing difficulties on a much more frequent basis?

The 8th Amendment has achieved its purpose well and will likely do so for many years to come.

No Voter And Proud

I think I've expressed my views enough for one day on this thread, I'll sign off now before I start getting warnings again.

Atlantis50

SW wrote: »

And none of the concerns are that the psychiatrists were wrong, only that some information may not have been discussed. How is that an abuse of the Act?

As I've already posted, concerns were expressed and I'm not in a position to know what those concerns are in detail as I am not one of the medical professionals with knowledge of the case.

traprunner

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

The amount of anti-religious crap that is spouted here is ridiculous.

I was just trying to understand religion.

Atlantis50

pmasterson95 wrote: »

The amount of disrespectful crap about forcing (physically assaulting/violence included) a woman to have a child is ridiculous.

Can you link to these posts about physically assaulting/using violence against pregnant women to force them to have a child?

I've missed them.

volchitsa

Atlantis50 wrote: »

Yes. This case is the only one we're discussing. Thanks for emphasising that.

The High Court also set out its rationale which is instructive for the future.

They were wrong. The court set them straight.

The doctors and hospital lawyers were wrong and the court set them straight.

Don't you find it remarkable that such misunderstandings and cases are exceedingly rare given that the 8th Amendment has now been in place for 32 years despite the impression you give where it would seem we should be seeing difficulties on a much more frequent basis?

The 8th Amendment has achieved its purpose well and will likely do so for many years to come.

The court certainly didn't tell them they were wrong to ask the court to decide, and the court didnt tell them it was an easy issue to decide. It actually said that it was only because of the extreme circumstances of this particular case that, on reflection, the 8th wasn't triggered.

So if the woman had been a little further on on pregnancy, the 8th would have applied. No matter how damaged the child was by its mother's illness and death, it would have to be kept inside her if it had a chance of being born alive - even if it were sure to he disabled and possibly to die with a sort time.

And you think that's a good thing? :eek:

As for the number of cases, do you really think it's a coincidence that there are several all coming out in the last few years?

Personally speaking, I'm convinced these things have always happened but families either didnt realize they could have had a choice in other countries, or they were too ashamed or distraught to go public about it.

So no, I don't think the "small" numbr of cases is in any way a justification : there is abortion on demand for Irish women who can afford it anyway, just not in Ireland, so any one of these tragic cases caused by the existence of the 8th is too much, given that it doesnt actually prevent abortion anyway.

All it does is maintain a fiction - and TBF even a single real case of hardship or suffering caused simply in order to maintain a fiction is far too much for me.

Atlantis50

pmasterson95 wrote: »

If they immediately unplugged it "Proud and Atlantis" would scream about murdering babies and evil hospital and some of that ilk probably attempt to sue the doctor/hospital.

Utter nonsense.

pmasterson95 wrote: »

But since sanity won that ilk just deny the case had anything to do with it. Even though they picketed the hospital and were against turning them off. Since they lost they just ignore it and try to spew different crap.

Link to proof that the hospital was picketed by pro-life groups?

johnnyskeleton

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

You'd know you were not a man of faith.

traprunner wrote: »

I don't need faith in a deity.

So why would anyone want to get between god and a sinner?

pmasterson95 wrote: »

You'd know you were not a man of science when you dont understand biology.

frag420 wrote: »

Only if you believe in her!! You mentioned earlier that you believe abortion it is wrong because it against the law yet now you say its becaise its a sin. Dont you ever get greedy, envious of your neighbors? Should you be punished for feeling that is 100% natural to feel as a human??

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

The amount of anti-religious crap that is spouted here is ridiculous.

Kev W wrote: »

The amount of religious crap kind of balances it out though.

pmasterson95 wrote: »

The amount of disrespectful crap about forcing (physically assaulting/violence included) a woman to have a child is ridiculous.

traprunner wrote: »

I was just trying to understand religion.

MOD: This thread is not for debating religion, nor is it for taking petty swipes. If that is all that is happening, I will lock the thread and maybe ban a few posters. Final warning.

Atlantis50

volchitsa wrote: »

The court certainly didn't tell them they were wrong to ask the court to decide, and the court didnt tell them it was an easy issue to decide. It actually said that it was only because of the extreme circumstances of this particular case that, on reflection, the 8th wasn't triggered.

So if the woman had been a little further on on pregnancy, the 8th would have applied. No matter how damaged the child was by its mother's illness and death, it would have to be kept inside her if it had a chance of being born alive - even if it were sure to he disabled and possibly to die with a sort time.

And you think that's a good thing? :eek:

Seven doctors gave evidence to the court and none argued the treatment should continue or that there was any realistic prospect of her baby being born intact even if the treatment continued so clearly the hospital and their lawyers were wrong but the fact that the case went to court and they were set straight does not undermine the 8th Amendment in any way.

volchitsa wrote: »

As for the number of cases, do you really think it's a coincidence that there are several all coming out in the last few years?

Personally speaking, I'm convinced these things have always happened but families either didnt realize they could have had a choice in other countries, or they were too ashamed or distraught to go public about it.

Mere speculation on your part.

volchitsa wrote: »

So no, I don't think the "small" numbr of cases is in any way a justification : there is abortion on demand for Irish women who can afford it anyway, just not in Ireland, so any one of these tragic cases caused by the existence of the 8th is too much, given that it doesnt actually prevent abortion anyway.

All it does is maintain a fiction - and TBF even a single real case of hardship or suffering caused simply in order to maintain a fiction is far too much for me.

Why do you fail to recognise the right to life of the unborn when you refer to "hardship and suffering"?

At what stage, in your view, is the right to life engaged? At birth?

pmasterson95

Atlantis50 wrote: »

Can you link to these posts about physically assaulting/using violence against pregnant women to force them to have a child?

I've missed them.

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

Because of a number of reasons. I don't believe that a man using physical force toward a woman is ever acceptable unless there are severe severe mitigating circumstances.

I'll qualify my statement and say the only time I would use physical force would be if she was holding an abortion tablet in her hand and was moving it toward her mouth. That would only be after attempting reasoning with her.

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

Force is acceptable to prevent worse acts (abortion/murder being one of them for instance)

As proven by the miss Y case, the state agrees with me.

Here you go babe x
Force is acceptable against woman to save baby.



Apparently a woman is a person to be respected until shes is pregnant and becomes sub human with no rights to her own body.

galljga1

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

The amount of anti-religious crap that is spouted here is ridiculous.

There is no such thing.

conorh91

pmasterson95 wrote: »

And what stopped the doctors turning off the machines immediately?

Legal uncertainty due to the absolutely freak nature of the case, and the vast moral questions that were in play.

Every single case that proceeds to a full hearing before the High Court is 'arguable', let alone those that raise such fundamental ethical questions such as the rights of the unborn.

P.P. v HSE contained such an improbable situation that it cannot be held up as proof that the 8th Amendment is problematic. Dr Peter McKenna, consultant obstetrician at the Rotunda, gave evidence that the instant case "was not merely a rare case but an absolutely extraordinary one".

Even the most careful legislative draftsmanship will never be able to quench all doubts that arise in the hurly burly of everyday life and the inevitable human disasters that cannot be legislated away.

We should take PP v HSE for what it was: one family's nightmare arising out of a rare and chaotic chain of events. It's a tragedy, not an opportunity to mount your hobby horse.

volchitsa wrote: »

The 8th doesn't allow that decision to be taken on medical grounds alone, it has to be done on legal criteria - and yet the lawyers refused to decide too.

How can you possibly permit doctors to take medical decisions which are not subject to legal scrutiny?

The fundamental decision to withdraw life-support was taken by the doctors, and not the High Court. The Court in its judgment authorised the medical team to use its discretion.

Every single clinical decision that is undertaken in Irish hospitals may be reviewed by the courts, and patients are a lot better-off for that.

Black Menorca

krankykitty wrote: »

This "abortion industry" thing is getting boring now. Do you also complain about the cancer industry? The dentistry industry?

Are you comparing dental treatment to delivering a lethal saline injection to an unborn baby?

Black Menorca

SW wrote: »

actually you do with regard to the question asked by swampgas, and you've even said as much in a previous post.



Your belief is imposed by law. So why does your belief trump that of a pregnant woman who wishes to abort?

Go ask the Oireachtas. I played no part in the vote on X legislation.

Delirium

Black Menorca wrote: »

Go ask the Oireachtas. I played no part in the vote on X legislation.

Still not answer.

Black Menorca

SW wrote: »

Still not answer.

Its the answer you're getting.

I have no control over any individual, except myself.

pmasterson95

Black Menorca wrote: »

Go ask the Oireachtas. I played no part in the vote on X legislation.

So you dont know why you believe what you believe?

volchitsa

conorh91 wrote: »

Legal uncertainty due to the absolutely freak nature of the case, and the vast moral questions that were in play.

Every single case that proceeds to a full hearing before the High Court is 'arguable', let alone those that raise such fundamental ethical questions such as the rights of the unborn.

P.P. v HSE contained such an improbable situation that it cannot be held up as proof that the 8th Amendment is problematic. Dr Peter McKenna, consultant obstetrician at the Rotunda, gave evidence that the instant case "was not merely a rare case but an absolutely extraordinary one".

Even the most careful legislative draftsmanship will never be able to quench all doubts that arise in the hurly burly of everyday life and the inevitable human disasters that cannot be legislated away.

We should take PP v HSE for what it was: one family's nightmare arising out of a rare and chaotic chain of events. It's a tragedy, not an opportunity to mount your hobby horse.

How can you possibly permit doctors to take medical decisions which are not subject to legal scrutiny?

The fundamental decision to withdraw life-support was taken by the doctors, and not the High Court. The Court in its judgment authorised the medical team to use its discretion.

Every single clinical decision that is undertaken in Irish hospitals may be reviewed by the courts, and patients are a lot better-off for that.

But other clinical decisions are not overridden by legal decisions.

The doctors' considered medical opinion was that the baby could not possibly survive. It was for purely legal reasons only that the family was put through further trauma and suffering.

That doesn't happen with other medical decisions, which can be just as ethically fraught : when to stop cancer treatment, whether or not to amputate after a traffic accident. When to turn off life support, for heavens sake. Doctors have to take all these decisions, in accordance with the families, all the time. Legal oversight is as much part of those decisions as any others.

But only in cases where the woman is pregnant (and only in Ireland, because of the 8th amendment) are both the family and the medical team subordinate to purely legal criteria. IMO that's wrong, pure and simple.

pmasterson95

Black Menorca wrote: »

Its the answer you're getting.

I have no control over any individual, except myself.

Unless is forcing them to have the children of rapists?

Black Menorca

pmasterson95 wrote: »

So you dont know why you believe what you believe?

My simple brain is getting confused.

Black Menorca

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Unless is forcing them to have the children of rapists?

The law is very clear and makes no dispensation for a rape victim being further victimised at the hands of an abortionist. I happen to support this fully.

pmasterson95

Black Menorca wrote: »

The law is very clear and makes no dispensation for a rape victim being further victimised at the hands of an abortionist. I happen to support this fully.

Fancy it up with whatever la de dah language makes ya feel good honest fact is you force them to have a rapists baby that was forcibly put into them.

And actually what if the rape victim using her own brain decides that she would actually be further victimised by having to give birth to the rapists child. Do you fully support increasing the victimisation suffered by the victim as it makes you happy?

Black Menorca

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Fancy it up with whatever la de dah language makes ya feel good honest fact is you force them to have a rapists baby that was forcibly put into them.

And actually what if the rape victim using her own brain decides that she would actually be further victimised by having to give birth to the rapists child. Do you fully support increasing the victimisation suffered by the victim as it makes you happy?

I force no one to do anything.

I'm expressing support and pride in a law that makes Ireland a shining example of defending human life, born and unborn.

conorh91

volchitsa wrote: »

But other clinical decisions are not overridden by legal decisions.

They can be. There is no clinical decision which is immune to litigation or prosecution. Take medical negligence cases on their own: approx 25 of these are processed in the High Court every week, and rising.

The doctors' considered medical opinion was that the baby could not possibly survive.

No, there was some slight difference in the doctors respective prognoses. Dr Peter McKenna saw the prospect for the survival of the unborn as 'small'. He said that his view in that regard had hardened after hearing the testimony of Dr Colreavy. This indicates that Dr McKenna had previously believed there was some reasonable prospect for survival of the unborn, prior to the hearing.
Dr. Mortell, too, had downgraded his prognosis from earlier in the intervention, and this was also addressed during the hearing.

So the views of the clinicians didn't become uniform (or near-uniform) right until the hearing was underway.

That doesn't happen with other medical decisions

Yes it does. Other clinical decisions not involving the unborn, such as withholding medical treatment, have also been subject to important court decisions, such as in Re a Ward of Court.

People who desire a clinical environment that is divorced from legal oversight simply do not understand the consequences of what they are saying.

pmasterson95

Black Menorca wrote: »

I force no one to do anything.

I'm expressing support and pride in a law that makes Ireland a shining example of defending human life, born and unborn.

I think you first response to me gave a clear sign as to how a discussion with you was to go.

Black Menorca

pmasterson95 wrote: »

I think you first response to me gave a clear sign as to how a discussion with you was to go.

We all have our own styles.

oscarBravo

pmasterson95 wrote: »

...honest fact is you force them to have a rapists baby that was forcibly put into them.

This is what really offends me about the "pro-life" stance: "So, you were raped. Sorry you had to suffer the trauma of someone refusing to respect your right to bodily integrity. Oh by the way, you're going to have an unwanted person growing inside you for the best part of a year, and you don't get a choice in the matter."

am946745

volchitsa wrote: »

It wasn't about abortion, but it was directly caused by the 8th amendment.

An amendment which was supposed only to prevent women having abortions has now been shown to affect pregnant women in all sorts of negative ways.

The Eighth must go.

Strange how our Maternal Mortality rate is lower than the UK.

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?v=2223

volchitsa

am946745 wrote: »

Strange how our Maternal Mortality rate is lower than the UK.

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?v=2223

Not that strange. For one thing, ours is underreported. And rising.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/new-report-reveals-sharp-rise-in-number-of-maternal-deaths-1.2111831

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/ireland-scores-poorly-for-rates-of-maternal-death-30756530.html

http://aimsireland.ie/irelands-maternal-death-rate-depends-on-who-you-are-asking/

More importantly, unless you have evidence that refusing to allow women abortions for health reasons actually increases survivial rates, that's completely irrelevant. And even if there was such evidence, it still wouldn't justify forcing women to continue pregnancies against their will. That's a human rights issue, and you can't necessarily save people's lives against their will.

am946745

volchitsa wrote: »

Not that strange. For one thing, ours is underreported. And rising.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/new-report-reveals-sharp-rise-in-number-of-maternal-deaths-1.2111831




More importantly, unless you have evidence that refusing to allow women abortions for health reasons actually increases survivial rates, that's completely irrelevant. And even if there was such evidence, it still wouldn't justify forcing women to continue pregnancies against their will. That's a human rights issue, and you can't necessarily save people's lives against their will.

Ah now. using that argument gets you nowhere. When pro-choice does not like the facts.. Then invent them.

We are not letting pregnant women die in Ireland. Our Obstetricians Gynecologists are not letting women at risk died from complications that they deal with every day of the week.

Delirium

am946745 wrote: »

Strange how our Maternal Mortality rate is lower than the UK.

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?v=2223

And yet Estonia, which is rate the lowest, has legal abortion.

Greece, Singapore, Sweden, Austria and almost all countries with a reduced MMR compared to Ireland. So if you're going to use that chart as a metric to argue for/against abortion then it's clearly a pro-choice result.

volchitsa

am946745 wrote: »

Ah now. using that argument gets you nowhere. When pro-choice does not like the facts.. Then invent them.

We are not letting pregnant women die in Ireland. Our Obstetricians Gynecologists are not letting women at risk died from complications that they deal with every day of the week.

What facts exactly are you referring to?

So Sally Rowlette and Savita Halappanavar - what? They didn't die? They would have died no matter where they were? Or a few avoidable deaths doesn't really matter? What exactly are you saying? One minte you're claiming our maternal death rates are important because (you think) they're good - and now you see they aren't as good as all that, suddenly the figures don't matter, our brave doctors are doing perfectly?

So remind us why you claim Savita Halappanavar died then? I thought you said there was medical negligence? Or do you now think the law was at fault?

am946745

SW wrote: »

And yet Estonia, which is rate the lowest, has legal abortion.

Greece, Singapore, Sweden, Austria and almost all countries with a reduced MMR compared to Ireland. So if you're going to use that chart as a metric to argue for/against abortion then it's clearly a pro-choice result.

Statistical syllogism does not lead to a fact based conclusion.

volchitsa

am946745 wrote: »

Statistical syllogism does not lead to a fact based conclusion.

No. So what was the relevance of your earlier post claiming (wrongly) that we have a significantly better rate than the UK? You're the one who brought a statistics claim into this.

Looks very much like you're doing what you accused pro-choice posters of doing, ie wanting to change the facts when you're in trouble.

am946745

volchitsa wrote: »

No. So what was the relevance of your earlier post claiming (wrongly) that we have a significantly better rate than the UK?

Because you claimed women health was at risk in Ireland because of the Eight Amendment. And that is not the case.

volchitsa

am946745 wrote: »

Because you claimed women health was at risk in Ireland because of the Eight Amendment. And that is not the case.

But it is. Several Obstetricians have said so, including Rhona Mahony. And the MMR, which only concerns maternal mortality, might not show that anyway.

pmasterson95

am946745 wrote: »

Statistical syllogism does not lead to a fact based conclusion.

Are you talking to yourself?

am946745

volchitsa wrote: »

But it is. Several Obstetricians have said so, including Rhona Mahony. And the MMR, which only concerns maternal mortality, might not show that anyway.

What about these who defend our Eight?

Obstetricians / Gynaecologists

Dr. Makbul Ahmed MD PhD, MRCOG
Dr. Khawaja Naveed Anjum MB BS, MRCOG
Dr. John Bermingham MB BCh, MRCOG
Prof. John Bonnar MD, FRCPI, FRCOG
Dr. Maureen Brennan MB DCH, DTM&H, FRCOG
Dr. Michael Brassil MB BCh, FRCOG
Dr. Patrick Conway MD, FACOG
Dr. James Clinch MB BCh, MA, MD, FRCOG Past Master of the Coombe Hospital, Dublin.
Dr. Naser Giumaa MB BCh, MRCOG
Dr. Trevor Hayes MB BCh, FRCS, MRCOG
Dr. Bartlomiej Kuzera MD
Dr. Subhash Kohli MRCS, MB BS, MRCOG
Dr. Stephen Long DCH, MAO, FRCOG
Dr. Dermot MacDonald MD, FACOG, FRCOG, FRCPI, Past Master of the National Maternity Hospital, Dublin.
Dr. Alistair McFarlane MB BCh, FRCS, MRCOG
Dr. Eamon McGuinness MB BCh, MA, FRCPI, FRCOG
Dr. John Monaghan DCH, FRCPI, FRCOG
Dr. Vida Naciene MD, MRCOG
Prof. Eamon O’Dwyer MB, MAO, LLB, FRCPI, FRCOG
Dr. Eileen Reilly MB BCh, MRCOG
Dr. Shobha Singh MB BS, MRCOG
Dr. Cyril Thornton MB BCh, FRCOG
Dr. Helen O’Brien MB BCh, BAO, OBGYN
Dr. Phil Boyle MD, MICGP, MRCGP
Dr. Caroline Guindon MD, CFCMC
Dr. Rita O’Connor MB BCh, BAO, DCH, D.Obs
Dr. Hugh Nohilly MB BCh, BAO, MICGP, DRCOG
Prof. Michael Foley MB BCh, MRCOG, MAO
Dr. Patrick Burke MB BCh, BAO, FACOG
Dr. Pauline Nagle Olsen MD, FRCOG
Prof. Mary Josephine O’Sullivan MD, FACOG, MFM
Dr. Sebastian Borges MBBS, DGO, DHSM, LM, MRCOG
Dr. Gayle J. Borkowski MD
Dr. Richard Brazzel MD
Dr. Julia Bright MD
Dr. Evelyn Brister MD
Dr. Laurence Burns MD
Dr. Freda M. Bush MD, FACOG
Dr. Rafael José Cabrera MD
Dr. Bryon C. Calhoun MD, FACOG, FACS, MBA
Dr. Monique V. Chireau MD, MPH
Dr. Sandy Christiansen MD, FACOG
Dr. Damon Cudihy MD
Dr. Howard Curlin MD, FACOG
Dr. John Curlin MD, FACOG
Dr. Mary Davenport MD, FACOG
Dr. Joseph DeCook MD, FACOG
Dr. Edward Degnan MD, ABOG
Dr. Mark Doherty MD, FACOG, DABOG, FACS
Dr. Myles Dotto MD, FACOG
Dr. Brad Fields MD
Dr. Shaun J. Gillis MD
Dr. Carlos A. Gómez Fajardo PDS JLG
Dr. David D. Goodwin MD
Dr. Robert A. Graebe MD
Dr. J. Paul Gray MD
Dr. Donna J Harrison, MD
Dr. John G. Hartmann MD
Dr. Nathan Hoeldtke MD, FACOG
Dr. Christopher Keane MD
Dr. Christopher C. Homeyer MD, FACOG
Dr. Paul Jarrett MD, FACOG
Dr. Jean Kagia MBCHB(NBI), M Med OBS/GYNE
Prof. Jeffrey A. Keenan MD, HCLD, ABOG
Dr. Albert H. Kim MD
Dr. Jerome Klobutcher MD OBGYN
Dr. David L. Lang DO FACOG
Dr. Patrick Marmion MD, MPH
Dr. Danny McDonald MD, ABOG
Dr. John McLaughlin MD
Dr. Richard Moutvic MD, FACOG
Dr. Alan J. Murnane MD, AAPLOG, FACOG
Dr. Elizabeth D. Nelson MD
Dr. William Polzin MD
Dr. Russell R Suda MD, FACOG
Dr. Kathleen M Raviele MD FACOG
Dr. Fred Seale MD FACOG
Dr. William Stalter MD FACOG
Prof. Joseph Stanford MD, MPSH, CFCMC
Dr. Mark Stegman MD, FACOG, CFCMC
Dr. Shawn Swan MD
Dr. Thomas Theocharides MD, FACOG, FRCS(C) FSOGC
Dr. Philip Tyndall MD, ACOG
Dr. Michael Valley MD ABOG
Dr. Nicole Varasteh MD
Dr. Steven Ver Beek MD, ABOG
Dr. Jerry Wittingen MD, FACOG
Dr. Hanna Klaus MD, FACOG
Dr. Clint Leonard FACOG
Dr. Rudolf Ehmann OBGYN
Dr. Robert Walley MD
Dr. Bruno Mozzanega MD
Dr. Mario Terán de la Vega MD
Dr. Jose Roberto Fuentes MD
Dr. Ventura Serrano MD
Dr. Patrick Yeung MD
Dr. Kyle A. Beiter, MD, FACOG
Dr. Michael Dixon, MD
Dr. George Buttigieg MD, LRCP, MRCS, DIPFP, FRCOG, KGCOM
Dr. Angélica María Sarmiento MD
Dr. Sergio Valenzuela MD
Dr. Mary Thomas MD
Dr. Nick Steinauer FACOG
Dr. Jose Sanchez-Méndez MD, PhD
Dr. Sebastian Illanes MD MSc
Dr. Michael O’Donnell OBGYN
Dr. James Linn MD
Dr. Ingeborg Collins MD
Dr. Arlene Conte MD
Dr. Jorge Neira OBGYN
Dr. Vicente Ramos Barrientos OBGYN
Dr. Daniel Wechter MD
Dr. Marcia Snowball MD
Dr. John Thorp MD
Dr. Michael Trierweiler MD, Dip ABOG
Dr. Courtney Malcarney MD, ACOG, ACS
Dr. John Tyndall MD, FACOG
Dr. Scott Cameron MD
Dr. Rafeal Vicens MD
Dr. Lawrence Cairns MD, FACOG
Dr. Lori Carrillo MD, FACOG
Dr. Graciano Singson MD
Dr. Robert Gannon MD
Dr. Thomas Sparks MD, OBGYN
Dr. Robert Plambeck MD
Dr. Monica Alexandrina Campen MD
Dr. Karla Polaschek MD, FACOG
Prof. Humberto Rodriguez MD
Dr. Anthony Levatino MD JD
Dr. Alfred Derby MD
Dr. Robert Albee MD, FACOG, ACGE
Dr. Miriam Duggan MD, OBYGYN
Dr. Cicy Jose DGO
Dr. Angelo Francesco Filardo AIGOC
Dr. Maurice Caillet MD
Dr. Camilla Hersh MD, F.A.C.O.G.
Dr. Philip Lewis MD
Dr. Trevor Martenson MD, OBGYN
Dr. Jacob Peyton MD
Dr. Karin Shinn DO
Dr. John Shields MD
Dr. William Coyle MD,FACS, FACOg
Dr. Peter Verrill MD FACOG
Dr. Dana Jacques MD
Dr. John O’Neill MB BAO BCh, OBGYN
Dr. Francoise Pinguet MD
Dr. Josephine Martina MS. OG
Dr. Beatrice Labenere MD
Dr. Brendan Miller MBBS, FRACGP, MRANZCOG
Dr. Sylvie de Kermadec MD
Prof. Farah Asghar MD, FRCOG
Dr. Lanett Guthmann MD, FACOG
Dr. Poussie Pascale MD
Dr. Josef Lingenhoele MD, OBGYN
Dr. Tania Errasti MD
Dr. Stephen Robinson MD
Dr. Jeffrey Henney MD
Dr. Margaret Hart DO
Dr. Casey Reising MD
Dr. Jason Peters MD
Dr. Scott Osborn DO
Dr. William P. Mueller MD
Dr. Louise Murphy MD
Dr. Theo O’Donnell MD
Dr. Nancy Lefever MD
Dr. Amy Hogan MD, CFCMC
Dr. Reynaldo Garza MD
Dr. Maria Cuda DO
Dr. Marguerite Duane MD, MHA, FAAFP
Dr. Clement Marrinan MBBS, FRCOG, FRANZCOG
Dr. Robyn James MD
Dr. Richard Fry MD
Dr. Thomas Giebmanns MD
Dr. Amy Givler MD
Dr. Paul Keough MD
Dr. Luke McLindon MBBS, FRACGP
Dr. Marissa Ogle MD
Dr. Albertine Omani MD
Dr. Africa Rebollo Cuadro MD
Dr Maria Isabella Sereni MD
Dr. Jerry Sinclair MD
Dr. Jerome Sinsky MD
Prof. Leonard Smith MD
Dr. Roy Stringfellow MD ABOG
Dr. Barbara Susang-Talamo MD, FACOG
Dr. Antoinette Torte BHSc, MBBS, DRANZCOG
Dr. James R. VanCuren MD
Dr. Leo Wrona MD, ACOBG
Dr. Paul Carpentier MD, CFCMC
Dr. Lester Jurgens MD
Dr. Leonard Marotta MD, MS, FACOG
Dr. Amin Louli MB BCh, FRCOG, FICS
Dr. Jimmy Baggot MD
Dr. MIriam Pereira MD
Dr. Mark Rollo MD
Dr. Catherine Grant MB BS, DipRACOG
Dr. Julene Haack MBBS Hons I, Dip RANZCOG, FRACGP
Dr. Kathy O’Connell MD
Dr. Lachlan Dunjey MB BS, FRACGP, DObstRCOG
Dr. Patrick Jr. Yeung MD, FACOG, SLS, AAGL, ACOG, ASCCP, AAFP
Dr. Geoffret Hunt MBBS, DRANZCOG, FRACGP, FARGP
Dr. Elvis Seman MBBS, FRCOG, FRANZCOG, EUCOGE
Dr. Joshua Johannson MD, ABOG
Dr. Johnny Bryant MD, ABOG
Dr. James Hartman MD, ABOG
Dr. Fred Seale MD, FACOG
Dr. Nancy Goodwine Wozniak MD, ABOG
Dr. Anita Avery MD, ABOG
Dr. Sarah Smith MD
Dr. Melissa Allen MD, FACOG
Dr. Anita Showalter DO, ABOG
Dr. John North MBBS, FRACS, FAOrthA
Dr. Norman Gage MRCOG, UK FRANZGOG
Dr. Magdalena Szymanska MD
Dr. William R Coyle FACS, FACOG
Dr. Alan Donoghue MB BCh, MBA, FRANZCOG, FRCOG
Dr. Michael S. Parker MD, ABOG
Dr. Adrian K. Thomas FRACOG, FRANZCOG
Dr. Susan Rutherford MD, ABOG, MFM
Dr. Albert Bringardner MD, LFACOG
Dr. Steve Brewbaker MD, ABOG
Dr. Anne Manning MD, ABOG
Dr. Leonard Marotta, MD, MS, FACOG
Dr. Margaret Keresztesi
Dr. Vansen Wong, OBGYN
Dr. Ionel Trifon Cioata OBGYN MD PhD
Dr. Rafael Ordonez Martin OBGYN
Dr. José Inganio Tubío OBGYN
Dr. Victoriano Gracia OBGYN
Dr. Carlos Lana Antolin OBGYN
Dr. Esteban Rodriguez Martin OBGYN
Dr. Rafael Luis Pineda OBGYN
Prof. Juan Pablo Pineda OBGYN
Dr. Andrej Mikolasik OBGYN
Dr. Deirdre Little MBBS DRANZCOG FACRRM
Dr. Joao Malta OBGYN
Prof. Ernesto Beruti OBGYN PhD
Dr. Jorge Gonzalez MD PhD
Dr. John-David Zamora, MD OBGYN GYN Oncologist
Dr. Leah Zamora MD FPOGS
Dr. Gabriele Falconi MD, PhD
Con. George Buttigieg, MD, LRCP,MRCS, FRCOG, DIP FP, FRCO, MA (Melita), KGCOM
Dr. Ronald Motley, MD, PhD