8th Amendment

ProfessorPlum

Black Menorca wrote: »

Its all about intention.

It's not really, not in the eyes of the law. A doctor looking after a patient who is at risk because of her pregnancy will abort that pregnancy in a very intentional way. The intention is definitely to end the pregnancy. It's a dishonest fudge to say otherwise - echoing the 'law of double effect' that leaves women with ectopic pregnancies infertile when Catholic hospitals put canon law before best practice.

conorh91

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

You are of the opinion (without any qualification to form such an opinion) that a woman or child who has been raped and finds themselves pregnant could be suicidal could not be mentally competent.

Why can people on this thread not read accurately?

What is wrong with educational standards?

How many times does the English language have to be simplified and again simplified?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=95920784&postcount=1184
and
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=95933278&postcount=1330

Christ.

pmasterson95

Black Menorca wrote: »

So, you'd deny women their right to bodily integrity in some circumstances?

Wait you said last night you'd be happy to fund concentration/puppy farm-esque baby camps. I dont think you can talk about denying women anything if you advocate that.

Soyokakano

I firmly believe in a woman's right to choose. And maybe it should be a woman only vote.

Delirium

conorh91 wrote: »

Yes. They have avoided saying so by drawing an impossible, arbitrary line in the sand between being an infant and a clump of cells.

you don't see a difference between a new born child and a foetus at 1 week gestation?

At what point in gestation does infancy begin?

Don't understand the question. Infancy/infant is usually used to describe a new born child.

krankykitty

volchitsa wrote: »

Depends on the reason. Late abortions, near viability, should be for serious medical etc reason only I think.

What difference does that make - you seem to be suggesting early abortions are less bad than late ones - in which case we agree. Are you suddenly becoming pro-choice too?

Late abortions near viability are for medical reasons.

krankykitty

Hypothetical talk about very late abortions for no reason is ridiculous. Do people have that low an opinion of women that they'd put themselves through pregnancy (which isn't a walk in the park) to get near the end just to say I can't be arsed with this, I know, I think I'll have an abortion, in the same way someone might decide to get a haircut or buy a new pair of shoes.

A TINY proportion of abortions happen after 20 weeks and those are for serious, medical reasons. It's trivialising those families experiences to debate about late term abortion in this way.

Penny Tration

I'll just leave this here.

conorh91

conorh91 wrote: »

Yes. They have avoided saying so by drawing an impossible, arbitrary line in the sand between being an infant and a clump of cells.

At what point in gestation does infancy begin?

Conflation of the terms Abortion and Infanticide is unhelpful. Please try to avoid confusing the two issues.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/i/infanticide/

Infanticide refers to the act of killing of a newborn child

http://definitions.uslegal.com/a/abortion/

Abortion is defined as the termination of pregnancy by various methods, including medical surgery, before the fetus is able to sustain independent life.

Atlantis50

Jenny Thalia wrote: »

I'll just leave this here.

The image of a sperm cell attempting to penetrate an egg cell (:rolleyes:) should be replaced with the following image and the wording changed to reflect reality:

Kev W

Atlantis50 wrote: »

The image of a sperm cell attempting to penetrate an egg cell (:rolleyes:) should be replaced with the following image and the wording changed to reflect reality:

Right, because there is absolutely no middle ground there.

Atlantis50

krankykitty wrote: »

Hypothetical talk about very late abortions for no reason is ridiculous. Do people have that low an opinion of women that they'd put themselves through pregnancy (which isn't a walk in the park) to get near the end just to say I can't be arsed with this, I know, I think I'll have an abortion, in the same way someone might decide to get a haircut or buy a new pair of shoes.

A TINY proportion of abortions happen after 20 weeks and those are for serious, medical reasons. It's trivialising those families experiences to debate about late term abortion in this way.

A significant number of late-term abortions in the UK are carried out on the grounds that the foetus was at risk of physical or mental disability (Ground E of the 1967 abortion act), ranging from conditions such as Down's Syndrome and congenital malformations to cleft palate and clubfoot.

Overall, there were 2,753 abortions carried out at 20 weeks and over in England and Wales in 2013 according to government statistics, including 1,201 at 22 weeks or more:



https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/319460/Abortion_Statistics__England_and_Wales_2013.pdf

The statistics also show that 2,732 abortions were carried out under "Ground E" (mental or physical disability of the foetus).

Do you agree with late term abortions on these grounds?

Atlantis50

Kev W wrote: »

Right, because there is absolutely no middle ground there.

That's an image of a 20 week old foetus.

Where's the middle ground in your view?

Kev W

Atlantis50 wrote: »

That's an image of a 20 week old foetus.

Where's the middle ground in your view?

The middle ground would encompass every stage of development between the two images.

krankykitty

Atlantis50 wrote: »

A significant number of late-term abortions in the UK are carried out on the grounds that the foetus was at risk of physical or mental disability (Ground E of the 1967 abortion act), ranging from conditions such as Down's Syndrome and congenital malformations to cleft palate and clubfoot.

Overall, there were 2,753 abortions carried out at 20 weeks and over in England and Wales in 2013 according to government statistics, including 1,201 at 22 weeks or more:



https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/319460/Abortion_Statistics__England_and_Wales_2013.pdf

The statistics also show that 2,732 abortions were carried out under "Ground E" (mental or physical disability of the foetus).

Do you agree with late term abortions on these grounds?

I think abortion should be a private matter between a woman and her doctor. It's not for me to judge a decision another woman makes.

Atlantis50

Kev W wrote: »

The middle ground would encompass every stage of development between the two images.

Why are you bizarrely stopping at 20 weeks when the average pregnancy lasts 40 weeks?

Atlantis50

krankykitty wrote: »

I think abortion should be a private matter between a woman and her doctor. It's not for me to judge a decision another woman makes.

That's a yes then.

Kev W

Atlantis50 wrote: »

Why are you bizarrely stopping at 20 weeks when the average pregnancy lasts 40 weeks?

What? YOU picked an drawing of a fetus at 20 weeks!

Atlantis50

Kev W wrote: »

What? YOU picked an drawing of a fetus at 20 weeks!

I thought it was obvious but let's remove all doubt:

I posted a picture of a 20 week old fetus and you asked about a "middle ground".

Given that a pregnancy lasts 40 weeks, 20 weeks would represent a good "middle ground".

pmasterson95

krankykitty wrote: »

I think abortion should be a private matter between a woman and her doctor. It's not for me to judge a decision another woman makes.

Of course not thats a job for those who want the 8th and enjoy forcing women to do what they want and if the woman doesnt want it lock her up and force her anyway.

krankykitty

Atlantis50 wrote: »

That's a yes then.

As I say, it's not for me to judge whether it's right or wrong. I trust women to make the right decision for their families. My view is irrelevant, because another woman doing it doesn't mean I have to. That's what choice is all about.

Kev W

Atlantis50 wrote: »

I thought it was obvious but let's remove all doubt:

I posted a picture of a 20 week old fetus and you asked about a "middle ground".

Given that a pregnancy lasts 40 weeks, 20 weeks would represent a good "middle ground".

You posted a drawing of a 20 week old foetus in response to an image of an egg being implanted.

I didn't "ask" anything, I implied that there is middle ground between the two, in other words those are not the only two states of foetal development. A fertilised egg does not develop to the 20 week stage in an instant.

I did not at any point claim or imply that 20 weeks may not be considered the approximate midpoint of a pregnancy and I'm honestly baffled as to what victory you're trying to claim by implying that I did.

krankykitty

Atlantis50 wrote: »

I thought it was obvious but let's remove all doubt:

I posted a picture of a 20 week old fetus and you asked about a "middle ground".

Given that a pregnancy lasts 40 weeks, 20 weeks would represent a good "middle ground".

It's not "middle ground" when talking of abortion because most happen before the embryo is even a foetus.

traprunner

Atlantis50 wrote: »

Why are you bizarrely stopping at 20 weeks when the average pregnancy lasts 40 weeks?

This thread is getting all sorts of crazy again. It was you that referred to 20 weeks, nobody else did.

conorh91

Deleted User wrote: »

Conflation of the terms Abortion and Infanticide

I am not conflating those terms. You misread the post you're quoting. I asked at what stage in pregnancy does infancy begin. The reason is, I was actually thinking to myself of the media coverage about a woman who media reports say "lost her unborn baby" in a vicious attack.

And it reminded me of a question I have often asked, and never got a satisfactory answer: why is a foetus a baby when it is wanted, and yet we question its very membership of the human race when it is unwanted?

So, if I sympathize with a mother for having lost her unborn baby, are you going to tell me, or her, that this is incorrect language?

traprunner

conorh91 wrote: »

I am not conflating those terms, I was actually thinking to myself of the media coverage about a woman who media reports say "lost her unborn baby" in a vicious attack.

And it reminded me of a question I have often asked, and never got a satisfactory answer: why is a foetus a baby when it is wanted, and yet we question its very membership of the human race when it is unwanted?

So, if I sympathize with a mother for having lost her unborn baby, are you going to tell me, or her, that this is incorrect language?

Technically it is incorrect but it is used because it's emotive and expected due to this thing most humans have called empathy. Although 'mother' is completely incorrect if she does not have children already. You don't rock up and say "Hey mother, sorry to hear you lost your baby".

Delirium

conorh91 wrote: »

I am not conflating those terms. You misread the post you're quoting. I asked at what stage in pregnancy does infancy begin. The reason is, I was actually thinking to myself of the media coverage about a woman who media reports say "lost her unborn baby" in a vicious attack.

And it reminded me of a question I have often asked, and never got a satisfactory answer: why is a foetus a baby when it is wanted, and yet we question its very membership of the human race when it is unwanted?

So, if I sympathize with a mother for having lost her unborn baby, are you going to tell me, or her, that this is incorrect language?

"we" do?

Kev W

conorh91 wrote: »

So, if I sympathize with a mother for having lost her unborn baby, are you going to tell me, or her, that this is incorrect language?

No, because correcting someone's language in a situation like that would be monstrous. If someone said their spouse had been beaten to death with a Hoover only a sociopath would say "actually that's a brand name, they were beaten to death with a Dyson vacuum cleaner".

Why are we even discussing the use of language anyway, that's not the subject at hand here?

conorh91

conorh91 wrote: »

I am not conflating those terms. You misread the post you're quoting. I asked at what stage in pregnancy does infancy begin. The reason is, I was actually thinking to myself of the media coverage about a woman who media reports say "lost her unborn baby" in a vicious attack.

And it reminded me of a question I have often asked, and never got a satisfactory answer: why is a foetus a baby when it is wanted, and yet we question its very membership of the human race when it is unwanted?

So, if I sympathize with a mother for having lost her unborn baby, are you going to tell me, or her, that this is incorrect language?

A fetus is not a baby.

Abortion is not Infanticide.

The above are straightforward facts.

If you want to start semantic discussions about the term 'baby' and it's colloquial usage (consider that some people call their cars their 'baby') then I suggest starting a thread in the languages forums on the nuances of words and their usage within society.

conorh91

Deleted User wrote: »

I suggest starting a thread in the languages forums on the nuances of words and their usage within society.

I suggest you leave moderating to the moderators. It's illogical that an unborn is a baby when wanted, and possibly not even a human being when not.

Now it is arguable that a foetus only becomes a baby during late pregnancy, maybe at viability. But that was my original point: it's all quite arbitrary.

Kev W wrote: »

No, because correcting someone's language in a situation like that would be monstrous.

Yes it would. Well, to me anyway. It's just a clump of cells to you, right? Is it human? Many people doubt it.

I actually find that position a little dismissive of parents, as though the loss they experience is emotional, and not real. A bit like a child losing a soft toy.

It was a suggestion, not an attempt at moderation.

Again, you are simply confusing colloquial usage of terms.

It's just as illogical to call a car a baby, yet people do. It has no bearing on the conversation regarding the 8th Amendment however.

A fetus becomes a baby when it is born. Just in the same way that an adult becomes a corpse/cadaver when it dies.

Kev W

conorh91 wrote: »

I suggest you leave moderating to the moderators. It's illogical that an unborn is a baby when wanted, and possibly not even a human being when not.

Now it is arguable that a foetus only becomes a baby during late pregnancy, maybe at viability. But that was my original point: it's all quite arbitrary.

Yes it would. Well, to me anyway. It's just a clump of cells to you, right? Is it human? Many people doubt it.

Did I say a fetus that close to birth was a clump of cells? I don't recall saying that. This whole "not human" thing is entirely your invention though.

conorh91

Kev W wrote: »

Did I say a fetus that close to birth was a clump of cells? I don't recall saying that.

What is it? Is it a baby or something less than a baby?

This whole "not human" thing is entirely your invention though.

It is regularly argued that foetuses are not human beings.

K-9

On the suicide thing, I just can't see how you can make a mother go the full term and give birth. Seriously conorh91, would you be comfortable with forcibly detaining a pregnant woman in a higher security psychiatric ward like that?

It would involve security lock downs, maybe physical restraining her, I think you're seriously underestimating how strong willed and determined a suicidal person is.

Godge

krankykitty wrote: »

I think abortion should be a private matter between a woman and her doctor. It's not for me to judge a decision another woman makes.

In principle what you are saying is correct. However, that statement means that a woman could have an abortion and kill the fetus right up until five minutes before labour.

All rights come with responsibilities. I have the right to drink alcohol. I have also the responsibility to do so in moderation, to not drive when under the influence of alcohol. If I drive while under the influence, I commit a crime, even though I theoretically have the right to bodily integrity, to pour as much alcohol as I want into my system. With other drugs my rights to do what I like are even more circumscribed as they are banned.

Society therefore should set reasonable laws between what a woman is allowed to do and the rights, however limited, of the the unborn.

An abortion law that allows for termination up until 20/22 weeks for almost any reason is a fair compromise.

pmasterson95

K-9 wrote: »

On the suicide thing, I just can't see how you can make a mother go the full term and give birth. Seriously conorh91, would you be comfortable with forcibly detaining a pregnant woman in a higher security psychiatric ward like that?

It would involve security lock downs, maybe physical restraining her, I think you're seriously underestimating how strong willed and determined a suicidal person is.

I also wonder what those who advocate baby camps think will happen the child. After all that (literal) forced labour. What become of this forcibly born baby? Presumably after that enforced ordeal the poor mother wont feel any need to take the child. Will these advocates be willing to take on the unwanted child that they forced into the world? Or do they loose interest once its born.

For those who pretend to be "pro-life" they clearly dont give a **** about the mothers life, but I wonder do they care about the life of the child that they forced into the world?

traprunner

pmasterson95 wrote: »

I also wonder what those who advocate baby camps think will happen the child. After all that (literal) forced labour. What become of this forcibly born baby? Presumably after that enforced ordeal the poor mother wont feel any need to take the child. Will these advocates be willing to take on the unwanted child that they forced into the world? Or do they loose interest once its born.

For those who pretend to be "pro-life" they clearly dont give a **** about the mothers life, but I wonder do they care about the life of the child that they forced into the world?

I think it's evident that they don't tend to care otherwise they would confront any adult seen slapping a child or shouting at them in public.

am946745

As specialists with significant experience in the field of obstetrics and gynaecology, we are shocked at the unwarranted and unfounded allegations made by Amnesty International in relation to obstetrical practice in Ireland.

In Amnesty’s report She is Not a Criminal, serious allegations are made against doctors working in Irish hospitals when it comes to the management of miscarriage and pregnancy loss. These allegations, which are not supported by factual evidence in the report, misrepresent the standard of practice in Ireland when it comes to the management of pregnancy loss.

The claim that women are forced to carry a “dead baby” inside them for months after miscarriage it is at best a gross misrepresentation, and at worst, a callous attempt to discredit and shame Irish obstetricians. The purpose seems to be to provoke a debate on the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, something that really has nothing to do with the management of miscarriage.

The standard of practice for the management of miscarriage is the same in Ireland as it is in any other developed nation, regardless of the law on abortion. Once foetal demise is confirmed via an ultrasound scan, there are three options available to the woman; a conservative “watch and wait” approach; medical management, which uses drugs to induce delivery; or surgical management in which the womb is surgically evacuated.

Amnesty’s report seems to suggest that women in Ireland are offered no help at the time of miscarriage and are left with dead foetuses inside of them because of some perceived legal restrictions. This is simply not true.

As soon as a miscarriage has been confirmed, a care plan is formulated between the patient and her doctor, and the best interests of the woman are always prioritised.

Occasionally, and as per national guidelines, a repeat scan will be indicated to confirm that foetal demise has indeed occurred. However, this is consistent with international best practice, and is not a reflection of the law of this country in relation to abortion. Doctors do not delay treatment other than when that is clinically indicated. If individual doctors have done so in the past, then that is a reflection on individual practice and not on standard practice in Ireland.

Amnesty would do well to look at international reports, which place Ireland high on the leader board in obstetrical care, particularly when it comes to our low rates of maternal death and low perinatal mortality.

Many doctors are supportive of Amnesty International but it is not appropriate for an international body concerned with the human rights of all people to make such broad and sweeping statements about the practice of obstetrics in Ireland when our statistics and guidelines on these matters speak for themselves. –

Is mise,

Prof JOHN BONNAR, Professor Emeritus Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Trinity College Dublin;

Dr PATRICK CONWAY, Consultant Obstetrician and Gynaecologist, Co Meath;

Dr TREVOR HAYES, Consultant Obstetrician and Gynaecologist, St Luke’s General Hospital, Kilkenny;

Dr CHRIS KING, Consultant Obstetrician and Gynaecologist, Letterkenny General Hospital;

Dr SUBHASH KOHLI, Consultant Obstetrician and Gynaecologist, Co Kildare;

Dr DERMOT MacDONALD, Former Master of National Maternity Hospital, Dublin;

Dr EAMON McGUINNESS, Consultant Obstetrician Gynaecologist, and St James’s Hospital, Dublin;

Dr JOHN MONAGHAN,Dr KHAWAJA NAVEED ANJUM, Consultant Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Portiuncula Hospital, Co Galway.

Black Menorca

am946745 wrote: »

As specialists with significant experience in the field of obstetrics and gynaecology, we are shocked at the unwarranted and unfounded allegations made by Amnesty International in relation to obstetrical practice in Ireland.

In Amnesty’s report She is Not a Criminal, serious allegations are made against doctors working in Irish hospitals when it comes to the management of miscarriage and pregnancy loss. These allegations, which are not supported by factual evidence in the report, misrepresent the standard of practice in Ireland when it comes to the management of pregnancy loss.

The claim that women are forced to carry a “dead baby” inside them for months after miscarriage it is at best a gross misrepresentation, and at worst, a callous attempt to discredit and shame Irish obstetricians. The purpose seems to be to provoke a debate on the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, something that really has nothing to do with the management of miscarriage.

The standard of practice for the management of miscarriage is the same in Ireland as it is in any other developed nation, regardless of the law on abortion. Once foetal demise is confirmed via an ultrasound scan, there are three options available to the woman; a conservative “watch and wait” approach; medical management, which uses drugs to induce delivery; or surgical management in which the womb is surgically evacuated.

Amnesty’s report seems to suggest that women in Ireland are offered no help at the time of miscarriage and are left with dead foetuses inside of them because of some perceived legal restrictions. This is simply not true.

As soon as a miscarriage has been confirmed, a care plan is formulated between the patient and her doctor, and the best interests of the woman are always prioritised.

Occasionally, and as per national guidelines, a repeat scan will be indicated to confirm that foetal demise has indeed occurred. However, this is consistent with international best practice, and is not a reflection of the law of this country in relation to abortion. Doctors do not delay treatment other than when that is clinically indicated. If individual doctors have done so in the past, then that is a reflection on individual practice and not on standard practice in Ireland.

Amnesty would do well to look at international reports, which place Ireland high on the leader board in obstetrical care, particularly when it comes to our low rates of maternal death and low perinatal mortality.

Many doctors are supportive of Amnesty International but it is not appropriate for an international body concerned with the human rights of all people to make such broad and sweeping statements about the practice of obstetrics in Ireland when our statistics and guidelines on these matters speak for themselves. –

Is mise,

Prof JOHN BONNAR, Professor Emeritus Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Trinity College Dublin;

Dr PATRICK CONWAY, Consultant Obstetrician and Gynaecologist, Co Meath;

Dr TREVOR HAYES, Consultant Obstetrician and Gynaecologist, St Luke’s General Hospital, Kilkenny;

Dr CHRIS KING, Consultant Obstetrician and Gynaecologist, Letterkenny General Hospital;

Dr SUBHASH KOHLI, Consultant Obstetrician and Gynaecologist, Co Kildare;

Dr DERMOT MacDONALD, Former Master of National Maternity Hospital, Dublin;

Dr EAMON McGUINNESS, Consultant Obstetrician Gynaecologist, and St James’s Hospital, Dublin;

Dr JOHN MONAGHAN,Dr KHAWAJA NAVEED ANJUM, Consultant Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Portiuncula Hospital, Co Galway.

Wow, great letter.

Hopefully Rhona will concentrate on cleaning her hospital, instead of advocating for killing unborn babies in future.

Black Menorca

pmasterson95 wrote: »

I also wonder what those who advocate baby camps think will happen the child. After all that (literal) forced labour. What become of this forcibly born baby? Presumably after that enforced ordeal the poor mother wont feel any need to take the child. Will these advocates be willing to take on the unwanted child that they forced into the world? Or do they loose interest once its born.

For those who pretend to be "pro-life" they clearly dont give a **** about the mothers life, but I wonder do they care about the life of the child that they forced into the world?

Disgusting, crass comments.

pmasterson95

Black Menorca wrote: »

Disgusting, crass comments.

So is that a no then? You proudly supported funding forced births last night but now you dont want consequences?

Delirium

am946745 wrote: »

Prof JOHN BONNAR, Professor Emeritus Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Trinity College Dublin;

Dr PATRICK CONWAY, Consultant Obstetrician and Gynaecologist, Co Meath;

Dr TREVOR HAYES, Consultant Obstetrician and Gynaecologist, St Luke’s General Hospital, Kilkenny;

Dr CHRIS KING, Consultant Obstetrician and Gynaecologist, Letterkenny General Hospital;

Dr SUBHASH KOHLI, Consultant Obstetrician and Gynaecologist, Co Kildare;

Dr DERMOT MacDONALD, Former Master of National Maternity Hospital, Dublin;

Dr EAMON McGUINNESS, Consultant Obstetrician Gynaecologist, and St James’s Hospital, Dublin;

Dr JOHN MONAGHAN,Dr KHAWAJA NAVEED ANJUM, Consultant Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Portiuncula Hospital, Co Galway.

Worth noting that all the doctors, with the exception of Dr King, are signatories of the Dublin Declaration and firmly in the pro-life camp.

Although it's not the first time he has written to object to pro-choice comments (with much of the same group of doctors

So consider me somewhat skeptical of their claims since there aren't both pro-life and pro-choice (to avoid bias from one side or the other) doctors signing the letter.

Black Menorca

pmasterson95 wrote: »

So is that a no then? You proudly supported funding forced births last night but now you dont want consequences?

Not worthy of reply. If you retract your insulting attack and apologise, I'll get back to you. until then? Your posts will not be replied to by myself.

ProfessorPlum

Black Menorca wrote: »

Wow, great letter.

Hopefully Rhona will concentrate on cleaning her hospital, instead of advocating for killing unborn babies in future.

Did you read the letter at all? The subject was the management of miscarriage. It was nothing at all to do with abortion.
Do you know Rhona very well - you do seem awfully familiar, or is it just a lack of respect for her, as well as the women for whom she advocates.
Dr Mahony has never advocated for abortion - just for the ability to care for pregnant women and their babies, as per best practice, without fear of prosecution of either doctors or the women they care for.
Shame on you for suggesting otherwise.

You'll be glad to know that Dr Mahony is spearheading the move of the NMH to a brand new campus at SVH, as she says the old buildings at the present site on Holles St are not fit for purpose. So yes, she is doing something to improve her hospital (older buildings are acknowledged to be difficult to maintain hygiene standards)

pmasterson95

Black Menorca wrote: »

Not worthy of reply. If you retract your insulting attack and apologise, I'll get back to you. until then? Your posts will not be replied to by myself.

What insulting attack? I asked a question. Or is it classed insulting that I actually asked about the life of the child post-forced-birth, when forced birth was being advocated and you even said you'd support the scheme? Surely you can say whats next for the child?

Black Menorca

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Did you read the letter at all? The subject was the management of miscarriage. It was nothing at all to do with abortion.
Do you know Rhona very well - you do seem awfully familiar, or is it just a lack of respect for her, as well as the women for whom she advocates.
Dr Mahony has never advocated for abortion - just for the ability to care for pregnant women and their babies, as per best practice, without fear of prosecution of either doctors or the women they care for.
Shame on you for suggesting otherwise.

You'll be glad to know that Dr Mahony is spearheading the move of the NMH to a brand new campus at SVH, as she says the old buildings at the present site on Holles St are not fit for purpose. So yes, she is doing something to improve her hospital (older buildings are acknowledged to be difficult to maintain hygiene standards)

It seems Rhona has so much time to advocate for a change to the Constitutional situation, one may wonder about her dedication to keeping her hospital clean and sterile.

Black Menorca

SW wrote: »

Worth noting that all the doctors, with the exception of Dr King, are signatories of the Dublin Declaration and firmly in the pro-life camp.

Although it's not the first time he has written to object to pro-choice comments (with much of the same group of doctors

So consider me somewhat skeptical of their claims since there aren't both pro-life and pro-choice (to avoid bias from one side or the other) doctors signing the letter.

So, would you allow Downs Syndrome babies to be aborted if the mother requested it, at any time during the pregnancy

ProfessorPlum

Black Menorca wrote: »

It seems Rhona has so much time to advocate for a change to the Constitutional situation, one may wonder about her dedication to keeping her hospital clean and sterile.

Is that the best you can do?

Why would hospitals need to be sterile? Seems an impossible and utterly futile task to me.

And as for her dedicating time to highlight the issues the 8th amendment causes - she of course values the life, and also very much values the health of the women and babies she cares for.

Godge

am946745 wrote: »

As specialists with significant experience in the field of obstetrics and gynaecology, we are shocked at the unwarranted and unfounded allegations made by Amnesty International in relation to obstetrical practice in Ireland.

In Amnesty’s report She is Not a Criminal, serious allegations are made against doctors working in Irish hospitals when it comes to the management of miscarriage and pregnancy loss. These allegations, which are not supported by factual evidence in the report, misrepresent the standard of practice in Ireland when it comes to the management of pregnancy loss.

The claim that women are forced to carry a “dead baby” inside them for months after miscarriage it is at best a gross misrepresentation, and at worst, a callous attempt to discredit and shame Irish obstetricians. The purpose seems to be to provoke a debate on the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, something that really has nothing to do with the management of miscarriage.

The standard of practice for the management of miscarriage is the same in Ireland as it is in any other developed nation, regardless of the law on abortion. Once foetal demise is confirmed via an ultrasound scan, there are three options available to the woman; a conservative “watch and wait” approach; medical management, which uses drugs to induce delivery; or surgical management in which the womb is surgically evacuated.

Amnesty’s report seems to suggest that women in Ireland are offered no help at the time of miscarriage and are left with dead foetuses inside of them because of some perceived legal restrictions. This is simply not true.

As soon as a miscarriage has been confirmed, a care plan is formulated between the patient and her doctor, and the best interests of the woman are always prioritised.

Occasionally, and as per national guidelines, a repeat scan will be indicated to confirm that foetal demise has indeed occurred. However, this is consistent with international best practice, and is not a reflection of the law of this country in relation to abortion. Doctors do not delay treatment other than when that is clinically indicated. If individual doctors have done so in the past, then that is a reflection on individual practice and not on standard practice in Ireland.

Amnesty would do well to look at international reports, which place Ireland high on the leader board in obstetrical care, particularly when it comes to our low rates of maternal death and low perinatal mortality.

Many doctors are supportive of Amnesty International but it is not appropriate for an international body concerned with the human rights of all people to make such broad and sweeping statements about the practice of obstetrics in Ireland when our statistics and guidelines on these matters speak for themselves. –

Is mise,

Prof JOHN BONNAR, Professor Emeritus Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Trinity College Dublin;

Dr PATRICK CONWAY, Consultant Obstetrician and Gynaecologist, Co Meath;

Dr TREVOR HAYES, Consultant Obstetrician and Gynaecologist, St Luke’s General Hospital, Kilkenny;

Dr CHRIS KING, Consultant Obstetrician and Gynaecologist, Letterkenny General Hospital;

Dr SUBHASH KOHLI, Consultant Obstetrician and Gynaecologist, Co Kildare;

Dr DERMOT MacDONALD, Former Master of National Maternity Hospital, Dublin;

Dr EAMON McGUINNESS, Consultant Obstetrician Gynaecologist, and St James’s Hospital, Dublin;

Dr JOHN MONAGHAN,Dr KHAWAJA NAVEED ANJUM, Consultant Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Portiuncula Hospital, Co Galway.

Nobody from Portlaoise or Galway hospital to talk about how great pregnancy and maternal care are in Ireland. Wonder why?

Godge

Black Menorca wrote: »

So, would you allow Downs Syndrome babies to be aborted if the mother requested it, at any time during the pregnancy

Up to 22 weeks, yes. See below.

Godge wrote: »

In principle what you are saying is correct. However, that statement means that a woman could have an abortion and kill the fetus right up until five minutes before labour.

All rights come with responsibilities. I have the right to drink alcohol. I have also the responsibility to do so in moderation, to not drive when under the influence of alcohol. If I drive while under the influence, I commit a crime, even though I theoretically have the right to bodily integrity, to pour as much alcohol as I want into my system. With other drugs my rights to do what I like are even more circumscribed as they are banned.

Society therefore should set reasonable laws between what a woman is allowed to do and the rights, however limited, of the the unborn.

An abortion law that allows for termination up until 20/22 weeks for almost any reason is a fair compromise.