8th Amendment

ProfessorPlum

Atlantis50 wrote: »

But not defend it when it's attacked by colleagues on her profession?

Why should she come out and defend something that's she's already on record as supporting. I think I much more likely that if her position had changed she would be more likely to publically correct the record

The report launch was held in the "Pillar Room" of the Rotunda which is a function room that anyone can book ("Friends of the Rotunda" rent it out to raise funds for the hospital):

https://www.for.ie/FunctionRoom.aspx

Yours is not an unreasonable assumption and it was a good stroke on O'Gorman's part.

And given that Dr Coulter Smith is on record as to his position on the legislation being cumbersome and unworkable, maybe it's not an unreasonable assumption. It's also not unreasonable that the Master might veto renting a room in his hospital to a group who he didn't agree with, on grave moral grounds, if that were actually so.

That's only speculation. As I've already posted, we can't go on the assumption of a "silent majority".

What we do know is 5 GPs out of 2500 are members of Doctors for Choice.

What isn't speculation is the fact that doctors who publicat 'come out' as pro choice can be dismissed from their job, or denied a contract in a catholic ethos hospital. That is a fact.

Atlantis50

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Why should she come out and defend something that's she's already on record as supporting. I think I much more likely that if her position had changed she would be more likely to publically correct the record

I've already explained why here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=95978731&postcount=1620

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

And given that Dr Coulter Smith is on record as to his position on the legislation being cumbersome and unworkable, maybe it's not an unreasonable assumption. It's also not unreasonable that the Master might veto renting a room in his hospital to a group who he didn't agree with, on grave moral grounds, if that were actually so.

Now those are unreasonable assumptions. How do you even know that bookings are ran by the Master for his approval first? That's highly unlikely to be the case.

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

What isn't speculation is the fact that doctors who publicat 'come out' as pro choice can be dismissed from their job, or denied a contract in a catholic ethos hospital. That is a fact.

I presume the dismissal of Dr Rhona Mahony, Master of the National Maternity Hospital (Chaired by Catholic Archbishop of Dublin) is threfore imminent?

And the post you quoted referred specifically to GPs, most of whom are private practitioners. Who can dismiss them for their views?

frag420

So as someone with no medical training, with a fear of doctors and I can just about put a band aid on and yet I just managed to sign the Dublin Declaration!!

As much as it pains me to add my name (fake) to the list it should go some way to prove that anyone can sign it and thus it means nothing!!

I used a fake name, fake credentials (I just made up any old nonsense and it was accepted)

You should see what I wrote in the comments section though............NSFW!!

lazygal

frag420 wrote: »

So as someone with no medical training, with a fear of doctors and I can just about put a band aid on and yet I just managed to sign the Dublin Declaration!!

As much as it pains me to add my name (fake) to the list it should go some way to prove that anyone can sign it and thus it means nothing!!

I used a fake name, fake credentials (not even reals ones, I just made up any old nonsense and it was accepted)

You should see what I wrote in the comments section though............NSFW!!

http://www.dublindeclaration.com/sign-up/

I'll just leave this here.......

pmasterson95

lazygal wrote: »

http://www.dublindeclaration.com/sign-up/

I'll just leave this here.......

Suprised there is no Prof Bruce Wayne signed it yet. Thats ridiculous thing to use as a source. Might aswell use wikipedia how many of those "professionals" are real hahaha

Delirium

Amnesty responds to letter disputing the 'She is Not a Criminal' report.

Sir, – Amnesty International notes the concerns expressed by several obstetricians in their letter of June 19th about what our new report on Ireland’s abortion law says about the treatment of women experiencing miscarriage.

Our report does not suggest a general mismanagement of miscarriages or pregnancy loss in Ireland.

The report, She Is Not a Criminal: The Impact of Ireland’s Abortion Law, is about the violation of women’s rights by Ireland’s laws, not by its doctors. As the World Health Organisation has repeatedly said, restrictive abortion laws, regardless of the country, lead to lower quality of care. Our research indicates that Ireland is no exception.

As with all of Amnesty International’s reports around the world, this one builds on the testimonies of those directly impacted, including women, doctors and counsellors. Women told us of the experiences they had while miscarrying.

Doctors and counsellors told us how the Eighth Amendment and the abortion law push them to provide lower quality of care than they would otherwise, whether it is in the provision of information, having to wait until a woman’s health deteriorates to a life-threatening condition, or having to wait for foetal demise in the context of miscarriage or fatal foetal impairment, before an abortion can be provided.

It is for this reason that Amnesty International is calling for a legal framework on abortion that respects and protects women’s human rights and allows doctors to do their job. – Yours, etc,

GAURI van GULIK,
Deputy Director Europe
and Central Asia,
Amnesty International,
Easton Street,
London.

Source

drkpower

Populating a profit and loss account with those who support prohibition on abortion/the Dublin declaration on one side, and those who support the amnesty submission/choice on the other, is not going to give you an answer.

The legislative framework needs to be re-examined if (1) if a reasonable body of obstetric opinion believes that the law fetters their ability to provide obstetric care and (2) if that view is supported by a reasonable interpretation of the legal position.

It is clear to anyone looking at the situation honestly that the answers to (1) and (2) are yes.

What the response to that re-examination is a much more difficult question. Repealing the 8th amendment as a slogan is fine, but it will have significant consequences, with varying levels of support for each. The only workable way to manage such a big issue is to have a bunch of different referenda on the same day dealing with the core 4 issues (perhaps many more):

1. FFA is the most straightforward to deal with (but is still difficult) by way of referendum.
2. People seem to think that rape/incest can similarly be carved out but it is almost impossible to do so in a way that would be workable and would carry popular support (the most obvious difficulty being that it is impossible to reasonably verify the grounds for abortion in these circumstances).
3. Elaboration on the meaning of 'substantial threat to life' and widening to incorporate a threat to health; whatever form of words, or guidelines, that is chosen will face significant objection from the other side. My own view is that assessment of what is a substantial risk should be for the patient primarily to decide following factual advice from their doctor - just as they do with any other medical intervention. But I can see that being vehemently opposed by many.
4. Elective abortion; while I doubt it will pass, the people should have the opportunity to give their view on elective abortion up to a particular time limit (which should be subject of pre-referendum oireachtas committees).

frag420

So I was listening to Newstalk this morning and they had Cora Sherlock who is deputy chair of the pro life campaign. One of the points she made was that the abortion issues is an Irish issue and someone like Amnesty International basically sticking their beak into an Irish problem is not needed nor wanted, its something the Irish people need to debate themselves.

But yet the anti choice side are happy to include hundreds of signatures from doctors from outside of Ireland of various experience and credentials.

So which is it? If we remove the signatures of everyone on the DD from outside of Ireland and without the relevant experience and qualifications (me included) then how many would we have left? A bulk no less..........

fits

drkpower wrote: »

What the response to that re-examination is a much more difficult question. Repealing the 8th amendment as a slogan is fine, but it will have significant consequences, with varying levels of support for each. The only workable way to manage such a big issue is to have a bunch of different referenda on the same day dealing with the core 4 issues (perhaps many more):

1. FFA is the most straightforward to deal with (but is still difficult) by way of referendum.
2. People seem to think that rape/incest can similarly be carved out but it is almost impossible to do so in a way that would be workable and would carry popular support (the most obvious difficulty being that it is impossible to reasonably verify the grounds for abortion in these circumstances).
3. Elaboration on the meaning of 'substantial threat to life' and widening to incorporate a threat to health; whatever form of words, or guidelines, that is chosen will face significant objection from the other side. My own view is that assessment of what is a substantial risk should be for the patient primarily to decide following factual advice from their doctor - just as they do with any other medical intervention. But I can see that being vehemently opposed by many.
4. Elective abortion; while I doubt it will pass, the people should have the opportunity to give their view on elective abortion up to a particular time limit (which should be subject of pre-referendum oireachtas committees).

None of these should be in the constitution at all! That is not what the constitution is for. They should be dealt with by the legislators appropriately according to needs.

lazygal

frag420 wrote: »

So I was listening to Newstalk this morning and they had Cora Sherlock who is deputy chair of the pro life campaign. One of the points she made was that the abortion issues is an Irish issue and someone like Amnesty International basically sticking their beak into an Irish problem is not needed nor wanted, its something the Irish people need to debate themselves.

But yet the anti choice side are happy to include hundreds of signatures from doctors from outside of Ireland of various experience and credentials.

So which is it? If we remove the signatures of everyone on the DD from outside of Ireland and without the relevant experience and qualifications (me included) then how many would we have left? A bulk no less..........

It also affects women who are not Irish, women who like Miss Y can't use the UK solution.

ProfessorPlum

Atlantis50 wrote: »

I presume the dismissal of Dr Rhona Mahony, Master of the National Maternity Hospital (Chaired by Catholic Archbishop of Dublin) is threfore imminent?

And the post you quoted referred specifically to GPs, most of whom are private practitioners. Who can dismiss them for their views?

Has Dr Mahony 'come out' as pro choice?

Or is she just highlighting the difficulties in providing the best standard of care in our current legal environment?

(And where did anyone say we were just taking about GP's? )

drkpower

fits wrote: »

None of these should be in the constitution at all! That is not what the constitution is for. They should be dealt with by the legislators appropriately according to needs.

Some would argue that the constitution is exactly the place that the fundamental rights of citizens (and/or of the unborn) should be. Although, fwiw, I agree with you.




But to be honest, where the law is a secondary issue. What the law is is the important bit. And in any case, that ship has already sailed - its in there so how the matter is resolved will have to involve referenda.

PopePalpatine

frag420 wrote: »

So I was listening to Newstalk this morning and they had Cora Sherlock who is deputy chair of the pro life campaign. One of the points she made was that the abortion issues is an Irish issue and someone like Amnesty International basically sticking their beak into an Irish problem is not needed nor wanted, its something the Irish people need to debate themselves.

But yet the anti choice side are happy to include hundreds of signatures from doctors from outside of Ireland of various experience and credentials.

So which is it? If we remove the signatures of everyone on the DD from outside of Ireland and without the relevant experience and qualifications (me included) then how many would we have left? A bulk no less..........

Her Legatus teammates are all too willing to accept millions from foreign fundamentalist millionaires.

SpaceTime

It actually disproportionately impacts non Irish women.

If you're a middle income non EU citizen (including an American) you're kinda stuck with whatever the Irish system supplies if you live here.

It's worse if you've total dependence on the HSE and Irish state. For example, a refugee applicant.

My other concern is that it may well have an economic impact on Ireland too.

If you were a woman or partner of a woman of child bearing age would you want to move here and have kids in a system where your life might be put at risk.

We're trying to attract the best IT talent and many of those people are women, have wives, girlfriends and daughters.

lazygal

SpaceTime wrote: »

It actually disproportionately impacts non Irish women.

If you're a middle income non EU citizen (including an American) you're kinda stuck with whatever the Irish system supplies if you live here.

It's worse if you've total dependence on the HSE and Irish state. For example, a refugee applicant.

My other concern is that it may well have an economic impact on Ireland too.

If you were a woman or partner of a woman of child bearing age would you want to move here and have kids in a system where your life might be put at risk.

We're trying to attract the best IT talent and many of those people are women, have wives, girlfriends and daughters.

My other half works in one such sector and after the horror show of a braindead pregnant woman and Savita they are extremely reluctant to come here. Even the lack of transarency around our actual maternal death rate spells out that Ireland is harldy the best little country in which to be a woman of child bearing age.

SpaceTime

lazygal wrote: »

My other half works in one such sector and after the horror show of a braindead pregnant woman and Savita they are extremely reluctant to come here. Even the lack of transarency around our actual maternal death rate spells out that Ireland is harldy the best little country in which to be a woman of child bearing age.

Yeah I know two women who turned down jobs here because of it. One is Indian and now working in the UK (very serious IT person) other is an American who opted not to take a posting here and the company didn't push her on it when she gave that reason.

It's a lot easier for an EU national to seek help in another EU country even if you're well off, it's not particularly easy if you're a non EU national. I mean Irish health cover and in some cases you might even need a visa for example if you're a Chinese national.

It doesn't bode well for us as an IT hub in particular. We're trying to attract some of the world's most sought after intellect. We're not going to get it while we're lost in the 19th century.

lazygal

I'm unsure about having another baby, and to be brutally honest the eighth amendment is one reason why. It being in place makes it crystal clear that I'm at risk of being another statistic that proves the eighth amendment has been a disaster for women in Ireland, not just Irish women.

Atlantis50

SW wrote: »

Amnesty responds to letter disputing the 'She is Not a Criminal' report.
Source

GAURI van GULIK hasn't got a shred of credibility on this issue given her past - she formerly worked as a spin-doctor for abortionist conglomerate Marie Stopes International (where she was the European Advocacy Officer).

lazygal

Atlantis50 wrote: »

GAURI van GULIK hasn't got a shred of credibility on this issue given her past - she formerly worked as a spin-doctor for abortionist conglomerate Marie Stopes International (where she was the European Advocacy Officer).

:eek:

OMG is it true the CEO earns 500k a year??????

SpaceTime

The reality though is that the state is too chicken to deal with this.

They'll face down Irish Water protests and anti austerity people but they won't go near this because they've no backbone.

That's what it comes down to.

I don't think Irish politicians are en mass conservative, they're just mostly cowards.

lazygal

SpaceTime wrote: »

The reality though is that the state is too chicken to deal with this.

They'll face down Irish Water protests and anti austerity people but they won't go near this because they've no backbone.

That's what it comes down to.

I don't think Irish politicians are en mass conservative, they're just mostly cowards.

Yes, pretty much what Miriam Lord said about those who appeared on a Vincent Brown show last week. Full of chat about every single topic, then fell deathly silent when asked if the eighth amendment will be repealed. They are still more afraid of doing something unpopular than taking a chance and doing something brave.

Delirium

Atlantis50 wrote: »

GAURI van GULIK hasn't got a shred of credibility on this issue given her past - she formerly worked as a spin-doctor for abortionist conglomerate Marie Stopes International (where she was the European Advocacy Officer).

I notice you don't dispute the content of the letter.

ProfessorPlum

Atlantis50 wrote: »

GAURI van GULIK hasn't got a shred of credibility on this issue given her past - she formerly worked as a spin-doctor for abortionist conglomerate Marie Stopes International (where she was the European Advocacy Officer).

Unlike Prof Eamon O'Dwyer who stated that the X case (involving a 14 year old girl) was as a result of consensual sex, and decried the decision of the Supreme sort to allow married couples to use contraceptive (available on prescription only of course).

Double standards??

SpaceTime

lazygal wrote: »

Yes, pretty much what Miriam Lord said about those who appeared on a Vincent Brown show last week. Full of chat about every single topic, then fell deathly silent when asked if the eighth amendment will be repealed. They are still more afraid of doing something unpopular than taking a chance and doing something brave.

They don't even have to make the decision - the people will!

They won't even ask the question though!!

lazygal

SpaceTime wrote: »

They don't even have to make the decision - the people will!

They won't even ask the question though!!

I think this is where Cora Sherlock, David Quinn and others fall down. If they really believed that the people who can vote will support the idea that Ireland is a havan for prolife people, surely they'd trust the people to vote the 'right' way. I think they really know that this vote would be the end of the line for them, they've lost the marriage and kids arguement, the X case has been legislated for and people when polled aren't as black and white about abortion as they were in 1983. So they fear they won't get the right answer, and they'll make sure the question can't even be asked or debated.

Atlantis50

SW wrote: »

I notice you don't dispute the content of the letter.

Oh, but I do.

Before reading the content, it's important to see where the author's coming from and this woman is a former spin-doctor for Marie Stopes.

Her response does not directly address the clinical management of miscarriage at all and instead reverts to the usual talking points about the 8th Amendment. Not only that, she asserts that the there is "a lower quality of care" in Ireland due to the 8th Amendment. This is nonsense given Ireland's standing in "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."

I welcome her intervention. Her Marie Stopes past will be a significant handicap for her advocacy.

oscarBravo

Atlantis50 wrote: »

GAURI van GULIK hasn't got a shred of credibility on this issue given her past - she formerly worked as a spin-doctor for abortionist conglomerate Marie Stopes International (where she was the European Advocacy Officer).

So, basically, she has no credibility because she has a view that's at odds with yours?

K-9

Tbh if she came out with a pro life argument her Marie Stopes past would still be more important for some.

SpaceTime

I have a feeling though the recent referendum has shown people what's possible too.

A huge % of Ireland seems to want change on those issues. I'm sure the government will sit on its hands until the next general election though.

Unfortunately that's how Irish politics works - don't rock the boat while keeping your snout in the trough.

Keep voting for politicians based on their ability to arrange pot hole filling and this is the level of leadership you get!

Delirium

Atlantis50 wrote: »

Oh, but I do.

Before reading the content, it's important to see where the author's coming from and this woman is a former spin-doctor for Marie Stopes.

Her response does not directly address the clinical management of miscarriage at all and instead reverts to the usual talking points about the 8th Amendment. Not only that, she asserts that the there is "a lower quality of care" in Ireland due to the 8th Amendment. This is nonsense given Ireland's standing in "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."

I welcome her intervention. Her Marie Stopes past will be a significant handicap for her advocacy.

From the letter:

Doctors and counsellors told us how the Eighth Amendment and the abortion law push them to provide lower quality of care than they would otherwise, whether it is in the provision of information, having to wait until a woman’s health deteriorates to a life-threatening condition, or having to wait for foetal demise in the context of miscarriage or fatal foetal impairment, before an abortion can be provided.

So are you saying that those doctors and counsellors are lying?

pmasterson95

Atlantis50 wrote: »

GAURI van GULIK hasn't got a shred of credibility on this issue given her past - she formerly worked as a spin-doctor for abortionist conglomerate Marie Stopes International (where she was the European Advocacy Officer).

SW wrote: »

From the letter:


So are you saying that those doctors and counsellors are lying?

Probably be the same as his above spiel. If you are pro choice you have no credibility. But if you are against choice you are 100% credible. Like O'Dwyer.

volchitsa

drkpower wrote: »

Some would argue that the constitution is exactly the place that the fundamental rights of citizens (and/or of the unborn) should be.

Citizens, yes, but the unborn? What about the rights of the unconceived? Or of all our future citizens currently labouring under other nationalities? Where should they go?

Shouldn't a constitution stick to ensuring it respects all the rights of its own actual citizens, including the pregnant ones, and leave the rights of any not-yet-existing citizens till whatever time those citizens actually have their citizenship conferred on them, whether by birth or legal judgment?

Black Menorca

Kev W wrote: »

You implied that doctors wouldn't want to perform abortions because they would want the foetus to grow into a person whom they could treat when they become ill. I used exaggeration to show that I believe that to be a silly notion. I'll try to avoid it in future if you insist on taking everything literally.

And before you ask, no I don't literally think that you literally take everything literally so you don't need to ask me to link to examples of you doing so.

I'm lost.

Black Menorca

traprunner wrote: »

Their patients are the women they are seeing. That's why they get the wrist band with their personal details including date of birth. The foetus does not get their name or date of birth on a wrist band because they are not the patient.

There are two lives involved, not one.

anothernight

lazygal wrote: »

My other half works in one such sector and after the horror show of a braindead pregnant woman and Savita they are extremely reluctant to come here. Even the lack of transarency around our actual maternal death rate spells out that Ireland is harldy the best little country in which to be a woman of child bearing age.

My fiancé owns a couple of businesses in the IT sector. Despite being Irish, he refuses to go back to his own country. Two of the reasons are that so far healthcare has been much better here (he suffers from an autoimmune disorder, so this is a big deal), and he's terrified that I might get pregnant while living in Ireland, if we were to go back. He doesn't want to start a family where he knows that I'll be treated like a young child, with no capacity to make decisions over my own body for a full 9 months.

It's really sad, but that's the reality.

am946745

anothernight wrote: »

My fiancé owns a couple of businesses in the IT sector. Despite being Irish, he refuses to go back to his own country. Two of the reasons are that so far healthcare has been much better here (he suffers from an autoimmune disorder, so this is a big deal), and he's terrified that I might get pregnant while living in Ireland, if we were to go back. He doesn't want to start a family where he knows that I'll be treated like a young child, with no capacity to make decisions over my own body for a full 9 months.

It's really sad, but that's the reality.

We have bad healthcare? Try going to the US without money and see how a pregnant women is treated.

drkpower

volchitsa wrote: »

Citizens, yes, but the unborn? What about the rights of the unconceived? Or of all our future citizens currently labouring under other nationalities? Where should they go?

Shouldn't a constitution stick to ensuring it respects all the rights of its own actual citizens, including the pregnant ones, and leave the rights of any not-yet-existing citizens till whatever time those citizens actually have their citizenship conferred on them, whether by birth or legal judgment?

Ah jaysiz, i'm not getting into the whole is the unborn a human/a citizen/a frog/a clump of cells debate. Waste of time.

The unborn has rights. Everyone accepts that. The issue is how they are balanced against the mother and/or when the unborn develops those rights.

While I don't believe (for various legal reasons) that those matters are dealt with in a constitution, I can see why one could argue that that is exactly where they should be addressed.

am946745

am946745 wrote: »

We have bad healthcare? Try going to the US without money and see how a pregnant women is treated.

Straw man. The poster mentioned nothing like that.

anothernight

am946745 wrote: »

We have bad healthcare? Try going to the US without money and see how a pregnant women is treated.

I didn't say Ireland has bad healthcare. Stop putting words in my mouth. :rolleyes:

am946745

anothernight wrote: »

I didn't say Ireland has bad healthcare. Stop putting words in my mouth. :rolleyes:

So you have never been pregnant in Ireland?

lazygal

am946745 wrote: »

We have bad healthcare? Try going to the US without money and see how a pregnant women is treated.

Or you could go to the UK and be able to access abortion, including in the case of fatal foetal abnormalities and risks to health, rather than staying here and having to take your chances on the doctor who treats you calculating your risk of death in the event a pregnancy needs to be aborted.

lazygal

am946745 wrote: »

So you have never been pregnant in Ireland?

I have twice, and the system here, mainly because of the eighth amendment, makes me reluctant to be pregnant again. The maternity services here are hit and miss, no anomaly scans offered in some units, women refused c sections and ending up with pretty awful side effects, pressure to accede to interventions when they haven't been explained to you, having to continue a pregnancy even though the foetus has no brain and having to deal with medical staff who can't refer you to abortion services. Have you ever been pregnant in Ireland?

am946745

lazygal wrote: »

rather than staying here and having to take your chances on the doctor who treats you calculating your risk of death in the event a pregnancy needs to be aborted.

Sorry, not true Irish doctors don't take chances with anyone. They take the necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if it means the unintended death of the child.

lazygal

anothernight wrote: »

My fiancé owns a couple of businesses in the IT sector. Despite being Irish, he refuses to go back to his own country. Two of the reasons are that so far healthcare has been much better here (he suffers from an autoimmune disorder, so this is a big deal), and he's terrified that I might get pregnant while living in Ireland, if we were to go back. He doesn't want to start a family where he knows that I'll be treated like a young child, with no capacity to make decisions over my own body for a full 9 months.

It's really sad, but that's the reality.

Honestly, I struggle with having another pregnancy here after what happened to NP before Christmas. I don't want my children have to watch me rot away because I happen to be pregnant and braindead. I don't want to have to travel in the event I wish to terminate a pregnancy. When I was younger, I always kept money on standby in the event I needed to travel because I didn't want to be in a position where the only reason I couldn't access abortion was financial. I now donate to the abortion support network because I don't want other women to be in a position where they are only staying pregnant because they can't pay for an abortion.

am946745

Maternity services: ‘I felt safe in the hands of the professionals’

http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/health-family/parenting/maternity-services-i-felt-safe-in-the-hands-of-the-professionals-1.2168618

lazygal

am946745 wrote: »

Sorry, not true Irish doctors don't take chances with anyone. They take the necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if it means the unintended death of the child.

Yes, they do take chances. Sometimes thats the wish of the woman, sometimes its in the case of women like Miss Y. They took the chance that she wouldn't kill herself.

lazygal

am946745 wrote: »

Maternity services: ‘I felt safe in the hands of the professionals’

http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/health-family/parenting/maternity-services-i-felt-safe-in-the-hands-of-the-professionals-1.2168618

What about the women who don't feel safe? I didn't feel safe under one consultant in Holles St and I won't let him ever, ever treat me again.

am946745

According to Unicef we are the safest place to have a baby..


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7830900.stm

am946745

lazygal wrote: »

What about the women who don't feel safe? I didn't feel safe under one consultant in Holles St and I won't let him ever, ever treat me again.

Decide which one you what, which my wife did for all 3 of her pregnancies.

lazygal

am946745 wrote: »

According to Unicef we are the safest place to have a baby..


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7830900.stm

So because of this, women don't need access to abortion? Do you think women travelling to access services they can't get here do so despite claims like this? What does the relative safety of maternity services have to do with women who don't want to be pregnant?

That's from 2009. Our stats were not recorded properly. If you look for the information now, you'll find we're average as a place to have a baby. Countries which allow women access to abortion are also safe places to have a baby.

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