8th Amendment

am946745

lazygal wrote: »

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?

You mean the women who traveled and died in a taxi after one of the safe abortions in Marie Stopes clinic?

lazygal

am946745 wrote: »

You mean the women who traveled and died in a taxi after one of the safe abortions in Marie Stopes clinic?

Oh I was wondering when that was going to be trotted out again, along with the salary of the CEO. I hear he earns 500k a year.

Abortion is safer than pregnancy. Especially early abortion. Women die giving birth, what does that tell you about birth?

Black Menorca

am946745 wrote: »

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


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

Amazing statistics.

Makes me proud of our medical professionals.

lazygal

Black Menorca wrote: »

Amazing statistics.

Makes me proud of our medical professionals.

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

anothernight

am946745 wrote: »

So you have never been pregnant in Ireland?

How do you get that conclusion from me saying: "I didn't say Ireland has bad healthcare."

I honestly don't understand your reasoning here.

frostyjacks

Ireland has a very high level of maternity care, as good as you'll find anywhere in the world. I fear that good name will be dragged through the mud though in an effort to introduce abortion on demand. It's an underhand tactic, I guess we'll have to brace ourselves for more of same for the foreseeable future.

Black Menorca

lazygal wrote: »

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

"Ireland - where the risk of death is one in 47,600 - is the safest place to have a baby."

2009

2009 wrote:

Ireland - where the risk of death is one in 47,600 - is the safest place to have a baby.

0.0021%

2015 wrote:

Ireland ranked just 26th in Europe, denting its reputation as "the safest place in the world to have a baby."

The report from the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) on the State of World Population, which was launched in Dublin yesterday, found that Ireland had nine maternal deaths per 100,000 live births.

0.009%

So roughly a 400% increase over 6 years...

Of course, one might just stick ones fingers in ones ears and ignore the most recent and therefore more accurate statistics if it suited ones argument.

lazygal

Black Menorca wrote: »

"Ireland - where the risk of death is one in 47,600 - is the safest place to have a baby."

"Ireland ranked just 26th in Europe, denting its reputation as "the safest place in the world to have a baby"

am946745

Deleted User wrote: »

Of course, one might just stick ones fingers in ones ears and ignore the most recent and therefore more accurate statistics if it suited ones argument.

And abortion or lack of is the cause.. Right?

am946745

am946745 wrote: »

And abortion or lack of is the cause.. Right?

Nope, I didn't say anything like that. You really should refrain from these straw man efforts

lazygal

am946745 wrote: »

And abortion or lack of is the cause.. Right?

Do you support repealing the right to travel for abortion so women won't die after getting an abortion in a Marie Stopes clinic, who's CEO earns 500K a year?

anothernight

Deleted User wrote: »

Nope, I didn't say anything like that. You really should refrain from these straw man efforts

So you have never been pregnant in Ireland?

:P


(Sorry, I couldn't help myself!!)

K-9

Black Menorca wrote: »

"Ireland - where the risk of death is one in 47,600 - is the safest place to have a baby."

Where does it say that?

If people are going to ignore up to date information us mods can act on that, it's covered in the charter.

volchitsa

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.

Remind us again why you think Savita Halappanavar died? The law? Or Irish doctors?

Black Menorca

K-9 wrote: »

Where does it say that?

If people are going to ignore up to date information us mods can act on that, it's covered in the charter.

Why bother threatening Mod action?

Its clearly stated in this link. From 2009. I am very proud of that stat.

Maybe a little less zeal with your modding threats might make the atmosphere a little less intense.

Black Menorca

volchitsa wrote: »

Remind us again why you think Savita Halappanavar died? The law? Or Irish doctors?

Three investigations and not one said she died because of a lack of an abortion.

lazygal

Black Menorca wrote: »

Three investigations and not one said she died because of a lack of an abortion.

Would it have been wrong to accede to her request for an abortion when she asked for one?

Black Menorca

lazygal wrote: »

Would it have been wrong to accede to her request for an abortion when she asked for one?

Of course it would.

lazygal

Black Menorca wrote: »

Of course it would.

So the doctors were right to wait and see what happened, taking the risk that her life wouldn't be at risk. Suppose she had been able to travel for an abortion at the time she was miscarrying. Should the law be changed to prevent women like that travelling for abortions outside of Ireland?

Black Menorca

lazygal wrote: »

So the doctors were right to wait and see what happened, taking the risk that her life wouldn't be at risk. Suppose she had been able to travel for an abortion at the time she was miscarrying. Should the law be changed to prevent women like that travelling for abortions outside of Ireland?

Of course.

The Constitution enshrines the Right to Travel. The People have spoken. The People are Prime.

K-9

Black Menorca wrote: »

Why bother threatening Mod action?

Its clearly stated in this link. From 2009. I am very proud of that stat.

Maybe a little less zeal with your modding threats might make the atmosphere a little less intense.

You are using out of date information to soap box.

Either use the new up to date stats, or keep using old,out of date ones. You've a choice, the latter one will earn you a ban for soap boxing.

It's a discussion site, part of that means taking on board new information, but putting your fingers in your ears and blissfully ignoring it.

If you take us mods wanting an honest debate a threat well......

lazygal

Black Menorca wrote: »

Of course.

The Constitution enshrines the Right to Travel. The People have spoken. The People are Prime.

So the rights of the unborn to life disappear once women can travel. Do you think we should ask the people about that again? Suppose the people were asked about repealing the eighth, and voted to do so, would that be acceptable?

Black Menorca

lazygal wrote: »

So the rights of the unborn to life disappear once women can travel. Do you think we should ask the people about that again? Suppose the people were asked about repealing the eighth, and voted to do so, would that be acceptable?

I am a citizen of the Republic and am therefore subject to the Constitution.

Whether I personally find a referendum result 'acceptable' is irrelevant.

PopePalpatine

Black Menorca wrote: »

Of course it would.

How do you think Savita would have been able to travel to Britain WHILE SHE WAS MISCARRYING?!

Black Menorca

PopePalpatine wrote: »

How do you think Savita would have been able to travel to Britain WHILE SHE WAS MISCARRYING?!

Relevance to my post?

anothernight

Black Menorca wrote: »

I am a citizen of the Republic and am therefore subject to the Constitution.

Whether I personally find a referendum result 'acceptable' is irrelevant.

Oh, in that case, why are you giving your opinion on anything else at all? Sure, isn't it all irrelevant since you're a citizen of the Republic and are therefore subject to the Constitution?

Black Menorca

anothernight wrote: »

Oh, in that case, why are you giving your opinion on anything else at all? Sure, isn't it all irrelevant since you're a citizen of the Republic and are therefore subject to the Constitution?

I'm not important at all, on the grand scheme of things.

anothernight

Black Menorca wrote: »

I'm not important at all, on the grand scheme of things.

I realise that, and I agree.

Still strange that you suddenly can't answer a simple question because you think your answer is irrelevant, and yet it's apparently not irrelevant enough when the question isn't inconvenient to you.

volchitsa

Black Menorca wrote: »

Three investigations and not one said she died because of a lack of an abortion.

Factually wrong, the investigation into her death found that she needed an abortion. I linked to it not long ago.

Of course you, with your determination to quote out-of-date statistics in place of more recent, more reliable ones available won't be interested in anything as mundane as what reports actually say rather than what you wish they'd said.

am946745

volchitsa wrote: »

Factually wrong, the investigation into her death found that she needed an abortion. I linked to it not long ago.

Of course you, with your determination to quote out-of-date statistics in place of more recent, more reliable ones available won't be interested in anything as mundane as what reports actually say rather than what you wish they'd said.

Yes, Doctors should have acted. They should have found the threat to her life. But they didn't. We have sadly deaths from medical misadventure all the time. The same type of infection also kills women who have elective abortions.

anothernight

am946745 wrote: »

Yes, Doctors should have acted. They should have found the threat to her life. But they didn't. We have sadly deaths from medical misadventure all the time. The same type of infection also kills women who have elective abortions.

You mean, by aborting delivering the unviable baby?

lazygal

am946745 wrote: »

Yes, Doctors should have acted. They should have found the threat to her life. But they didn't. We have sadly deaths from medical misadventure all the time. The same type of infection also kills women who have elective abortions.

So she should have had an elective abortion when she requested one?

am946745

lazygal wrote: »

So she should have had an elective abortion when she requested one?

Medical professionals should have followed the guidelines in place instead of letting the women die. The sepsis arose from the virulent and multi drug-resistant organism, E.coli ESBL. and was already present before she arrived in the hospital. So reducing her death to a debate about abortion is absolving or distracting for the real issue of underfunding over the last number of years under FG.

Irish obstetricians understand they can intervene with early delivery of the baby if necessary. Unfortunately, the inquest shows that in Galway University Hospital the diagnosis of chorioamnionitis was delayed and relevant information was not noted and acted upon.

there are many well-documented fatalities from sepsis in women following termination of pregnancy.

PopePalpatine

Black Menorca wrote: »

Relevance to my post?

Savita Halappanavar first asked for an abortion on 23 October 2012, a day after she was told that it would be impossible to save the foetus. At the very least, that's asking for a termination to remove a foetus incompatible with life.

Source

volchitsa

am946745 wrote: »

Yes, Doctors should have acted. They should have found the threat to her life. But they didn't. We have sadly deaths from medical misadventure all the time.

So it isn't the case that women can be forced to entrust their lives to those same doctors without unnecessary risk of death? You're contradicting yourself now.

am946745 wrote: »

The same type of infection also kills women who have elective abortions.

As MRSA and other infections kill patients in hospitals for all sorts of elective procedures. Do you think that means all non essential surgery should therefore be banned?

(You do get the distinction between giving informed consent for surgery and someone having a risk imposed upon them against their will. Don't you?)

conorh91

traprunner wrote: »

How about all those that didn't sign [The Dublin Declaration?

In 2006, about 200 British, Irish and Kiwi doctors wrote a letter to the Lancet, condemning medical practices in Guantanamo Bay.

Your argument is equally as ridiculous as anyone who, back then, might have retorted "what's the opinion of the rest of the doctors about Guantanamo? 200 is not enough"

Nobody said that, of course, because it would have been ridiculous.

As I have said multiple times on this thread, it is not possible to infer a position from the silence of non-signatories of the Dublin Declaration.

What we do know, is that a significant number of well-regarded medical experts, leaders in their respective fields, have publicly endorsed the Dublin Declaration--I'm not simply talking about the signatories on the website linked to. Similar letters have appeared in the Irish Times and other publications from the same doctors.

krankykitty wrote: »

Wasn't there someone here saying no pro choice doctors had refuted the Dublin Declaration? Letter from Doctors for Choice in the IT this morning, signed by a variety of doctors

Wait a minute, when we were talking about the Dublin Declaration, people took great exception to the fact that most of the signatories were not obstetricians.

That was before it was pointed out to them that doctors with other medical specialties, such as neonatologists and surgeons, are required to certify terminations.

Now, suddenly, a few GPs and one psychiatrist is enough to convince you.

This would be illogical if it were ever really about the evidence for most people. Most posters here are too emotionally involved in the debate to assess any evidence.

lazygal

Have you signed the declaration, Conor? You do realise anyone can make up any qualifications they like and sign it? Have you checked up on all of the names there, to make sure they are in fact who they say they are?

am946745

volchitsa wrote: »

So it isn't the case that women can be forced to entrust their lives to those same doctors without unnecessary risk of death? You're contradicting yourself now.

As MRSA and other infections kill patients in hospitals for all sorts of elective procedures. Do you think that means all non essential surgery should therefore be banned?

(You do get the distinction between giving informed consent for surgery and someone having a risk imposed upon them against their will. Don't you?)

The fact remains the she died from an undetected infection because of Medical misadventure. 14,000 women in Ireland have a miscarriage every year. Many maternal deaths are related to failure to observe simple clinical signs such as fever, headache and changes in pulse rate and blood pressure.

volchitsa

am946745 wrote: »

The fact remains the she died from an undetected infection because of Medical misadventure. 14,000 women in Ireland have a miscarriage every year. Many maternal deaths are related to failure to observe simple clinical signs such as fever, headache and changes in pulse rate and blood pressure.

The fact remains that had she been in the UK she would have had a termination and would almost certainly be alive today, and quite possibly a mother.

Pro-life? Don't make me laugh.

lazygal

volchitsa wrote: »

The fact remains that had she been in the UK she would have had a termination and would almost certainly be alive today, and quite possibly a mother.

Pro-life? Don't make me laugh.

Don't be getting too emotionally involved now!:pac:

anothernight

am946745 wrote: »

The fact remains the she died from an undetected infection because of Medical misadventure. 14,000 women in Ireland have a miscarriage every year. Many maternal deaths are related to failure to observe simple clinical signs such as fever, headache and changes in pulse rate and blood pressure.

You said previously that doctors should have acted. How should they have acted?

Anyway, are you implying that Ireland has bad healthcare? Try going to the US without money and see how a pregnant women is treated.

conorh91

lazygal wrote: »

Have you signed the declaration, Conor? You do realise anyone can make up any qualifications they like and sign it?

.

Conorh91 wrote:

I'm not simply talking about the signatories on the website linked to. Similar letters have appeared in the Irish Times and other publications from the same doctors.

Black Menorca

anothernight wrote: »

I realise that, and I agree.

Still strange that you suddenly can't answer a simple question because you think your answer is irrelevant, and yet it's apparently not irrelevant enough when the question isn't inconvenient to you.

Nothing inconvenient from my side.

lazygal

So you haven't signed it. Gosh, seems a large bulk of people haven't signed it. For such an important declaration, you'd think medical professionals would be falling over themselves to register their opposition to women in Ireland who can't take a flight to avail of abortion services being given the option not to remain pregnant unless their lives are at risk.

Black Menorca

volchitsa wrote: »

Factually wrong, the investigation into her death found that she needed an abortion.

Really?

Black Menorca

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Savita Halappanavar first asked for an abortion on 23 October 2012, a day after she was told that it would be impossible to save the foetus. At the very least, that's asking for a termination to remove a foetus incompatible with life.

Source

And the relevance to my post you quoted?

conorh91

lazygal wrote: »

So you haven't signed it.

Of course not. I am not a medical professional, let alone an eligible medical professional. I don't consider medical students, nurses, midwives, GPs, or doctors without specialties, to be eligible professionals either. I assume from your previous comments that you agree.

I am concerned about the sheer volume of medical experts with relevant expertise, many of them leading experts in their respective fields, who have had letters published in broadsheet newspapers, and whose names also appear on the Dublin declaration website.

lazygal

conorh91 wrote: »

Of course not. I am not a medical professional, let alone an eligible medical professional. I don't consider medical students, nurses, midwives, GPs, or doctors without specialties, to be eligible professionals either. I assume from your previous comments that you agree.

I am concerned about the sheer volume of medical experts with relevant expertise, many of them leading experts in their respective fields, who have had letters published in broadsheet newspapers, and whose names also appear on the Dublin declaration website.

Is sheer volume the new large bulk?

am946745

volchitsa wrote: »

The fact remains that had she been in the UK she would have had a termination and would almost certainly be alive today, and quite possibly a mother.

Pro-life? Don't make me laugh.

Yet same same infection kills women who have had elective abortions. It was the first death of its kind in the hospital which has delivered 54,000 women.

To focus on this for a wider regime of on demand abortion is not justified. the facts don't support the logic.