Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

aloyisious

A statement-cum-admission from Chris Fitzpatrick on terminations here in 2013 prior to POLDPA coming into existence.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/socia...tant-1.3067993

volchitsa

And meanwhile, a previous horror perpetrated on the bodies of poor and vulnerable women is coming back to haunt us:

Asylum seeker sues HSE over failure to provide life-saving termination

The statement of claim says:

She alleges the IFPA “negligently” failed to assist her in accessing an abortion. She became “increasingly distressed, isolated, desperate, frustrated and suicidal” as a result.

‘Wish to die’
She was moved to a second direct provision centre in July and accessed a GP on July 17th, 2014, where, now 22 weeks pregnant, she expressed “a wish to die rather than continue with the pregnancy”, she states.
She was referred for psychiatric assessment on July 23rd, 2014, admitted to hospital with “suicidal ideation” and transferred to a maternity hospital.
She was not afforded her rights to an assessment under the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act, she says, but was told it was “too late” for a termination.
She “expressed her unwillingness to remain” in hospital and was “threatened . . . that if she did not stay . . . she would be involuntarily detained [under] the Mental Health Act 2001.”
“She was wrongfully and unlawfully detained,” says the claim.

Ms Y began refusing food and fluids. HSE staff then “administered two doses of Dexamethasone . . . a steroid used to stimulate fetal lung maturation” and “failed to inform” her what it was for. This was “trespass” on her person, “assault” and “breach of [her] bodily autonomy”.

On July 28th, 2014, she was told the pregnancy would be “terminated” by August 4th, 2014, “at the latest”, it is alleged.

However, on July 31st, 2014, she was told legal advice was being sought, the claim says. On August 2nd, 2014, the HSE “wrongfully and without any lawful basis” sought “various orders” in the High Court about ending the pregnancy “without advising [her] of such an application nor arranging for her to be provided with legal representation”.

The HSE “wrongfully and without any lawful basis”, given that Ms Y was a “competent adult with full capacity”, sought an order to “forcibly rehydrate” her.

An interim order was granted, until August 5th, 2014, at which point the HSE withdrew its application and a plan was put in place to deliver the child the next day by Caesarean section.

A C-section was performed on August 6th and the baby was taken into emergency care.

“[Ms Y] has suffered severe personal injuries, acute mental distress, emotional harm and suffering, psychological sequelae, loss, damage, inconvenience and expense,” says the claim... “caused solely by the negligence, ... assault and battery, false imprisonment . . . reckless and intentional infliction of emotional harm and suffering . . . and failure to vindicate” her rights under the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights.

One thing I don't understand, (well there are several things really) is that we were previously told she was assessed under POLDPA but here it seems to say she wasn't. Does that mean she wasn't assessed at all, or that the assessment carried out didn't fulfill POLDPA criteria in some way? Maybe because she was (untruthfully) told it was too late for a termination at that stage?

Another thing is the period up to 22 weeks is so vague. What happened between the diagnosis of pregnancy and the 22 week stage?

lazygal

It is known she travelled to the UK to procure an abortion but wasn't allowed enter the country due to a lack of correct travel documents, and then returned to Ireland prior to the 22 week period.

recedite

volchitsa wrote: »

Another thing is the period up to 22 weeks is so vague. What happened between the diagnosis of pregnancy and the 22 week stage?

She broke off contact with the Spirasi doctor and changed address. Then just allowed the pregnancy to continue as normal.

Interesting that her solicitor is now trying to sue Spirasi and the IFPA, both of which were sympathetic to her. It must be around two years now since the free legal aid solicitor announced she was going to sue.
As I said at the time, there isn't much chance of finding adequate grounds to sue anybody, but there is still plenty of money to be made out of this case, and the taxpayer will be footing the entire bill whether the claimant wins any compo or not.

I wonder how the child is doing now. Presumably adopted and living somewhere in Ireland.

volchitsa

recedite wrote: »

She broke off contact with the Spirasi doctor and changed address. Then just allowed the pregnancy to continue as normal.

That's rather a shocking interpretation concerning a 17 year old who didn't speak English, didn't know the system here, and was quite likely traumatized by the war crimes which apparently caused her pregnancy.

Do you have any evidence that she actually "allowed" the pregnancy to continue, as opposed to being unable to get anything done about it?

And by evidence I don't mean a discredited leaked report which doesn't contain any input from Ms Y and which contains glaring contradictions within it.

Or are you just putting the most offensive possible version of events out there, in the hope that mud will stick?

recedite wrote: »

Interesting that her solicitor is now trying to sue Spirasi and the IFPA, both of which were sympathetic to her. It must be around two years now since the free legal aid solicitor announced she was going to sue.
As I said at the time, there isn't much chance of finding adequate grounds to sue anybody, but there is still plenty of money to be made out of this case, and the taxpayer will be footing the entire bill whether the claimant wins any compo or not.

I don't agree, in fact I'd put a large sum of money on the HSE settling without ever letting this go to court. They don't have a leg to stand on.

You are correct that the HSE is shamefully profligate with our money, though. They create a problem by abusing someone's human rights and then throw huge wads of tax payers' money at the person to make them go away.

Ms Y is not the first where that has been the "solution" to their own wrong doing, and it's almost certainly what will happen in her case too.

recedite wrote: »

I wonder how the child is doing now. Presumably adopted and living somewhere in Ireland.

One would certainly hope so, but I've heard the rumour is the child is in fact seriously disabled. If so I would fear the worst for him. Especially if he is in HSE care, given the abuse that vulnerable people like "Grace" were allowed to suffer.

recedite

volchitsa wrote: »

I don't agree, in fact I'd put a large sum of money on the HSE settling without ever letting this go to court. They don't have a leg to stand on.

We'll see. They might cave in and settle. Similar to the way RTE caved in after the Pantigate affair and paid out to John Waters, just because it was less bother than fighting a case. I hope they will defend it though.

There are a couple of points that would have to be teased out.
Like which doctor said she was suicidal, and which said she wasn't, and why. My understanding of it is that at the early stage an abortion would have been lawful if she was suicidal (due to the x-case ruling) even prior to POLDPA coming into existence. Presumably that is why they are suing the Spirasi doctor; for "misdiagnosing" the extent of her suicidal ideation.

Also the question of why she later disengaged from medical contact for that next long period of time, and then came back looking for an abortion when the foetus was already viable. In that later situation the HSE were following lawful procedure by terminating the pregnancy through inducing a premature birth as an alternative to aborting it. If she had proven suicidal tendencies, they were obliged to terminate the pregnancy, but not necessarily by killing the foetus.

Overall, the lack of specific legislation around the issue at the time makes it harder to prove any specific wrongdoing on the part of any of the defendants.

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

One thing I don't understand, (well there are several things really) is that we were previously told she was assessed under POLDPA but here it seems to say she wasn't. Does that mean she wasn't assessed at all, or that the assessment carried out didn't fulfill POLDPA criteria in some way? Maybe because she was (untruthfully) told it was too late for a termination at that stage?

A rather click-bait title I have to say... she's sueing because the HSE failed to provide a life saving termination, yet her pregnancy was terminated (if not the life of her child) and she is still alive. It's a bit of a tricksy use of language again, leaning on the whole termination/abortion of pregnancy/ foetal life in order to push buttons. Poor show from the Times.

With regards to her assessment, I think the Times is simply avoiding reprinting the detail it originally provided in it's timeline of the case, which shows the occasion on which Miss Y received her first psychiatric assessment as required by the POLDPA; "Ms Y is assessed by consultant psychiatrist 1. When told it is too late for an abortion she starts to cry and “and stated that she was going to commit suicide and that she had a plan and . . . she then gave details of the plan”.", as it might look out of place in the current story. The new article says "She was not afforded her rights to an assessment under the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act, she says, but was told it was “too late” for a termination.". That seems a subtle change of language to imply that by not affording an abortion (ie killing the child), but rather terminating the pregnancy (ie delivering the child) the assessment that occurred might no longer be considered an assessment under the POLDPA.

volchitsa wrote: »

Another thing is the period up to 22 weeks is so vague. What happened between the diagnosis of pregnancy and the 22 week stage?

There was a discussion here of that timespan some time ago, but the Times also covered it in their original timeline, which is a decent refresher. I'd say leaving it out of the current story was probably in the interests of the story, rather than a deliberate attempt to be vague.

volchitsa wrote: »

but I've heard the rumour is the child is in fact seriously disabled. If so I would fear the worst for him. Especially if he is in HSE care, given the abuse that vulnerable people like "Grace" were allowed to suffer.

I'd imagine the rumours are simply that. It would certainly be grist to the mill of some points of view to put it about that dreadful harm, even worse than death, came to the child as a result of Miss Y not being permitted to end his life, but all that is actually known (though I'm open to correction here) is that the child remains under the care of Tusla until June this year? As a minor in the care of the State I'm not sure any personal information about him would be available to the public.

volchitsa

recedite wrote: »

There are a couple of points that would have to be teased out.
Like which doctor said she was suicidal, and which said she wasn't, and why. My understanding of it is that at the early stage an abortion would have been lawful if she was suicidal (due to the x-case ruling) even prior to POLDPA coming into existence. Presumably that is why they are suing the Spirasi doctor; for "misdiagnosing" the extent of her suicidal ideation.

Also the question of why she later disengaged from medical contact for that next long period of time, and then came back looking for an abortion when the foetus was already viable. In that later situation the HSE were following lawful procedure by terminating the pregnancy through inducing a premature birth as an alternative to aborting it. If she had proven suicidal tendencies, they were obliged to terminate the pregnancy, but not necessarily by killing the foetus.

Overall, the lack of specific legislation around the issue at the time makes it harder to prove any specific wrongdoing on the part of any of the defendants.

A light just went on there when reading your post : I just realized that Spirasi is a Catholic organization.

They were never going to authorize an abortion.

(Lack of specific legislation? I'm sure that's exactly why so many prolife campaigners are determined to fight POLDPA tooth and nail, but it certainly did exist at the time of Ms Y's pregnancy,)

Absolam

To be fair to Spirasi, their function is to rehabilitate survivors of torture and work to protect survivors of torture from the threat of refoulement, meaning the forced return of a person to a country where they face persecution. Authorising abortions isn't exactly part of their remit....

MrPudding

Absolam wrote: »

A rather click-bait title I have to say... she's sueing because the HSE failed to provide a life saving termination, yet her pregnancy was terminated (if not the life of her child) and she is still alive.

She is, according to the article, suing for:

- severe personal injuries
- acute mental distress
- emotional harm and suffering
- psychological sequelae
- loss
- damage
- inconvenience and expense

I think you are being a little ingenuous in your discription. "She is suing for not having a termination! But she got one!" Yes, eventually, but her argument was her constitutional rights were breached, and she is suing for that breach. That she ultimately got a termination does not mean that her rights were not breached.

In addition to this, she is also suing for a number of other abuses she suffered, in connection with her "treatment". Unless you think that injections of drugs and medical procedures without proper consent, force feeding without consent and detainment without lawful authority are all ok, at least in the case of a pregnant woman...?

MrP

recedite

From the Irish Times timeline linked by absolam...

...Counsellor 2 contacts staff nurse 1 and explains she will give Ms Y visa application documents. She says Ms Y will need to fill them in and get passport photographs signed by a garda. Counsellor 2 advises Ms Y to speak to a community welfare officer about financial help.

Ms Y has a third counselling session with IFPA. During the two-hour session the counsellor suggests she consider adoption. Ms Y says she ?would rather die than have this baby?. Counsellor 2 fills out travel application documents with her. She tells Ms Y she will need ?120 to accompany the application. They go through costs, including ?300 for a flight to the Netherlands and ?700 for a termination at the Casa Clinic in Leiden, that total ?1,300. IFPA does not receive the completed application for travel documents from Ms Y. She does not return to IFPA.

The pathway to an abortion, and the means of funding it, were put in front of her there.
In fairness, various state agencies and NGO's have bent over backwards trying to help the girl since she arrived in this country with all her problems. And now, egged on by her taxpayer funded solicitor, she is now trying to bite the hand that feeds her.
I'd guess around 1 million euro has been spent on her so far, between social workers, medical expenses, legal expenses and basic food/accommodation. So before anyone gets up on their high horse about "her rights" saying that she deserves it all, just think about what alternative uses the money could have been put to.

There are tens of thousands like her in places such as Yemen and South Sudan, watching helplessly as their own kids starve to death. The money could have fed and educated a whole village.
Or used here in in Ireland, it could have provided essential treatment via the NTPF (which has been effectively broke since 2011) for people who are permanently stuck on hospital waiting lists.
It would be nice if we in Ireland could solve all the problems of the world, but we can't even solve our own problems.

lazygal

recedite wrote: »

From the Irish Times timeline linked by absolam...
The pathway to an abortion, and the means of funding it, were put in front of her there.
In fairness, various state agencies and NGO's have bent over backwards trying to help the girl since she arrived in this country with all her problems. And now, egged on by her taxpayer funded solicitor, she is now trying to bite the hand that feeds her.
I'd guess around 1 million euro has been spent on her so far, between social workers, medical expenses, legal expenses and basic food/accommodation. So before anyone gets up on their high horse about "her rights" saying that she deserves it all, just think about what alternative uses the money could have been put to.

There are tens of thousands like her in places such as Yemen and South Sudan, watching helplessly as their own kids starve to death. The money could have fed and educated a whole village.
Or used here in in Ireland, it could have provided essential treatment via the NTPF (which has been effectively broke since 2011) for people who are permanently stuck on hospital waiting lists.
It would be nice if we in Ireland could solve all the problems of the world, but we can't even solve our own problems.

How much would have performing an abortion when she asked for one have cost?

volchitsa

lazygal wrote: »

How much would have performing an abortion when she asked for one have cost?

Indeed, but that wasn't possible because we couldn't have hussies going round claiming to be unhappy to get an abortion, they have to be actually suicidal first.

And apparently still being alive at the end of it all is a black mark against her too.

As for Recedite's "Eat up your dinner there's starving babies in Africa!" logic, well... :rolleyes:

Human rights don't work like that. If she was given injections under false pretences (for example) then it doesn't matter that she could have been bombed in Yemen, the Irish health system gives her the same rights not to be assaulted by our doctors and nurses as you or me.

There's no lower level of rights available for people who "should count themselves lucky just to be here at all". Luckily. Which is why the HSE will lose, if it goes to court. Unfortunately (IMV) they won't, they'll fold.

Despite their long history of fighting cases where they know they are wrong, trying to bully people like Bridget McCole into just giving up, there are cases where the bullying can't be allowed to go too far, not to where facts are actually put in the public domain by judges rather than leaked inaccurate reports.
And this is one of those.

recedite

lazygal wrote: »

How much would have performing an abortion when she asked for one have cost?

Its detailed in the post just before yours. E 1300 in total.

volchitsa

recedite wrote: »

Its detailed in the post just before yours. E 1300 in total.

That's not the cost of a first trimester abortion though, it's the cost of going to a different country for one.

POLDPA is supposed to allow women to have an abortion in Ireland, if necessary, not to go to Holland for one. They can do that without POLDPA, as long as they have the money and the ability to travel.

Ms Y didn't, so the question is not why she didn't, which is what you're trying to do (nice piece of classic victim blaming, by the way) but why POLDPA didn't take over before she got to the stage of having to go on hunger and thirst strike.

recedite

My understanding of POLDPA is that it came into force in January 2014, a couple of weeks before the girl arrived into the country pregnant. And the doctor she was seeing diagnosed her as depressed but "not suicidal". That would have made her eligible for an abortion in The Netherlands, but not in Ireland.
She was shown how to finance and arrange a trip to the Netherlands at that time, but did not take it any further.
A few months later she appeared at the HSE claiming to be suicidal and demanding an abortion in Ireland. Whether she was actually suicidal at that stage, or whether she had in the meantime met somebody who told her exactly what to say in order to comply with POLDPA, we don't know.

Absolam

MrPudding wrote: »

I think you are being a little ingenuous in your discription. "She is suing for not having a termination! But she got one!" Yes, eventually, but her argument was her constitutional rights were breached, and she is suing for that breach. That she ultimately got a termination does not mean that her rights were not breached.

I'm sure a Court will be well able to determine whether or not any of her rights were breached, but I was referring to the click bait headline; "Asylum seeker sues HSE over failure to provide ‘life-saving termination’". Given that Miss Y is, in fact, alive, despite the HSE's supposed failure, I'm dubious the termination they're describing was required to achieve the effect they ascribe to it.

MrPudding wrote: »

In addition to this, she is also suing for a number of other abuses she suffered, in connection with her "treatment". Unless you think that injections of drugs and medical procedures without proper consent, force feeding without consent and detainment without lawful authority are all ok, at least in the case of a pregnant woman...?

Well, allegedly suffered. But for the sake of your argument, detaining and nourishing someone in order to preserve their health, and even in order to preserve the life of another, are actions that I think the HSE might reasonably take on behalf of some patients and in certain circumstances. I remain to be convinced that they overstepped their bounds in this instance, but I imagine I'll be reviewing the evidence presented as avidly as everyone else.

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

POLDPA is supposed to allow women to have an abortion in Ireland, if necessary, not to go to Holland for one. They can do that without POLDPA, as long as they have the money and the ability to travel.

Actually, the POLDPA sets out the circumstances in which it is lawful to terminate a pregnancy, and when that may include taking the life of the unborn to do so.

It's not supposed to allow women to have an abortion; it's supposed to make clear when an abortion may be necessary, and legal.

recedite

volchitsa wrote: »

POLDPA is supposed to allow women to have an abortion in Ireland...

It allows termination, which can mean abortion. In this case the HSE managed to save both the lives of the mother and also the unborn, thereby complying fully with both the POLDPA and the 8th Amendment.

For a short period of time, they violated the "bodily integrity" of the girl by force feeding her, and administering certain medication, including a drug to accelerate the development of proper lung function in the foetus. These actions were to safeguard the health of both, and to give the best chance of survival to the foetus.

You may say that such actions, without her consent, were unacceptable.
However I am 100% certain that a judge in a court of law, if asked to balance the right to "bodily integrity" of the mother against the right to life of the foetus, will rule in favour of the latter. Anything else would be unconstitutional.

Her solicitor will also be aware of that. But that won't stop her charging a nice fat hourly rate to the taxpayer.

Bodily integrity is a very weak "right", as discovered by the numerous people who have tried to claim their bodily integrity was being violated by the state putting flouride in the water (as "medication without consent")

volchitsa

recedite wrote: »

My understanding of POLDPA is that it came into force in January 2014, a couple of weeks before the girl arrived into the country pregnant. And the doctor she was seeing diagnosed her as depressed but "not suicidal". That would have made her eligible for an abortion in The Netherlands, but not in Ireland.
She was shown how to finance and arrange a trip to the Netherlands at that time, but did not take it any further.
A few months later she appeared at the HSE claiming to be suicidal and demanding an abortion in Ireland. Whether she was actually suicidal at that stage, or whether she had in the meantime met somebody who told her exactly what to say in order to comply with POLDPA, we don't know.

What a load of complete fantasy.

January is not a couple of weeks before March - or was it April? - when her pregnancy was diagnosed, the doctor you mention was iirc the person from Spirasi, so was not going to give her any help in getting an abortion and was also the doctor who was so concerned about her mental health that they contacted the centre she was at to request that she not be left on her own - but still didn't think she was suicidal??

Not to mention your claim that being depressed but not suicidal gives you the right to go abroad for an abortion. Can you name where in POLDPA it says that please.

You're also taking as fact that she "was shown"how to do something. Where is the official report that says this please.

And a nice swing at women pretending to be suicidal in order to get abortions again, well done. Why don't you suggest she was probably consenting really, while you're at it.

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

What a load of complete fantasy. January is not a couple of weeks before March - or was it April? - when her pregnancy was diagnosed, the doctor you mention was iirc the person from Spirasi, so was not going to give her any help in getting an abortion and was also the doctor who was so concerned about her mental health that they contacted the centre she was at to request that she not be left on her own - but still didn't think she was suicidal??

Actually, there's no reason to think they were the same doctors, is there? The first doctor she saw from Spirasi was on April 4th (at which time she did not claim to be suicidal so was not in need of an abortion), after which she was largely dealt with by IFPA until a Spirasi psychosocial worker saw her June 4th, who referred her to a Spirasi doctor on June 14th, "for the purpose of providing a medico-legal report for Ms Y’s solicitor". That doctor said she was not actively suicidal, but had a strong death wish.

volchitsa wrote: »

Not to mention your claim that being depressed but not suicidal gives you the right to go abroad for an abortion. Can you name where in POLDPA it says that please.

That's not what recedite said though is it? He said that in the Netherlands, being depressed is a good enough reason to have a legal abortion, but in Ireland, it's not.

volchitsa

recedite wrote: »

It allows termination, which can mean abortion. In this case the HSE managed to save both the lives of the mother and also the unborn, thereby complying fully with both the POLDPA and the 8th Amendment.

For a short period of time, they violated the "bodily integrity" of the girl by force feeding her, and administering certain medication, including a drug to accelerate the development of proper lung function in the foetus. These actions were to safeguard the health of both, and to give the best chance of survival to the foetus.

You may say that such actions, without her consent, were unacceptable.

Human rights don't work like that, you can't say "we only falsely imprisoned and tortured him/her for a short period of time so it's not too bad really."

Termination of pregnancy is not internationally understood to be a c-section by the way. If Ireland finds itself rewriting medical terminology in order to squeeze an implausible definition into it, I think Ireland is the one with the problem, not the rest of the world.

It doesn't even work within the Irish context: I mean, you're not seriously suggesting that c-sections leading to a live newborn all require POLDP, are you? But if they come under the concept of termination of pregnancy, then they must do.

However I am 100% certain that a judge in a court of law, if asked to balance the right to "bodily integrity" of the mother against the right to life of the foetus, will rule in favour of the latter. Anything else would be unconstitutional.

Just because something is legal in a country doesn't mean it fulfills human rights obligations. Forced abortions are legal in China, but that is why the Chinese government is accused of human rights violations, for having such inhumane laws in the first place.

Her solicitor will also be aware of that. But that won't stop her charging a nice fat hourly rate to the taxpayer.

Oh, nasty. You think she has no case, so she's defrauding the taxpayer. FFS.

Bodily integrity is a very weak "right", as discovered by the numerous people who have tried to claim their bodily integrity was being violated by the state putting flouride in the water (as "medication without consent")

You really don't grasp the concept of harming one person in order to help someone else do you?

Fluoridation of water is supposed to be beneficial for everyone.
There are no situations in which you can legally choose to harm one person because you think a different person deserves help (other than self defence type situations.

Never mind to help a "person" whose legal existence is problematic, to say the least.

aloyisious

It seems to me that the solicitor who submitted the claim to court is trying a scattergun approach to the matter: include as many groups and notions as possible in the claim and we'll be sure to get some wins.... All the claims items are that, not yet proven facts.

The idea of successfully suing the IFPA, a private body, for not assisting her in getting an abortion won't fly, as that is decidedly what they can't do. It's not even a quango, just a private body limited to giving advice. I think that'll be thrown out on day 1.

The HSE regularly makes applications to court for permission to carry out acts and deeds without the other party involved being in court or made aware that the application is being sought. Doing so is NOT illegal.

This case will be worth the time spent listening to, for its outcome on what the woman's solicitor claims are her infringed rights.

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

Human rights don't work like that, you can't say "we only falsely imprisoned and tortured him/her for a short period of time so it's not too bad really."

You can say we held her legally for her own safety and that of others though... that sort of thing happens all the time, doesn't it?

volchitsa wrote: »

Termination of pregnancy is not internationally understood to be a c-section by the way. If Ireland finds itself rewriting medical terminology in order to squeeze an implausible definition into it, I think Ireland is the one with the problem, not the rest of the world. It doesn't even work within the Irish context: I mean, you're not seriously suggesting that c-sections leading to a live newborn all require POLDP, are you? But if they come under the concept of termination of pregnancy, then they must do.

To be fair to Ireland; termination is not a term used in the Constitution or the POLDPA. The term is bandied about in discussions like this with frequent sleight of hand, but the legislation actually refers simply to 'a medical procedure in respect of a pregnant woman in the course of which, or as a result of which, an unborn human life is ended'. So Ireland isn't actually rewriting medical (or any other) terminology.

volchitsa wrote: »

Oh, nasty. You think she has no case, so she's defrauding the taxpayer. FFS.

Well... whether or not she has a case, the solicitor will be paid by the taxpayer, won't she? You're the one characterising that as fraud, not recedite.

volchitsa wrote: »

You really don't grasp the concept of harming one person in order to help someone else do you?
Fluoridation of water is supposed to be beneficial for everyone.
There are no situations in which you can legally choose to harm one person because you think a different person deserves help (other than self defence type situations.

That's not true though. The Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act allows for the use of force against another for protection of self, others, property or to effect an arrest. Quite literally one can, and morally should, legally harm one person in order to help another, in accordance with the law.

volchitsa wrote: »

Never mind to help a "person" whose legal existence is problematic, to say the least.

In fairness, it's only problematic to those who don't like the fact that such people have a legal existence.Given that we know they have a legal right to life, it's not unreasonable that someone else might act (legally) to protect their life, even go so far as harming someone attempting to take it.

aloyisious

Umm, the key wording to give substance to the above last two paras are "legally" and "in accordance with the law", otherwise some-one might pick the whole up wrongly and think it means something else when it comes to deciding to assault another person. I assume the use of the word "law" there means statute law, and not God's law. Some people don't know, or prefer not to, the difference.

In the same way, the word "morally" is capable of two completely different understandings, as it can directly relate to one's personal beliefs. 2+2 doesn't always amount to 4, or the greater good, when it comes to understanding nuanced words and their use.

Any use of force in application of the law has legal strictures applied: the amount used MUST be relative AND reasonable to the cause of it's use, and the preventive reasoning behind its use MUST be reasonable.

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

Umm, the key wording to give substance to the above last two paras are "legally" and "in accordance with the law", otherwise some-one might pick the whole up wrongly and think it means something else when it comes to deciding to assault another person. I assume the use of the word "law" there means statute law, and not God's law. Some people don't know, or prefer not to, the difference.

Well, you've certainly got me there. When I cited and linked the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, it was with volchitsa's assertion that "There are no situations in which you can legally choose to harm one person because you think a different person deserves help" in mind, and it didn't occur to me that anyone might imagine we were talking about God's law, it's true.

aloyisious wrote: »

In the same way, the word "morally" is capable of two completely different understandings, as it can directly relate to one's personal beliefs. 2+2 doesn't always amount to 4, or the greater good, when it comes to understanding nuanced words and their use. Any use of force in application of the law has legal strictures applied: the amount used MUST be relative AND reasonable to the cause of it's use, and the preventive reasoning behind its use MUST be reasonable.

I've no doubt that some will disagree with me and say it is not moral to use force to defend others and that's fine as far as it goes. And I don't think anyone has advocated the use of force beyond what is legally permissible, only noted that there are actually situations in which you can legally choose to harm one person because you think a different person deserves help.

aloyisious

Absolam wrote: »

Well, you've certainly got me there. When I cited and linked the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, it was with volchitsa's assertion that "There are no situations in which you can legally choose to harm one person because you think a different person deserves help" in mind, and it didn't occur to me that anyone might imagine we were talking about God's law, it's true.

I've no doubt that some will disagree with me and say it is not moral to use force to defend others and that's fine as far as it goes. And I don't think anyone has advocated the use of force beyond what is legally permissible, only noted that there are actually situations in which you can legally choose to harm one person because you think a different person deserves help.

I'd argue that the OATP act doesn't include the notion that it could be used to harm a patient under one's care in hospital in order to protect another person, esp in the case we are discussing. I'd posit that getting an order from a judge to allow feeding or medication of a patient is the only legal way to go, having made clear to him/her the medical reasons why. There's precedence that way.

As far as I can see, you, volchitsa and Recedite were debating the same issue; that of a pregnant patient's bodily integrity, force-feeding her and applying medication against her stated wishes, when Recedite mentioned that a judge might agree with a doctor on the above acts, after the deeds were done without prior legal authority.

I'd suggest that if one told a judge one thought it was legal to use force (under OATP act provisions) against a patient because one felt quite literally one can, and morally should, legally harm one person (the pregnant woman) in order to help another person (in this specific case, the person to be protected being the feotus inside a pregnant hospital patient) in line with the law, the judge might deliver a different point of view.

In any case, this little debate about one specific case won't get away from abortion here and the overall allowance within POLDPA for it, the primary law (IMO) covering the situation the patient was in and the debate in general.

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

I'd argue that the OATP act doesn't include the notion that it could be used to harm a patient under one's care in hospital in order to protect another person, esp in the case we are discussing. I'd posit that getting an order from a judge to allow feeding or medication of a patient is the only legal way to go, having made clear to him/her the medical reasons why. There's precedence that way.

Of course; the OATPA simply demonstrates that there are in fact situations in which you can legally choose to harm one person because you think a different person deserves help. Having established that fact there's no apparent reason for thinking the principles won't apply in other circumstances, so for instance we might find that detaining and nourishing, even restraining, a person in order to prevent them killing another person could be in line with such a principle.

aloyisious wrote: »

As far as I can see, you, volchitsa and Recedite were debating the same issue; that of a pregnant patient's bodily integrity, force-feeding her and applying medication against her stated wishes, when Recedite mentioned that a judge might agree with a doctor on the above acts, after the deeds were done without prior legal authority. I'd suggest that if one told a judge one thought it was legal to use force (under OATP act provisions) against a patient because one felt quite literally one can, and morally should, legally harm one person (the pregnant woman) in order to help another person (in this specific case, the person to be protected being the feotus inside a pregnant hospital patient) in line with the law, the judge might deliver a different point of view.

The HSE is hardly going to argue they were empowered by the OATPA provisions to take the actions they did (though as far as I know they didn't force feed her, and arguably her consent (which according to the original Times timeline was actually given) was not required for life saving medication to be administered to her child); most likely they would argue they were empowered by an Order of the Courts to take certain actions and that additionally such actions as they took to preserve the life of Miss Ys child were not only legal but ethically required. A Court Order is going to carry rather more weight with a Judge considering whether their acts were lawful. The fact that such a Court Order and their actions are underpinned by the same principle as the OATPA (that it is permissible to harm one person in order to protect another) shows that the various legislation in play is harmonious.

aloyisious wrote: »

In any case, this little debate about one specific case won't get away from abortion here and the overall allowance within POLDPA for it, the primary law (IMO) covering the situation the patient was in and the debate in general.

I think volchitsa's intent (though I can't speak for her) in bringing it up was to deride the state of affairs in Ireland where, contrary to a womans wishes, we wilfully deliver live children rather than terminate their lives, and by extension cast shade on abortion here and the overall allowance within POLDPA for it.

Still, whilst the claim about situations in which you can legally choose to harm someone obviously falls in the face of the facts, it does draw attention to the fact that the POLDPA, and the Constitutional position on the life of the unborn in general, can be viewed harmoniously with other legislation regarding harming and killing people in Ireland.

volchitsa

aloyisious wrote: »

I'd argue that the OATP act doesn't include the notion that it could be used to harm a patient under one's care in hospital in order to protect another person, esp in the case we are discussing. I'd posit that getting an order from a judge to allow feeding or medication of a patient is the only legal way to go, having made clear to him/her the medical reasons why. There's precedence that way.

As far as I can see, you, volchitsa and Recedite were debating the same issue; that of a pregnant patient's bodily integrity, force-feeding her and applying medication against her stated wishes, when Recedite mentioned that a judge might agree with a doctor on the above acts, after the deeds were done without prior legal authority.

I'd suggest that if one told a judge one thought it was legal to use force (under OATP act provisions) against a patient because one felt quite literally one can, and morally should, legally harm one person (the pregnant woman) in order to help another person (in this specific case, the person to be protected being the feotus inside a pregnant hospital patient) in line with the law, the judge might deliver a different point of view.

In any case, this little debate about one specific case won't get away from abortion here and the overall allowance within POLDPA for it, the primary law (IMO) covering the situation the patient was in and the debate in general.

I see from your quote that Absolam appears to have spent hours creating an "argument" around a partial quote from me, from which he has cut off the self-defence etc proviso which I specifically mentioned as an exclusion from the general rule.

Is this sort of thing likely to fool anyone else? If so, I may take him off ignore, not to engage with him, but to point out whenever he is so egregiously dishonest like that.

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

I see from your quote that Absolam appears to have spent hours creating an "argument" around a partial quote from me, from which he has cut off the self-defence etc proviso which I specifically mentioned as an exclusion from the general rule. Is this sort of thing likely to fool anyone else? If so, I may take him off ignore, not to engage with him, but to point out whenever he is so egregiously dishonest like that.

I don't think so; I quite specifically called out that the Act allows the use of force not just in self defence but also for the protection of others, property or to effect an arrest. But claiming someone is dishonest (and egregiously so, no less!) whilst at the same time claiming not to have actually read what they said is particularly entertaining!

And... hours? Perish the thought.. 'twas but a moments work to realise which piece of legislation demonstrated how fundamentally ignorant of the law it is to say that there are no situations in which you can legally choose to harm one person because you think a different person deserves help. Even allowing for self defence type situations.