Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

ohnonotgmail

splinter65 wrote: »

But surely one or two people can’t over rule the whole committee? Mightn’t be religious objectors at all. Plenty of secular objection to abortion. Sooner or later you’ll have to accept that lots of people not influenced by any religion at all just don’t agree with abortion.
Fact is we have no facts here apart from 2 TDs alleging that a woman has been refused an abortion.

Whether they agree with abortion or not is irrelevant. they are there to ensure that the hospital operates according to the law. The interests of the patients should be above their own interests. If they cannot do that they should resign.

end of the road

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Ensure the hospitals it funds are fully state owned and controlled with no religious appointees on the boards?

at great expence, and it would mean the state actually having to take full responsibility for them. the whole reason for not having them fully state controled in the first place was so that the state would have as little responsibility for them as they could possibly get away with. same with education.

King Mob

End and splinter,
You guys are still ignoring my questions and points.
Typical from you guys.

You will soon start dodging questions and points about this new topic when things get too difficult for you and your hypocrisy, ignorance and general lack of empathy start showing again.

Rinse and repeat.

Hotblack Desiato

splinter65 wrote: »

If the 2 TDs have seen evidence of the 2 consultants signing off on the need for an abortion

So you're saying the woman is lying.

MFPM

splinter65 wrote: »

But surely one or two people can’t over rule the whole committee? Mightn’t be religious objectors at all. Plenty of secular objection to abortion. Sooner or later you’ll have to accept that lots of people not influenced by any religion at all just don’t agree with abortion.
Fact is we have no facts here apart from 2 TDs alleging that a woman has been refused an abortion.

But based on conversations with the woman herself and she allowed them to use her name so it's highly unlikely she's lying.

splinter65

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Whether they agree with abortion or not is irrelevant. they are there to ensure that the hospital operates according to the law. The interests of the patients should be above their own interests. If they cannot do that they should resign.

I don’t disagree with anything you say at all. I don’t know why you think I do. Why don’t you ever read posts before you respond?

splinter65

MFPM wrote: »

But based on conversations with the woman herself and she allowed them to use her name so it's highly unlikely she's lying.

Something just isn’t right. The Committee didn’t just send back word saying “sorry not today”. There had to be some explanation or further advice. Why don’t the two TDs tell us what the response entailed?

splinter65

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

So you're saying the woman is lying.

No. You’d love of course if that was what I’m saying but I’m not. The Committee didn’t just send back a response along the lines of “sorry not today dear”.
There had to be some reason, some explanation some further advice.
You know that.
We only know what the two TDs have said.
And if you try to allege that those two TDs in particular wouldn’t have an agenda in this then you’ll really be trying to pull my leg.

ohnonotgmail

splinter65 wrote: »

No. You’d love of course if that was what I’m saying but I’m not. The Committee didn’t just send back a response along the lines of “sorry not today dear”.
There had to be some reason, some explanation some further advice.
You know that.
We only know what the two TDs have said.
And if you try to allege that those two TDs in particular wouldn’t have an agenda in this then you’ll really be trying to pull my leg.

the further advice was to wait and see if she miscarried by herself.

robarmstrong

Wait and see if you miscarry is not the smartest thing to say to a woman who has had two doctors/consultants sign off that her pregnancy has a very strong chance of ending in FFA.

Something isn't right here from the Committee and I'd like to hear more.

robarmstrong

end of the road wrote: »

at great expence, and it would mean the state actually having to take full responsibility for them. the whole reason for not having them fully state controled in the first place was so that the state would have as little responsibility for them as they could possibly get away with. same with education.

Hello there.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109122023&postcount=9071

You have again failed to provide substance to your claims.

aloyisious

Questions are why was the matter referred to the board for a decision on a medical matter and why it felt it had the right to overrule the decisions of the doctors [which were apparently fully compliant with our law on abortion]?

splinter65

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the further advice was to wait and see if she miscarried by herself.

But sure no one could give that advice unless they were medically qualified. The Archbishop definitely didn’t give that advice, did he?

splinter65

aloyisious wrote: »

Questions are why was the matter referred to the board for a decision on a medical matter and why it felt it had the right to overrule the decisions of the doctors?

That’s what I want clarified too. It all seems very fishy to me. There must have been some kind of disagreement for her to be referred to the Committee. Is the Coombe not 1 of the 9 hospitals on board and signed up already?

splinter65

robarmstrong wrote: »

Wait and see if you miscarry is not the smartest thing to say to a woman who has had two doctors/consultants sign off that her pregnancy has a very strong chance of ending in FFA.

Something isn't right here from the Committee and I'd like to hear more.

I agree. And I think the public are owed a full clarification from both the TDs and Coombe.

aloyisious

splinter65 wrote: »

That’s what I want clarified too. It all seems very fishy to me. There must have been some kind of disagreement for her to be referred to the Committee. Is the Coombe not 1 of the 9 hospitals on board and signed up already?

Is there even a section within the abortion act that allows for that, an interference by a person who had the idea that he/she knew better than the medical team [even if he/she was a member of the team] and decided to sabotage the team decision for reasons outside the care of the patient?

As for the TD's, their actions way subsequent to the actions of the board have no relevance to the decision of the board.

Odhinn

Just on the news there, the board have stated that they'd no role whatsoever as regards clinical decisions on the matter.

seamus

So, the board weren't involved at all.

Which meant it was the two consultants who weren't satisfied that it was appropriate to carry out the procedure, which means that they didn't certify there was a FFA.

It's clear that the TDs have jumped the gun quite badly here. They should have brought it to the Minister for Health privately first for him to look into the matter rather than getting worked up about the wrong information.

splinter65

Odhinn wrote: »

Just on the news there, the board have stated that they'd no role whatsoever as regards clinical decisions on the matter.

I was thinking the whole story stank to high heaven. Red faces all round for Coppinger and Smith.

splinter65

seamus wrote: »

So, the board weren't involved at all.

Which meant it was the two consultants who weren't satisfied that it was appropriate to carry out the procedure, which means that they didn't certify there was a FFA.

It's clear that the TDs have jumped the gun quite badly here. They should have brought it to the Minister for Health privately first for him to look into the matter rather than getting worked up about the wrong information.

They should have verified the woman’s version of events before they even considered bringing it out in public at all. But then the two of them are in a permanently outraged state anyway and simply couldn’t resist the oppportunity to shriek about another perceived injustice.
The only other thing is, do patients understand that after the 12 weeks the abortion is only going ahead if medical advice allows it?

.......

....... wrote: »

Thats why its being asked about in the Dail.

There could be a valid reason, I dont know.

The reason is that the Coombe isn’t set up for abortions just yet. Why doesn’t she go to one that is rather than Ruth Coppinger or any other politician?

Hotblack Desiato

Deleted User wrote: »

The reason is that the Coombe isn’t set up for abortions just yet. Why doesn’t she go to one that is rather than Ruth Coppinger or any other politician?

It's nearly 6 years since POLDPA was passed. They're set up to do those abortions. So could the issue here be the "wrong type of abortion" ?

Hotblack Desiato

Odhinn wrote: »

Just on the news there, the board have stated that they'd no role whatsoever as regards clinical decisions on the matter.

Beware of weasel words and mental reservation though.

There is a board of governors and by rights they should have no input into clinical decisions.

However there is usually also a medical ethics board and IIRC a few years back it was this board in the Mater (starring the then Fr, now Bishop, Kevin Doran) which vetoed a cancer drug trial which required women to use contraception.

Odhinn

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Beware of weasel words and mental reservation though.

There is a board of governors and by rights they should have no input into clinical decisions.

However there is usually also a medical ethics board and IIRC a few years back it was this board in the Mater (starring the then Fr, now Bishop, Kevin Doran) which vetoed a cancer drug trial which required women to use contraception.

Entirely true. It's not at all clear yet what went on.



As regards what another poster said about the coombe not being ready to perform abortions, that would have been easily remedied by referral to a hospital that is.

Hotblack Desiato

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It's nearly 6 years since POLDPA was passed. They're set up to do those abortions. So could the issue here be the "wrong type of abortion" ?

Are they not being carried out in a small number of hospitals? A bit like centers of excellence for cancer, heart, brain surgery etc?

splinter65

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Beware of weasel words and mental reservation though.

There is a board of governors and by rights they should have no input into clinical decisions.

However there is usually also a medical ethics board and IIRC a few years back it was this board in the Mater (starring the then Fr, now Bishop, Kevin Doran) which vetoed a cancer drug trial which required women to use contraception.

“The Coombe Hospital has said that claims that its Board had a role in determining, whether or not the criteria for certification had been met for a termination of pregnancy in a case, are untrue.“ From RTE. Are you saying this is a lie? The efforts to blame a priest for this is admirable. Eventually you will have to find someone else to blame hotblack. You should start looking around at least......

drunkmonkey

Odhinn wrote: »

Entirely true. It's not at all clear yet what went on.



As regards what another poster said about the coombe not being ready to perform abortions, that would have been easily remedied by referral to a hospital that is.

The coombe are not satisfied the other hospitals are ready either. Harris shouldn't have made commitments he couldn't keep. Announce it's live when everything is in place and everyone is happy. It's not a sweet shop he was opening the doors to.

Igotadose

drunkmonkey wrote: »

The coombe are not satisfied the other hospitals are ready either. Harris shouldn't have made commitments he couldn't keep. Announce it's live when everything is in place and everyone is happy. It's not a sweet shop he was opening the doors to.

Proof by blatant assertion. Where does the Coombe comment on other hospital's readiness?

drunkmonkey

drunkmonkey wrote: »

The coombe are not satisfied the other hospitals are ready either. Harris shouldn't have made commitments he couldn't keep. Announce it's live when everything is in place and everyone is happy. It's not a sweet shop he was opening the doors to.

At the moment, these are the only hospitals ready for abortions. Not every maternity hospital will be providing the service. eg, Clonmel patients will have to travel to Kilkenny or Waterford. (At the moment, Kilkenny aren’t ready)

https://www2.hse.ie/conditions/abortion/how-to-get-an-abortion/hospitals-providing-services.html

robarmstrong

splinter65 wrote: »

I agree. And I think the public are owed a full clarification from both the TDs and Coombe.

Absolutely. Whilst I voted yes and you obviously voted no, her case does fit the criteria for FFA as signed off on by two medical professionals, so despite our mutual dislike for abortion (yes, I dislike abortion immensely, I voted yes for personal reasons, history and circumstances) this woman very clearly qualified for an abortion under grounds of fatal fetal abnormalities.

The fact she was allegedly told to wait until she miscarries is simply not good enough and I hope we all receive clarification, as there would be no point in repealing the 8th and having the proposed legislation in place if alleged incidents like this happen.

Not saying the woman is lying whatsoever as my partner was told the same thing when we went through our own tragic circumstances but this was before the 8th was repealed, now that it’s been repealed I’d like to think women can not experience what my partner experienced.