Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Abortion Discussion, Part Trois
Comments
-
Gosh, I hardly think "The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right." is complicated legislation.
Surely that's exactly the point?0 -
I have grouped these three points together because they are all dealt with in the court transcript I have previously linked to. Contrary to your assertion highlighted in the second point above, it was not the legal team who made the decision to continue somatic support, rather it was the doctors who made the decision in the absence of advice from the legal team. The court transcript notes:"He was told by the medical staff that, for legal reasons, they felt constrained to put his daughter on life-support because her unborn child still had a heart beat.""A study of the notes brought home that the doctors in the Dublin hospital were clearly concerned, having regard to the mother’s pregnancy, not to do anything that would “get them into trouble from a legal point of view and were awaiting legal advice”."
I'm happy enough to concede that at least one Doctor had legal concerns, whether those concerns emanated from, or were simply taken up by, the legal teamAs for the Constitution, it is the current legislative environment that caused the doctors to act the way they do. A legislative environment which has its roots in the 8th Amendment. So although this case doesn't deal directly with abortion, it is the side effects of the 8th Amendment which caused legal uncertainty in this matter which caused distress to the patient's family.You're right, there isn't a reference in what I've quoted to the unborn. I wasn't speaking about the unborn. I was talking about the responsibilities had in relation to the patient (i.e. the mother), responsibilities which extend (from Article 22.1 above) unto death. Those are the responsibilities that you wish to ignore for the sake of a possibility of a live birth.However, this is not a gish gallop. This isn't a multitude of minor arguments. The quotes are examples of the ethical requirements doctors must consider in the care of their patient (i.e. the mother).No, it wasn't. An appeal to emotion typically takes the form:Favourable emotions are associated with X, therefore X is true. That is not my argument. Instead I was pointing out that the distress being caused to the relatives of the patient by undertaking the course of treatment is a valid and necessary consideration.We are talking about bad science here. As shown by ProfessorPlum, the treatment was experimental. You don't experiment on patients without their informed consent (as detailed in the guidelines above).As ProfessorPlum has explained, it is not all about a live birth at all costs. Consideration must be given as to what kind of life that would be. There is a significant level of disability in children born very prematurely (i.e. <30 weeks) which must be considered in a decision like the one in this case.Just to clarify one point here, when I said that "the doctors in this case wanted to experiment on a brain-dead woman" the point that ProfessorPlum disputed (which I acknowledged) was that "wanted" had nothing to do with it. The doctors didn't want to continue somatic support but felt that they had to.You, on the other hand are disputing my use of the term experimentation. It absolutely is experimentation. This was mentioned by two of the expert witnesses in the trial and I have also linked to the scientific literature to show that this is the case. The use of somatic support in this case had no prospect for success and had no support from previously published research. Therefore it was experimental.0 -
ProfessorPlum wrote: »^^^^ Thank you. That was also my point, which Absolam seems to have missed. Not a 'big picture' kind of guy, maybe.0
-
Deleted User wrote: »Surely that's exactly the point?
It's in the Constitution, and it's not complicated; check.
There is legislation, which is (moderately) complicated, and not in the Constitution; check.
If you're arguing to repeal the 8th on the basis that the Constitution is no place for complicated legislation, there's no need.0 -
Doesn't seem to be? The proposition was "The constitution is no place for complicated legislation. When people argue against repealing the 8th amendment with the question "what would you replace it with?" the answer is simple: legislation."
It's in the Constitution, and it's not complicated; check.
There is legislation, which is (moderately) complicated, and not in the Constitution; check.
If you're arguing to repeal the 8th on the basis that the Constitution is no place for complicated legislation, there's no need.
Considering the extent of the difficulties and nuance of the entire situation of access to abortion (and indeed the seemingly ever-changing landscape of thought); an overly simplistic 'catch all' within our constitution (from which all law must indeed work from) ensures that the the difficulties and nuance cannot be adequately captured and controlled for by legislation.
Straightforward enough.0 -
Advertisement
-
Deleted User wrote: »Considering the extent of the difficulties and nuance of the entire situation of access to abortion (and indeed the seemingly ever-changing landscape of thought); an overly simplistic 'catch all' within our constitution (from which all law must indeed work from) ensures that the the difficulties and nuance cannot be adequately captured and controlled for by legislation.
Straightforward enough.
Honestly, I think the whole 'Oh it's too difficult to make it work properly we should get rid of it' is really just a smokescreen for 'Oh it's too difficult to make abortion more available we should get rid of it'.0 -
If you're arguing to repeal the 8th on the basis that the Constitution is no place for complicated legislation, there's no need.
If I was arguing that, you might have a point. On the contrary, I would argue to repeal the 8th because it's a blunt instrument that makes it difficult to frame laws with the level of nuance required.
A simplistic article like 40.3.3 that grants a blanket right to life of the unborn has no other purpose than to require the state to criminalise abortion. The result is legislation like the POLDPA. We've already seen numerous problems resulting from that Act, and those problems are notoriously hard to fix because any fixes would likely run into the brick wall that is 40.3.3.
There are two possible answers: make the prohibition on abortion in the Constitution more nuanced, or remove it and deal with the issue in legislation where it belongs. I'm arguing for the latter.0 -
Honestly, I think the whole 'Oh it's too difficult to make it work properly we should get rid of it' is really just a smokescreen for 'Oh it's too difficult to make abortion more available we should get rid of it'.
Calling it a smokescreen suggests that those of us who believe women should have a right to choose whether or not to be pregnant are in some way coy about that belief, and feel the need to disguise it in some way.
Let me be crystal clear: I believe that a woman should have a right to choose whether or not to be pregnant. An unsubtle "right to life of the unborn" clause in the Constitution removes that right, and does so purely on the basis that a non-sentient clump of cells has a right to life that exceeds a woman's right to bodily integrity.
If you want to talk about smokescreens, we can discuss the repeated use of the word "baby" to describe non-sentient clumps of cells, for the specific purpose of clouding the issue.0 -
That seems to be a different proposition, but still... how so? Right now, the Constitutional provision severely limits what legislation may be created infringing on an unborn persons right to life, which is the point of it. You could say it's overly simplistic (though the Court cases we've all pored over show it's quite nuanced nonetheless), or you could say it's straightforward (if in some particularly difficult regards requiring Judicial judgment). Whether or not the difficulties and nuance cannot be adequately captured and controlled for by legislation would certainly be a matter of opinion; that it largely prevents such legislation being subverted to impinge on the right to life of the unborn would seem to be less so.
My position on the 8th Amendment is simple and above. I don't think that the constitution is a suitable place for difficult and changeable legislation concerning an extremely nuanced issue.Honestly, I think the whole 'Oh it's too difficult to make it work properly we should get rid of it' is really just a smokescreen for 'Oh it's too difficult to make abortion more available we should get rid of it'.Deleted User wrote:I support access to abortion in the same way as I support access to amputation.
If the option needs to be exercised, I'd like it to be available. If it is to be available, I'd like the best services possible to be available.
By supporting amputation being an option in Irish Medicine, I am not pushing for amputations to become common. I would be very happy for not a single amputation to take place in a calendar year.
I am also more than happy to leave the mechanics of the procedure to those that are best placed to decide on them; that is the medical professional taking care of the patient involved.0 -
Well, the Court transcript of the judgement certainly touches on the points, though I did say it was my recollection. Still... the transcript quotes you provided show that N.P. said he was told by medical staff that, for legal reasons, they felt constrained to put his daughter on life-support because her unborn child still had a heart beat, but it doesn't say he knew how they arrived at that legal reasoning, does it? And yes, according to another doctors reading of their notes the doctors were concerned, but the transcript doesn't show where that concern came from does it? In fact, the judgement transcript oddly doesn't have any testimony from any of the Doctors engaged in the care of the unborn child at time, so all we really have is is hearsay. Still, I'll agree, my recollection may not be all that accurate; certainly the Examiner at the time said that "Neurosurgeons recommended that her life-support machine be switched off after determining she was clinically dead. However, lawyers for the HSE stepped in after another medical specialist treating the woman expressed concern about legal issues arising in the case." so perhaps it was more correct to say the Doctors excepting one wanted to discontinue somatic support, the dissenting doctor had legal concerns, and at that point lawyers for the HSE stepped in.
I'm happy enough to concede that at least one Doctor had legal concerns, whether those concerns emanated from, or were simply taken up by, the legal team
The POLDPA is the legislative environment that gave the Doctors legal concerns, and it doesn't rely on either the Constitution or the 8th Amendment. Neither the Constitution nor the 8th places any obligation on the Doctors in this regard, nor does it express a penalty for contravening it. The POLDPA does provide for a penalty to the doctors if they intentionally destroy unborn human life; which is why the Examiner at the time offered the point "Clinicians fear that they will breach their ethical and legal duty to preserve the life of this unborn child if they remove life support from this woman. Indeed, the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act exposes clinicians to a maximum term of 14 years imprisonment if they “intentionally destroy unborn human life”.". And the POLDPA obviously does not rely on the 8th; it's an independent piece of legislation which gives effect to the States obligation under the 8th, but if the 8th were repealed, the POLDPA would still be law (until someone decided to repeal that as well).
After reading that, I'm wondering did you bother to read the judgment in the case at all? Your post is littered with errors, beginning with the name of the plaintiff (it was P.P.) Several of the doctors who were directly involved in N.P.'s care were mentioned in the judgment and their testimony summarised. The POLDP Act, however wasn't mentioned, and the 8th Ammendment was mentioned, and discussed in detail, both wrt the case in question and how it applied in other relevant cases. As to you assertion that it is not a complicated piece of 'legislation', there was even disagreement as to what it means, and the nuances of the English and Irish language version. This was not the first, and won't be the last case before the courts where the nuances of the 8th are argued!
As to who brought the legal concern to light, but I have yet to see lawyers wandering the wards of our hospitals, and as they have no right to confidential patient records unless consulted, it would seem to be beyond reasonable doubt that it was the clinicians who first raised the legal question.0 -
Advertisement
-
There seems to be a bit of flip flopping going on here about whether the doctors were engaging in "experimental medicine" or whether they wanted to end the life support.
It was actually the brain specialists in the Dublin hospital who only had the patient for a short time, and were unsure about the legal situation of the foetus after they declared her to be brain dead. Which is only to be expected, as it is not their area of expertise. So they sent her back to the maternity wing of the hospital in the midlands, where she had been before the tragic fall.
It was Dr. Mortell in the maternity hospital who was then accused of engaging in experimental medicine by a different doctor. By a Dr. Colreavy who wanted to switch off the machine.
From the judgement;Dr. David Mortell is the obstetrician who dealt with N.P. and her unborn child. While he had provided a report, it was simply intended to address what he was doing at any particular moment in time and what might happen perhaps in the future. Having heard the evidence of Dr. Colreavy,he was now aware of the “dreadful state that the patient is in”. The mother’s temperature is going up, there is infection and her blood pressure is difficult to control. He now had great concern about her somatic care and about her chances of survival. Since he wrote his original report there had been an ongoing evolving situation which was getting worse day by day. Asked if he believed in the light of Dr. Colreavy’s evidence of deterioration in the mother’s condition that somatic support remained a viable option, he replied that he did not.
The real issue in that case was the question; at what stage do you stop imposing active life support on a dying person who is suffering? The question was not specific to a foetus, it could equally be applied to an adult.
If people want to take a pro-choice view, and say the foetus should have no rights whatsoever, then the answer (in that specific case only) would have been to disregard the foetus, and to discontinue life support as soon as the mother was declared brain dead. But that only side-steps the real issue.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Cool. My position on the 8th Amendment is simple and above. I don't think that the constitution is a suitable place for difficult and changeable legislation concerning an extremely nuanced issue.Deleted User wrote: »No smokescreen here. I'm quite open about it.0
-
ProfessorPlum wrote: »After reading that, I'm wondering did you bother to read the judgment in the case at all? Your post is littered with errors, beginning with the name of the plaintiff (it was P.P.)ProfessorPlum wrote: »Several of the doctors who were directly involved in N.P.'s care were mentioned in the judgment and their testimony summarised.ProfessorPlum wrote: »The POLDP Act, however wasn't mentioned, and the 8th Ammendment was mentioned, and discussed in detail, both wrt the case in question and how it applied in other relevant cases. As to you assertion that it is not a complicated piece of 'legislation', there was even disagreement as to what it means, and the nuances of the English and Irish language version. This was not the first, and won't be the last case before the courts where the nuances of the 8th are argued!
And discussing the specific meaning of the wording doesn't make it complicated; it just means there can be more than one interpretation of a simple phrase, which is why Judges rule on these things in the first place.ProfessorPlum wrote: »As to who brought the legal concern to light, but I have yet to see lawyers wandering the wards of our hospitals, and as they have no right to confidential patient records unless consulted, it would seem to be beyond reasonable doubt that it was the clinicians who first raised the legal question.0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »If I was arguing that, you might have a point. On the contrary, I would argue to repeal the 8th because it's a blunt instrument that makes it difficult to frame laws with the level of nuance required.oscarBravo wrote: »The constitution is no place for complicated legislation. When people argue against repealing the 8th amendment with the question "what would you replace it with?" the answer is simple: legislation.
But I wold say; it is simple, and makes it difficult to frame legislation with a level of nuance required to introduce infringements on the right to life of the unborn. And that's what it's for.oscarBravo wrote: »A simplistic article like 40.3.3 that grants a blanket right to life of the unborn has no other purpose than to require the state to criminalise abortion. The result is legislation like the POLDPA. We've already seen numerous problems resulting from that Act, and those problems are notoriously hard to fix because any fixes would likely run into the brick wall that is 40.3.3.oscarBravo wrote: »There are two possible answers: make the prohibition on abortion in the Constitution more nuanced, or remove it and deal with the issue in legislation where it belongs. I'm arguing for the latter.oscarBravo wrote: »Calling it a smokescreen suggests that those of us who believe women should have a right to choose whether or not to be pregnant are in some way coy about that belief, and feel the need to disguise it in some way.oscarBravo wrote: »Let me be crystal clear: I believe that a woman should have a right to choose whether or not to be pregnant. An unsubtle "right to life of the unborn" clause in the Constitution removes that right, and does so purely on the basis that a non-sentient clump of cells has a right to life that exceeds a woman's right to bodily integrity.oscarBravo wrote: »If you want to talk about smokescreens, we can discuss the repeated use of the word "baby" to describe non-sentient clumps of cells, for the specific purpose of clouding the issue.0 -
Duly amended Though that seems to be the only error you've pointed out, so littered might be overstating things!.
Try reading the judgement - you're sure to find some more. I even went to the bother of pointing them out to you, but I haven't the time, nor frankly could I be arsed to help you further.
Good luck out there in the big bad world. I imagine you don't interact with it much.0 -
ProfessorPlum wrote: »Try reading the judgement - you're sure to find some more. I even went to the bother of pointing them out to you, but I haven't the time, nor frankly could I be arsed to help you further.
"the doctors who were directly involved in N.P.'s care were mentioned in the judgment and their testimony summarised"
I never said they weren't, only that they didn't give testimony before the court that was mentioned in the transcript of the judgement.
"The POLDP Act, however wasn't mentioned, and the 8th Ammendment was mentioned"
I didn't say that the POLDPA was mentioned, or that the 8th Amendment wasn't, only that any legal concern of the Doctors would neccasarily be founded on the POLDPA, not the 8th.
"As to you assertion that it is not a complicated piece of 'legislation', there was even disagreement as to what it means"
Not complicated is not the same as not debatable.
"it would seem to be beyond reasonable doubt that it was the clinicians who first raised the legal question"
Which does not mean that their raising it wasn't as a result of information provided by their legal team.ProfessorPlum wrote: »Good luck out there in the big bad world. I imagine you don't interact with it much.0 -
That's the point of it being in the Constitution; whether or not someone finds it difficult, putting it in the Constitution makes it not changeable, other than by referendum. It makes it the least changeable legislation in the State.
The public opinion on the matter is and has been extremely intricate, nuanced, and from opinion polls across the state over the last 20 years appears to be extremely changeable and fluid.
The legislation is unable to accurately react and adjust to reflect this opinion because of the inflexible rule that it must inherit from.And that would not be an argument for removing the Amendment from the Constitution because it's too difficult to make it work properly, that would be an argument for removing the Amendment from the Constitution because it prevents access to abortion.
See above for the argument against having it in the Constitution. Same argument that I've been making the whole time!0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Well once again, isn't that exactly the point!?
The public opinion on the matter is and has been extremely intricate, nuanced, and from opinion polls across the state over the last 20 years appears to be extremely changeable and fluid.Deleted User wrote: »The legislation is unable to accurately react and adjust to reflect this opinion because of the inflexible rule that it must inherit from.Deleted User wrote: »See above for the argument against having it in the Constitution. Same argument that I've been making the whole time!
But really, if it were taken out of the Constitution, would you accept the exact same provisions in legislation? Or would you want to see somewhat different provisions, which reflect what you consider to be current 'difficulties and nuances', provisions which would not be possible to have with that Article in the Constitution? I suspect the latter rather than the former, which brings you back to what I said; it's not an argument for removing the Amendment from the Constitution because it's too difficult to make it work properly, it's an argument for removing the Amendment from the Constitution because it prevents access to abortion.0 -
Talk me through that logic.
Is it 'Laws that we feel might not accurately represent the will of the people should be pushed up to the Constitution so as to make them more difficult to change'?0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Talk me through that logic.
Is it 'Laws that we feel might not accurately represent the will of the people should be pushed up to the Constitution so as to make them more difficult to change'?
If it were thought something might not represent the will of the people, what reason would there be to put it to a referendum? If it's not the will of the people it won't pass. Unlike the 8th Amendment.
Still, Cearbhall Ó Dálaigh said "Constitutional rights are declared, not alone because of bitter memories of the past, but no less because of the improbable but not to be overlooked perils of the future". Which is to say, the logic is that placing such rights beyond ordinary legislative amendment safeguards them from the vagaries of politics and the fluctuations of opinion.0 -
Advertisement
-
I asked you to talk me through the logic and explained what I read it as. You could have talked me through the logic and said no if I was wrong (which you suggest).
Could you talk me through the logic of what you've suggested please? About how the nuance of the situation is an argument for having it the Constitution not against. Your logic behind your suggestion would be superb.
Thanks0 -
Deleted User wrote: »I asked you to talk me through the logic and explained what I read it as. You could have talked me through the logic and said no if I was wrong (which you suggest).Deleted User wrote: »Could you talk me through the logic of what you've suggested please? About how the nuance of the situation is an argument for having it the Constitution not against. Your logic behind your suggestion would be superb. Thanks
The logic behind placing rights in the Constitution (which is not a suggestion, we do it already) is that placing such rights as are made Constitutional by the will of the people (as in the case of the 8th Amendment) beyond ordinary legislative amendment safeguards them from the vagaries of politics and the fluctuations of opinion (that may sound a little familiar). So intricate, nuanced, extremely changeable and fluid public opinions cannot alter those rights without going through the same process as established them.0 -
Nice one.
Time to ask the people again so imo.
The process that would be required to make that change is a referendum and a referendum only.
I have no problem asking the people again. And respecting the will of the people on the matter.
A referendum regarding the 8th gives us the opportunity to test assumptions.
It would test my assumption that public opinion would agree that it is time to remove it and adequately legislate for access to abortion. Likewise, the assumption that the public at large would like to keep the amendment.
Making available the opportunity to test those assumptions is in both a pro and anti choice parties interests surely? If we do indeed both respect the will of the people and their ability to forge and edit the guiding document of our state.
I'd imagine both sides of the debate would be happy to avail of the chance to vindicate their position if that was the case.
What would be eminently undemocratic and disrespectful of that guiding document would be if people were against offering The People the chance to update or vindicate it.
It would open some very interesting questions if people wanted to rely on the document to vindicate a position (the people have spoken) but be against the proposition of asking the people to speak again.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Nice one.
Time to ask the people again so imo.
The process that would be required to make that change is a referendum and a referendum only.
I have no problem asking the people again. And respecting the will of the people on the matter.
A referendum regarding the 8th gives us the opportunity to test assumptions.
It would test my assumption that public opinion would agree that it is time to remove it and adequately legislate for access to abortion. Likewise, the assumption that the public at large would like to keep the amendment.
Making available the opportunity to test those assumptions is in both a pro and anti choice parties interests surely? If we do indeed both respect the will of the people and their ability to forge and edit the guiding document of our state.
I'd imagine both sides of the debate would be happy to avail of the chance to vindicate their position if that was the case.
What would be eminently undemocratic and disrespectful of that guiding document would be if people were against offering The People the chance to update or vindicate it.
It would open some very interesting questions if people wanted to rely on the document to vindicate a position (the people have spoken) but be against the proposition of asking the people to speak again.
My understanding is that the original (declared) motivation behind putting the amendment into the constitution was not so much to prevent any future change in society's general view of the question as to prevent a militant minority from using another part of the constitution, specifically the rights to privacy, to bring in a right to abortion against the majority's wishes.
That was what they felt had been done with Roe-Wade in the USA and it was felt there could potentially be a risk of a similar ruling at some future point in Ireland.
(This was despite the fact that such a militant minority didn't appear to exist at all in Ireland, since there was exactly zero pressure for such a court case in Ireland then. Which is of course why it's said with some justification that the 8th amendment is in fact what brought legal abortion into Ireland.)
So since the alleged reason behind the amendment was to prevent a minority firm enforcing its will on the majority, it makes perfect sense for there to be a test that it is the majority actually still wants from time to time.
Once a generation would be fair enough, IMO, so that people of childbearing age get at least one chance to express themselves on something that has a huge effect on their personal lives.Reem Alsalem UNSR Violence Against Women and Girls
: "Very concerned about statements by the IOC at Paris2024 (M)ultiple international treaties and national constitutions specifically refer to women & their fundamental rights, so the world (understands) what women -and men- are. (H)ow can one assess fairness and justice if we do not know who we are being fair and just to?"
0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Nice one. Time to ask the people again so imo.
The process that would be required to make that change is a referendum and a referendum only. I have no problem asking the people again. And respecting the will of the people on the matter. A referendum regarding the 8th gives us the opportunity to test assumptions. It would test my assumption that public opinion would agree that it is time to remove it and adequately legislate for access to abortion. Likewise, the assumption that the public at large would like to keep the amendment.Deleted User wrote: »Making available the opportunity to test those assumptions is in both a pro and anti choice parties interests surely? If we do indeed both respect the will of the people and their ability to forge and edit the guiding document of our state.Deleted User wrote: »I'd imagine both sides of the debate would be happy to avail of the chance to vindicate their position if that was the case.Deleted User wrote: »What would be eminently undemocratic and disrespectful of that guiding document would be if people were against offering The People the chance to update or vindicate it.Deleted User wrote: »It would open some very interesting questions if people wanted to rely on the document to vindicate a position (the people have spoken) but be against the proposition of asking the people to speak again.0 -
In fact, the judgement transcript oddly doesn't have any testimony from any of the Doctors engaged in the care of the unborn child at time, so all we really have is is hearsay.
The POLDPA is the legislative environment that gave the Doctors legal concerns, and it doesn't rely on either the Constitution or the 8th Amendment. Neither the Constitution nor the 8th places any obligation on the Doctors in this regard, nor does it express a penalty for contravening it.ProfessorPlum wrote: »After reading that, I'm wondering did you bother to read the judgment in the case at all? Your post is littered with errors, beginning with the name of the plaintiff (it was P.P.) Several of the doctors who were directly involved in N.P.'s care were mentioned in the judgment and their testimony summarised. The POLDP Act, however wasn't mentioned, and the 8th Ammendment was mentioned, and discussed in detail, both wrt the case in question and how it applied in other relevant cases. As to you assertion that it is not a complicated piece of 'legislation', there was even disagreement as to what it means, and the nuances of the English and Irish language version. This was not the first, and won't be the last case before the courts where the nuances of the 8th are argued!
As to who brought the legal concern to light, but I have yet to see lawyers wandering the wards of our hospitals, and as they have no right to confidential patient records unless consulted, it would seem to be beyond reasonable doubt that it was the clinicians who first raised the legal question.Duly amended Though that seems to be the only error you've pointed out, so littered might be overstating things!
I didn't say they weren't mentioned (or that their notes weren't referred to), only that the judgement transcript oddly doesn't have any testimony from any of the Doctors engaged in the care of the unborn child at time, so all we really have is is hearsay. None of the Doctors engaged in the care of the unborn child at time, presented testimony, did they? And If the Doctors who did testify presented what they read from the other Doctors notes or were told by those Doctors (which they did), would that not be hearsay?
I don't think I said it was mentioned in the case, did I? I said the Examiner offered an opinion on it, and that the Doctors had no reason to have any legal concerns based on the 8th since it placed them under no obligation, and subjected them to no penalty. Unlike the POLDPA, which does.
And discussing the specific meaning of the wording doesn't make it complicated; it just means there can be more than one interpretation of a simple phrase, which is why Judges rule on these things in the first place.
Yep, I'm pretty sure I agreed that it was a Doctor who had legal concerns, but as I said I don't think we can say where those legal concerns came from; it's neither in the transcript nor the reporting.Ah.. I thought I corrected those misapprehensions in the part of my post that you didn't quote. To save you worrying about helping me further, here's a quick recap.
"the doctors who were directly involved in N.P.'s care were mentioned in the judgment and their testimony summarised"
I never said they weren't, only that they didn't give testimony before the court that was mentioned in the transcript of the judgement.
"The POLDP Act, however wasn't mentioned, and the 8th Ammendment was mentioned"
I didn't say that the POLDPA was mentioned, or that the 8th Amendment wasn't, only that any legal concern of the Doctors would neccasarily be founded on the POLDPA, not the 8th.
"As to you assertion that it is not a complicated piece of 'legislation', there was even disagreement as to what it means"
Not complicated is not the same as not debatable.
"it would seem to be beyond reasonable doubt that it was the clinicians who first raised the legal question"
Which does not mean that their raising it wasn't as a result of information provided by their legal team.
Thanks. I'm happy to say that what you imagine has no bearing on reality
Ok, I know I'm probably wasting my time, but I'll just clarify some of the errors for you.
1. The title of the case, as already discussed.
2. The assertion that "In fact, the judgement transcript oddly doesn't have any testimony from any of the Doctors engaged in the care of the unborn child at time, so all we really have is is hearsay. "
Except the judgement does have testimony from her treating doctors, and testimony from her doctors was widely reported on in the press at the time (which might be considered hearsay to 3rd party readers, but was actual evidence in court.
http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/09859e7a3f34669680256ef3004a27de/fb8a5c76857e08ce80257dcb003fd4e6?OpenDocument
Dr. David Mortell is the obstetrician who dealt with N.P. and her unborn child. While he had provided a report, it was simply intended to address what he was doing at any particular moment in time and what might happen perhaps in the future. Having heard the evidence of Dr. Colreavy, he was now aware of the “dreadful state that the patient is in”. The mother’s temperature is going up, there is infection and her blood pressure is difficult to control. He now had great concern about her somatic care and about her chances of survival. Since he wrote his original report there had been an ongoing evolving situation which was getting worse day by day. Asked if he believed in the light of Dr. Colreavy’s evidence of deterioration in the mother’s condition that somatic support remained a viable option, he replied that he did not.
He honestly did not think there was any hope of the baby surviving with the “storm” that is going on around it and would give up all hope for the baby. The mother in the instant case has an open wound in her head, she has four or five tubes out of her body and is deteriorating rapidly. He and his team would be prepared now to withdraw somatic treatment in consultation and in liaison with the family members.
He was cross-examined as to why he had changed his view as to the prospects for the unborn child from the more optimistic tone of his earlier report. He answered that the infection which has become evident over the past few days “seems to be taking over”. He stated that if you have a dead brain that is infected it will be a constant seat of infection. He said that the brain itself is “liquefying” and thus pouring toxins into the blood stream. As this goes on, the deterioration of the mother’s condition will undoubtedly affect the baby and he did not believe that its viability would continue. He believed that “we have all the signs of the perfect storm and it does not seem to be improving”.
Finally, evidence was given by Dr. Stephen McNally, consultant neurosurgeon and national lead in neuro-oncology in the hospital to which N.P. had been transferred in Dublin in which he set out how on arrival she was incubated and ventilated. Her Glasgow coma score was 3/15 and her pupils were bilaterally fixed and dilated.She was taken directly to theatre from the A & E department at which time a right frontal bactiseal external ventricular drain was inserted. Intra operatively the cerebro spinal fluid was noted to be under high pressure.
On the 3rd December, 2014 a cerebral angiogram was performed which confirmed no intracranial flow to the anterior circulation and the basilar artery was narrow and displaced without any flow into the posterior cerebral arteries. These changes were consistent with brain death.
Having had to deal with the family of N.P., he found their frustrations and their humanity both touching and humbling. While he had seen some dreadful things in neurosurgery he had never seen this. It was very difficult not to be able to follow the wishes of the family because of uncertainty as to the legal standing with regard to the unborn child. Legal advice had been sought but no opinion in writing had been received prior to the time for a transfer back to the hospital outside Dublin. He believed that, having regard to N.P.’s condition when admitted to hospital in Dublin, that she was “probably gone” by the time she arrived in their door.
3. That the legal concern was founded on the POLDP act, and not the 8th amendment.
Skip to the part of the judgment entitled 'Legal Principals', where, unsurprisingly, the legal principals of the case are discussed. It is almost entirely taken up with discussion of the 8th amendment, whereas the POLDP act is not mentioned. Not once. Although not conclusive, it would be strange then if it was the POLDP act that gave rise to the legal concern.
In fact, also reported in the news at the time was the testimony of the treating neurosurgeon, where he described, with other clinicians of trying to work out the 8th amendment. Not the legislation, but the 8th. So, nothing to support that it was the POLDP act that caused the concern.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/pregnant-womans-life-support-should-be-turned-off-court-told-30860620.html
A leading neurologist, who cannot be named as he works at a hospital which cannot be identified under the terms of a court order, said he and colleagues had sought legal advices from authorities two days before the woman was declared dead on December 3, but none was forthcoming.
"We are not lawyers. We will, like all clinicians, err on the side of caution," said the consultant.
"We were three clinicians trying to figure out the eighth amendment."
4.That we don't know if it was the lawyers or the doctors who first raised the legal concern.
Now I've already explained to you why it couldn't have been the lawyers, owing to the fact that they would have not had access to the patients records. But if you look again at the report of the testimony of the neurosurgeon, it will confirm that it was he and colleagues who sought legal advice. Perhaps the other colleagues who were trying to work out the constitution?
5. That the 8th amendment is not complicated.
Well, here I wil bow to your superior power of thought, as I and everyone else it seems, finds the 8th a very difficult piece of law. So much so that barristers and judges spend days trying to work out exactly what it means.
Although I am probably wasteing my time here, because if Jesus Christ himself appeared to you and swore the facts, you still probably wouldn't be swayed from your own erroneous opinion.0 -
ProfessorPlum wrote: »In fact, also reported in the news at the time was the testimony of the treating neurosurgeon, where he described, with other clinicians of trying to work out the 8th amendment. Not the legislation, but the 8th. So, nothing to support that it was the POLDP act that caused the concern.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/pregnant-womans-life-support-should-be-turned-off-court-told-30860620.html
A leading neurologist, who cannot be named as he works at a hospital which cannot be identified under the terms of a court order, said he and colleagues had sought legal advices from authorities two days before the woman was declared dead on December 3, but none was forthcoming.
"We are not lawyers. We will, like all clinicians, err on the side of caution," said the consultant.
"We were three clinicians trying to figure out the eighth amendment."
It seems to have been a very sensible approach.0 -
They were neurosurgeons, and had little or no expertise in obstetrics or the legal implications of the 8th amendment. That's why they sent the brain dead woman with the live foetus back to the obstetrician, instead of switching off the life support.
It seems to have been a very sensible approach.
In other countries a phone call to the obstetricians would have been enough to ascertain that previous medical evidence pointed to the impossibility of a healthy baby ever being born given the circumstances (not only the time left before viability but also the treatments used to try to save the woman's life).
Do you really think it was a good thing to have to physically send the woman back, when it was clear that no-one thought the baby could live, they just didn't want to be the ones to take the legal responsibility of turning off the life support?
Subsidiary question : was she really sent to her initial maternity department? It would hardly be suitable to have a dead woman gestating in the midst of all the live ones, surely?
Or perhaps she was actually in the general ICU, but if so, wouldnt it have been better to have kept her in Dublin?Reem Alsalem UNSR Violence Against Women and Girls
: "Very concerned about statements by the IOC at Paris2024 (M)ultiple international treaties and national constitutions specifically refer to women & their fundamental rights, so the world (understands) what women -and men- are. (H)ow can one assess fairness and justice if we do not know who we are being fair and just to?"
0 -
ProfessorPlum wrote: »Ok, I know I'm probably wasting my time, but I'll just clarify some of the errors for you.
1. The title of the case, as already discussed.ProfessorPlum wrote: »2. The assertion that "In fact, the judgement transcript oddly doesn't have any testimony from any of the Doctors engaged in the care of the unborn child at time, so all we really have is is hearsay. "
Except the judgement does have testimony from her treating doctors, and testimony from her doctors was widely reported on in the press at the time (which might be considered hearsay to 3rd party readers, but was actual evidence in court.
In terms of the testimony presented in the transcript;
Dr Brian Marsh give testimony; the transcript doesn't say he was one of the Doctors engaged in the care of the unborn child at the time, but that he had seen the mother before giving testimony.
Dr. Peter Boylan also gave testimony, the transcript doesn't say he was one of the Doctors engaged in the care of the unborn child at the time, but does say he had reviewed the records, and the notes of the Doctors involved which included the concerns of Doctors in the Dublin hospital not currently caring for the patient that they were concerned not to do anything that would “get them into trouble from a legal point of view and were awaiting legal advice”.
Dr. Timothy Lynch gave testimony, the transcript doesn't say he was one of the Doctors engaged in the care of the unborn child at the time either.
Dr. Frances Colreavy gave testimony, the transcript doesn't say she was one of the Doctors engaged in the care of the unborn child at the time, but does say she had examined the somatically sustained corpse of the mother.
Dr. Peter McKenna gave testimony; the transcript doesn't say he was one of the Doctors engaged in the care of the unborn child at the time either.
Dr. David Mortell gave testimony, and transcript says he dealt with N.P. and her unborn child (not that he was dealing with). That he wasn't at that point one of the Doctors engaged in the care of the unborn child at the time (which was my point, if you recall) is indicated by the past tense used (dealt) and the fact that he wasn't up to speed on N.P.s condition; the transcript says 'Having heard the evidence of Dr. Colreavy, he was now aware of the “dreadful state that the patient is in”'.
Finally, testimony was given by Dr. Stephen McNally, the transcript doesn't say he was one of the Doctors engaged in the care of the unborn child at time either.
Have I missed anyone?
If it helps things move along (and I am conscious that you haven't the time, nor frankly could you be arsed to help me further), I'll happily stipulate that a less specific reading of the transcript could leave room for someone to conclude that one or more of the Doctors engaged in the care of the unborn child at the time was present and gave testimony. And, of course, that my assertion wasn't that no testimony was given by any Doctors who were directly involved in N.P.'s care at some point.ProfessorPlum wrote: »3. That the legal concern was founded on the POLDP act, and not the 8th amendment. Skip to the part of the judgment entitled 'Legal Principals', where, unsurprisingly, the legal principals of the case are discussed. It is almost entirely taken up with discussion of the 8th amendment, whereas the POLDP act is not mentioned. Not once. Although not conclusive, it would be strange then if it was the POLDP act that gave rise to the legal concern.ProfessorPlum wrote: »In fact, also reported in the news at the time was the testimony of the treating neurosurgeon, where he described, with other clinicians of trying to work out the 8th amendment. Not the legislation, but the 8th. So, nothing to support that it was the POLDP act that caused the concern.ProfessorPlum wrote: »4.That we don't know if it was the lawyers or the doctors who first raised the legal concern. Now I've already explained to you why it couldn't have been the lawyers, owing to the fact that they would have not had access to the patients records. But if you look again at the report of the testimony of the neurosurgeon, it will confirm that it was he and colleagues who sought legal advice. Perhaps the other colleagues who were trying to work out the constitution?ProfessorPlum wrote: »5. That the 8th amendment is not complicated. Well, here I wil bow to your superior power of thought, as I and everyone else it seems, finds the 8th a very difficult piece of law. So much so that barristers and judges spend days trying to work out exactly what it means.ProfessorPlum wrote: »Although I am probably wasteing my time here, because if Jesus Christ himself appeared to you and swore the facts, you still probably wouldn't be swayed from your own erroneous opinion.0 -
Advertisement
-
Do you really think it was a good thing to have to physically send the woman back, when it was clear that no-one thought the baby could live, they just didn't want to be the ones to take the legal responsibility of turning off the life support?
Subsidiary question : was she really sent to her initial maternity department? It would hardly be suitable to have a dead woman gestating in the midst of all the live ones, surely?
Or perhaps she was actually in the general ICU, but if so, wouldnt it have been better to have kept her in Dublin?
To answer your first question; if there was some doubt, then the woman's obstetrician should have visited the ward in the Dublin hospital. But in this case it would not have made any difference if Dr. Mortell had made that trip because he was obviously keen to maintain the life support as long as it was in any way feasible, and way beyond that too.
AFAIK the undead woman and the foetus were then kept in a private room back at the original hospital, while hooked up to the machine.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement