Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

The Randy Riverbeast

Cabaal wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/woman-who-reported-housemate-for-buying-abortion-drugs-defends-actions-1.2600585

I'd hate for her to catch me streaming game of thrones or committing blasphemy.

inocybe

frostyjacks wrote: »

A miscarriage is natural. Abortion is not. What this girl did was grotesque, and I'm surprised the judge didn't send her off for psychiatric evaluation. You'd want to have some kind of mental imbalance to do what she did.

You'd be surprised how thin that line is. The medication used as an abortion pill is not an illicit drug, it's also prescribed for other conditions. There are other medications contraindicated during pregnancy, use of which can inadvertently cause miscarriage. Some pregnancies have a tenuous hold, and who's to say what the final cause of loss is, abortion in the true sense is a very natural and very common process.

Cabaal

frostyjacks wrote: »

A miscarriage is natural. Abortion is not. What this girl did was grotesque, and I'm surprised the judge didn't send her off for psychiatric evaluation. You'd want to have some kind of mental imbalance to do what she did.

We'll make sure to get every women who miscarries at home a psychiatric evaluation asap, after all you appear to be able to diagnose mental health issues by magic. Should we call you Dr Frost?

As for your claim, I'm sure people thought (many still think) the same about gay people and women getting pregnant outside of marriage...sure you'd want to have something wrong with your head to do that.
:rolleyes:

I'd put forward the idea that any people that hate so many different groups of people in the world are much more likely of having some sort of "mental imbalance" then you claim this women has.

aloyisious

frostyjacks wrote: »

A miscarriage is natural. Abortion is not. What this girl did was grotesque, and I'm surprised the judge didn't send her off for psychiatric evaluation. You'd want to have some kind of mental imbalance to do what she did.

Re your thoughts on "some kind of mental imbalance" above, would you include the stress brought on by an undesired pregnancy?

On the basis of illegality, would you also prosecute the girl's housemates as being culpable and accessories after the fact? The two women, according to what one of them is reported as saying, were well aware that the girl was planning to break the N.I. law on abortion (she having motive, means, plan and opportunity to do so) but failed to report her to the PSNI before she got and self-administered the medicine to carry out the act.

Pherekydes

Meanwhile in Indiana, periods for Pence, where women ring up the Governor to tell him about their periods.

frostyjacks

aloyisious wrote: »

Re your thoughts on "some kind of mental imbalance" above, would you include the stress brought on by an undesired pregnancy?

On the basis of illegality, would you also prosecute the girl's housemates as being culpable and accessories after the fact? The two women, according to what one of them is reported as saying, were well aware that the girl was planning to break the N.I. law on abortion (she having motive, means, plan and opportunity to do so) but failed to report her to the PSNI before she got and self-administered the medicine to carry out the act.

One of the housemates tried to talk her out of it, even offering to be the baby's guardian. So I wouldn't put her on trial. I imagine they couldn't quite believe that the girl would just dump the remains in the kitchen bin. That's barbaric.

"He had fingers, little toes. Even now I just have a picture in my mind of it. It's wee foot was perfect."

Whatever name you want to call it, it deserved more dignity than that.

Absolam

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Well that is fortunate, because you certainly haven't been doing a very good job! And as to most of the medical testimony - like you the judges have no medical expertise, so much of the testimony is to set the scene and supply background information. After all, since none of the medical evidence or opinion was dissenting, the doctors certainly weren't trying to persuade each other. And if the Heidleberg study didn't exist, the outcome of the case would have been no different.

No idea why you feel the need to point out I'm not doing a very good job doing something I'm not doing; I haven't been doing a very good job building thermonuclear warheads whilst playing a harmonica either but it hardly seems relevant. Unless saying it just makes you feel a bit better? In which case it was cheap at the price. I can see you seem to think you can speak authoritatively as to the motivations of people who gave the testimony they did, but the thing is, with all due respect to psychic abilities, I don't believe in them. So when you tell me you know why people did something without them having said why they did, I don't believe you. I can't see that conversation going anywhere; I'm not going to take your word that you know what they were thinking.
As to whether the outcome of the case would have been different if the study didn't exist, I suspect you're no more able to read the Judges minds than those of the people who testified. That it might well not have been different won't change the fact that the study was presented, anyway.

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Really? Didn't you. Because it's mentioned several times. Ah, but perhaps with your lack of medical expertise you didn't notice it. The woman had a surgical operation on her brain, which had no blood flow. Unless a miracle had happened, there is an open wound to her brain.

You could be right, maybe it was my lack of medical expertise that caused me not to notice it. My reading skills are pretty good though. I read the inference in your statement for instance, where because she had a surgical operation on her brain, you've inferred an open wound to her brain. No idea why you didn't infer that any surgical incision wouldn't be appropriately closed (for instance in a manner that would relieve pressure on the brain without exposing it, with, say, a drain), but let's assume your inference is based on something outside the transcript, since you haven't offered reasoning from the transcript. Still, we have our first mention (almost) relevant mention; P.P said "He was aware that an operation on his daughter’s head had been carried out in the Dublin hospital to reduce the pressure but had been informed by the treating neurosurgeon that his daughter was dead". Not that she had an open wound to the brain, but had an operation on her head. Then we have two further references related to Dr Marsh's testimomy "deep infection related to the ventricular drain which had been removed from the right frontal area of the skull. There is a wound on the top right hand side of N.P.’s head which has become infected and which has grown organisms. Nothing about a wound to the brain either; though of course if we're to pretend that a ventriculostomy is a wound to the brain we'd have to acknowledge that it wasn't open; it was obstructed by the drain that had to be removed later. Meaning the case in front of the Doctors who placed N.P. on life support wasn't significantly complicated by an open wound to the brain.
Dr Boylan mentions N.P. "had experienced very severe damage to her brain.", and later "the open wound in the skull of N.P." No mention of a wound to the brain though...

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

But Dr Colreavy's testimony makes it clear: "This site has not closed and on examination there is a hole in the skull with brain tissue extruding." "the presence of a rotting brain which is leaking to the outside",

It's certainly clear that by the time Dr Colreavy examined N.P. the site of the surgical incision that had previously held a drain hadn't closed; that most assuredly doesn't make it clear that the Doctors placing N.P. on life support were faced with what Dr Colreavy observed, since she observed it almost a month later, some time after the drain had been inserted, and removed. Dr Colreavy also noted "a head wound needed to be dressed".
Dr McKenna mentions "the brain injury"
Dr Mortell refers to "an open wound in her head"
Dr McNally doesn't refer to any wounds at all, but he does quite usefully note that N.P. was incubated (direct from transcript, prior to objections) and ventilated before a right frontal bactiseal external ventricular drain was inserted, so at least we can be reasonably certain that if this is the wound referred to, it wasn't 'open' until after the drain was removed.
The Court, in detailing legal principles involved specifies "the death of its mother from brain injury", and
So, as far as I can see, that's all the mentions of wounds to the head and skull, and none of wounds to the brain, notwithstanding my lack of medical expertise somehow impinging on my ability to read and obscuring the fact that 'it's mentioned several times', as you say.

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Oh come on now. I know they knew the gravity and hopelessness of the situation because the doctors involved are well qualified, experienced and certified as experts. Ask any 1st year surgical trainee what the inevitable evolution of an open wound with no blood supply is and even they will tell you.

It's certainly apparent you think you know what they knew. As I said, I don't have any faith in your psychic abilities, sorry.

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

They were required by law to maintain the pregnancy, in an attempt to attain foetal viability. Certainly doesn't mean they thought they could do it!

Certainly doesn't say they were required by law to maintain the pregnancy, in an attempt to attain foetal viability. In fact the crux of the case was pretty much whether they were obliged by law to maintain the pregnancy if there were no prospect of foetal viability. It (and I) said "On the 17th December, 2014 a tracheostomy operation was carried out on N.P. to facilitate the continuation of maternal organ supportive measures in an attempt to attain foetal viability." An attempt was made to attain foetal viability, and no mention was made that this constituted a part of this regime of treatment that P.P. had previously been advised of. Going on the transcript (given my aforesaid lack of medical expertise) this event is set out as a distinct procedure for a purpose which was stated; to attain foetal viability. With all deference to any medical expertise you may have, I'm not inclined to think a Doctor will engage in a procedure to attain something they know (or even think) cannot be attained. So... I'm sticking with I'd prefer the testimony entered into the Court record over your own version of what happened at the time.

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

???? You typed up your conclusion earlier today. That Act has been in force since before this morning, and the bill has been under discussion for several years now! "so Doctors may, at their discretion, decide to withdraw somatic support whether the patient is born, or unborn (Re A (A Minor) [1993] 1 Med L Rev 98)."

I defy your psychic skills to prove that I couldn't have come to that conclusion long before I ever read the new Act Which is what I did, by the way.

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

"I imagine a Court will have an opportunity to rule on the notion at some stage." So you agree that it will go to the courts rather than being entirely left up to the discretion of the doctors. I agree. So does this barrister http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/eight-amendment-abortion-rights-2685815-Mar2016/

Of course I do! I hardly think the medical & legal professions give much weight to discussions on Boards.ie A&A, nor that the legal teams of a State funded body like the HSE are likely to decide that the wording of the new Act can be interpreted harmoniously with previous Judgements, when a Court can make that decision for them.

Absolam

I'm cutting you down to the relevant bits again, sorry!

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Except that that is not a fair representation of the transcript. The court did attempt to determine whether the foetus had a possibility of survival. To this end, Dr. Brian Marsh testified as to what had been recorded in the literature. He introduced (and misquoted) the study to which I have previously linked to show just how little evidence there was on this matter. The evidence which was presented was offered with no less than three separate caveats to indicate that no conclusion could be drawn from it's findings: The paper cannot, and this was made abundantly clear in the trial, be used to draw inferences about the survivability of the foetus in this case.

And yet it was presented, and you're not presenting any reason to think that the High Court didn't use it in considering just how likely survival might be for the unborn child. It contained caveats, assuredly, but in the Assessment of the Evidence and Findings of Fact the transcript says "The medical evidence clearly establishes that early gestation cases have a much poorer prognosis for the unborn child than those cases where brain death of the mother occurs at a later stage, usually improving after 24 weeks.", which certainly reads to me as if they took the study into account. As far as I can tell, three pieces of medical evidence referring to the prognosis of other cases are referred to in the transcript; the Heidelberg Study, Dr Marsh's paper on “Maternal Brain Death”, and a later report published in 2013 of little value. The transcript doesn't give us any reason to think the Court ignored any of what was presented from any of them.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

OK, first of all, at the sake of repeating myself, there weren't 7 cases. There were 8 cases in which brain death occurred at 17 weeks or less. So there is no 28% survival rate. There is no survival rate at all since neither the authors of the paper or the expert witnesses offered such an unscientific and simplistic analysis of the results

I've cut out the rest of what you said because, whilst it is certainly authoritative, interesting, compelling, terribly scientific, and ever so long, it literally has nothing to do with what I said. I'm not claiming Dr Marsh was right, that the study was valid for any given purpose, or any such thing. Just that it's what he put forward, and what is recorded in the transcript. The High Court at the time might have benefited from everything you've set forth, but it wasn't set forth. There may in fact not have been a 28% survival rate, but the information before the High Court was 2 of 7 survived, and that is a 28%(ish) survival rate.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

So what has any of this got to do with brain death and foetal survival? Well, as ProfessorPlum has explained the cases listed in the Heidelberg study cannot be used to make inferences about the NP case because the circumstances were so different.

And to cut you short again, the rest doesn't matter a whit; the Heidelberg study was presented in the case. Whether you think it can or cannot (more realistically could or could not) be used to make inferences in the case makes no difference at all.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Yes, you did claim that, just as you have done just now (highlighted above). Statistical power is not something that can be decided upon retrospectively, and the fact that twice now you seem to think so just shows how little knowledge you have about scienctific research and statistics. <...> It's not a matter of subjective choice, it's a calculated metric. I do wish you would attempt to understand this, instead of making off the cuff snide remarks as your profession is wont to do.

I think you've (again) missed what I said. I've made no claims whatsoever regarding what statistical power is, or how it can be used. I said, as you've highlighted, "what they think is statistical power". I've no idea what profession you imagine are wont to make off the cuff snide remarks (or why you'd tar a whole profession with such a brush, or what you think were off the cuff snide remarks).

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying and what Dr. Marsh opined in his expert testimony. He didn't introduce the study because it was significant or because it could be informative in predicting survival, he introduced it to show how little evidence exists on the matter.

On that I think we're going to have to simply disagree; it reads to me that he introduced the study because it supported his view that the situation concerning N.P. would quite quickly become unsustainable. That cross examination by counsel advocating withdrawal of support was aimed at drawing out the fact that he had also authored a paper noting that successful delivery of a live foetus had never been reported where pregnancies were less than sixteen weeks gestational age at the time of maternal brain death, and cross examination by counsel advocating maintainance of support was aimed at drawing out the fact that here had been, in fact, three survivors from the seven infants fitting into the relevant gestational category (regardless of your own information, that's what the transcript says, sorry), in my opinion supports my notion better than yours I'm afraid.

Absolam

MrPudding wrote: »

Perhaps unsurprisingly, I am not sure I agree with your analysis. Inchoate offence are different. I believe it is generally accepted that acts that are "more than merely preparatory" are what is required for there to be an offence. I think "close to completion" sets the bar a little too high. Now, what more than merely preparatory is suitably vague, and of course there is little guidance as to what was meant. I think it is fair to say that things are suitably vague to suggest that it is not beyond the realms of possibility to make out a reasonable case for attempted murder when a person has researched the requirements, booked and paid for the murder, made the required travel plans, all of which could be said to be merely preparatory, and then attempted to get on the plane. Getting on the plane could be argued to be more than merely preparatory, to use the phrase from Osborn in 1919, they are "on the job".

Sure. But no matter how you spin it, it all amounts to; travelling to commit a murder is not an inchoate offense. Attempted murder is an inchoate offense, and an element of the attempt could be travelling for the purpose. Getting on a plane, of itself, could not be argued to be an attempt, even if it could be argued to be in the context of other evidence more than merely preparatory.
And your assertion was a very straightforward "Of course travelling to commit a crime is a crime".

MrPudding wrote: »

"The point I am making in all this is that there are plenty of people that believe abortion is murder and it should be stopped. I believe, if abortion is considered to be murder*, that there is an argument to be made for travelling for an abortion to be considered attempted murder. Clearly you disagree, surely the courts would have to decide?

Well firstly, abortion would have to be reclassified as murder for it to be up to the Courts to decide if travelling for an abortion should be considered attempted murder. Secondly, they would from the outset have to view it in the context of whether travelling for murder has been been considered attempted murder. I'm not aware of a case in any jurisdiction where the act of travelling alone was enough to convict anyone of attempted murder have you? Nor yet where someone was banned from travelling for murder (as Cabaal wants pro-life advocates to lobby for).

MrPudding wrote: »

And the point is this, why aren't those who are trying to stop abortions calling for abortions to be considered murder and to prevent women from travelling, possibly by stopping them and charging them with attempted murder?

I think 'those who are trying to stop abortions' may be a new interest group being introduced here; you're not conflating them with those who support retaining the right to life of the unborn in Ireland, are you? I suspect 'those who are trying to stop abortions' suggest a group who most likely are calling for abortions to be considered murder and possibly even to prevent women from travelling and stopping them and charging them with attempted murder, but there are probably so few of them no one really notices. On the other hand, those who support the right to life may not be trying to stop abortions, for reasons similar to those I've given before; perhaps because they don't think legislating against travelling for abortion is likely to reduce abortions, or that Ireland has no business legislating for what happens in States with different laws, or simply that they realise there are battles you can win, and battles you can't.

MrPudding wrote: »

Come on, we are talking about the live of innocent children here... Even if it is unlikely to work should it not be attempted?

What course of action do you think could be taken to 'stop abortions' that has a possibility of being successful?

MrPudding wrote: »

* Clearly it would require a redefinition of murder as, which you point out yourself, abortion is not legally murder. I also find this interesting. You appear to consider that a foetus is a human, yet you seem to have no issue with them being killed not being classified as murder.

I have no issue with people being killed being classed as manslaughter either, or even being classed as involuntary manslaughter. I'm perfectly capable of understanding that the circumstances of a persons death may vary enormously and these should be taken into account when we judge their killing. I do have an issue with the killing of an unborn person not being treated as the killing of a person, whilst remaining perfectly capable of acknowledging that it's circumstances set it apart from other distinctions of killing.

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

Ref travelling to commit a crime, the woman who was shopped to the police by the travel agent with whom she tried to book a trip to Switzerland to accompany her friend to die there certainly seemed to have been considered as having planned a crime. She didn't even travel in the end, and yet was still tried in court for her attempt.

Interestingly, Gail O'Rorke was subjected to three charges; aiding and abetting by ordering a lethal dose of barbiturates from Mexico (sort of the equivalent of MrPuddings booking the murder centre; providing the means), "procuring" the suicide of Ms Forde by helping to organise her funeral, and attempting to aid and abet the suicide of Ms Forde by means of attempting to arrange travel to Zurich for such purpose; her defence argued that Ms O’Rorke could not be guilty of attempting to do something that never happened.

Anyway, given the other two charges received directed verdicts of not guilty due to lack of evidence, it seems the jury didn't think arranging to travel was a reason to find Ms O'Rorke guilty of an attempted crime, just like I was saying. It's nice when stories from other posters back me up from time to time

Absolam

Cabaal wrote: »

and that case has been discussed in the past but yet its ignored when it comes to the suggestion that if abortion is so wrong why are the "pro-life" groups not asking for travel for abortion to be banned.
There is of course only one reason, They know it will back fire seriously bad for them, they know it will ultimately result in the issue coming to a head and things changing. So for now they are happy to claim Ireland is abortion free (its not) and be totally ok with women traveling for abortion.

How are you getting on with banning travel for murder?

Cabaal

frostyjacks wrote: »

One of the housemates tried to talk her out of it, even offering to be the baby's guardian. So I wouldn't put her on trial. I imagine they couldn't quite believe that the girl would just dump the remains in the kitchen bin. That's barbaric.

But the issue remains that the housemate knew about the upcoming abortion and failed to act, if she cared so much she should have gone to the police before hand to stop it.

If you want to attack the women who went through with the abortion then you must also attack the housemate as she is negligent here for failing to act. After all she knew the whole thing was illegal from the start.

The housemate should be charged accordingly, its only right and fair.

Or to put it another way in a manner which you are more likely to agree with based on your posts towards them as a group,

If a Muslim knew of another Muslim that was going to kill a person using a bomb and they failed to act shouldn't the Muslim that failed to act be charged for failing to report the crime they had knowledge that was going to happen? After all they could have enabled the police to stop the murder.

Whatever name you want to call it, it deserved more dignity than that.

So incineration then?
After all thats whats normally done, of course if you think thats wrong then I guess hospitals and clincis in the UK and in numerous countrys throughout the world are also barbaric.

drkpower

I'm not sure what the utility of the hole in the head/brain argument is. Its worth bearing in mind that whether or not the doctors believed - at any stage - that it was possible/probably/likely that maintenance of somatic support could have attained foetal viability did not fundamentally change the (legal) dilemma they faced. So long as the foetus remained alive, it's right to life was engaged and the legal position was sufficiently unclear that court clarification was inevitably required.

Sad but true.

frostyjacks

Cabaal wrote: »

But the issue remains that the housemate knew about the upcoming abortion and failed to act, if she cared so much she should have gone to the police before hand to stop it.

If you want to attack the women who went through with the abortion then you must also attack the housemate as she is negligent here for failing to act. After all she knew the whole thing was illegal from the start.

The housemate should be charged accordingly, its only right and fair.

Or to put it another way in a manner which you are more likely to agree with based on your posts towards them as a group,

If a Muslim knew of another Muslim that was going to kill a person using a bomb and they failed to act shouldn't the Muslim that failed to act be charged for failing to report the crime they had knowledge that was going to happen? After all they could have enabled the police to stop the murder.



So incineration then?
After all thats whats normally done, of course if you think thats wrong then I guess hospitals and clincis in the UK and in numerous countrys throughout the world are also barbaric.

How do you know she knew about the upcoming abortion? "She didn't tell us they had arrived. The first I knew that she had taken them was on the Friday night when she said she was getting awful cramps." The housemate had no idea what was about to happen. If you have proof to the contrary, and believe she should be charged, you should report it to the relevant authorities.

volchitsa

drkpower wrote: »

I'm not sure what the utility of the hole in the head/brain argument is. Its worth bearing in mind that whether or not the doctors believed - at any stage - that it was possible/probably/likely that maintenance of somatic support could have attained foetal viability did not fundamentally change the (legal) dilemma they faced. So long as the foetus remained alive, it's right to life was engaged and the legal position was sufficiently unclear that court clarification was inevitably required.

Sad but true.

I gather (though I've skipped over much of that exchange) that this was pretty much what oldrnwsr and Mr Pudding etc have been saying, that the problem was the 8th amendment, not a reasoned judgment that the baby could get to viability in some sort of decent health - a belief the doctors may or may not have held, as you say, but which doesn't determine the fetus' legal rights.

Cabaal

frostyjacks wrote: »

How do you know she knew about the upcoming abortion?

She knew the women planned an abortion which is not legal, she had offered to take the child after it was born so she knew the women was pregnant before hand as well.

If she had any suspicions about an abortion being on the cards she should have gone to the authority's. After all the law is the law.

Or to put it another way which you might better understand, if one Muslim had any suspicions that another Muslim was planning on murdering somebody they should report it to the authority's and leave it be investigated.

Absolam

drkpower wrote: »

I'm not sure what the utility of the hole in the head/brain argument is. Its worth bearing in mind that whether or not the doctors believed - at any stage - that it was possible/probably/likely that maintenance of somatic support could have attained foetal viability did not fundamentally change the (legal) dilemma they faced. So long as the foetus remained alive, it's right to life was engaged and the legal position was sufficiently unclear that court clarification was inevitably required.
Sad but true.

I pretty much agree; whether or not N.P. had a hole in her head, the team of Doctors made the decision they did. However, I'd add the obvious caveat that the Judgement found that as there was no realistic prospect of emerging alive, the best interests of the unborn child were not served by maintaining somatic support. That's a conclusion in line with similar judgement regarding born patients, so what was unclear (and to be clear, the only thing I think was unclear was whether the Doctors were obliged by law to maintain support for an unborn child once they had the knowledge that such support was inevitably futile) became more clear. Potentially muddied further by the latest Act, but I don't see a reason why future judgements won't fall broadly in line with this one, bringing further clarity.

seamus

frostyjacks wrote: »

Whatever name you want to call it, it deserved more dignity than that.

So, would you prefer that it was put in a rubbish bag and incinerated in a big fire with a load of medical waste, or flushed down into the public sewer with mountains of faeces and toilet paper?

Because they're your only two options really. That's where all of the other foetuses of this age end up.

It's unfortunate that we take such great pains shielding people from medical reality, particularly where it comes to births and deaths. It causes people to have such incredibly skewed and naive ideas of what exactly happens during both of these processes.

frostyjacks

Cabaal wrote: »

She knew the women planned an abortion which is not legal, she had offered to take the child after it was born so she knew the women was pregnant before hand as well.

If she had any suspicions about an abortion being on the cards she should have gone to the authority's. After all the law is the law.

Or to put it another way which you might better understand, if one Muslim had any suspicions that another Muslim was planning on murdering somebody they should report it to the authority's and leave it be investigated.

She heard her talk about it, I haven't seen any evidence that she knew it was going to happen. Where have you seen that?

Cabaal

frostyjacks wrote: »

She heard her talk about it, I haven't seen any evidence that she knew it was going to happen. Where have you seen that?

She obviously took the discussion about having an abortion so seriously that she offered to be guardian of the baby if the women decided to go to term.

Thats not some flippant thing people just say in passing, she obviously took the idea that the women was planning an abortion very very seriously.

So she certainly knew the women planned on actually having an abortion, she should have reported these suspicions to the police and allowed them to investigate.

Instead she stood by and did nothing, much like the muslim would have in the example I've given.
For some reason I think you'd be far far less forgiving to the muslim.

volchitsa

frostyjacks wrote: »

She heard her talk about it, I haven't seen any evidence that she knew it was going to happen. Where have you seen that?

How much evidence would it be reasonable for them to have before going to the police? (I'm talking both possible Muslim extremist and pregnant woman wanting an abortion here, just to be clear).

Would the flatmates need more than repeated expressions of intent before going to the police, IYO?

Should they wait for evidence of stuff being ordered or actually delivered, or would they need to wait till they see the person in the process of making the bomb/taking the pills? Or what?

Cabaal

volchitsa wrote: »

Would the flatmates need more than repeated expressions of intent before going to the police, IYO?

Maybe they needed a signed letter stating the intentions (both the housemate and the Muslim)
:pac:

ProfessorPlum

drkpower wrote: »

I'm not sure what the utility of the hole in the head/brain argument is. Its worth bearing in mind that whether or not the doctors believed - at any stage - that it was possible/probably/likely that maintenance of somatic support could have attained foetal viability did not fundamentally change the (legal) dilemma they faced. So long as the foetus remained alive, it's right to life was engaged and the legal position was sufficiently unclear that court clarification was inevitably required.

Sad but true.

Sad but true also that most of Absolams musings head off on considerable and mostly irrelevant tangents! I think it started as a rebuttal to his inference of a 28% survivable rate in similar cases. Or at least that doctors giving testimony in the case had presented evidence that that was the case.

Oh, and he also doesn't believe that the foetal right to life that you refer to had anything at all to do with the 8th amendment.

Anyway, I'm glad that he finally did find the 'hole in the head' testimony, and that he does agree that in fact the doctors were obliged to endeavour to maintain the foetus, until the judgement of the court gave the discretion to the doctors.

Absolam

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Sad but true also that most of Absolams musings head off on considerable and mostly irrelevant tangents! I think it started as a rebuttal to his inference of a 28% survivable rate in similar cases. Or at least that doctors giving testimony in the case had presented evidence that that was the case.

Leaving aside the fact that a discussion of somatic support is a tangent to a discussion about abortion, you decided to take up cudgels with what I said, so you can only blame yourself... and no, you didn't start by attempting to rebut the 28% that survived.

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Oh, and he also doesn't believe that the foetal right to life that you refer to had anything at all to do with the 8th amendment..

Oh, I assure you I don't need you to speak on my behalf; I'm perfectly capable of saying what I believe without the aid of those psychic powers

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Anyway, I'm glad that he finally did find the 'hole in the head' testimony, and that he does agree that in fact the doctors were obliged to endeavour to maintain the foetus, until the judgement of the court gave the discretion to the doctors.

The hole in the head testimony I was pointing out while you were telling us of the many mentions of a wound to the brain? Hmmm.....
And I think you'll find what I agreed was what I wrote, not what you'd like me to have written.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

So evidence, reason and data, when it suits you, and anecdotes when it doesn't?

Another of your innumerable misrepresentations of what I said. I never said anything even REMOTELY similar to how you summarised it here.

No I still very much strongly believe in evidence, data, reasoning and arguments..... but I also see the utility of using SINGLE examples as a leaping off point to discuss them, frame them, and parse them. Because single examples as I said appear to influence people and catch their attention more than anything else. When one, for example, discusses the "X" case one gets a lot more involvement from the target of that conversation than.... say..... how their eyes glaze over hearing figures trotted out about the number of women traveling to the UK for abortions each year.

Single cases, single example, single stories can by a great discussion point to involve the other, get the discussion going, frame the concerns and agendas of those having the discussion. It is THEN that one brings in the argument, evidence, data and reasoning.

I hope that is clearer to people as to what my position is than the fetid and crass little straw man attempt you spewed out in my stead.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

So how does that square with this then -
Contradicting yourself all over the place.

It might contradict the straw man that you above made a transparent and shrill attempt to erect a conversation with in my place. It contradicts nothing I actually said however, nor any position I actually hold.

That the real me contradicts your pretend version of me, is your failing not mine, and of no concern to me.

But I note, as per 100% usual with you, you assert there is a flaw (in this case a contradiction) and then run off without actually fleshing out what the flaw actually is or what form it takes.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm not the only person that holds that view btw, it's a view held by many people

So? I fail to see how anything I have said about the view is affected by whether 1 person, 1000 people, or 1 million people subscribe to it? Quite literally your pointing this out has about as much relevance to my position on it as if you had told me you happened to be eating a chocolate sundae while you typed it.

You really do love your irrelevant and tangential post fillers. Do you have some minimum length you feel yours posts need to be or something, that you feel compelled to introduce complete irrelevancies to flesh them out?

I have explained exactly why I think it wrong to abort a baby, say, 1 or 2 weeks before their birth date. I have questioned the basis (none it seems) you have for thinking killing such a baby is different inside the womb as outside it, as location is an arbitrary nonsense method by which to assign human rights or moral implication, and I have described the basis for finding describing such a move as "Euthanasia" is as abhorrent as it is inaccurate.

And the sum total of your reply to ANY of that is "Oh well Hilary agrees with me"?

Wow. Just, simply, wow.

Lingua Franca

frostyjacks wrote: »

One of the housemates tried to talk her out of it, even offering to be the baby's guardian. So I wouldn't put her on trial. I imagine they couldn't quite believe that the girl would just dump the remains in the kitchen bin. That's barbaric.

It would be, if it were true (also disgusting and a health hazard), but she left it in a bag in an outside bin and the flatmates had to go bin hoking to find it. When you have to invent your own "facts" to get outraged over I wonder what your motivation is.

Whatever name you want to call it, it deserved more dignity than that.

I've been very open with you about what happens when women miscarry at home. According to you it "speaks volumes" about our "grotesque" and "barbaric" behaviour because "it deserves more dignity than that".

What do you expect us to do? Scrape the products of conception off the pads and out of our underwear and scoop bits out of the toilet for burial under a tree in a little white box? What method of disposal is allowed, FrostyJack?

Never mind answering, these are rhetorical questions. Your original assertion was boorish and judgemental and hurtful to ALL women who have lost pregnancies at home but you were in far too much of a rush to condemn and point the finger at this particular woman to consider just who and what you might be condemning, and your comments are only getting nastier. We get it, you hate what women do with their miscarriages. But it's already gruesome and awful enough to work through and we do try to keep it private.

Perhaps you could keep your thoughts on it private too.

drkpower

Absolam wrote: »

I pretty much agree; whether or not N.P. had a hole in her head, the team of Doctors made the decision they did. However, I'd add the obvious caveat that the Judgement found that as there was no realistic prospect of emerging alive, the best interests of the unborn child were not served by maintaining somatic support. That's a conclusion in line with similar judgement regarding born patients, so what was unclear (and to be clear, the only thing I think was unclear was whether the Doctors were obliged by law to maintain support for an unborn child once they had the knowledge that such support was inevitably futile) became more clear. Potentially muddied further by the latest Act, but I don't see a reason why future judgements won't fall broadly in line with this one, bringing further clarity.

As often happens in these cases, you have gotten a few things mixed up. The Judgement did not find that as there was no realistic prospect of emerging alive, the best interests of the unborn child were not served by maintaining somatic support. It found that the best interests of the unborn child were not served by maintaining somatic support simpliciter. One of the (many) reasons that influenced the court (as to what was in foetal best interests) was the fact that the child wouldn't be born alive, but it was only one of many. It may not seem it, but this is a very important distinction.

Also, to be clear, many many things were unclear before this judgment in relation to this specific case (and of wider application to these types of cases); too many to get into here, but its worth pointing out that while there is some additional clarity for doctors as a result of this judgment, the clarity really only extends to another almost identical case. Change some of the pertinent facts slightly, and a new dilemma arises.

To say as you do above that 'the only thing I think was unclear was whether the Doctors were obliged by law to maintain support for an unborn child once they had the knowledge that such support was inevitably futile' is just wrong. When this case arose, a load of pertinent legal matters were unclear:
- did the 8th amendment even apply to this case given it didn't relate to abortion?
- were the mothers rights part of the consideration given that she was all-but-dead?
- if a foetus is not capable of being born alive, does it have a right to life?
- is acting in a foetus' best interest (to withdraw life support) in breach of the 8th amendment to vindicate his right to life
- and many many more

When this issue arose, all of these matters (and more) were relevant and none were clear. Not all of them are clear even now. Some of these have been answered/clarified by PP, but loads of other questions haven't been (and more issues have been raised by PP).

That's the problem when you legislate for a massively complex area of medicine and law with one sentence. Similar areas of complexity have 100 page pieces of legislation devoted to them and still there are cases that fall between provisions. Anyone who criticises a doctor (or lawyer) from seeking court clarification in these types of scenario doesn't know what its like to be either.

volchitsa

I definitely wouldn't criticize a doctor from seeking legal clarification, nor indeed a lawyer from declaring that it was above his/her paygrade so to speak and required a court decision, but I do think the law here needlessly (i.e. due to the 8th amendment) never helps the medical situation but only ever creates extra ambiguities that could have been avoided otherwise.

The worst thing about that is that it means that in instead of doctors being able to make decisions in the patient's best medical interests, the lawyers, and often the courts regularly have to be brought to decide how far the legal situation will allow doctors to act in the patient's best interests. That can't be right.

frostyjacks

Lingua Franca wrote: »

It would be, if it were true (also disgusting and a health hazard), but she left it in a bag in an outside bin and the flatmates had to go bin hoking to find it. When you have to invent your own "facts" to get outraged over I wonder what your motivation is.



I've been very open with you about what happens when women miscarry at home. According to you it "speaks volumes" about our "grotesque" and "barbaric" behaviour because "it deserves more dignity than that".

What do you expect us to do? Scrape the products of conception off the pads and out of our underwear and scoop bits out of the toilet for burial under a tree in a little white box? What method of disposal is allowed, FrostyJack?

Never mind answering, these are rhetorical questions. Your original assertion was boorish and judgemental and hurtful to ALL women who have lost pregnancies at home but you were in far too much of a rush to condemn and point the finger at this particular woman to consider just who and what you might be condemning, and your comments are only getting nastier. We get it, you hate what women do with their miscarriages. But it's already gruesome and awful enough to work through and we do try to keep it private.

Perhaps you could keep your thoughts on it private too.

You're confusing a natural miscarriage (not a crime) with abortion (a crime). This girl ignored offers of help, was dead set on breaking the law and can count herself lucky not to be sitting in a jail cell right now. What it is about these people that they think the law doesn't apply to them?

Loafing Oaf

frostyjacks wrote: »

You're confusing a natural miscarriage (not a crime) with abortion (a crime). This girl ignored offers of help, was dead set on breaking the law and can count herself lucky not to be sitting in a jail cell right now. What it is about these people that they think the law doesn't apply to them?

You were making an issue of how the girl in the case disposed of the by-products of the abortion. Are you saying an aborted foetus deserves to be dispatched with dignity but a miscarried one does not?