The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

drkpower

New poll shows 76% support for same-sex marriage
The details were in the first opinion poll of 2015.
Jan 14th 2015, 9:45 PM

http://www.thejournal.ie/opinion-poll-2015-same-sex-marriage-1882262-Jan2015/

Bannasidhe

drkpower wrote: »

Are those not the figures from May 2015?
If so you are not really comparing like for like. Surely you should be comparing figures from earlier like Jan?

By May, in the last few day before the Ref, the Marriage Equality Campaign was playing a blinder while their opponents had continually shot themselves in the foot with insinuations about what would happen adopted children etc.

Bannasidhe

drkpower wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/opinion-poll-2015-same-sex-marriage-1882262-Jan2015/

Apologies. I don't remember it as being that close.

I must say, having been involved in that particular campaign from the start that they are two different beasties. While Mar Eq did bring out some of the nasty, that was effectively turned into a positive for the campaign because so many 'ordinary' people came out and that turned the mood. The anti side began to be seen as (can't call them) homophobic bullies.

Now - if we hear from the hundred of thousands of women who have been forced to travel for the last 30 years and their stories we might begin to see similarities.

I would also say that the Mar Eq people, myself included, haven't even begun to campaign for Repeal yet - but we will be and we have learned some valuable lessons. The question is - has Iona?

nice_guy80

great to see the RCC coming in with reasoned, rational debate once again...

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2018/0127/936344-catholic-bishop-warns-about-arguments-for-abortion/

"This is the final frontier," the bishop declares. "If we cross it, there will be no easy way back."

I always thought that space was the final frontier. Well that's what Jean Luc said. And I'd listen to him before a bishop.

A Catholic bishop has warned that the same arguments which are now being used to justify abortion will be used to justify ending the lives of frail older people and individuals with significant disability.
this is complete fear mongering

Zubeneschamali

I hope there's a bishop in the paper warning us about abortion every day until the referendum.

All they are doing is linking the 8th to the Catholic Hierarchy ever more firmly.

Annasopra

drkpower wrote: »

I'm not a fan of the 8th (far bloody from it!) but lets not overstate it.

Before 1983, and after 1983, before the X case, and after the X case, abortions were being carried out in Ireland perfectly legally for many medical indications (for ectopics being the classical example).

What the 8th (and the X case's interpretation) did was to legalise suicidality as a ground for abortion. Which is, eh, ironic to say the least! But irony aside, even now, and even post POLPA, i'm not even sure if an abortion has actually occurred under the suicidality ground (though may be wrong on that).

So it might be a little misleading to suggest that the 8th did the complete opposite of what was intended.

There has been 77 (reports from 2014, 2015, 2016) since the Act came into law.

Annasopra

seamus wrote: »

"Official" means recorded, standard medical practice.

I went looking (albeit not for hours) and could find no indication that abortion was standard medical practice in Ireland unless the embryo or foetus had no detectable heartbeat.

And if abortion was standard medical practice when there was a risk to the life of the mother, what happened to Savita? Why was Malak Thawley refused chemical intervention and told surgical was the only option?

Happy to be corrected though.

Where there is a risk to the life of the Mother the hospital must wait until the risk is greater than 50% until they can act.

Bannasidhe

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Where there is a risk to the life of the Mother the hospital must wait until the risk is greater than 50% until they can act.

And combine that with something fast acting like sepsis..:mad:

Loafing Oaf

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Where there is a risk to the life of the Mother the hospital must wait until the risk is greater than 50% until they can act.

Is this what happens in practice though? Surely we'd have a much higher maternal mortality rate if it was?

Bannasidhe

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Is this what happens in practice though? Surely we'd have a much higher maternal mortality rate if it was?

Similar to the difference between HSE 'on trolley figure' and the figure provided daily by the Nurses there is a discrepancy between the 'official' and the 'actual'

The number of maternal deaths in Ireland has risen sharply, and the pregnancy-related death rate is now higher than in the UK, according to a new report.

There was a 22 per cent rise in the number of maternal deaths in 2010-2012, according to the second report of the Confidential Maternal Death Enquiry, based in UCC. The period coincided with a number of controversial deaths of pregnant women, most notably Savita Halappanavar in 2012.

The rate of maternal death picked up by the report from hospitals and other sources is four times higher than official figures gathered by the Central Statistics Office from death certificates. The report, which says this issue is not unique to Ireland, recommends that a question on pregnancy status at time of death be added to the coroner’s death certificate.

There were 38 maternal deaths between 2009 and 2012. Ten were classified as direct maternal deaths, ie due to obstetric causes. Twenty-one were indirect maternal deaths due to pre-existing conditions exacerbated by pregnancy. The rest were attributed to “coincidental causes”; these are not included when calculating the maternal mortality rate.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/new-report-reveals-sharp-rise-in-number-of-maternal-deaths-1.2111831

Firstly - do you really expect that there is a section on death reports that covers 'treatment delayed until risk of life to mother was over 50%' ?
Secondly - Even one death is unacceptable when it could have been prevented by a termination of the pregnancy before things reached crises level.

Added to that do we know how many suicides have occurred due to unwanted pregnancy? Pro-Life Psychiatrist Patricia Casey claims there have been none but as it is not recorded on a Death Certificate if a suicide victim was pregnant unless each post-mortem result was researched and the figure complied from that there is no way of knowing...

We do know that those presented as suicidal are not always treated with sympathy and the system in place is not working - in addition to being a horrific ordeal to put a person in crises through in the first place.

A girl deemed to be at risk of suicide who wanted an abortion was sectioned under the Mental Health Act because her treating psychiatrist said terminating the pregnancy “was not the solution”.

The case is one of 22 reported by the Child Care Law Report Project, published this morning.

In the case, which was before the courts last year, an order was made to detain the girl on the evidence of a psychiatrist who said that while the child was at risk of self-harm and suicide as a result of the pregnancy, “this could be managed by treatment and that termination of pregnancy was not the solution for all the child’s problems at this stage”.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/girl-sectioned-after-psychiatrist-ruled-out-abortion-1.3116111

Concerns have emerged at senior HSE levels about the failure to always secure a psychiatrist to give a second opinion in cases where a pregnant woman is seeking an abortion on the grounds she is suicidal.

An internal document said in some cases it has meant the two psychiatrists and obstetrician, who are required under law to make an assessment in such cases, cannot be found.

Abortion is allowed in cases of suicide risk under the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act of 2013, which came into effect in 2014.

The abortion can only be allowed if the doctors agree she is suicidal. If she is turned down, the woman then can apply for a review before another panel.

However, in an internal report authorised by Dr Philip Crowley, HSE national director for quality improvement, the lack of availability of a "second opinion" psychiatrist at the initial assessment means that in some cases the woman's application is going straight to review.

Some consultants "are referring to the review process before exhausting all opportunities to get the required second opinion locally", the document obtained by the 'Medical Independent' revealed.

Objections

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/suicidal-women-struggle-to-get-second-opinion-when-seeking-an-abortion-36532604.html

Calina

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Similar to the difference between HSE 'on trolley figure' and the figure provided daily by the Nurses there is a discrepancy between the 'official' and the 'actual'

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/new-report-reveals-sharp-rise-in-number-of-maternal-deaths-1.2111831

Firstly - do you really expect that there is a section on death reports that covers 'treatment delayed until risk of life to mother was over 50%' ?
Secondly - Even one death is unacceptable when it could have been prevented by a termination of the pregnancy before things reached crises level.

Added to that do we know how many suicides have occurred due to unwanted pregnancy? Pro-Life Psychiatrist Patricia Casey claims there have been none but as it is not recorded on a Death Certificate if a suicide victim was pregnant unless each post-mortem result was researched and the figure complied from that there is no way of knowing...

We do know that those presented as suicidal are not always treated with sympathy and the system in place is not working - in addition to being a horrific ordeal to put a person in crises through in the first place.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/girl-sectioned-after-psychiatrist-ruled-out-abortion-1.3116111

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/suicidal-women-struggle-to-get-second-opinion-when-seeking-an-abortion-36532604.html

Access to relevantly qualified personnel in assessing how suicidal or not a candidate for abortion was was highlighted as a major risk in particular for women who were dealt with the health system outside Dublin. It doesn't surprise me that there is some suggestion that there are now issues with that.

Ralf and Florian

How stupid is this? It's the likes of this wan (Steph F) who will swing the undecided towards voting in favour of the 8th.



https://twitter.com/Stephanenny/status/956885048044769280

pitifulgod

Hmmm, posting random tweets that are pretty reasonable overall but outraged you, so you must tell the world. :P

Water John

Just to be clear, any sign of sepsis and medical will and should act, with medical intervention. Anything less is very poor practice, irrespective of the 8th.

Ralf and Florian

pitifulgod wrote: »

Hmmm, posting random tweets that are pretty reasonable overall but outraged you, so you must tell the world. :P

You find the tone of that tweet reasonable?

Pherekydes

Ralf and Florian wrote: »

How stupid is this? It's the likes of this wan (Steph F) who will swing the undecided towards voting in favour of the 8th.



https://twitter.com/Stephanenny/status/956885048044769280

Should have posted a few more of the answers:
https://twitter.com/samrboland/status/956894224879947781

Bannasidhe

Water John wrote: »

Just to be clear, any sign of sepsis and medical will and should act, with medical intervention. Anything less is very poor practice, irrespective of the 8th.

In the gap between should be and will be lies death.

From the H.S.E Report into the death of Savita Halappanavar:

Our investigation established that hospital guidance assumes four-hour monitoring of patient observations for patients with premature rupture of membranes. However, in this case monitoring of the patient who had prolonged rupture of membranes was less frequent (See Appendix F). There was inadequate assessment and monitoring that would have enabled
the clinical team to recognise and respond to the signs that the patient’s condition was deteriorating due to infection, together with non adherence to guidelines for the prompt and effective management of sepsis, severe sepsis and septic shock when it was suspected or diagnosed. The modified Obstetric Early Warning Score (mOEWS) observation chart was not in use in some hospitals at the time of this incident for pregnant women on gynaecology
wards.
We considered that the patient’s condition involved prolonged rupture of membranes, which is associated with increasing risk of infection with the progress of time. In this case, the patient’s condition was rare and serious. There was a lack of recognition of the gravity of the situation and of the increasing risk to the mother which led to passive approaches and delays
in aggressive treatment.
This appears to have been either due to the way the law was interpreted in dealing with the case or the lack of appreciation of the increasing risk to the mother and the earlier need for delivery of the fetus.
When the patient and her husband enquired about the possibility of having a termination, this was not offered or considered possible by the clinical team until the afternoon of the 24th of October due to their assessment of the legal context in which their clinical professional judgement was to be exercised.

http://cdn.thejournal.ie/media/2013/06/savita-halappanavar-hse-report.pdf

Annasopra

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Apologies. I don't remember it as being that close.

I must say, having been involved in that particular campaign from the start that they are two different beasties. While Mar Eq did bring out some of the nasty, that was effectively turned into a positive for the campaign because so many 'ordinary' people came out and that turned the mood. The anti side began to be seen as (can't call them) homophobic bullies.

Now - if we hear from the hundred of thousands of women who have been forced to travel for the last 30 years and their stories we might begin to see similarities.

I would also say that the Mar Eq people, myself included, haven't even begun to campaign for Repeal yet - but we will be and we have learned some valuable lessons. The question is - has Iona?

Just wait until Iona gets its Anerican buddies to pour millions into social media advertising.

Annasopra

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Is this what happens in practice though? Surely we'd have a much higher maternal mortality rate if it was?

Yes because the life of the unborn is equal to that of the mother!!!!

Annasopra

Water John wrote: »

Just to be clear, any sign of sepsis and medical will and should act, with medical intervention. Anything less is very poor practice, irrespective of the 8th.

You cant say "irrespective of the 8th" The 8th means the woman cannot have medical intervention until her need is greater than the unborn. It puts lives in danger.

darkdubh

Ralf and Florian wrote: »

How stupid is this? It's the likes of this wan (Steph F) who will swing the undecided towards voting in favour of the 8th.



https://twitter.com/Stephanenny/status/956885048044769280

Am the only person who finds it weird when Irish call out other Irish people for being white?

Bannasidhe

darkdubh wrote: »

Am the only person who finds it weird when Irish call out other Irish people for being white?

No. Simon Zebo and Paul McGrath find it weird too.

PopePalpatine

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Just wait until Iona gets its Anerican buddies to pour millions into social media advertising.

I'm sure that'd be plenty for a small platoon of faux-fence-sitting tone police.

Water John

My info from medical people, that have had to deal with such situations, is that once their is any sign of sepsis, they act and urgently.
Close ongoing monitoring of the situation is key. Sepsis places the mothers life in serious danger and would be acted upon, always.

Cabaal

nice_guy80 wrote: »

"This is the final frontier," the bishop declares. "If we cross it, there will be no easy way back."

A divorce will mean familys will no longer exist
:rolleyes:

Bannasidhe

Water John wrote: »

My info from medical people, that have had to deal with such situations, is that once their is any sign of sepsis, they act and urgently.
Close ongoing monitoring of the situation is key. Sepsis places the mothers life in serious danger and would be acted upon, always.

As the H.S.E's own report showed - this did not happen.

It's all very well having policies and procedures but unless they are actually acted upon they are useless.

Added to that -the new protocols were only introduced 5 years ago resulting in a 30% drop in mortality rates since Savita Halappanavar's but still 1 in 5 die.

Nearly one-in-five patients who develops sepsis dies of the condition, it emerged today.

This is despite a 30 per cent drop in hospital deaths from sepsis in the last five years...
... The report outlines that there were over 14,000 cases of sepsis nationally documented last year. [2016]

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/oneinfive-people-who-develop-sepsis-will-die-of-condition-36103136.html

1 in 5 of 14,000 is 2,800 deaths from sepsis in 2016.

mrmac

Bannasidhe wrote: »

1 in 5 of 14,000 is 2,800 deaths from sepsis in 2016.

That's shocking!

How many of those 14,000 cases were pregnancy related?

Bannasidhe

mrmac wrote: »

That's shocking!

How many of those 14,000 cases were pregnancy related?

Trying to find out.

volchitsa

mrmac wrote: »

Bannasidhe wrote: »

1 in 5 of 14,000 is 2,800 deaths from sepsis in 2016.

That's shocking!

How many of those 14,000 cases were pregnancy related?

Probably not many, as there are many other causes, including simple cuts and scratches, but more usually it's people with chronic illnesses or who have had surgery.

However it's a fact that sepsis is a particular danger in pregnancy because it concerns young otherwise healthy women, and it's the pregnancy itself which means that the sepsis is likely to progress much faster than it normally would. 

Treating sepsis in pregnancy like an infected finger, where a wait and see approach is probably not too risky, is sheer recklessness.

volchitsa

mrmac wrote: »

Bannasidhe wrote: »

1 in 5 of 14,000 is 2,800 deaths from sepsis in 2016.

That's shocking!

How many of those 14,000 cases were pregnancy related?

Probably not many, as there are many other causes, including simple cuts and scratches, but more usually it's people with chronic illnesses or who have had surgery.

However it's a fact that sepsis is a particular danger in pregnancy because it concerns young otherwise healthy women, and it's the pregnancy itself which means that the sepsis is likely to progress much faster than it normally would. 

Treating sepsis in pregnancy like an infected finger, where a wait and see approach is probably not too risky, is sheer recklessness.

Nettle Soup

Is it me or are all pro-life folks very easy to spot? They all seem to have certain similar traits.

freshpopcorn

Nettle Soup wrote: »

Is it me or are all pro-life folks very easy to spot? They all seem to have certain similar traits.

I find the middle of the road hard people to spot but the people who are big into the repeal campaign and the remain campaign are generally easy to spot. However I do know a few people who were big into the marriage referendum and wouldn't be mass goers and would be young men/women and they want to keep the eighth amendment.

SusieBlue

Sinn Fein TD Donnchadh O’Laoighre has come out in support of removing the 8th, just watched an excellent speech he made on the subject on Facebook.

Edward M

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Sinn Fein TD Donnchadh O’Laoighre has come out in support of removing the 8th, just watched an excellent speech he made on the subject on Facebook.

What'd he say about the choice argument?
Not being smart now, genuine question, I'd like the eighth repealed too.

david75

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I find the middle of the road hard people to spot but the people who are big into the repeal campaign and the remain campaign are generally easy to spot. However I do know a few people who were big into the marriage referendum and wouldn't be mass goers and would be young men/women and they want to keep the eighth amendment.

^^obvious youth defence sleeper account post.

freshpopcorn

david75 wrote: »

^^obvious youth defence sleeper account post.

The basic point of my post is you can't guarantee that somebody is pro-life or Pro choice just based on how they voted in the marriage referendum and if you want this repealed you got to vote.

david75

freshpopcorn wrote: »

The basic point of my post is you can't guarantee that somebody is pro-life or Pro choice just based on how they voted in the marriage referendum and if you want this repealed you got to vote.

I was joking but the body of the text is a tactic currently being employed by pro life in a lot of places to try work into people’s heads that it’s ok to vote against it.
It’s a new tactic at least but it’s transparent and not as obvious yet weirdly insidious.

Annasopra

Water John wrote: »

My info from medical people, that have had to deal with such situations, is that once their is any sign of sepsis, they act and urgently.
Close ongoing monitoring of the situation is key. Sepsis places the mothers life in serious danger and would be acted upon, always.

Yes but they cant act until the mothers life is more than 50% in danger!!!!

Water John

Where are you digging this 50% up from? Any sepsis is potentially lethal. Woman's life is at risk. You have to intervene, medically.
Interpreting it any other way is just, poor medical practice.

Annasopra

david75 wrote: »

I was joking but the body of the text is a tactic currently being employed by pro life in a lot of places to try work into people’s heads that it’s ok to vote against it.
It’s a new tactic at least but it’s transparent and not as obvious yet weirdly insidious.

Yep. And I have seen all these fake LGBT4LIFE social media accounts. Its bizarre because they are sharing stuff from Iona and pals!

I agree on this. And there is a lot of "oh well it was obvious the marriage referendum would pass but repeal campaigners will be shocked"

The other tactic I have seen is distancing from the Catholic Church coming from rabid Catholics.

Annasopra

Water John wrote: »

Where are you digging this 50% up from? Any sepsis is potentially lethal. Woman's life is at risk. You have to intervene, medically.
Interpreting it any other way is just, poor medical practice.

The foetus has an equal right to life of the pregnant woman therefore medics have to wait until the womans life is more in danger.

Water John

You are incorrect, woman's live has priority and once there is risk to her life, medics must act.
You don't seem to understand sepsis, which is a virulent, possibly fatal, infection.
It's very presence puts the woman's life at risk and must be acted on, without delay.
Nobody is waiting for a % risk to be analysed. Doctor, should and would be before the Medical Council for gross negligence.

Spanish Eyes

There is oodles of money behind American pro life entities.

They are staying quiet for now, but wait for it.

Martina1991

Joeytheparrot wrote:

Yes but they cant act until the mothers life is more than 50% in danger!!!!

So doctors have to wait until a woman is 50% septic?

Septicaemia progresses very rapidly and must be treated immediately. Along with other conditions such as HELLP, haemorrhage, high blood pressure etc.

I don't know why you're saying things that you can't back up medically.

Spanish Eyes

Pills are available for women to terminate at home without any medical supervision within the twelve week window.

That won't change, so the game is up.

Has anyone heard of an arrest or confiscation of these drugs yet?

Spanish Eyes

Water John wrote: »

You are incorrect, woman's live has priority and once there is risk to her life, medics must act.
You don't seem to understand sepsis, which is a virulent, possibly fatal, infection.
It's very presence puts the woman's life at risk and must be acted on, without delay.
Nobody is waiting for a % risk to be analysed. Doctor, should and would be before the Medical Council for gross negligence.

I would not trust them to act in favour of a woman right now, she is just a womb in many eyes going on the current laws. Well we know what happened when they didn't.

We don't know how many mother's lives have been lost due to sepsis and inability to act to save her apart from Ms Savita do we?

The laws are opaque, and medics must be terrified of breaking such current laws.

Water John

Most of these misadventures occur when staff are afraid to call in senior doctors, when in doubt. Not because of constitution or legislation.
Largely have nothing to do with the current debate.

Zubeneschamali

Water John wrote: »

Most of these misadventures occur when staff are afraid to call in senior doctors, when in doubt. Not because of constitution or legislation.
Largely have nothing to do with the current debate.

Baloney. Savita requested an abortion and was turned down. She would be alive today (and might have more children!) if not for the 8th.

Water John

Water John wrote: »

Most of these misadventures occur when staff are afraid to call in senior doctors, when in doubt. Not because of constitution or legislation.
Largely have nothing to do with the current debate.

They do though, when the reason the staff are afraid is because of the 8th!

Martina1991

Water John wrote:

Most of these misadventures occur when staff are afraid to call in senior doctors, when in doubt. Not because of constitution or legislation. Largely have nothing to do with the current debate.

I wouldn't like to think doctors would make life threatening decisions because they were "afraid" to ask for help.

It'd be more likely that there was no consultant available at the time of an emergency.