The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

.......

This post has been deleted.

Sheeps

Ryan Air flights to the UK for an abortion would probably be a lot cheaper than getting an abortion here, just saying.

mahamageehad

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

1 was my preference until the Citizen's Assembly report, now I like 6, their recommendation.

Based on what I heard of the comments after the vote yesterday, most seem to prefer option 1, despite the CA recommendations. There was a worry about inserting anything else into the constitution and it has been suggested that perhaps the legal burden of certainty was stressed too heavily in the CA. It'll be interesting to see how the conversations progress.

eviltwin

Sheeps wrote: »

Ryan Air flights to the UK for an abortion would probably be a lot cheaper than getting an abortion here, just saying.

Not for an FFA. It would be free here as opposed to the thousands it costs to go to the UK. The money is just one aspect though, even if you can afford to travel its still a physically demanding trip that involves unnecessary surgery. There is no aftercare when the woman returns. It is a ridiculous situation.

mahamageehad

seamus wrote: »

There is no provision in law or the constitution for a "preferendum", it's not legally possible to do.

At best you could hold a non-binding plebiscite to ask the public which wording they would prefer to then have a referendum on. But that seems wasteful - especially when the government could just ignore the outcome and choose their own wording.
The citizen's assembly has already done the selection of the wording by proxy, and that's the way it should go really.

It probably will - when you have a committee where all of the experts are on one side making the same recommendation and the only committee members proposing anything else are two religious ignoramuses with no expertise in the area, it's clear what needs to be done.

Yeah I saw that clarified earlier today that a preferendum would be unconstitutional. This guy gives a good legal rundown on the options, 1 and 6 being easiest to implement. https://medium.com/@WilliamQuill/referendum-should-take-abortion-out-of-the-courts-4abb791614ed

January

Sheeps wrote: »

Ryan Air flights to the UK for an abortion would probably be a lot cheaper than getting an abortion here, just saying.

For those who can travel, it costs over 600 euro to get an abortion in England, that's without travel costs, accommodation, the cost of taking time off work, and that's just costs in euros. There's also the hassle of having to get other children minded, actually taking that time off work (making up an excuse at short notice to your boss) etc.

And that's just for an abortion before 16 weeks, for FFA you're looking at double that cost.

nice_guy80

I can imagine how lonely a journey that must be over to the uk for a procedure like that

just because its prohibited in Ireland

January

nice_guy80 wrote: »

I can imagine how lonely a journey that must be over to the uk for a procedure like that

just because its prohibited in Ireland

Yeah often they can't afford to pay for another person to travel with them, so have to travel alone. Which presents its own set of problems also, if one becomes unwell while travelling then they've no one to look after them.

nozzferrahhtoo

Sheeps wrote: »

Ryan Air flights to the UK for an abortion would probably be a lot cheaper than getting an abortion here, just saying.

As if money was the only thing in consideration though?

Firstly this is basically an invasive surgery. Which can come with all kinds of side effects and emotions. Do you not think a woman might prefer to be in familiar and comfortable surroundings?

Secondly a lot of women change their mind. However since the time and effort to travel to the UK is high for some women in financial or other duress..... some may feel compelled by thinking "Well I am here now, I best go through with it" because they know they might not be able to come back again if they RE change their mind.

Third I am not convinced it even WOULD be cheaper. Ryanair and low fares airlines have us thinking flights are cheap, but when you add up all the associated costs, accommodation, foods, travel from isolated airports no where near the city they are named for and so forth.... it can really add up.

Fourth who even cares what is cheaper? The question is should we as a nation be offering this service at all, or not. That is a stand alone moral and ethical question and to hell with the costs of getting it elsewhere.

Fifth, it might be cheaper for her to travel ALONE to the UK. But why do we want her to be alone when electing for such a procedure. Might she not want people with her? What of the costs of that?

Sixth, you assume the procedure goes well. What if it does not. Said women is then in a foreign country, suffering from medical complications. Would she not be better off at home near her own hospitals, and on her own medical insurance and so forth?

Should I go on, or is this enough to show just how poorly thought out your comment was?

spookwoman

The whole system needs to be overhauled. They need to bring in maintenance, I also believe that women also need to take responsibility if they choose to go through with the pregnancy.

Grayson

Just to update with what onne of our senators said today.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/ronan-mullen-strongly-criticised-for-comments-on-savita-1.3262015

Independent Senator Ronan Mullen has been strongly criticised for comments he made today on the circumstances in which Savita Halappanavar died.
Mr Mullen claimed Ms Halappanavar would not have been in hospital and would not have died if abortion had been available in Ireland when she died in 2012.
Mr Mullen made the comment in response to questions on RTÉ’s Today with Sean O’Rourke about whether Ms Halappanavar would still be alive if she was given a termination when she asked for one.
The Senator replied: “If there was abortion on demand she wouldn’t have been in the hospital because she wouldn’t have been pregnant and she wouldn’t have been having a miscarriage.”
Ms Halappanavar (31) died on October 28th, 2012 at Galway University Hospital, one week after she presented with back pain and was found to be miscarrying her 17-week pregnancy.

The man is scum.

cnocbui

spookwoman wrote: »

The whole system needs to be overhauled. They need to bring in maintenance, I also believe that women also need to take responsibility if they choose to go through with the pregnancy.

They get to choose?

If only!

cnocbui

Grayson wrote: »

Just to update with what onne of our senators said today.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/ronan-mullen-strongly-criticised-for-comments-on-savita-1.3262015




The man is scum.

So he's scum for being right and stating the uncomfortable truth?

PopePalpatine

Grayson wrote: »

The man is scum.

It reminds me of when the RCC canonised a woman who died as a result of her pregnancy. Mullen probably thinks, "That's one less infidel to complain about a lack of godless schools!"

rainbow kirby

cnocbui wrote: »

So he's scum for being right and stating the uncomfortable truth?

She had a wanted pregnancy and only asked for a termination when she, a healthcare professional herself, knew it was failing.

January

cnocbui wrote: »

So he's scum for being right and stating the uncomfortable truth?

Savitas pregnancy was planned and wanted. They only requested termination when they knew that the foetus was not going to survive. It disgusts me that Ronan Mullen can get away with such comments. Vile cretinous man.

Akrasia

January wrote: »

Savitas pregnancy was planned and wanted. They only requested termination when they knew that the foetus was not going to survive. It disgusts me that Ronan Mullen can get away with such comments. Vile cretinous man.

Its the smug way he lies that gets me.

cnocbui

rainbow kirby wrote: »

She had a wanted pregnancy and only asked for a termination when she, a healthcare professional herself, knew it was failing.

So she would be alive today if she had bad the termination she asked for?

January

cnocbui wrote: »

So she would be alive today if she had bad the termination she asked for?

Yes. She would be. As stated several times by many health care professionals who've reviewed her case.

The 8th amendment killed Savita.

Grayson

cnocbui wrote: »

So she would be alive today if she had bad the termination she asked for?

Probably.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/eighth-amendment-played-major-role-in-savita-s-death-1.3261037

and if that's not enough, go read the HIQA report. It's very clear in the report. It can't be guaranteed that she would have lived but it was guaranteed that she'd die without a termination.

Grayson

cnocbui wrote: »

So he's scum for being right and stating the uncomfortable truth?

It's a clear lie that he said. Savita wanted to be pregnant.

cnocbui

Grayson wrote: »

It's a clear lie that he said. Savita wanted to be pregnant.

Yes, I got that he was lying about that bit but he was nonetheless correct about her still being alive if she had been able to get the termination she ultimately requested.

January

cnocbui wrote: »

Yes, I got that he was lying about that bit but he was nonetheless correct about her still being alive if she had been able to get the termination she ultimately requested.

No he implied that she had wanted a termination from the start of her pregnancy.

Hotblack Desiato

The NUI graduates who voted for that man really need to take a long, hard look at themselves.

Although half of them are probably priests from Maynooth :rolleyes:

PopePalpatine

Hands up, how many pro-choicers needed the likes of Mullen to repulse them off the fence?

Huntergonzo

We need more of Ronan Mullen, I'm telling yous, he's a horrible piece of shít but who better to represent the anti-abortion side, he can do nothing but harm to their cause.

Just look at his rotten performance today, he tried to claim that Savita would have terminated her pregnancy early. Then later on when given the opportunity to apologize for that blatant and shameless lie he just got plain ole pathetic/desperate by backing away from his comments and of course by trying to divert.

PopePalpatine

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The NUI graduates who voted for that man really need to take a long, hard look at themselves.

Although half of them are probably priests from Maynooth :rolleyes:

Hey, don't look at me, I only graduated in September 2016.

thee glitz

January wrote: »

Yes. She would be. As stated several times by many health care professionals who've reviewed her case.

The 8th amendment killed Savita.

Surely it couldn't happen again though?

Sheeps

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

As if money was the only thing in consideration though?

Firstly this is basically an invasive surgery. Which can come with all kinds of side effects and emotions. Do you not think a woman might prefer to be in familiar and comfortable surroundings?

Secondly a lot of women change their mind. However since the time and effort to travel to the UK is high for some women in financial or other duress..... some may feel compelled by thinking "Well I am here now, I best go through with it" because they know they might not be able to come back again if they RE change their mind.

Third I am not convinced it even WOULD be cheaper. Ryanair and low fares airlines have us thinking flights are cheap, but when you add up all the associated costs, accommodation, foods, travel from isolated airports no where near the city they are named for and so forth.... it can really add up.

Fourth who even cares what is cheaper? The question is should we as a nation be offering this service at all, or not. That is a stand alone moral and ethical question and to hell with the costs of getting it elsewhere.

Fifth, it might be cheaper for her to travel ALONE to the UK. But why do we want her to be alone when electing for such a procedure. Might she not want people with her? What of the costs of that?

Sixth, you assume the procedure goes well. What if it does not. Said women is then in a foreign country, suffering from medical complications. Would she not be better off at home near her own hospitals, and on her own medical insurance and so forth?

Should I go on, or is this enough to show just how poorly thought out your comment was?

Calm down, its just a small statement of fact. If cost is an issue, what makes you think you're going to be able to get it done in Ireland. You're going to be placed on a waiting list, in which case you'll probably have the baby before you get the abortion.

rgace

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The NUI graduates who voted for that man really need to take a long, hard look at themselves.

Although half of them are probably priests from Maynooth :rolleyes:

We did vote to keep the Seanad at least so those of us of higher intelligence can select the best in the country like himself.

rainbow kirby

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The NUI graduates who voted for that man really need to take a long, hard look at themselves.

Although half of them are probably priests from Maynooth :rolleyes:

The only reason I vote in Seanad elections is to vote against that stinking piece of excrement.

Hotblack Desiato

thee glitz wrote: »

Surely it couldn't happen again though?

As long as the 8th is there it can happen again.

January

thee glitz wrote: »

Surely it couldn't happen again though?

Could happen again next week. As long as their is ambiguity as to where the rights of the foetus ends and the right to life of the woman begins then it could happen again.

The foetus within Savita still had a heart beat. It was slow and getting slower each day but it was still there so even though Savita was getting sicker the doctors didn't know whether she was 'sick enough' that they could perform an abortion without being reprimanded for it.

January

Sheeps wrote: »

Calm down, its just a small statement of fact. If cost is an issue, what makes you think you're going to be able to get it done in Ireland. You're going to be placed on a waiting list, in which case you'll probably have the baby before you get the abortion.

Before 12 weeks you can take a pill. 92% of abortions occur before 12 weeks

thee glitz

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

As long as the 8th is there it can happen again.

January wrote: »

Could happen again next week. As long as their is ambiguity as to where the rights of the foetus ends and the right to life of the woman begins then it could happen again.

The foetus within Savita still had a heart beat. It was slow and getting slower each day but it was still there so even though Savita was getting sicker the doctors didn't know whether she was 'sick enough' that they could perform an abortion without being reprimanded for it.

I thought the POLDPA 2013 might have cleared that up. So the doctors didn't know - I hope the new legislation makes their current decisions easier to make.

Hotblack Desiato

It's not that they don't know, it's that their freedom to act is constrained by the constitution.

mahamageehad

Astounded at the ignorance of Mullen's comments today. :eek: What a warped individual.

Sheeps

January wrote: »

Before 12 weeks you can take a pill. 92% of abortions occur before 12 weeks

I was speaking in reference to the post I quoted where the poster was speaking of surgical abortions thanks.

thee glitz

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It's not that they don't know, it's that their freedom to act is constrained by the constitution.

I thought there was some level of doubt amongst the doctors, that they were considering law rather than medicine. Given that abortion is legal in some circumstances, and they are performed here, they either didn't know what would happen or did but unnecessarily allowed it to.

emo72

im so drunk. but gonna have my say anyway. the citizens assembly suggested abortions up to 12/24 weeks for socio reasons. im sure the political parties baulked at that. i was shocked myself. put exactly that to a referendum. id bet me house on how it would go.

thee glitz

emo72 wrote: »

i was shocked myself. put exactly that to a referendum. id bet me house on how it would go.

Maybe it's sabotage!

Outlaw Pete

Ronan Mullen is an idiot to say what he did. However, the following is equally as incredulous, if indeed not more so:

January wrote: »

The 8th amendment killed Savita.

Savita was admitted to hospital on the Sunday evening and it wasn't until the Wednesday morning that she was diagnosed with Sepsis. Her consultant said that on that morning she discussed with Savita the possibility that they still might yet consider a termination..... fetal heartbeat notwithstanding:

"I also informed Ms Halappanavar that if we did not identify another source of infection or if she did not continue to improve we might have no option but to consider a termination regardless of the foetal heart"

So, from the prescriptive of Savita's medical team at least, before Wednesday morning there was no medical reason for Savita to undergo a termination. Two hours later, 10:30am, Savita was diagnosed with Sepsis and the consultant was called back in. At 1pm (after speaking with her colleagues) she made the decision that Savita should undergo a termination. She was then however subsequently informed that there was no fetal heartbeat but that was after having already made the decision that Savita would be having a termination. It's simply nothing but self serving speculation to say that the 8th Amendment killed Savita. There is no evidence to support such a claim.

The Coroner's inquest, HIQA investigation and HSE report all suggest the failings lay elsewhere:

HIQA Investigation:

HIQA released their report on their investigation into the standard of services provide to Savita Halappanavar on Wednesday, 9 October 2013.

The Terms of Reference had been approved by the Board of the Authority on 27 November 2012 and the Investigation Team was announced on 19 December 2012. The Authority identified, through a review of Savita Halappanavar’s healthcare record, a number of missed opportunities which, had they been identified and acted upon, may have potentially changed the outcome of her care.

In all they identified 13 different points at which interventions could have made a difference to saving Savita’s life.

In summary, of the care provided there was a:

• general lack of provision of basic, fundamental care, for example, not following up on blood tests as identified in the case of Savita Halappanavar
• failure to recognise that Savita Halappanavar was at risk of clinical deterioration
• failure to act or escalate concerns to an appropriately qualified clinician when Savita Halappanavar was showing the signs of clinical deterioration.

Coroner’s Inquest:

On 19 April 2013, after seven days of evidence from 36 witnesses, Dr. Ciarán McLoughlin returned a verdict of medical misadventure in the case of Savita Halappanavar. He highlighted deficiencies in her care which included:

• Blood tests indicating possible infection were not collected
• Savita’s pulse rate was elevated at 114 but the on-call doctor was not aware of this
• Savita’s vital signs were not checked for more than nine hours, in breach of hospital guidelines
• Although Savita’s pulse rises to 160, with a fever and a foul smelling discharge, the discharge was not relayed to Savita’s consultant
• Compounding these system failures was the presence of E.coli ESBL bacteria.

The Coroner made 9 National Recommendations in his report including:

• following up of blood samples,
• following protocols for the management of sepsis,
• proper and effective communication between staff,
• protocols for antibiotic use in sepsis,
• early communication with patients to ensure their treatment plan is understood and
• the use of warning scores to be used in all State hospitals.

And here's a letter collectively written by 11 consultants in response to how what the above findings were being ignored:

Sir,

– The recent inquest on Savita Halappanavar has raised important issues about hospital infection in obstetrics. Much of the public attention appears to have been directed at the expert opinion of Dr Peter Boylan who suggested that Irish law prevented necessary treatment to save Ms Halappanavar’s life. We would suggest that this is a personal view, not an expert one.

Furthermore, it is impossible for Dr Boylan, or for any doctor, to predict with certainty the clinical course and outcome in the case of Savita Halappanavar where sepsis arose from the virulent and multi drug-resistant organism, E.coli ESBL.

What we can say with certainty is that where ruptured membranes are accompanied by any clinical or bio-chemical marker of infection, Irish obstetricians understand they CAN intervene with early delivery of the baby if necessary. Unfortunately, the inquest shows that in Galway University Hospital the diagnosis of chorioamnionitis was delayed and relevant information was not noted and acted upon.

The facts as produced at the inquest show this tragic case to be primarily about the management of sepsis, and Dr Boylan’s opinion on the effect of Irish law did not appear to be shared by the coroner, or the jury, of the inquest.

Additionally there are many well-documented fatalities from sepsis in women following termination of pregnancy. To concentrate on the legal position regarding abortion in the light of such a case as that in Galway does not assist our services to pregnant women.

It is clear that maternal mortality in developed countries is rising, in the US, Canada, Britain, Denmark, Netherlands and other European countries. The last Confidential Enquiry in Britain (which now includes Ireland) recommended a “return to basics” and stated that many maternal deaths are related to failure to observe simple clinical signs such as fever, headache and changes in pulse rate and blood pressure. Many of the failings highlighted in Galway have been described before in these and other reports.

The additional problem of multi-resistant organisms causing infection, largely as a result of antibiotic use and abuse, is a serious cause of concern and may lead to higher death rates in all areas of medicine.

Ireland’s maternal health record is one of the best in the world in terms of our low rate of maternal death (including Galway hospital). The case in Galway was one of the worst cases of sepsis ever experienced in that hospital, and the diagnosis of ESBL septicaemia was almost unprecedented among Irish maternity units.

It is important that all obstetrical units in Ireland reflect on the findings of the events in Galway and learn how to improve care for pregnant women. To reduce it to a polemical argument about abortion may lead to more – not fewer – deaths in the future.

– Yours sincerely,

Dr. John Monaghan, DCH FRCPI FRCOG Consultant Obstetrician/Gynecologist

Dr. Cyril Thornton, MB BCh MRCOG Consultant Obstetrician/Gynecologist

Dr. Eamon Mc Guinness, MB BCh MRCOG Consultant Obstetrician/Gynecologist

Dr. Trevor Hayes, MB BCh FRCS MRCOG Consultant Obstetrician/Gynecologist

Dr. Chris King, MB DCH MRCOG Consultant Obstetrician/Gynecologist

Dr. Eileen Reilly, MB ChB MRCOG Consultant Obstetrician/Gynecologist

Prof John Bonnar, MD FRCPI FRCOG Professor Emeritus Obstetrics & Gynaecology

Prof Eamon O’Dwyer, MB MAO LLB FRCPI FRCOG Professor Emeritus Obstetrics & Gynaecology

Prof Stephen Cusack, MB BCh FRCSI Consultant in Emergency Medicine

Dr. Rory Page, MB BCh FFA RCSI Consultant Anaesthetist

Dr. James Clair, MB BCh PhD FRCPath Consultant Microbiologist

Zubeneschamali

January wrote: »

The foetus within Savita still had a heart beat. It was slow and getting slower each day but it was still there so even though Savita was getting sicker the doctors didn't know whether she was 'sick enough' that they could perform an abortion without being reprimanded for it.

Don't forget that this was before the horrific POLDPA legislation finally landed - all our doctors were in legal limbo. There was no, zero legislation on abortion in Ireland at the time, just the 8th amendment itself.

Arguably the 8th amendment, with no other legislation, would make terminating Savita's pregnancy murder. Killing Savita would obviously be murder, and the 8th says the "unborn" has an equal right to life, so...

RobertKK

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Don't forget that this was before the horrific POLDPA legislation finally landed - all our doctors were in legal limbo. There was no, zero legislation on abortion in Ireland at the time, just the 8th amendment itself.

Arguably the 8th amendment, with no other legislation, would make terminating Savita's pregnancy murder. Killing Savita would obviously be murder, and the 8th says the "unborn" has an equal right to life, so...

Dr Boylan used the Savita case incorrectly, and then said he couldn't think of any other case where the 8th amendment led to death.
The 8th amendment is a red herring.

thee glitz

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Don't forget that this was before the horrific POLDPA legislation finally landed - all our doctors were in legal limbo. There was no, zero legislation on abortion in Ireland at the time, just the 8th amendment itself.

What's wrong with the legislation?

Arguably the 8th amendment, with no other legislation, would make terminating Savita's pregnancy murder. Killing Savita would obviously be murder, and the 8th says the "unborn" has an equal right to life, so...

Not if her life was in danger though. If she died, wouldn't the unborn die too.

nozzferrahhtoo

Sheeps wrote: »

Calm down, its just a small statement of fact.

Is it though? If you had read my post at all you would have seen I questioned whether it is indeed a "fact".

But by all means show me the workings you are basing it on:

1) List out what you think the costs of an abortion are / would be in an Irish context.
2)Then list out what you think the costs of abortion are / would be in the UK, including the cost of travel and accommodation ect. Including the option many people would have if it was available here to bring a friend or partner with them.

Then compare and contrast the results and we will see if you are offering "a small statement of fact" or in fact an egregious statement of unsubstantiated fantasy nonsense.

Sheeps wrote: »

You're going to be placed on a waiting list, in which case you'll probably have the baby before you get the abortion.

That is a completely different point to the one you are failing to defend above. And one that is, at least, somewhat more coherent. HOW any choice based abortion in Ireland is built and implemented would indeed be interesting to see because it IS time sensitive and significant waiting lists is not really an option.

Delirium

RobertKK wrote: »

Dr Boylan used the Savita case incorrectly, and then said he couldn't think of any other case where the 8th amendment led to death.
The 8th amendment is a red herring.

So why didn't the doctors perform an abortion when it was requested by Savita?

.......

This post has been deleted.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Hotblack Desiato

thee glitz wrote: »

I thought there was some level of doubt amongst the doctors, that they were considering law rather than medicine.

As long as the 8th remains, that's what they're going to have to continue to do. Abortion is not legal until the woman's life (as opposed to 'merely' her health) is threatened and in some cases by then it will be too late.