The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

ohnonotgmail

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.

is one not enough? or was she an acceptable loss?

Outlaw Pete

Delirium wrote: »

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

An abortion was not deemed medically necessary at that point given that from her medical team's perspective there was no "real and substantial risk" to her life. Her consultant testified that had Savita’s blood results been in before Wednesday, she would have felt differently and ordered a termination.

From the letter posted above:

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.

It's worth noting that the Jury at the inquest did not agree with Dr.Boylan, as if they had they would not have returned a unanimous verdict of death by medical misadventure.

It's quite sad that after all this time the prochoice are still attempting to use Savita's death in this way.

baylah17

Truth is Ronan and and his Youth Defence militia are responsible for the killing of Savita.
She was told she had to die because because this is a Catholic country.
The only saving grace is that she and her baby were not thrown in the nearest septic tank.

jjmcclure

GarIT wrote: »

In something is in me and is a part of me I have control over it. When something detaches itself from me and is not inside me it has the right to autonomy IMO.

Also, I support abortion before life (the ability to have independent thoughts) begins but not after.

This is a nonsense argument. From the moment the child is born it will be entirely dependent on you until it is fully grown and independent. Should you have the right to "choose" to kill your six week old baby because it is totally dependent on you?

suicide_circus

baylah17 wrote: »

Truth is Ronan and and his Youth Defence militia are responsible for the killing of Savita.
She was told she had to die because because this is a Catholic country.
The only saving grace is that she and her baby were not thrown in the nearest septic tank.

The place for a fetus is a medical waste receptacle not a septic tank.

PopePalpatine

jjmcclure wrote: »

This is a nonsense argument. From the moment the child is born it will be entirely dependent on you until it is fully grown and independent. Should you have the right to "choose" to kill your six week old baby because it is totally dependent on you?

You missed the part where the six week-old baby is out of the womb.

Outlaw Pete

baylah17 wrote: »

She was told she had to die because because this is a Catholic country.

The midwife (in part of a larger discussion about how different cultures view pregnancies) mentioned how Ireland was a catholic country but that was not said to her as part of her medical care.

The only saving grace is that she and her baby were not thrown in the nearest septic tank.

Oh, so at 17-weeks a fetus is a "baby" now? I thought they were just "blobs of biological matter" or (on a good day) a "bunch of cells"?

Not that I'm complaining. Always nice to see the prochoice have epiphanies.

Delirium

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

An abortion was not deemed medically necessary at that point given that from her medical team's perspective there was no "real and substantial risk" to her life. Her consultant testified that had Savita’s blood results been in before Wednesday, she would have felt differently and ordered a termination.

From the letter posted above:



It's worth noting that the Jury at the inquest did not agree with Dr.Boylan, as if they had they would not have returned a unanimous verdict of death by medical misadventure.

It's quite sad that after all this time the prochoice are still attempting to use Savita's death in this way.

Which is a direct result of the 8th amendment.

nozzferrahhtoo

jjmcclure wrote: »

This is a nonsense argument. From the moment the child is born it will be entirely dependent on you until it is fully grown and independent. Should you have the right to "choose" to kill your six week old baby because it is totally dependent on you?

Did you only read part of the users post before you chose to reply. Firstly the user listed more than just dependence in what the user said. So the first half of your post missed the mark entirely.

Then the user offered a SECOND paragraph/sentence that directly pre-empted your last sentence.

So nothing in your post appears to actually reply to the post in question at all. It more appears that you saw some trigger word or other, and replied without actually reading any of it.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Oh, so at 17-weeks a fetus is a "baby" now? I thought they were just "blobs of biological matter" or (on a good day) a "bunch of cells"?

You are just being willfully misrepresentative and facetious here now.

It has been explained to you MANY times before that there is no issue in general with calling the fetus a "baby" if and when you want.

The issue only becomes an issue when the mis-use of the word baby is done with the intention of smuggling in meaning that the fetus does not warrant having, in the course of discussion or debate about abortion.

So no one needs to have an "epiphany" here at all. We are already aware of how you like to spin things.

January

You don't seem to get the fact that had Savita been granted the termination when she had first asked for it then the very thing that caused the sepsis would not have been there. The 8th amendment meant that her requests for a termination had been declines, her life shouldn't have had to be left hanging in the balance before a doctor could decide whether they could perform a termination or not.

kylith

thee glitz wrote: »

Surely it couldn't happen again though?

Oh no, never :rolleyes: These days we just put corpses on life-support, and restrain and force feed suicidal rape victims.

seamus

If the anti-choice crowd keep wheeling out the usual suspects at the front of their campaign, they'll be doing a great service for the pro-choice campaign.

All week they've been whinging about the apparent pro-choice bias in those chosen to speak at the committee and asking why there were so few pro-life speakers.

Then yesterday they fire out a tirade from Patricia Casey about why she declined to speak in front of the committee.

If your side refuses to speak, you don't get to complain that only one side of the argument is being heard.

Crea

January wrote: »

You don't seem to get the fact that had Savita been granted the termination when she had first asked for it then the very thing that caused the sepsis would not have been there. The 8th amendment meant that her requests for a termination had been declines, her life shouldn't have had to be left hanging in the balance before a doctor could decide whether they could perform a termination or not.

Exactly, she was admitted to hospital on the Saturday. Her waters broke on the Sunday, this increases the risk of infection in any pregnancy yet she had to wait until the Wednesday before they'd acr because the foetus had a heartbeat. This was directly because of the 8th. The report actually stated that some medical decisions were made because of current legislation.

Dotsie~tmp

PopePalpatine wrote: »

You missed the part where the six week-old baby is out of the womb.

The magical portal which bestows life.:rolleyes:

spookwoman

jjmcclure wrote: »

This is a nonsense argument. From the moment the child is born it will be entirely dependent on you until it is fully grown and independent. Should you have the right to "choose" to kill your six week old baby because it is totally dependent on you?

Biology 101 - when in the womb, nutrients, oxygen you know life sustaining stuff is transferred from the woman via the placenta.
At 6 weeks born baby is getting these direct from the outside world. Oxigen from the air it breaths and nutrients by Milk from bottle or breast and it might come come from the breast or a can. It doesn't require it's mother to provide these it can be provided by foster parents, hospitals, nurses social services etc thats basically anyone.

Press_Start

I'm partial to not using it as a form of birth control. There's enough education about sexual health and contraception, and there's plenty of affordable options, that just having an abortion because you're pregnant is just not sitting right with me.

I believe it should be available, and more available infact for women who are suffering from illness and the child will suffer as well, or if the mother/ child's health are at risk. As well as women who can be psychiatrically evaluated to the capacity of having a child.

spookwoman

sunshine and showers wrote: »

This is an anti-choice myth. Nobody turns around at 7 months pregnant and thinks, "actually, this isn't for me. I know longer want this baby that I wanted last week."

I'm not anti choice in fact I'm for abortion, be it i don't want it, I can't afford it, it's going to interfere with my life, it's got something wrong with it after tests, medical reasons. I do think there has to be a line drawn when there is not actually a problem with the foetus or woman later on in the pregnancy.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Mr. CooL ICE

Mod:

Somebody with a single-digit postcount enters the thread, posts a load of controversial nonsense... and people take the bait???

Thread has been cleaned up, in case anybody is wondering why posts are missing. Please use a bit of cop on in future.

January

spookwoman wrote: »

I'm not anti choice in fact I'm for abortion, be it i don't want it, I can't afford it, it's going to interfere with my life, it's got something wrong with it after tests, medical reasons. I do think there has to be a line drawn when there is not actually a problem with the foetus or woman later on in the pregnancy.

And there is, no doctor would terminate a foetus at 30 weeks because a woman just decided she wanted an abortion then. That would happen is the woman would be induced or a cesarean performed and the baby would be born alive, premature, but alive.

Martina1991

spookwoman wrote: »

I'm not anti choice in fact I'm for abortion, be it i don't want it, I can't afford it, it's going to interfere with my life, it's got something wrong with it after tests, medical reasons. I do think there has to be a line drawn when there is not actually a problem with the foetus or woman later on in the pregnancy.

I agree, certainly at 7 months the baby has a chance at survival. Perhaps the mother could be induced and the child taken into care.

FFA is one thing but I don't agree with terminating the pregnancy in the case of a chance of heart.

I would think and hope that no would be that callous.

January

suicide_circus wrote: »

The place for a fetus is a medical waste receptacle not a septic tank.

Tell that to the Catholic Church so...

spookwoman

Martina1991 wrote: »

I agree, certainly at 7 months the baby has a chance at survival. Perhaps the mother could be induced and the child taken into care.

FFA is one thing but I don't agree with terminating the pregnancy in the case of a chance of heart.

I would think and hope that no would be that callous.

I don't know but I always use the rule there could always be one

Sorry Mod didnt look at the post counts

Press_Start

I made a blog post that sparked a good discussion a while ago. Friend of mine used the quote;

"In an ideal world, abortion would be free and available, but noone would use it"

to me that says it all, and while I'm fully aware thet birth control fails, and I'm beginning to open up to the process of immediate abortion via a pill, I still don't agree with the use as a retroactive form of birth control.

Here's my ideal scenario where that would be ok.

You're signed on with the GP or whoever on prescription birth control. You're using it properly with a practical prevention change of 80-90% effectiveness. You become pregnant, and report this to the doctor. The doctor can make the descision and either go ahead with the abortion, giving you the options, or advise you to have the child and give it up through foster care. I'm fully aware that Birth Control fails, so do seatbelts, airbags and brakes but we still keep them and use them, and deal with the issues that arise after failure. I humbly believe that it will carry eventually, but I can't comprehend why people on the repeal argument can't understand why the moral implications make those of us on the other side feel uncmfortable.

*I'm on the side for heavy modification and reassessment of the 8th, not pro-life, abortion is nessessary at times*

sunshine and showers

spookwoman wrote: »

I'm not anti choice in fact I'm for abortion, be it i don't want it, I can't afford it, it's going to interfere with my life, it's got something wrong with it after tests, medical reasons. I do think there has to be a line drawn when there is not actually a problem with the foetus or woman later on in the pregnancy.

I'm not saying you are, but the whole "women will abort babies at 30 weeks on a whim" line is a simply not true. It is a myth perpetuated by those with an anti-choice agenda.

Over 90% of abortions occur by 12/13 weeks. The ones that occur later in pregnancy happen because of tragic circumstances - risk to the life of the mother, or a serious issue with the foetus such as a FFA.

The late term abortion narrative is a damaging portrayal of women - that we are so flippant that we can just decide at 30 weeks that it "doesn't suit us" anymore, so we'll just get an abortion. There are no facts to support this. It's utter bs.

.......

This post has been deleted.

spookwoman

sunshine and showers wrote: »

I'm not saying you are, but the whole "women will abort babies at 30 weeks on a whim" line is a simply not true. It is a myth perpetuated by those with an anti-choice agenda.

Over 90% of abortions occur by 12/13 weeks. The ones that occur later in pregnancy happen because of tragic circumstances - risk to the life of the mother, or a serious issue with the foetus such as a FFA.

The late term abortion narrative is a damaging portrayal of women - that we are so flippant that we can just decide at 30 weeks that it "doesn't suit us" anymore, so we'll just get an abortion. There are no facts to support this. It's utter bs.

How do you know there not been someone looking for a late term abortion be it someone with mental health issues. The thing is like it or not everything including things you don't like to hear have to be considered even if they are minuscule.

.......

This post has been deleted.

January

spookwoman wrote: »

How do you know there not been someone looking for a late term abortion be it someone with mental health issues. The thing is like it or not everything including things you don't like to hear have to be considered even if they are minuscule.

It wouldn't be performed, even if they were looking for it. Termination of pregnancy would occur, but termination of life wouldn't.

ohnonotgmail

spookwoman wrote: »

How do you know there not been someone looking for a late term abortion be it someone with mental health issues. The thing is like it or not everything including things you don't like to hear have to be considered even if they are minuscule.

whatever about the number looking for one, and there are no statistics to suggest there any, no doctor would perform an abortion at that late stage just because the woman changed her mind.

.......

This post has been deleted.

spookwoman

January wrote: »

It wouldn't be performed, even if they were looking for it. Termination of pregnancy would occur, but termination of life wouldn't.

I know it wouldn't be performed but it doesn't mean someone wont ask for one

.......

This post has been deleted.

sunshine and showers

spookwoman wrote: »

How do you know there not been someone looking for a late term abortion be it someone with mental health issues. The thing is like it or not everything including things you don't like to hear have to be considered even if they are minuscule.

I was discussing the myth that women *just decide* to have abortions at 30 weeks. They don't.

Mental health issues, in particular risk of suicide, can already be used to access terminations under the 8th.

As another poster pointed out, at 30 weeks, where there are no foetal issues, it isn't really an abortion - it's termination of a pregnancy. It's induced labour. When the baby is born, it is looked after. Nobody is leaving babies in the corner to die. That's more anti-choice bs.

January

spookwoman wrote: »

I know it wouldn't be performed but it doesn't mean someone wont ask for one

But even if they ask for one, what is wrong with them asking and being given their options? 'No, we won't terminate the life of your foetus because it is now viable outside of the womb, your options are to continue to term, or we can give a dose of steroids to strengthen the lungs of the foetus as they are not developed properly yet and then we can deliver via induction or ceserean section. Please be aware that we will have to make a referral to TUSLA because you have asked for us to terminate the life of the foetus growing inside you, they will work with you after the baby is born so that we can work towards the best care plan for you both'

spookwoman

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The you get some prolife person going in somewhere looking one and knowing that lot they could bring it before the courts for whatever reason. Just think its better to cover all the bases.

ohnonotgmail

spookwoman wrote: »

The you get some prolife person going in somewhere looking one and knowing that lot they could bring it before the courts for whatever reason. Just think its better to cover all the bases.

what?? you think some 30-week pregnant pro-lifer is going to demand a pregnancy from the doctors, take them to court if they dont give her one (on what grounds i cant imagine) and then what? she goes "ha ha" i was only joking at the end?

.......

This post has been deleted.

kylith

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well, in the future it may well be possible to remove a fetus from the womb and implant it into another, or an artificial womb, which would solve both the problems of unwanted pregnancy and of people who can't conceive.

That's the future though, and we can change the legislation when it's needed, but we can't legislate for what medical advances might be made in 50 years.

.......

This post has been deleted.

ohnonotgmail

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

she??? its not that small

spookwoman

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

We know she wont get an abortion but I wouldn't put it pass them to bring it so far to get a point across.
Look what Mullins said yesterday and remember the same mindset was behind savitas death

rainbow kirby

Stunts aren't a good reason to make restrictive law.

NuMarvel

spookwoman wrote: »

We know she wont get an abortion but I wouldn't put it pass them to bring it so far to get a point across.
Look what Mullins said yesterday and remember the same mindset was behind savitas death

Realistically, the Oireachtas aren't going to legislate beyond what the Assembly proposed in the event of repeal, so this is all moot.

If memory serves, the majority of Assembly members only recommended access to abortion after 22 weeks in 3 circumstances; i) where there's a risk to the woman's life, ii) where there's a serious risk to her health, and iii) where the unborn has an abnormality that is likely to be fatal.

Could someone go to court to challenge these restrictions? Sure. But I don't see how someone could win that challenge, and you haven't given any grounds for a successful challenge either.

Dotsie~tmp

January wrote: »

You don't seem to get the fact that had Savita been granted the termination when she had first asked for it then the very thing that caused the sepsis would not have been there. The 8th amendment meant that her requests for a termination had been declines, her life shouldn't have had to be left hanging in the balance before a doctor could decide whether they could perform a termination or not.

The report is clear that the medical team did not identify of manage the sepsis properly. This put them in a position where they had to do some bar-room lawyering as they didn't understand the conditions for the termination had already been made even under the 8th Amendment.

O&G Consultant 1 recalled at interview that on the 23rd of October the patient and the
patient’s husband enquired about the possibility of using medication to induce labour as they
indicated that they did not want a protracted waiting time when the outcome was going to be
an inevitable miscarriage. The consultant stated at interview that (s)he advised the patient
and her husband that this was not possible under Irish law. At interview, the consultant
indicated that the law is such that:

“If there is a threat to the mothers’ life you can terminate. If there is a potential major
hazard to the mothers’ life the law is not clear…. There are no guidelines for
inevitable miscarriages”

Abortion in the case of a threat to life of the mother is clearly established.

The “X Case”
7. In Attorney General v X & Others55 (the “X Case”) the Supreme Court considered the
requirements of Article 40.3.3° in circumstances we re the continuation of her
pregnancy is deemed to pose a serious risk to the life of the woman. The case
concerned a 14 year old girl who had become pregnant by rape. The Attorney General
applied to the High Court for an injunction preventing the girl from travelling to England
for an abortion. In the High Court a psychologist testified that the girl might commit
suicide if she was refused an abortion. The High Court granted the injunction but its
decision was overturned on appeal by a majority of the Supreme Court (Hederman J
dissenting). In the course of their judgments each member of the majority considered
how Article 40.3.3° was to be applied in circumstan ces where a pregnant woman’s right
to life was deemed to be at risk as a consequence of her pregnancy.

8. Finlay CJ laid down the test to be applied in such cases as follows:
“I, therefore, conclude that the proper test to be applied is that if it is established
as a matter of probability that there is a real and substantial risk to the life, as
distinct from the health, of the mother, which can only be avoided by the
termination of her pregnancy, such termination is permissible, having regard to
the true interpretation of Article 40, s. 3, sub-s. 3 of the Constitution.”56

9. The Chief Justice went on to hold that on the basis of the evidence before the trial
judge, and on the findings which he had made, Miss X satisfied this test in that it had
been
“established as a matter of probability, that there is a real and substantial risk to
the life of the mother by self destruction which can only be avoided by the
termination of her pregnancy.”57

10. O’Flaherty J formulated substantially the same test in the following terms:
“Until legislation is enacted to provide otherwise, I believe that the law in this
State is that surgical intervention which has the effect of terminating pregnancy
bona fide undertaken to save the life of the mother where she is in danger of
death is permissible under the Constitution and the law. The danger has to
represent a substantial risk to her life though this does not necessarily have to be
an imminent danger of instant death. The law does not require the doctors to wait
until the mother is in peril of immediate death. I believe the instant case to come
within this principle.”58

11. Egan J likewise adopted a test largely equivalent in substance to the foregoing,
namely:
“In my opinion the true test should be that a pregnancy may be terminated if its
continuance as a matter of probability involves a real and substantial risk to the
life of the mother. The risk must be to her life but it is irrelevant, in my view, that it
should be a risk of self-destruction rather than a risk to life for any other reason.
The evidence establishes that such a risk exists in the present case.”59

12. McCarthy J framed the test as follows:
“In my view, the true construction of the Amendment, bearing in mind the other
provisions of Article 40 and the fundamental rights of the family guaranteed by
Article 41, is that, paying due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, when
there is a real and substantial risk attached to her survival not merely at the time
of application but in contemplation at least throughout the pregnancy, then it may
not be practicable to vindicate the right to life of the unborn.”60

However we clearly have a grey area because medical professionals are dealing with guidelines that are suitably unhelpful or ambiguous that then forces them to take into their considerations legal questions. This is clearly NOT their area of competence.

I see that guidelines clearly need looking at taking into account the conditions for a legal abortion were present and not identified. Both medical regarding sepsis and legal regarding the unborn and mother health relationship. Lastly if this cannot be remedied without alteration of the 8th then I would personally be willing to look at voting yes to a repeal. All HIGHLY dependent on the replacement text however.

January

NuMarvel wrote: »

Realistically, the Oireachtas aren't going to legislate beyond what the Assembly proposed in the event of repeal, so this is all moot.

If memory serves, the majority of Assembly members only recommended access to abortion after 22 weeks in 3 circumstances; i) where there's a risk to the woman's life, ii) where there's a serious risk to her health, and iii) where the unborn has an abnormality that is likely to be fatal.

Could someone go to court to challenge these restrictions? Sure. But I don't see how someone could win that challenge, and you haven't given any grounds for a successful challenge either.

You've got it bit wrong there.

https://www.citizensassembly.ie/en/The-Eighth-Amendment-of-the-Constitution/Final-Report-on-the-Eighth-Amendment-of-the-Constitution/Final-Report-incl-Appendix-A-D.pdf

Chapter 1 outlines that the majority usually voted for no restrictions in most cases where there is risk to the health (physical or mental) of the woman, fatal fetal abnormality or suicide.

NuMarvel

January wrote: »

You've got it bit wrong there.

https://www.citizensassembly.ie/en/The-Eighth-Amendment-of-the-Constitution/Final-Report-on-the-Eighth-Amendment-of-the-Constitution/Final-Report-incl-Appendix-A-D.pdf

Chapter 1 outlines that the majority usually voted for no restrictions in most cases where there is risk to the health (physical or mental) woman, fatal fetal abnormality or suicide.

The Table for Reason 8 (Risk to health) on Page 34 puts majority support at the 22 week mark. The majority of the Assembly only supported no restrictions for health reasons when there was a serious risk to health (Reason 5).

January

NuMarvel wrote: »

The Table for Reason 8 (Risk to health) on Page 34 puts majority support at the 22 week mark. The majority of the Assembly only supported no restrictions for health reasons when there was a serious risk to health (Reason 5).

I said 'most' not all.

NuMarvel

January wrote: »

I said 'most' not all.

So what bit did I get wrong?

January

NuMarvel wrote: »

So what bit did I get wrong?

My apologies I read your post wrong and thought you had said up to and not after 22 weeks. Must go back to specsavers.

Apologies again!