The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Bannasidhe

thee glitz wrote: »

I don't care much for the CA - what's this thread called and why anyway? Apparently, they voted one way, but the proclaimed 'result' was something else due to the farcical way it was determined. I also don't buy your concern for women's lives being any greater than mine - would you accept the possibility of legislating for abortion on demand being kicked 10 years down the road if it meant an end to women dying due the 8th?

I watched the whole vote. It was very clear. Each proposal was clearly made, any clarifications sought were provided, then the vote on that particular proposal was not only taken - they had a vote as to whether they would vote.
No apparent discrepancy at all - the resulting report reflected the vote.
Glad to clear that up.

And what?

NuMarvel

thee glitz wrote: »

What risks, what are you comparing?

The risks you referred to as being present in the current situation minus whatever ones might be mitigated by the alternative you'd propose in lieu of the Committee's recommendations.

end of the road

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

You are embarassing yourself now

oh no i'm not. you made a claim about a poster. that claim was false. when pointed out to you by that poster and myself that your claim was false, you continued to make the claim.

uptherebels wrote: »

When people call you a nimby in relation to abortion it is because as you have said before that your support for the right to life is limited by geography.

no, when people call me all sorts it's based on makey uppy nonsense and stuff i never said. my posts are twisted to mean and say what those people want them to say and to mean, in an aim to get them to fit the bogyman nonsense they have created in their heads.

eviltwin wrote: »

It says everything that some people are more concerned with the fate of individuals yet to be conceived than actual women and girls.

most people who are against abortion on demand are concerned for both. that is why we support abortion when necessary but don't when it isn't, meaning that where the baby does have a genuine effect on the mother it's life can be terminated. it doesn't mean we agree with the act, but we understand it's necessary as it would cause an unacceptible outcome in the form of death or permanent disability.

end of the road

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Loving how you keep ignoring the posts I write to you, put take pot shots at other posts I make to other people. Dodge much?

i haven't dodged anything. i actually meant to get back to you but had other things to do.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It is not above an ant in terms of sentience, brain power, experience and a developed brain however. To put one above the other you have to look at what one is, and what the other MIGHT be in the future. Hardly comparing like with like there are you.

in the future, the human being unborn life will be sentient and have experience, a developed brain and brain power way above an ant. so therefore the human life comes above that of an ant.

mrkiscool2

end of the road wrote: »

oh no i'm not. you made a claim about a poster. that claim was false. when pointed out to you by that poster and myself that your claim was false, you continued to make the claim.

Lol, EOTR getting on his high horse about a claim being false when he has made a few false claims himself and has never admitted any of them were false, cause fcuk the truth getting in the way of his narrative.

Annasopra

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Lol, EOTR getting on his high horse about a claim being false when he has made a few false claims himself and has never admitted any of them were false, cause fcuk the truth getting in the way of his narrative.

This is just Panto. I notice as well now EOTR supports abortion where there in the case the child may be disabled. Another contradictory position from a so called pro life poster. Laughable really.

dr.fuzzenstein

end of the road wrote: »

most people who are against abortion on demand are concerned for both. that is why we support abortion when necessary but don't when it isn't, meaning that where the baby does have a genuine effect on the mother it's life can be terminated. it doesn't mean we agree with the act, but we understand it's necessary as it would cause an unacceptible outcome in the form of death or permanent disability.

Except that's not what you do.
You support abortion for medical reasons and all others you would rather they don't, but you don't care if they do a coat hanger job or travel to England.
So you can sit on your moral high horse and say "There's No Abortion (on demand) in Ireland!" You don't give a flaming fart for those women.
Since you don't support capturing women who want to abort and chain them to a bed forcing them to have their baby all I get is the very unsavoury wiff of a hypocrite.

As for the clump of cells debate:
EOTR has his views and others have a different view. Will we just leave it there please?
In the end the votes decide, but whatever the outcome, you cannot FORCE someone to change their mind, will you please just agree to disagree?
This endless back and forth about this point is very tedious and can't be resolved.

nozzferrahhtoo

end of the road wrote: »

i haven't dodged anything.

Except the MULTIPLE posts on this thread from me, that you have simply dodged. We are not talking about one point or one post here. We are talking about an ongoing demonstrably consistent MO where you ignore posts I write to you, wait a few hours or days, then take pot shots at a post I have written to someone else.

end of the road wrote: »

in the future, the human being unborn life will be sentient and have experience

A) You do not know that. Many fetuses simply do not survive.
So we are agreed, it is NOT a sentient agent now. You just imagine it being in the future.
C) You are stll not comparing like with like. You refuse to compare two things now, rather you have to take one now, and one you imagine in the future, so the comparison gives what YOU want it to give.

Zubeneschamali

end of the road wrote: »

if there was no chance of abortion on demand being legislated for, there would have been huge support from the pro-life movement.

I have read many, many times from the pro-life crew that fetuses are babies, fuill stop. No killing them just because their dad is a rapist, no killing them because their dad is their grandad too, and the one about the little baby who the mother was told by evil doctors would never live who grew up to win the Nobel Prize, the Eurovision and an all Ireland hurling medal.

So even with an unworkable wording for FFA, rape and incest only, the Pro-Life movement would have fought it tooth and nail, just as they wanted to keep travel and information illegal, just as they tried to remove the suicide exception, twice.

And these were not handfuls of votes, they were 30+ percent of the electorate.

thee glitz

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So even with an unworkable wording for FFA, rape and incest only, the Pro-Life movement would have fought it tooth and nail, just as they wanted to keep travel and information illegal, just as they tried to remove the suicide exception, twice.

I guess they'd be fairly against opening up the possibility of abortion on demand any time soon. Or is there anything to be said for polling the people?

Bannasidhe

thee glitz wrote: »

I guess they'd be fairly against opening up the possibility of abortion on demand any time soon. Or is there anything to be said for polling the people?

Or we could have a Referendum....

Zubeneschamali

thee glitz wrote: »

I guess they'd be fairly against opening up the possibility of abortion on demand any time soon.

Or any other kind of abortion. That is kind of their thing.

thee glitz

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Or we could have a Referendum....

Yes - that's what I was referring to.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Or any other kind of abortion. That is kind of their thing.

Do you think they represent sizeable proportion of the people here, or maybe you're not well placed to answer that?

dr.fuzzenstein

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Or any other kind of abortion. That is kind of their thing.

The anti abortion side had to concede on abnormalities, rape, incest, right to information, right to travel and risk of suicide.
They simply shrug their shoulders now and pretend they're alright with all of that, but in reality would rather detain women and chain them up, forcing them to have their babies.
For all the united front they put up, putting even "Ulster Says No" to shame, they were pushed back every single time.
The fact that they shrug their shoulders when it comes to the fact that women travel abroad to have abortions shows that they are happy to take a deeply hypocritical stance and they don't give a flying fcuk about them or any other women.
As we have seen on this thread they are reduced to saying "no we weren't" and "no it's not", while they maintain an air of moral superiority and simply plow on as if everything is going exactly their way. It's called Bunker Mentality.
They know this is the last line in the sand, the last battle, the final retreat, after they had to concede inch by inch after decades of bitter fighting tooth and nail, but this is endgame.
They know they're playing Comical Ali when they say everything is going as planned for them.
For some reason all my posts have been met with deafening silence from the No camp, I won't engage in their silly semantics and hair splitting and I'm looking past an agenda, which they are unable to, so they can't argue on anything outside theirs.

end of the road

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I notice as well now EOTR supports abortion where there in the case the child may be disabled.

no, i don't.
i was referring to the case where carying the baby to term may cause permanent disability to the mother, something i have been clear about throughout the thread.

Annasopra

end of the road wrote: »

no, i don't.
i was referring to the case where carying the baby to term may cause permanent disability to the mother, something i have been clear about throughout the thread.

Indeed. You continuously opine about how you support abortion in extreme circumstances. At the end of the day though you don't because you continuously put fetuss before womens lives. I think Bannasidhe really summed up your stance quite well when referring to another poster.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

This reads to me that essentially you believe that those already born, breathing, living, women who are impacted - in some cases dying - because of the 8th are merely collateral damage in some ethical battle to 'save' potential living, breathing, people.
Any women (or girl) who is 'of child bearing age' in Ireland could be the next victim but that is a necessary step...

That is awful.

Loafing Oaf

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

but in reality would rather detain women and chain them up, forcing them to have their babies.

they are happy to take a deeply hypocritical stance

I don't see how these can both be true for the same person or group. I believe the latter rather than the former has long been the reality for most Irish pro-lifers, as demonstrated in the right-to-travel referendum.

end of the road

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Indeed. You continuously opine about how you support abortion in extreme circumstances. At the end of the day though you don't because you continuously put fetuss before womens lives.

i support abortion in extreme circumstances. i have been clear and consistent about it in the thread. that means ultimately that i don't put the unborn before women's lives, given that the threat to the mother's life is one such case where i support abortion.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I think Bannasidhe really summed up your stance quite well when referring to another poster.

no, no she didn't.

pitifulgod

end of the road wrote: »

i support abortion in extreme circumstances. i have been clear and consistent about it in the thread. that means ultimately that i don't put the unborn before women's lives, given that the threat to the mother's life is one such case where i support abortion.



no, no she didn't.

Do you view mental health grounds to be legitimate grounds for an abortion out of interest?

end of the road

pitifulgod wrote: »

Do you view mental health grounds to be legitimate grounds for an abortion out of interest?

i'm not 100% sure on that one but i would possibly be toards the no side

Annasopra

end of the road wrote: »

i support abortion in extreme circumstances.

But you dont really because you view preventing abortion in extreme circumstances as necessary in order to prevent so called "abortion on demand". Collateral damage.

Montgolfier

I think everyone who votes to keep the 8th should have to take in an orphan or two. As a man I believe a woman has the right to do with her body his she pleases. Just like every trans gender, drug addict and sexual orientation.

Bannasidhe

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

But you dont really because you view preventing abortion in extreme circumstances as necessary in order to prevent so called "abortion on demand". Collateral damage.

Extreme circumstances which are hard to really define.

thee glitz

There are none so blind as those who will not see, or am I missing something?

end of the road wrote: »

because as said by me, there are many who disagree with abortion on demand, and on the grounds of it being likely that it would be legislated for, we wouldn't vote to repeal. if there is enough of us and the vote is caried then the problems still exist. however if there was no chance of abortion on demand being legislated for, there would have been huge support from the pro-life movement.

end of the road wrote: »

that is why we support abortion when necessary but don't when it isn't

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Except that's not what you do.
You support abortion for medical reasons

end of the road wrote: »

i was referring to the case where carying the baby to term may cause permanent disability to the mother, something i have been clear about throughout the thread.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

You continuously opine about how you support abortion in extreme circumstances. At the end of the day though you don't because you continuously put fetuss before womens lives.

end of the road wrote: »

i support abortion in extreme circumstances.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

But you dont really because you view preventing abortion in extreme circumstances as necessary

end of the road

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

But you dont really

i do

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

you view preventing abortion in extreme circumstances as necessary in order to prevent so called "abortion on demand". Collateral damage.

i don't as we have abortion in extreme circumstances availible in ireland already.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Extreme circumstances which are hard to really define.

not really, i gave some examples of what i believe to be extreme circumstances where i am okay with abortion being availible.

Annasopra

thee glitz wrote: »

There are none so blind as those who will not see, or am I missing something?

What I am saying is that EOTR prioritises banning abortion "on demand" over and above all else. The result of that support of banning abortion "on demand" means that abortion in various extreme circumstances cannot be legislated for. So saying he supports abortion in extreme circumstances is completely hollow words.

thee glitz

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I watched the whole vote. It was very clear. Each proposal was clearly made, any clarifications sought were provided, then the vote on that particular proposal was not only taken - they had a vote as to whether they would vote.
No apparent discrepancy at all - the resulting report reflected the vote.
Glad to clear that up.

I remember thinking it a bit odd at the time that more of the CA voted for abortion availability after 12 weeks than only to that time, but then recommending only to then. As above, I'm not too concerned about the CA anyway, particularly as it's probably not representative of the overall population.

thee glitz wrote:

would you accept the possibility of legislating for abortion on demand being kicked 10 years down the road if it meant an end to women dying due the 8th?

Bannasidhe wrote:

And what?

I'm trying to gauge the extent of prioritising ensuring women don't die for lack of an abortion vs general availability on demand.

NuMarvel wrote: »

The risks you referred to as being present in the current situation minus whatever ones might be mitigated by the alternative you'd propose in lieu of the Committee's recommendations.

What I said was

thee glitz wrote: »

I guess reference could be made to burden imposed by the continued protection of life.

I note that you weren't replying to my post, but to this obtuse misrepresentation of what I said by Bannasidhe.

I offered a very general proposal (and I don't see that anyone else has offered anything), having implied that I'm not well placed to draft / interpret constitutional law. So there's not necessarily any risks that mightn't be mitigated under what I proposed.


I don't see any replies to this either

thee glitz wrote: »

How would you feel if Leo said that the legislation that would follow repealing the 8th would allow abortion on demand up to 26 weeks?

thee glitz

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

What I am saying is that EOTR prioritises banning abortion "on demand" over and above all else.

Nothing wrong with that - a position that will save many lives.

The result of that support of banning abortion "on demand" means that abortion in various extreme circumstances cannot be legislated for.

It only does so to the extent that extreme circumstances can't be allowed for by the constitution without doing so for all cases (any reason / no reason).

So saying he supports abortion in extreme circumstances is completely hollow words.

I don't believe it is, but can appreciate why you might think so. All it would take is a little constitution creativity to allow for abortion where necessary (the specifics to be determined by legislation), but not just because.

NuMarvel

thee glitz wrote: »

What I said was

What you said was that not repealing the 8th puts women's live in danger.

It follows that a proposal that would maintain some or many of the effects of the 8th would carry more risks than a proposal that would carry none of the effects of the 8th.

thee glitz wrote: »

I don't see any replies to this either

I missed it, so I'm happy to answer it now; I wouldn't have a problem with that. The majority of women who access abortion do it within the first trimester (92% in Britain, higher in other European countries), so in effect, there would be little or no difference to the current proposal of up to 12 weeks.

thee glitz

NuMarvel wrote: »

What you said was that not repealing the 8th puts women's live in danger.

It follows that a proposal that would maintain some or many of the effects of the 8th would carry more risks than a proposal that would carry none of the effects of the 8th.

Removing the protection afforded by the 8th completely would carry huge risks for the unborn. The risks I'd allow run are those posed by the unavailability of abortion on demand, whatever they are... not recognising the supposed risk of suicide as sufficient.

I missed it, so I'm happy to answer it now; I wouldn't have a problem with that. The majority of women who access abortion do it within the first trimester (92% in Britain, higher in other European countries), so in effect, there would be little or no difference to the current proposal of up to 12 weeks.

I appreciate your reply, but what I asked was about the proposal to implement such legislation, not the implication of doing so. A proposal to legislate for later availability would bring a greater risk of none at all.

NuMarvel

thee glitz wrote: »

Removing the protection afforded by the 8th completely would carry huge risks for the unborn.

We know that thousands of women already have abortions every year through travel, pills, or other means. How many more abortions would happen under your proposals compared to the status quo? And how many more abortions would happen under the Committee's proposals compared to yours?

thee glitz wrote: »

The risks I'd allow run are those posed by the unavailability of abortion on demand, whatever they are... not recognising the supposed risk of suicide as sufficient.

Whatever they are? How can you decide what risks are acceptable if you don't even know what the risks are?

thee glitz wrote: »

I appreciate your reply, but what I asked was about the proposal to implement such legislation, not the implication of doing so. A proposal to legislate for later availability would bring a greater risk of none at all.

I can see your logic there. Just as well the Assembly and Committee recommended a middle ground option that still means the majority of women can access abortion without jeopardising support for repeal.

dr.fuzzenstein

So business as usual.
The no side is perfectly OK with women traveling for abortions, they just don't want to sully this green isle with this dirty business.
So they can export the problem, whilst sitting smug on their moral high horse.
The hypocrisy of it all stinks to high heaven, because it is pretty clear that they don't give a flying fcuk about those women and their deafing silence on these points speaks volumes.
Your time to stick your head in the sand is over and you know it's over.
This is your last hurrah, soon sense will prevail, it is only a matter of time.

Annasopra

thee glitz wrote: »

Nothing wrong with that - a position that will save many lives.

And yet the reality is womens lives are endangered by it. But as Bannasidhe said earlier women are just collateral damage to save fetuss

end of the road

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

And yet the reality is womens lives are endangered by it. But as Bannasidhe said earlier women are just collateral damage to save fetuss

again this is inaccurate.

captbarnacles

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

So business as usual.
The no side is perfectly OK with women traveling for abortions, they just don't want to sully this green isle with this dirty business.
So they can export the problem, whilst sitting smug on their moral high horse.
The hypocrisy of it all stinks to high heaven, because it is pretty clear that they don't give a flying fcuk about those women and their deafing silence on these points speaks volumes.
Your time to stick your head in the sand is over and you know it's over.
This is your last hurrah, soon sense will prevail, it is only a matter of time.

Not only export! they also blithley ignore that Irish women are having abortions in Ireland but unsafe ones with no medical support.

It's crystal clear from this thread that the pro-lifers don't care about women only about maintaining the pathetic facade of Ireland being anti abortion.

Zubeneschamali

end of the road wrote: »

i don't as we have abortion in extreme circumstances availible in ireland already.

Yes, but not because the pro-life movement were in favour of it.

We have it because they made a balls of the wording of the 8th and legalized abortion by accident.

Annasopra

end of the road wrote: »

again this is inaccurate.

It isn't inaccurate. Womens lives are endangered by the 8th amendment. That is a fact.

Doctor Jimbob

end of the road wrote: »

again this is inaccurate.

You've been doing this for the entire thread and it's getting ridiculous at this point. Any time a point is made against you that you know you can't refute, you just say it's wrong. No attempt at a rebuttal of the argument, just literally sticking your head in the sand.

One eyed Jack

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

It isn't inaccurate. Womens lives are endangered by the 8th amendment. That is a fact.

It's entirely inaccurate, and it's certainly not a fact. It's an opinion.

It's only when a pregnant woman's life is already in immediate danger that the conditions of the 8th amendment become relevant, and even then the priority is to save the life of the pregnant woman.

That's why allegations that racism and sexism in this fùcking country killed Savita are a matter of opinion, and why the allegation that the 8th amendment caused the death of Malak Kuzbary Thawley is a matter of opinion, both of which ignore the failure of numerous systems that should have been in place in the hospitals which, had they been properly implemented, would more likely have prevented their unfortunate deaths and prevented any future risk to pregnant women from substandard practices and incompetence in how these hospitals are run.

222233

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's entirely inaccurate, and it's certainly not a fact. It's an opinion.

It's only when a pregnant woman's life is already in immediate danger that the conditions of the 8th amendment become relevant, and even then the priority is to save the life of the pregnant woman.

That's why allegations that racism and sexism in this fùcking country killed Savita are a matter of opinion, and why the allegation that the 8th amendment caused the death of Malak Kuzbary Thawley is a matter of opinion, both of which ignore the failure of numerous systems that should have been in place in the hospitals which, had they been properly implemented, would more likely have prevented their unfortunate deaths and prevented any future risk to pregnant women from substandard practices and incompetence in how these hospitals are run.

You say it doesn't endanger women's lives, I would say you would possibly find that to be untrue, if we could measure the scope of injury caused by the eight amendment, much of which is probably undocumented given how far back it would go. Consider just for example those who have had abortions carried out illegally.

You are correct in saying that it's only when a woman's life is in "immediate danger" that the eight kicks in which is a VERY sad reality as it stems from an ideation that until or unless the problem becomes urgent it should be allowed to fester.

NuMarvel

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's entirely inaccurate, and it's certainly not a fact. It's an opinion.

Here's where you do that thing of just repeating the same thing over and over again.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's only when a pregnant woman's life is already in immediate danger that the conditions of the 8th amendment become relevant, and even then the priority is to save the life of the pregnant woman.

Nice attempt at a swerve, but no dice. The point was the dangers the 8th puts women in, not what happens after they're put in danger.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's why allegations that racism and sexism in this fùcking country killed Savita are a matter of opinion, and why the allegation that the 8th amendment caused the death of Malak Kuzbary Thawley is a matter of opinion, both of which ignore the failure of numerous systems that should have been in place in the hospitals which, had they been properly implemented, would more likely have prevented their unfortunate deaths and prevented any future risk to pregnant women from substandard practices and incompetence in how these hospitals are run.

Mrs Thawley was only in surgery because the 8th denied her the option of a non-invasive treatment. A non-invasive treatment that would have had the same outcome as surgery, yet she was force to undergo surgery, which even at the best of times is never risk free. None of this is opinion, it is fact.

I have stated more than once that the hospital and doctors bear responsibility for the effects of the surgery, but the 8th, and it supporters, bear responsibility for her being in surgery in the first place.

It'd be interesting to see how Ireland's rate of surgeries for ectopic pregnancies compares internationally. Do we have a higher rate, and if so, how do we justify continuing the use of surgery when there are other, less invasive options available? How would we continue justifying the use of valuable staff and infrastructural resources at a time when the health service is stretched to the limit when a more efficient means are available?

B0jangles

Say you have severe indigestion and for some completely incomprehensible reason (possibly rooted in religion) you can't be given a couple of rennies; the only legal option is gastric surgery to remove the excess acid.

The surgery is botched and you die on the operating theatre.

Is the root problem the specific instance of botched surgery or the insane requirement to have the surgery in the first place?

One eyed Jack

NuMarvel wrote: »

Here's where you do that thing of just repeating the same thing over and over again.

Nice attempt at a swerve, but no dice. The point was the dangers the 8th puts women in, not what happens after they're put in danger.

I think Joey was pretty explicit in his claim that the 8th puts women's lives in danger. I'm not twisting anything or wilfully misinterpreting anything in that statement.

Mrs Thawley was only in surgery because the 8th denied her the option of a non-invasive treatment. A non-invasive treatment that would have had the same outcome as surgery, yet she was force to undergo surgery, which even at the best of times is never risk free. None of this is opinion, it is fact.

Before the 8th existed, the Offences Against the Person Act of 1861 would have been in play. That's why hypotheticals are just that. There's simply no way of knowing how it would have played out in any given circumstances where there are a number of factors to be considered.

I have stated more than once that the hospital and doctors bear responsibility for the effects of the surgery, but the 8th, and it supporters, bear responsibility for her being in surgery in the first place.

I hope you aren't expecting me to dignify that particular comment.

It'd be interesting to see how Ireland's rate of surgeries for ectopic pregnancies compares internationally. Do we have a higher rate, and if so, how do we justify continuing the use of surgery when there are other, less invasive options available? How would we continue justifying the use of valuable staff and infrastructural resources at a time when the health service is stretched to the limit when a more efficient means are available?

I was immediately going to suggest that the beancounters will already have done their homework, but then that would have ignored the more obvious answer - politics.

dr.fuzzenstein

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

You've been doing this for the entire thread and it's getting ridiculous at this point. Any time a point is made against you that you know you can't refute, you just say it's wrong. No attempt at a rebuttal of the argument, just literally sticking your head in the sand.

I think EOTR may believe this thread is a Panto.

One eyed Jack

B0jangles wrote: »

Say you have severe indigestion and for some completely incomprehensible reason (possibly rooted in religion) you can't be given a couple of rennies; the only legal option is gastric surgery to remove the excess acid.

The surgery is botched and you die on the operating theatre.

Is the root problem the specific instance of botched surgery or the insane requirement to have the surgery in the first place?

In my opinion, it's the botched surgery.

For example, I recently had a hip replacement operation, and there are any number of it's and buts and possible scenarios with potential consequences -

If the surgeon had nicked an artery I would simply have bled to death.

If the surgery had been performed at another hospital where they have the equipment to recycle blood during surgery it would have immediately reduced my risk of exposure to any number of other outcomes.

If I hadn't had steel pins put in 20 years ago it would have made the hip replacement procedure much more straightforward.

If a click hip had been detected during a routine examination which was carried out on all babies at birth, then I might never have had to have a hip replacement now. It would simply have been a question of being put in a cast for a few months as opposed to having been missed out on completely. I don't know why it was missed out on, but I can't look back now at all the what if's, because each permutation presents it's own set of further possibilities, and there's no way of truly knowing anything with any degree of certainty.

B0jangles

One eyed Jack wrote: »

In my opinion, it's the botched surgery.

For example, I recently had a hip replacement operation, and there are any number of it's and buts and possible scenarios with potential consequences -

If the surgeon had nicked an artery I would simply have bled to death.

If the surgery had been performed at another hospital where they have the equipment to recycle blood during surgery it would have immediately reduced my risk of exposure to any number of other outcomes.

If I hadn't had steel pins put in 20 years ago it would have made the hip replacement procedure much more straightforward.

If a click hip had been detected during a routine examination which was carried out on all babies at birth, then I might never have had to have a hip replacement now. It would simply have been a question of being put in a cast for a few months as opposed to having been missed out on completely. I don't know why it was missed out on, but I can't look back now at all the what if's, because each permutation presents it's own set of further possibilities, and there's no way of truly knowing anything with any degree of certainty.

Could your recent hip issue have been treated entirely with medication instead of surgery?

If you could have had same result simply by taking a pill, would you have chosen to undergo surgery?

Would you be happy to have that decision made for you?

One eyed Jack

B0jangles wrote: »

Could your recent hip issue have been treated entirely with medication instead of surgery?

I know why you're asking that question, but I hope you'll appreciate how difficult it is to answer given that I'm not a medical professional. It could have been left as it was, and I would have managed fine. It could have been treated with medication, and I would have been fine, but it was determined by medical professionals at the time that I would be a good candidate for a procedure that had been successfully tried in the States.

If you could have had same result simply by taking a pill, would you have chosen to undergo surgery?

It would depend upon the outcome of taking the pill, which obviously if we were to draw a fair comparison, the outcomes wouldn't be the same. You might as well be asking me if I were experiencing an ectopic pregnancy and was told that I would not be given a pill but was told surgery was available, would I go for the surgery? Obviously I would. If I knew the conditions under which the surgery was to be performed, then I would likely say I wasn't willing to take that risk, and given the outcomes of previous cases and other cases I'm aware of which are cases of medical mismanagement in Ireland, I would be extremely hesitant.

Would you be happy to have that decision made for you?

Again, I'm happy to have some decisions made for me, such as what medical professionals with decades of experience in dealing with my condition would have over me, and then some decisions which place limitations on their options or place limits on the type of treatment available to me, I'm prepared to live with the consequences of those decisions.

The idea of maintaining that the 8th is responsible for any pregnant woman's death is to me at least the equivalent of suggesting that if a woman hadn't left her home, she wouldn't have been raped. It's an argument that completely ignores what actually caused her to be raped, in the same way that suggesting the 8th is responsible for the death of any pregnant woman ignores the actual cause of her death.

dr.fuzzenstein

What about having the decision made for you, forcing you to have surgery instead of medication.
And if that decision was not taken on scientific and medical grounds, but moral and religious grounds?
I would, like any sane person leave the country, because I don't believe in surgery for reasons of oogedy boogedy.

Kurtosis

B0jangles wrote: »

Say you have severe indigestion and for some completely incomprehensible reason (possibly rooted in religion) you can't be given a couple of rennies; the only legal option is gastric surgery to remove the excess acid.

The surgery is botched and you die on the operating theatre.

Is the root problem the specific instance of botched surgery or the insane requirement to have the surgery in the first place?

What you'd hope would happen in healthcare is a patient and their doctor would discuss available treatment options, the relative advantages and disadvantages of each, and decide on the option that provides the best balance of benefits and harms.

That doesn't seem to be possible for managing ectopic pregnancies as the available options are restricted by the eighth amendment. International experience shows medical management with methotrexate is the optimal treatment, but because this isn't an option here, we have a higher risk invasive alternative being used. The aim of both these strategies is the same (ending the ectopic pregnancy) so women are subjected to a riskier treatment with no potential benefit - the eighth clearly endangers (i.e. increases the risk to) womens' lives.

One eyed Jack

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

What about having the decision made for you, forcing you to have surgery instead of medication.
And if that decision was not taken on scientific and medical grounds, but moral and religious grounds?
I would, like any sane person leave the country, because I don't believe in surgery for reasons of oogedy boogedy.

Ah, that's probably where we differ dr. f! :pac:

Seriously though, I think you're ignoring the larger part that politics, rather than best practice plays in many of these decisions taken in relation to healthcare in Ireland. There's no question that it comes down to a question of politics, money and culture. For example there's been little mention of these cases in the Irish media, and it's a scandal IMO as big as the Hep C scandal -

Irish women take legal action over 'razor blade' vaginal mesh implants


A NUMBER OF Irish women are pursuing legal action over complications they suffered after receiving vaginal mesh implants.

The cases have emerged following reports of thousands of patients in the US, UK and Australia enduring similar issues with the devices.

Transvaginal mesh implants are used to treat stress incontinence and more recently pelvic prolapse – when a pelvic organ such as the bladder drops. Both of these conditions are common in women after childbirth. The mesh, a net-like implant, which comes in a number of forms and sizes, is inserted in order to support the weakened organ. Tissue then grows into the pores of the mesh to fortify the walls of the affected organ.

These devices have been used across Europe, the United States and Australia since the early 2000s and while short-term trials have found low complication rates for implants that are used to treat stress incontinence, there is growing evidence that the efficacy is lower for devices used in women with pelvic prolapse – and complication rates are higher.

The US Food and Drug Administration reclassified the transvaginal mesh implant as a high-risk device in 2012 and some 100,000 women there have filed lawsuits, but it is only in recent months that the issue was highlighted in the UK.

Legal representatives for women in Ireland who have undergone the procedure have said it was on seeing reports in the UK that some of their clients made the connection between their health issues and the device.

Pain, which is now believed to be related to the implants, can begin at any time – even years – after the procedure. The devices are still in use in Ireland though guidelines have been issued to clinicians in recent years.