The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

B0jangles

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

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.

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.

You approach acknowledging that the heart of the problem is the 8th and then veer away wildly at the end.

If your condition could have not just have been maintained, but entirely resolved by taking a pill, you claim you'd still be content to have the surgery, but with the vital caveat that you'd do so if your medical advisors thought that surgery was the best option for you.

Malak Kuzbary Thawley was denied the option of medical, rather than surgical treatment because the developing embryo had a heartbeat. Her best interest was not the main consideration.

She was not even given the choice, unlike you.

She was forced to undergo surgery not because it was in her best interest, but because of legal restrictions created by the 8th amendment.

Imagine if all surgery had to be carried out in Ireland without the use of blood transfusions because Jehovah's Witness theology had a hand in writing the constitution!

One eyed Jack

B0jangles wrote: »

You approach acknowledging that the heart of the problem is the 8th and then veer away wildly at the end.

If your condition could have not just have been maintained, but entirely resolved by taking a pill, you claim you'd still be content to have the surgery, but with the vital caveat that you'd do so if your medical advisors thought that surgery was the best option for you.

Malak Kuzbary Thawley was denied the option of medical, rather than surgical treatment because the developing embryo had a heartbeat. Her best interest was not the main consideration.

She was not even given the choice, unlike you.

She was forced to undergo surgery not because it was in her best interest, but because of legal restrictions created by the 8th amendment.

Your summation of my position isn't entirely accurate, but that's not the more salient point. You're still ignoring the fact that if the 8th amendment weren't in place, the relevant act would be the Offences against the Person act, which would likely have prohibited the administration of the medication anyway.

Another doctor in that situation may have chosen to administer the medication and then argue with the Courts afterwards.

Imagine if all surgery had to be carried out in Ireland without the use of blood transfusions because Jehovah's Witness theology had a hand in writing the constitution!

That may not be entirely the bad thing you imagine it to be given we have a culture in the medical community in Ireland who are very quick to go for blood transfusions instead of other practices which are shown to have better outcomes and are less expensive -


Blood Transfusions Still Overused and May Do More Harm Than Good in Some Patients


I also don't imagine it would lead to the outcomes you think it would either -


Pregnant Jehovah's Witness' decision to refuse treatment 'harrowing' for hospital staff after mother and baby die

B0jangles

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Your summation of my position isn't entirely accurate, but that's not the more salient point. You're still ignoring the fact that if the 8th amendment weren't in place, the relevant act would be the Offences against the Person act, which would likely have prohibited the administration of the medication anyway.

Another doctor in that situation may have chosen to administer the medication and then argue with the Courts afterwards.


That may not be entirely the bad thing you imagine it to be given we have a culture in the medical community in Ireland who are very quick to go for blood transfusions instead of other practices which are shown to have better outcomes and are less expensive -


Blood Transfusions Still Overused and May Do More Harm Than Good in Some Patients


I also don't imagine it would lead to the outcomes you think it would either -


Pregnant Jehovah's Witness' decision to refuse treatment 'harrowing' for hospital staff after mother and baby die

So keep the 8th because the situation was just as bad before it was
enacted - is that the 'It was like that when I got here' principle?

And I really don't see the relevance of mentioning whether or not all blood transfusions are medically justified when we are discussing a situation where the medical justification for a treatment is not the deciding factor.

Malak Kuzbary Thawley was not treated with surgery instead of medication because her doctors thought the surgery was a better medical choice, it was because they feared the legal repercussions.

Because of the 8th.

Kurtosis

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Your summation of my position isn't entirely accurate, but that's not the more salient point. You're still ignoring the fact that if the 8th amendment weren't in place, the relevant act would be the Offences against the Person act, which would likely have prohibited the administration of the medication anyway.

I'm not familiar with the Offences Against the Person Act, could you explain how it would affect the use of methotrexate in the absence of the eighth amendment?

One eyed Jack

B0jangles wrote: »

So keep the 8th because the situation was just as bad before it was
enacted - is that the 'It was like that when I got here' principle?

That's not what I said. I'm just pointing out that if the 8th didn't exist, it's still just as likely she wouldn't have been given the option of medication in this country. Therefore it's not the case that simply the existence of the 8th is responsible for her death.

It would be like me arguing that if she hadn't been experiencing an ectopic pregnancy in the first place she wouldn't have died and her child would have been born. I don't use that argument though because it's entirely based upon presumptions that are in my favour, which would be biased. Instead I argue as to the actual cause of her death, which would be applicable in any number of circumstances, not just in the case of women who are pregnant.

And I really don't see the relevance of mentioning whether or not all blood transfusions are medically justified when we are discussing a situation where the medical justification for a treatment is not the deciding factor.

Eh? Of course the medical justification for any treatment is a deciding factor in terms of the potential outcomes of one treatment over another. That's why as much as it's been paraded about in this thread as some "magic bullet" solution, methotrexate is neither suitable in the treatment of all ectopic pregnancies, nor is it without it's complicating factors, and indeed surgery may be the better option in some cases -

Ectopic Pregnancy Treatment & Management


Medical therapy for ectopic pregnancy involving methotrexate may be indicated in certain patients. To determine acceptable candidates for methotrexate therapy, first establish the diagnosis by one of the following criteria:

Abnormal doubling rate of the beta–human chorionic gonadotropin (β-HCG) level and ultrasonographic identification of a gestational sac outside of the uterus

Abnormal doubling rate of the β-HCG level, an empty uterus, and menstrual aspiration with no chorionic villi

A number of other factors must also be considered once the diagnosis is established, as follows:

The patient must be hemodynamically stable, with no signs or symptoms of active bleeding or hemoperitoneum (must be met by every patient)
The patient must be reliable, compliant, and able to return for follow-up care (must be met by every patient)

The size of the gestation should not exceed 4cm at its greatest dimension (or exceed 3.5 cm with cardiac activity) on ultrasonographic measurement - Exceeding this size is a relative, but not absolute, contraindication to medical therapy

Absence of fetal cardiac activity on ultrasonographic findings - The presence of fetal cardiac activity is a relative contraindication

No evidence of tubal rupture - Evidence of tubal rupture is an absolute contraindication
β-HCG level less than 5000 mIU/mL - Higher levels are a relative contraindication


(bold emphasis my own)

Malak Kuzbary Thawley was not treated with surgery instead of medication because her doctors thought the surgery was a better medical choice, it was because they feared the legal repercussions.

Because of the 8th.

I don't see any mention made of that anywhere?


The court was told that Mr Thawley had discovered on the internet that an ectopic pregnancy without symptoms could be treated with a drug called methotrexate.

But he was told at the hospital that because the foetal sac had a heartbeat, this drug was not an option and the only option was surgical intervention.

Mr Reidy said Mr Thawley was disappointed that a conservative approach could not be taken, but the couple made a joint decision to follow the hospital's advice.

He said that was a decision Mr Thawley regretted to this day and had profound feelings of guilt about.


(again, bold emphasis my own)


Then there was this 'cascade of failures' in what should have been standard procedure for any surgery -


The court heard a blood sample had been taken from Mrs Thawley but was not cross-matched to check her blood type because this was not done at the hospital at weekends, meaning her blood type was not known and a supply of blood for her was not readily available. 

Mrs Thawley's Body Mass Index had not been measured, which would have shown that she was very lean and this would have had an effect on the operation.

There was a delay in contacting the consultant when it became clear there was a problem. He was not fully informed of what had happened and there was a delay while they tried to find the source of the bleeding.

There was also a delay when Mrs Thawley's blood pressure dropped as staff investigated whether there was a problem with the armband on her. There was a further delay in contacting a vascular team from St Vincent's Hospital, the court heard. 

January

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But he was told at the hospital that because the foetal sac had a heartbeat, this drug was not an option and the only option was surgical intervention.

This is because of the 8th amendment! If there was no 8th then they could have given the drug but because the fetus had a heartbeat, they couldn't do so, because of the 8th!

You also forgot to bold the bit where it said they could use the drug if the fetus measured less than 3.5cm with cardiac activity.

One eyed Jack

Kurtosis wrote: »

I'm not familiar with the Offences Against the Person Act, could you explain how it would affect the use of methotrexate in the absence of the eighth amendment?

Well that's the assumption upon which Bojangles argument is based, that because of the existence of the 8th amendment, doctors were prohibited from administering methotrexate because it would have killed the embryo.

However, that argument ignores two things -

1. In an ectopic pregnancy there's no way of saving the embryo anyway, and
2. It's not illegal to administer methotrexate anyway in any case

So quite how the 8th amendment is relevant at all in this case, I don't see it, but you appear to imagine it is -

Kurtosis wrote: »

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.

Maybe this is what Bojangles was referring to?


Doctor was following guidelines in ectopic pregnancy, Medical Council inquiry told


A doctor accused of misdiagnosing an ectopic pregnancy and prescribing drugs to terminate it was following guidelines in what could have been an extremely risky situation, a Medical Council inquiry has been told.

The consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist told mother-of-three Laura Esmonde she could “die in her sleep” and “bleed to death” if she took no action in relation to her suspected ectopic pregnancy in January 2013.

The doctor, identified as Dr A, is accused of poor professional performance in his care of Ms Esmonde at South Tipperary General Hospital

The Medical Council inquiry has heard allegations Dr A wrongly diagnosed Ms Esmonde with an ectopic pregnancy on January 8, when in fact it was a normal pregnancy. He prescribed her two courses of methotrexate, a medication used to stop ectopic pregnancies from growing, which she took.

Nearly three weeks later, on January 26, subsequent ultrasound scans revealed the pregnancy was not ectopic, the inquiry heard. However at that stage, it was not viable and she miscarried on February 2.

...

Mr Mills pointed to evidence from Rotunda master, Professor Fergal Malone, and consultant obstetrician Dr Peter Lenehan, who appeared before the inquiry and who were “clear about the risks faced” in the case of a suspected ectopic pregnancy.

“These two Irish experts both say they would have proceeded in the same way, had they found themselves in Dr A's position,” Mr Mills said.


That's why I said earlier -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Another doctor in that situation may have chosen to administer the medication and then argue with the Courts afterwards.

One eyed Jack

January wrote: »

This is because of the 8th amendment! If there was no 8th then they could have given the drug but because the fetus had a heartbeat, they couldn't do so, because of the 8th!

You also forgot to bold the bit where it said they could use the drug if the fetus measured less than 3.5cm with cardiac activity.

Bojangles assertion was that their decision wasn't based on medical grounds, but because they were afraid of the legal implications, and I pointed out that they gave their decision on medical grounds, not on legal grounds.

I didn't forget to bold anything because I don't bloody know what size the embryo was or wasn't at the time. The salient point was the presence of foetal cardiac activity being a relative contraindication as to why the administration of methotrexate in Ms. Thawleys case may not have been considered even though she read about it on the internet.

I will post again, for one eyed Jack, I HAD to undergo surgery for an ectopic pregnancy because Of The 8th amendment.
There was not, not is there ever, the option of medical treatment in this country.
Because if the 8th.
I was told this afterwards by a midwife. The pills directly target the embryo, 'killing' it if you like. Operating is the only option as it is seen as emergency surgery to save the woman, the embryo is destroyed but not targeted directly.

Oh & before the 8th amendment, the offences against the person act would not have been in play as the unborn did not have equal right to life as the mother, therefore medical treatment, such as a pill, would have been perfectly OK.
It's not procuring abortion in that case.

So, why do you think it's OK to put women through unnecessary operations, when, as you said yourself, the embryo cannot survive anyway?

January

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Bojangles assertion was that their decision wasn't based on medical grounds, but because they were afraid of the legal implications, and I pointed out that they gave their decision on medical grounds, not on legal grounds.

How do you know that though? The doctor wouldn't just come out and say 'oh sorry we can't the 8th has our hands tied'

I didn't forget to bold anything because I don't bloody know what size the embryo was or wasn't at the time. The salient point was the presence of foetal cardiac activity being a relative contraindication as to why the administration of methotrexate in Ms. Thawleys case may not have been considered even though she read about it on the internet.

A fetus which is growing at a regular rate would be about 4cm at around 11 weeks. Ms. Thawley was 6 weeks pregnant, which, would put the fetus at less than 1.6cm in length. Which means that even with cardiac activity, methotrexate can be used, you quoted it yourself up there. Her fallopian tube was still intact, which means it can also be used.

Methotrexate would have been indicated for use in any other country, but not here, because of the 8th.

Trudiha

Kurtosis wrote: »

I'm not familiar with the Offences Against the Person Act, could you explain how it would affect the use of methotrexate in the absence of the eighth amendment?

I'm familiar with the Act, it's still in place in the UK. (The Abortion Act of 1968 is work around of the Offences Against The Person Act, which makes abortion in England and Wales lawful rather than legal, it's interesting but not really relevant in this context.)

What is relevant is that, while it is in force in England and Wales, it allows ectopic pregnancies to be managed medically rather than with surgery, in a way that the 8th doesn't while there is a heartbeat, this woman wouldn't have died in the UK.

One eyed Jack

bubblypop wrote: »

I will post again, for one eyed Jack, I HAD to undergo surgery for an ectopic pregnancy because Of The 8th amendment.
There was not, not is there ever, the option of medical treatment in this country.
Because if the 8th.
I was told this afterwards by a midwife. The pills directly target the embryo, 'killing' it if you like. Operating is the only option as it is seen as emergency surgery to save the woman, the embryo is destroyed but not targeted directly.

Yeah, people get told all sorts of misleading information all the time. This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.

Oh & before the 8th amendment, the offences against the person act would not have been in play as the unborn did not have equal right to life as the mother, therefore medical treatment, such as a pill, would have been perfectly OK.
It's not procuring abortion in that case.

I'll cite directly from the IFPA's rather handy Abortion in Ireland: Legal Timeline so I can't be accused of bias -


The Offences Against the Person Act 1861 is passed which criminalises women who "procure a miscarriage". The Act also makes it a crime to assist a woman to "procure a miscarriage". The punishment in both cases is life imprisonment. The Act also criminalises anyone who knowingly supplies the means to “procure a miscarriage”. These criminal laws remain on the Irish Statute books for more than 150 years and are interpreted to criminalise abortion in all circumstances. Subsequent amendments to the Constitution and court cases interpret further the dimensions of abortion, however, the 1861 Act remains the basis of criminal law on abortion in Ireland until the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013 comes into force.

So, why do you think it's OK to put women through unnecessary operations, when, as you said yourself, the embryo cannot survive anyway?

You'll have to quote me at least where I said anything like that rather than what you might have insinuated from my posts. There's been enough of that crap gone on in this thread already, so unless you can cite where I ever said, or even suggested that I thought it was ok to put women through any unnecessary procedures, I'll put that down to a misunderstanding on your part.

Trudiha

Are you just going to ignore that exactly the same law remains on the statute books in England and Wales without interfering with women's maternal care because it doesn't give an unviable (inviable?) foetus the same right to life as a woman?

One eyed Jack

January wrote: »

How do you know that though? The doctor wouldn't just come out and say 'oh sorry we can't the 8th has our hands tied'

How do I know that they are giving their medical opinion? Because it's written right there in black and white.

A fetus which is growing at a regular rate would be about 4cm at around 11 weeks. Ms. Thawley was 6 weeks pregnant, which, would put the fetus at less than 1.6cm in length. Which means that even with cardiac activity, methotrexate can be used, you quoted it yourself up there. Her fallopian tube was still intact, which means it can also be used.

I'll take the doctors at their word if it's all the same to you. I mean, undoubtedly you know your stuff and all, but given the choice between considering your opinion and the opinion of the medical professionals that were there, I'll take it they were acting according to what they believed was the best course of action in those circumstances.

The failures that were made after that decision was made though, there's no excuse for that level of incompetence, and if they were afraid of any legal implications, they sure as hell didn't show it!

Methotrexate would have been indicated for use in any other country, but not here, because of the 8th.

That document I linked to wasn't written in this country, and as I said methotrexate isn't the "magic bullet" that's been bandied about in this thread, and it's not without it's complications. I don't know what your medical qualifications are, but you have to agree it would be foolish to diagnose someone over the internet, let alone determine the best course of action for them in their circumstances.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I simply meant that I don't do insincerity very well - I can't pretend to feel something I don't, which is why I said nothing, rather than express sentiments I don't genuinely feel.

The last time I asked you on this thread if you just don't care about women who have to undergo unnecessary operations, this is what you replied.
Which basically means that you won't pretend to care that some women have to go through that.
In other words, you don't care about living breathing human women.

One eyed Jack

Trudiha wrote: »

Are you just going to ignore that exactly the same law remains on the statute books in England and Wales without interfering with women's maternal care because it doesn't give an unviable (inviable?) foetus the same right to life as a woman?

Am I going to ignore the law in another jurisdiction? Yes, yes I am.

I think it was the point at which you suggested that Ms. Thawley would be alive today were she in the UK that had me think "and if so many other things had or hadn't happened, something else may or may not have happened". There's simply no way you could guarantee any outcome.

Trudiha

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Am I going to ignore the law in another jurisdiction? Yes, yes I am.

I don't want to be tedious with my exoteric historical knowledge but it was the same jurisdiction when the Act came into law. It's exactly the same piece of law.

One eyed Jack

bubblypop wrote: »

The last time I asked you on this thread if you just don't care about women who have to undergo unnecessary operations, this is what you replied.
Which basically means that you won't pretend to care that some women have to go through that.
In other words, you don't care about living breathing human women.

Yes and when you replied, I thought it best to let it go rather than correct you and point out that I never said I don't care about women who have to undergo unnecessary operations.

You posted about your own personal experience, and because I don't know you, I won't pretend that I care about you. You see me not pretending to care as a bad thing, I see anyone pretending to care as even worse.

I don't expect you or anyone else here should care about me either, but I wouldn't assume that means you don't care about anyone.

One eyed Jack

Trudiha wrote: »

I don't want to be tedious with my exoteric historical knowledge but it was the same jurisdiction when the Act came into law. It's exactly the same piece of law.

I understand that, but the point I'm making is that they aren't the same jurisdiction now. You would absolutely have had a point if women didn't die from mismanagement of ectopic pregnancies in the UK, but I think we can both agree that's simply not true.

Trudiha

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I understand that, but the point I'm making is that they aren't the same jurisdiction now. You would absolutely have had a point if women didn't die from mismanagement of ectopic pregnancies in the UK, but I think we can both agree that's simply not true.

No, what you claimed was that the Offences against Thr Person Act of 1861, an piece of legislation common to both states, prohibited the medical treatment of ectopic pregnancies where a heartbeat is still present. That's what's simply not true.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yes and when you replied, I thought it best to let it go rather than correct you and point out that I never said I don't care about women who have to undergo unnecessary operations.

You posted about your own personal experience, and because I don't know you, I won't pretend that I care about you. You see me not pretending to care as a bad thing, I see anyone pretending to care as even worse.

I don't expect you or anyone else here should care about me either, but I wouldn't assume that means you don't care about anyone.

I think most people would care that women have to undergo unnecessary operations because of a piece of legislation.

One eyed Jack

Trudiha wrote: »

No, what you claimed was that the Offences against Thr Person Act of 1861, an piece of legislation common to both states, prohibited the medical treatment of ectopic pregnancies where a heartbeat is still present. That's what's simply not true.

Oh good lord, no, that is not what I claimed. This is what I actually claimed -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's not what I said. I'm just pointing out that if the 8th didn't exist, it's still just as likely she wouldn't have been given the option of medication in this country. Therefore it's not the case that simply the existence of the 8th is responsible for her death.

It would be like me arguing that if she hadn't been experiencing an ectopic pregnancy in the first place she wouldn't have died and her child would have been born. I don't use that argument though because it's entirely based upon presumptions that are in my favour, which would be biased. Instead I argue as to the actual cause of her death, which would be applicable in any number of circumstances, not just in the case of women who are pregnant.

You made the point that she would be alive if she were in the UK, and I'm saying you simply have no way of knowing that. The UK is an entirely different jurisdiction to Ireland, it's irrelevant now as to what the laws are in the UK because the original point being made was about the existence of the 8th amendment. Without it we had the 1861 act, and any new legislation that has since been enacted in the UK is irrelevant here and now.

Please god I hope that clears that up!

One eyed Jack

bubblypop wrote: »

I think most people would care that women have to undergo unnecessary operations because of a piece of legislation.

I do care that women have to undergo unnecessary operations, for any reason, but that's not the same as whether or not I could possibly care about you at an individual level. You're extrapolating the fact that I don't pretend to care about you to suggest that I don't care about women generally, and that simply isn't the case. I hope that clears it up for you as I didn't want to be elaborating on that. You misunderstood me the first time and I was willing to let that go, and I'm asking you now not to keep pushing it because my answer won't change and I don't want to be upsetting you.

Trudiha

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Oh good lord, no, that is not what I claimed. This is what I actually claimed -



You made the point that she would be alive if she were in the UK, and I'm saying you simply have no way of knowing that. The UK is an entirely different jurisdiction to Ireland, it's irrelevant now as to what the laws are in the UK because the original point being made was about the existence of the 8th amendment. Without it we had the 1861 act, and any new legislation that has since been enacted in the UK is irrelevant here and now.

Please god I hope that clears that up!

I haven't mention any new UK legislation. New UK legislation wouldn't be relevant, in the same way that the Offences Against The Person legislation, *that you brought up*, isn't relevant. The 8th amendment required this woman to be on an operating table, nothing else.

Of course, I can't guarantee she'd still be alive, she might have been hit by a bus, however, she wouldn't have been on an operating table having an artery severed by an incompetent surgeon. That's the special thing that the 8th has brought to the situation.

Trudiha

bubblypop wrote: »

I think most people would care that women have to undergo unnecessary operations because of a piece of legislation.

I'm genuinely sorry that happened to you. I hope your fertility wasn't compromised in a way that has impacted on the family you wanted. I'm ashamed that it happened in our country and I'm ashamed that some see it as collateral damage and that others refuse to acknowledge it at all.

One eyed Jack

Trudiha wrote: »

I haven't mention any new UK legislation. New UK legislation wouldn't be relevant, in the same way that the Offences Against The Person legislation, *that you brought up*, isn't relevant. The 8th amendment required this woman to be on an operating table, nothing else.

Of course, I can't guarantee she'd still be alive, she might have been hit by a bus, however, she wouldn't have been on an operating table having an artery severed by an incompetent surgeon. That's the special thing that the 8th has brought to the situation.

There's nothing in anything that's been written about the case to suggest that the doctors had any fear of any legal implications when they chose the course of action they did.

At least I can point to where they gave the couple their medical opinion, and the couple agreed, so the doctors had their consent to any surgery, so I cannot see other than your own bias, how you could form the conclusion that the only reason methotrexate was not administered in those circumstances was as a result of the 8th amendment, or the doctors fear of any legal implications. I'm not a mind reader, but I don't think you are either.

The reason I brought up the 1861 act is because that's what was there before the 8th amendment, you made the point that in the UK, they got around this with the Abortion act. I can't even suggest that without the 8th amendment we would have the POLDPA because I simply don't know, nobody here knows, so discussing all the it's, buts, ands is simply hypothetical navel gazing, not something I'm particularly interested in doing.

Kurtosis

Thanks Trudiha and Jack for the clarifications regarding the Offences Against The Persons Act.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That document I linked to wasn't written in this country, and as I said methotrexate isn't the "magic bullet" that's been bandied about in this thread, and it's not without it's complications. I don't know what your medical qualifications are, but you have to agree it would be foolish to diagnose someone over the internet, let alone determine the best course of action for them in their circumstances.

I have not seen anyone in this thread bandying about statements that methotrexate is a "magic bullet" or without complications, this seems to be a strawman (although if you can point out where posters have done this I will gladly apologise). I explicitly mentioned that when deciding on any course of action in healthcare that it's about deciding on the optimal treatment which minimises risk of harm and maximises potential benefit:

Kurtosis wrote: »

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.

Of course there may be cases where medical management is unsuitable, and similarly cases where surgical management is unsuitable. For cases where both types of management are possible, that is where the restrictions introduced by the eighth amendment are relevant. While it's difficult to attribute a single death to a treatment (i.e. saying that the counterfactual outcome would have been survival had a different treatment been used), it is possible to conclude a treatment is harmful. If one thousand ectopic pregnancy cases were randomly assigned to surgical management, and one thousand to medical management, any additional deaths occurring in the first group would be due to surgical management. Whatever that figure is, multiply that by the number of ectopic pregnancies where medical management would be suitable in Ireland per year, and you have an idea of how the eighth endangers womens' lives.

One eyed Jack

Kurtosis wrote: »

Thanks Trudiha and Jack for the clarifications regarding the Offences Against The Persons Act.



I have not seen anyone in this thread bandying about statements that methotrexate is a "magic bullet" or without complications, this seems to be a strawman (although if you can point out where posters have done this I will gladly apologise). I explicitly mentioned that when deciding on any course of action in healthcare that it's about deciding on the optimal treatment which minimises risk of harm and maximises potential benefit:

Erm, I wasn't citing anyone in particular there, I just meant the assumption that methotrexates is assumed to be the default treatment for an ectopic pregnancy shouldn't be assumed, and that there are many factors which should be considered in determining the best course of action whether it be surgical or medical intervention.

Ms. Thawley read about methotrexate as a treatment for ectopic pregnancy on the internet, but doctors whom it has to be assumed had more medical experience than she did, explained to her that the drug was not an option. How a handful of posters on the internet could imagine they are in a better position to have determined a course of action for Ms. Thawley is just bizarre, but not entirely unexpected. I know who I'd sooner put my trust in, and it's not Dr. Google.

Of course there may be cases where medical management is unsuitable, and similarly cases where surgical management is unsuitable. For cases where both types of management are possible, that is where the restrictions introduced by the eighth amendment are relevant. While it's difficult to attribute a single death to a treatment (i.e. saying that the counterfactual outcome would have been survival had a different treatment been used), it is possible to conclude a treatment is harmful. If one thousand ectopic pregnancy cases were randomly assigned to surgical management, and one thousand to medical management, any additional deaths occurring in the first group would be due to surgical management. Whatever that figure is, multiply that by the number of ectopic pregnancies where medical management would be suitable in Ireland per year, and you have an idea of how the eighth endangers womens' lives.

You're asking me to engage in a hypothetical again and I'm sorry, but I just can't. My mind doesn't work like that.

Trudiha

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There's nothing in anything that's been written about the case to suggest that the doctors had any fear of any legal implications when they chose the course of action they did.

At least I can point to where they gave the couple their medical opinion, and the couple agreed, so the doctors had their consent to any surgery, so I cannot see other than your own bias, how you could form the conclusion that the only reason methotrexate was not administered in those circumstances was as a result of the 8th amendment, or the doctors fear of any legal implications. I'm not a mind reader, but I don't think you are either.

You're right in that I'm not a mind reader but I can read the newspapers, here's a direct quote from the Indo, I'll follow up with a link, so you can read for yourself, there are no special powers required:

"Mr Thawley he said had Googled ectopic pregnancy and had seen it could be treated with certain medicine but, counsel said, he was told that because the foetal sac had a heartbeat the only option was a surgical intervention."


https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/husband-of-woman-who-died-during-surgery-for-ectopic-pregnancy-to-sue-national-maternity-hospital-after-cascade-of-negligence-36482945.html




You've either misunderstood or are misrepresenting what I've said about The Offenses Against The Person Act and the Abortion Act of England and Wales. There is nothing in the Abortion Act that allows the therapeutic removal of an unviable embryo because there is nothing in the Offences Against Thr Persons Act that would require it.

Trudiha

Kurtosis wrote: »

Of course there may be cases where medical management is unsuitable, and similarly cases where surgical management is unsuitable. For cases where both types of management are possible, that is where the restrictions introduced by the eighth amendment are relevant. While it's difficult to attribute a single death to a treatment (i.e. saying that the counterfactual outcome would have been survival had a different treatment been used), it is possible to conclude a treatment is harmful. If one thousand ectopic pregnancy cases were randomly assigned to surgical management, and one thousand to medical management, any additional deaths occurring in the first group would be due to surgical management. Whatever that figure is, multiply that by the number of ectopic pregnancies where medical management would be suitable in Ireland per year, and you have an idea of how the eighth endangers womens' lives.

Ironically, this would be seen as unethical and never even be suggested to an ethics committee. The baseline for all surgical intervention would be used to compare against the baseline for events when the drug is used for other reasons. The loss of fertility (or other life changing events) would be weighted and adverse events reported.

It's much safer to play with stats than people.

Kurtosis

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Erm, I wasn't citing anyone in particular there, I just meant the assumption that methotrexates is assumed to be the default treatment for an ectopic pregnancy shouldn't be assumed, and that there are many factors which should be considered in determining the best course of action whether it be surgical or medical intervention.

Ok so no bandying about.

You're asking me to engage in a hypothetical again and I'm sorry, but I just can't. My mind doesn't work like that.

Well that makes this discussion a bit pointless, doesn't it? No point debating how anything would be different without the eighth amendment.

Given that medical management of ectopic pregnancy is generally the lower risk option (when it is an option), and that about a third of cases are medically managed in the US/UK, and 0% here, it's hardly that much of an abstract hypothetical to conceive that a third of these women are having their lives endangered by the eighth (as was the base for bubblypop and I believe, one other poster's wife).

One eyed Jack

Trudiha wrote: »

You're right in that I'm not a mind reader but I can read the newspapers, here's a direct quote from the Indo, I'll follow up with a link, so you can read for yourself, there are no special powers required:

"Mr Thawley he said had Googled ectopic pregnancy and had seen it could be treated with certain medicine but, counsel said, he was told that because the foetal sac had a heartbeat the only option was a surgical intervention."

I thought you were going to back up your earlier assertion that the only reason the doctors decided not to go with methotrexate was because of the 8th amendment, not just post something that says as much as I posted earlier myself, and with a link to a Medscape article which suggested that the presence of fetal cardiac activity is a relative contraindication in the administration of methotrexate, to back up my claim that the doctors were giving their medical opinion and seeking consent to a surgical procedure, which the couple agreed to.

You've either misunderstood or are misrepresenting what I've said about The Offenses Against The Person Act and the Abortion Act of England and Wales. There is nothing in the Abortion Act that allows the therapeutic removal of an unviable embryo because there is nothing in the Offences Against Thr Persons Act that would require it.

Took me a few times reading that to understand it, but I'm genuinely not trying to be obtuse here. I'm making an effort to be as understanding and as unbiased as possible, and that's why I linked to the IFPA website which explained how the law manifested itself in Ireland. How it manifested itself in the UK wasn't relevant in the context of the existence of the 8th amendment in Ireland today. This is why I can't understand why you introduced the UK into the discussion and suggested Ms. Thawley would still be alive - it introduced an entirely different set of hypothetical circumstances!

pilly

One eyed Jack wrote:

That's not what I said at all, and what's quite breathtaking for me is that even after all this time, after all this discussion, you're still interpreting my posts with malicious intent or some desire that I have to deny women anything or harm women in some way.

Ah but it was you said Jack you're just trying to paint yourself in a good light here.

The 8th is harming women and your campaigning against repeal will continue that hurt should it work.

To quote the words of my father again "I care more about women than embryos". Your view is you care more about embryos which puzzles me no end.

nozzferrahhtoo

pilly wrote: »

which puzzles me no end.

It becomes even more puzzling when you realize in other threads on other parts of the forum he talks about how the child only gets rights after birth, and how he believes a woman who does not want to be pregnant should be allowed terminate the pregnancy at any time, for any reason, and any stage of pregnancy.

Something seriously does not add up for me there, but predictably when I asked for clarification (twice) he ignored it.

pilly

One eyed Jack wrote:

Where did I make any such claim first of all?

You claim to speak to a large number of pregnant women Jack tbf.

Either that's claiming experience in the field or it's just a little spoof to back up your arguments.

No-one goes around speaking to lots of pregnant women on a daily basis.

Edward M

Was just listening to local radio here in the car as I travelled, the Joe Finnegan show on shannonside/northern sound radio.
They did a survey of local political TDs, cross party.
A fair few didn't respond or said they would wait for the debates this week to see how they could reconcile what was on offer before making up their minds fully.
A good proportion did respond and from those that did respond a sizable majority are not in favour of repeal, and of those in favour of repeal have strong reservations on the 12 week abortion limit.
Surprisingly a good few females are against repeal.
This covers counties Cavan, Monaghan, Leitrim, Longford and Westmeath.

Loafing Oaf

Edward M wrote: »

Was just listening to local radio here in the car as I travelled, the Joe Finnegan show on shannonside/northern sound radio.
They did a survey of local political TDs, cross party.
A fair few didn't respond or said they would wait for the debates this week to see how they could reconcile what was on offer before making up their minds fully.
A good proportion did respond and from those that did respond a sizable majority are not in favour of repeal, and of those in favour of repeal have strong reservations on the 12 week abortion limit.
Surprisingly a good few females are against repeal.
This covers counties Cavan, Monaghan, Leitrim, Longford and Westmeath.

At the end of the day, does it really matter what position individual politicians take on the issue? Very few are against holding a referendum, and at this point it seems highly unlikely the anti-repealers would have the numbers to vote down the proposed replacement legislation if the referendum is passed.

One eyed Jack

pilly wrote: »

Ah but it was you said Jack you're just trying to paint yourself in a good light here.

The 8th is harming women and your campaigning against repeal will continue that hurt should it work.

To quote the words of my father again "I care more about women than embryos". Your view is you care more about embryos which puzzles me no end.

pilly it's the internet, I'm not going to care what complete strangers think of me. Look at nozz here, been doing his best to undermine my points for donkeys, follows me round from thread to thread like a bad smell, and knows well why I ignore him, I've told him numerous times, and yet, here he is, like a petulant child demanding attention -

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It becomes even more puzzling when you realize in other threads on other parts of the forum he talks about how the child only gets rights after birth, and how he believes a woman who does not want to be pregnant should be allowed terminate the pregnancy at any time, for any reason, and any stage of pregnancy.

Something seriously does not add up for me there, but predictably when I asked for clarification (twice) he ignored it.

That's been asked and answered numerous times in the thread already. You simply can't have missed it given your talent for snorting through my posts to find any juicy tidbits for your latest attempt to undermine my points, just like you're doing now.

pilly wrote: »

You claim to speak to a large number of pregnant women Jack tbf.

Either that's claiming experience in the field or it's just a little spoof to back up your arguments.

No-one goes around speaking to lots of pregnant women on a daily basis.

Never made any such claim pilly, and if others inferred that from my posts, that's their business. Also, I would be surprised if you took the word of anyone on the internet seriously. I certainly don't, but your point reminds me of those metoo movementarians who imagine men have never known or heard of women who have been sexually assaulted or raped before now, and this is all new to them.

Of course it is.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's been asked and answered numerous times in the thread already. You simply can't have missed it given your talent for snorting through my posts to find any juicy tidbits for your latest attempt to undermine my points, just like you're doing now.

Pocket the persecution narrative, I do not such thing. You just invent narrative after narrative to avoid answering posts and questions. You know the forum has an ignore function right? I follow you nowhere. We simply have similar interests in what threads we each personally like to open and reply to. The same bus is behind me every time I drive to work too. Is that because I happen to be driving the same route he uses, or because he is following me? Which answer is true and which is sheer paranoia?

The thread is 4500ish posts long. If you have answered the questions I have asked twice, and you have ignored twice, I genuinely have not seen it. So I repeat the post a THIRD time that you have wantonly ignored twice now:

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am still curious what your interest even is in a law that protects the right to life of the unborn given you have indicated to me in the past (assuming you were not just communicating poorly) that you believe a woman should be able to have a termination of her pregnancy at any stage, for any reason.

I am very interested to hear how one can hold the position that a woman should have the right to terminate the pregnancy at any stage for any reason........ while also holding to the position the unborn should have a right to life.

You have told us "that a woman should have full control over her own body at any stage in her pregnancy.".

Is that not at odds with a law that gives a right to life to the unborn?

You have also told us that "Before it's born, it's a foetus, inside a pregnant woman, who does not want to continue her pregnancy. After it's born, it's no longer a foetus, but an individual human being upon which we confer human rights."

Is there not a contradiction in saying we confer rights after birth, but having a law that gives it rights before birth? Which is it? It can not be both!

I genuinely would like to see the connection here, because at the moment it is like reading the posts of two totally different people posting under one single user name. Perhaps a simple re-wording of your points is all that is required for me to see the missing link, but right now things appear to by entirely contradictory.

Or maybe even better, because second voices can often be clearer than one.... if someone ELSE understands how this conflict is resolved and understands OEJs position here, could you adumbrate it in your own words for me. Maybe I will understand the same point better simply made by a different person in a different way?

captbarnacles

Originally Posted by pilly View Post
You claim to speak to a large number of pregnant women Jack tbf.

Either that's claiming experience in the field or it's just a little spoof to back up your arguments.

No-one goes around speaking to lots of pregnant women on a daily basis.

Never made any such claim pilly, and if others inferred that from my posts, that's their business. Also, I would be surprised if you took the word of anyone on the internet seriously. I certainly don't, but your point reminds me of those metoo movementarians who imagine men have never known or heard of women who have been sexually assaulted or raped before now, and this is all new to them.

Of course it is.

You do infer it Jack, so much so I wondered if you were involved in maternity business - medical or other.

One eyed Jack

captbarnacles wrote: »

You do infer it Jack, so much so I wondered if you were involved in maternity business - medical or other.

I didn't do any such thing capt, nor do I feel any need to justify your curiosity. I'm just an ordinary guy who mixes with ordinary people, there's no big mystery to it.

.......

This post has been deleted.

SusieBlue

I'll be very honest Jack, I've read your posts on numerous threads over the last couple of months and I'm still actually unclear as to what exactly your position on this referendum is. I mean absolutely no offence when I say I find your posts confusing to read.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Water John

As an ordinary male, I have never discussed pregnancy with anyone other than my OH. I would find it weird and I suspect so would any pregnant woman.

One eyed Jack

WhiteRoses wrote: »

I'll be very honest Jack, I've read your posts on numerous threads over the last couple of months and I'm still actually unclear as to what exactly your position on this referendum is. I mean absolutely no offence when I say I find your posts confusing to read.

People can change their minds WhiteRoses, often when presented with new information, and if someone changes their minds on an issue or offers an opinion different from a position they previously held, then it shouldn't be that hard to accept their opinion is what it is now, and their opinion in the past was then. There's nothing suspicious, or confusing or wrong or anything else about that.

So I'll break it down for you as simply as possible.

1. I used argue for repeal of the 8th amendment because I was looking at it slowly on the basis of recognising the basic premise of human rights which are dignity and respect for human life - both the woman in question, and the unborn, and I looked at the issue from a quality of life perspective in that it would be unfair on a woman who didn't want to give birth in the first place to expect her to give birth, let alone to a child she didn't want, and had no will to care for. It would also be unfair on a child to bring them into that environment. Therefore I have no issue with a woman choosing to have an abortion at any point in her pregnancy, I don't even want to know her reasons. It's entirely her own business and I'll help her in any way I can.

2. Then I looked at abortion from a societal perspective, and the potential effects that the introduction of legislating or in our case broadening our abortion laws, as that's really how a society is influenced and guided - by a collection of laws that apply to everyone, not solely just pregnant women and the unborn at some given point in their lives as individuals. People grow up with these laws, and are influenced by their existence, or indeed lack thereof.

So, when I looked at the history of abortion and how it's introduction has influenced other societies, I came to the conclusion that overall it has had an even greater negative influence both socially and economically on the people for whom it was argued the introduction of abortion would help them in the first place, while the socially and economically affluent sections of society who proposed abortion as some sort of a solution in the first place - it has had a greater positive influence both socially and economically for those people.

In short - after abortion was legislated for in a society, the gap between those people who are living in poverty and those people who are wealthy, widened enormously, and those people living in poverty had even less chance of any social mobility, while those who were already wealthy gained even greater social mobility.

That's why when you or anyone else asks me my position on the 8th, I simply don't know, I'm undecided, because for me it's not just a question of either keeping or repealing the 8th as the 8th isn't going to affect my advice to any woman not to buy pills over the internet, and to go abroad for an abortion anyway. But at a societal level there is the question of what sort of a society would I want for my grandchildren, and it's on that basis I'm constantly thinking that there simply has to be a better way than this.

I hope that makes my position somewhat clearer for you WhiteRoses, hadn't meant to go on for as long as I did, I meant to keep it short :pac:

eviltwin

Jack we could have a utopia of a society and women will still seek abortion. By all means we need to have a society that doesn't pressure women into abortion but that presents it's own problems. There will be opposition to providing housing etc to parents. So while I understand your vision, indeed I share it, you have to legislate for the reality we live in.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I looked at abortion from a societal perspective, and the potential effects that the introduction of legislating or in our case broadening our abortion laws, as that's really how a society is influenced and guided - by a collection of laws that apply to everyone

There we agree. How we legislate for an issue like abortion has greater implications at the level of society. It is a loft target to legislate for a brighter future, but one also have to temper ones ideals by the reality around us and legislate not just for our ideals, but for our reality too.

But that is about as far as we agree as I think the CORRECT way to go is to recognize exactly what it is we value in humanity, and exactly what it is we are even in the business of doing when we discuss topics like rights, morality and ethics.

And I believe we need to do this in a way that is not solely human-centric, but affects any life form we have or ever will come across, or will great. From the lowly chicken, to alien life, to general Artificial Intelligence.

Curtailing the rights, well being, and choices of a sentient person (the woman) in deference to the imaginary concern for a non-sentient blob of meat (the fetus) does not do any of that. It does not recognize such rights and well being, it does not acknowledge what is actually of value in our flailing attempts at ethics and morality, and it is a distortion of not only where our concerns should lie in the present, but where they might be pressed to lie in the future in our ethical treatment of sentient software, alien life, or anything else that challenges human hubris on the value of it's own place in the universe.

If ethics, rights and morality are "for" anything in this world, it is for the benefit and well being of sentient agents. To curtail that well being in deference to a sentient-dead biological blob is a failure in humanity and of ethics and morality as a whole.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

In short - after abortion was legislated for in a society, the gap between those people who are living in poverty and those people who are wealthy, widened enormously

Have you any arguments, evidence, data and reasoning you can offer to elevate that statement above the level of correlation-causation assumptions? Because it seems at first glance to me that the general trend in our world, regardless of abortion laws, is to an ever increasing have-havenot divide between rich and poor.

I certainly see no reason at this time to think or understand that full autonomy over ones own reproductive capability would REDUCE the chance of "social mobility". Especially given people with financial burdens who fall pregnant often end up dropping out of college and the like, to get jobs that make ends meet. Unwanted pregnancy can seriously hamper ones future and social mobility. So I am agog to hear how control over such unwanted pregnancy does too.

But one other good reason I ask for something to elevate us past correlation-causation is to explore not only if there is a link between abortion and what you describe....... but if the link (if any) is not due to abortion being introduced but HOW it was introduced. There are good ways and bad ways to do these things.

For example one could "give abortion to the people" and then simply sit back thinking "well they have reproductive autonomy now so no reason to bother with making contraception vat free, improving sexual education in schools, and all the other things that a society should be doing to reduce unwanted pregnancy". And with that kind of implementation I can begin to imagine how your narrative would come into play.

Certainly what does not help such a situation is vacuous and unsubstantiated assertions that comprehensive sex education in the classroom will have no affects outside the classroom, despite the WEALTH of evidence that it actually does. Thankfully no one on this thread is making such assertions though right..... oh wait.....

Zubeneschamali

It's no fun arguing for stuff everyone supports like human rights. Much more fun to adopt some random position (like defending the 8th) and try to defend it against all comers.

It's just the internet, after all.

end of the road

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

There we agree. How we legislate for an issue like abortion has greater implications at the level of society. It is a loft target to legislate for a brighter future, but one also have to temper ones ideals by the reality around us and legislate not just for our ideals, but for our reality too.

But that is about as far as we agree as I think the CORRECT way to go is to recognize exactly what it is we value in humanity, and exactly what it is we are even in the business of doing when we discuss topics like rights, morality and ethics.

And I believe we need to do this in a way that is not solely human-centric, but affects any life form we have or ever will come across, or will great. From the lowly chicken, to alien life, to general Artificial Intelligence.

Curtailing the rights, well being, and choices of a sentient person (the woman) in deference to the imaginary concern for a non-sentient blob of meat (the fetus) does not do any of that. It does not recognize such rights and well being, it does not acknowledge what is actually of value in our flailing attempts at ethics and morality, and it is a distortion of not only where our concerns should lie in the present, but where they might be pressed to lie in the future in our ethical treatment of sentient software, alien life, or anything else that challenges human hubris on the value of it's own place in the universe.

If ethics, rights and morality are "for" anything in this world, it is for the benefit and well being of sentient agents. To curtail that well being in deference to a sentient-dead biological blob is a failure in humanity and of ethics and morality as a whole.



Have you any arguments, evidence, data and reasoning you can offer to elevate that statement above the level of correlation-causation assumptions? Because it seems at first glance to me that the general trend in our world, regardless of abortion laws, is to an ever increasing have-havenot divide between rich and poor.

I certainly see no reason at this time to think or understand that full autonomy over ones own reproductive capability would REDUCE the chance of "social mobility". Especially given people with financial burdens who fall pregnant often end up dropping out of college and the like, to get jobs that make ends meet. Unwanted pregnancy can seriously hamper ones future and social mobility. So I am agog to hear how control over such unwanted pregnancy does too.

But one other good reason I ask for something to elevate us past correlation-causation is to explore not only if there is a link between abortion and what you describe....... but if the link (if any) is not due to abortion being introduced but HOW it was introduced. There are good ways and bad ways to do these things.

For example one could "give abortion to the people" and then simply sit back thinking "well they have reproductive autonomy now so no reason to bother with making contraception vat free, improving sexual education in schools, and all the other things that a society should be doing to reduce unwanted pregnancy". And with that kind of implementation I can begin to imagine how your narrative would come into play.

Certainly what does not help such a situation is vacuous and unsubstantiated assertions that comprehensive sex education in the classroom will have no affects outside the classroom, despite the WEALTH of evidence that it actually does. Thankfully no one on this thread is making such assertions though right..... oh wait.....

it's not viable to operate on the basis of sentients only. the pre-sentient, as in the unborn, who will (unless circumstances prevent it) will become sentient, have to be given protection, to insure their right to become sentient is upheld as much is practically possible.
the reality in relation to abortion on demand, is that when it is legislated for (at least in terms of countries like britain) and ireland should we legislate for it, is that systems are not improved and in fact get a lot worse as there is no incentive to improve them. while ireland isn't great at implementing fully functional systems as it is, should abortion on demand be legislated for then the incentive to even attempt to improve will be gone. that is why, along with many other reasons, there is no grounds to legislate for abortion on demand. abortion on demand isn't needed, but abortion in extreme circumstances is . the state refusing to provide abortion on demand and fund it does not go against bodily autonomy. currently ireland isn't doing anything wrong by not legislating for abortion on demand, it is by not insuring all extreme circumstances where it would actually be necessary such as FFA aren't covered by what legislation exists.