Girl sectioned after psychiatrist ruled out abortion

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

volchista you keep referring back to evidence based on statistics as though they're meant to carry any weight in people making decisions for themselves based on their own circumstances and their own feeling that they know better than anyone else what's best for themselves and what they are and aren't capable of.

I already said I'm not disputing the statistics, they are what they are - evidence gathered after the fact. You're using statistics pre-emptively and attempting to map a broader context onto an individual perspective. That's not how statistics actually work! If they did work like that, then you would have people arguing that the only people who should be licensed to have children are white people who's incomes are above a certain threshold, working in careers where they also get to spend an appropriate amount of bonding time with their children in the best interests of the childs personal and social development...

Because ain't no good outcomes ever came of them coloured folk having the babies an' gittin' all pregnant agin' n agin'... statistically speaking, of course!

Wow. This is both bizarre and, frankly, offensive.

My question isn't whether adults should be allowed to have children, as you are trying to twist it towards, but why the usual rule whereby adult carers make the important decisions for their minor dependant should not apply in the case of pregnancy only.

kylith

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm a bit confused by this bit - we're agreed that teenagers aren't stupid (I would go so far as to say I've never met a stupid child either, and I've worked with quite a few!), but then you make the second point about what they are more likely to be swayed by, as though they are complete dullards!

It just seems directly contradictory is all.

They know what a pregnancy is, so they know what is happening to them. However they are also easily manipulated by people in authority so the anti-choice rhetoric of "It's alive! It's a baby! You're a murderer!" could have a very big impact on a teenage girl who is trying to make a very big decision when what she really needs is to have the situation and what is going to happen to her during pregnancy and birth explained, and to be told that she will be supported whatever she decides.

RobertKK wrote: »

People want safe and legal abortion like they have in England...
http://www.thejournal.ie/doctor-nurses-charged-abortion-irish-woman-2146297-Jun2015/

There are risks to any surgery, regardless of how routine it is. Should we ban varicose vein removals because a woman died after one? Jesus, you've a 3% chance of dying while getting your tonsils out, we should immediately ban tonsillectomies!

I wonder if she'd have died if when she discovered she was pregnant she could have gotten a prescription from her GP and had a termination before she was so far along as to need a surgical one.

neonsofa

kylith wrote: »

They know what a pregnancy is, so they know what is happening to them. However they are also easily manipulated by people in authority so the anti-choice rhetoric of "It's alive! It's a baby! You're a murderer!" could have a very big impact on a teenage girl who is trying to make a very big decision when what she really needs is to have the situation and what is going to happen to her during pregnancy and birth explained, and to be told that she will be supported whatever she decides.

.

Absolutely. I agree with this post so much.
And equally, if a teenager as a starting point believes that the fetus is her baby rather than biological matter, not as a result of any coercion or what have you, but just genuinely herself feels that she is now carrying her baby and feels like any other expectant mother night towards it, that she is willing to care for and love the baby, then trying to coerce her into a termination (which she herself may feel is ending the life of her own baby) is equally traumatising imo. I always believed I would terminate if I became pregnant in circumstances that weren't ideal, even when buying a pregnancy test it was with a view to confirming the situation and making plans to rectify it. Then when it sank in that I was pregnant I just couldn't terminate. That had nothing to do with anti choice rhetoric, I myself fully support a woman's choice to abort and don't think it is murder but when I myself was pregnant I felt differently about me myself having the procedure. So to coerce a person to terminate what they themselves consider their baby is just as inhamane imo as forcing them to birth a child they don't want.

Her decision should be respected and her support network should absolutely explain the realities of both, but I don't agree with people telling her what she should do- what they deem is "for the best" because she is the one who has to live with what is a very significant decision, it should be one that she makes with the support of those around her not a decision that is made for her.

BoatMad

the sooner we repeal the 8th and remove these daft " angels on the head of a pin " stuff from the constitution and let the Dail legislate as suits the social conventions of the day , the better

its a complete corruption of democratic politics to allow constitutions to contain narrow definitions and in effect act as if it is legislation

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

Wow. This is both bizarre and, frankly, offensive.

My question isn't whether adults should be allowed to have children, as you are trying to twist it towards, but why the usual rule whereby adult carers make the important decisions for their minor dependant should not apply in the case of pregnancy only.

Was it bizarre and frankly offensive because I used the same statistics you're using to make exactly the point you're making about the potential outcomes of women who choose not to avail of an abortion when the statistics overwhelmingly suggest that the outcomes aren't good?

In fact, according to the same statistics, the best outcomes overall are children who are born to lesbian couples! Any woman who isn't in a lesbian relationship should have an abortion then in that case, in their best interests of course :rolleyes:

(I'm reluctant to use that rolleyes to indicate I'm being sarcastic, but seeing as it wasn't abundantly clear to you the first time!)

What I'm suggesting is no more offensive than you telling someone a couple of years too late that in spite of the fact that they are well educated and their child is happy and healthy and well educated, what's more important to you than acknowledging they are speaking from their experience, is what the statistics say.

You really haven't a leg to stand on to claim offence when the very same reason and logic that you're using to make your point, is used to make a counter-point to yours. The statistics suggest that of the women who avail of abortion - over 70% of them are from religious communities, and the main reason given is for socioeconomic reasons. So, trying to use the issue of abortion to take a pop at religion is serving those women with a double whammy of the same guilt that you say is put upon them already by virtue of the fact that they are religious, and secondly you're completely ignoring the reason for the vast majority of abortions which are socioeconomic reasons - lack of opportunities available to them which severely limits the choices that are available to them.

Even if abortion were available in Ireland, it would still do nothing to address the underlying causes of why many women feel they have no choice but to have an abortion, and that's exactly why there are people working in family planning organisations which are meant to provide support to women experiencing crisis pregnancy, actively coercing women who are already distressed and seeking support, that they would likely be better off to have an abortion, because the statistics suggest that the outcomes won't be good for them otherwise.

At least if a girl experiencing a crisis pregnancy thinks of approaching her spiritual or religious leader, she has a fair idea of what to expect. When she has to approach a complete stranger whom she is expecting will support her, and then she gets the opposite, or what you might call an attempt to discuss the situation logically, then is it any surprise she is left feeling like she has nobody to turn to for support?

To refer to your question btw - who argued that the rule shouldn't apply?

Of course it still applies, how many times do I have to say that it's a better outcome all round if the parents are on board with whatever decision the child makes, whatever that decision may be? You said yourself though you wouldn't force the child one way or the other so we're all good surely, because I wouldn't either.

Captain Obvious

BoatMad wrote: »

the sooner we repeal the 8th and remove these daft " angels on the head of a pin " stuff from the constitution and let the Dail legislate as suits the social conventions of the day , the better

its a complete corruption of democratic politics to allow constitutions to contain narrow definitions and in effect act as if it is legislation

It didn't. It was changed to be more sepcific by democratic vote.

Anita Blow

Samaris wrote: »

One issue with that in this case is that she was adamant that she did not want to carry the pregnancy through. And for claiming her rights under the 8th, she was sectioned against her will and against her mother's will. That's what happened when they went to the State for help, which the State had previously promised via this wishy-washy abusable piece of legalese.

No-one should be forced into an abortion, I agree. But that wasn't the situation here.

There were warnings that something like this -could- happen (same as there's warnings that someone could at some point use abortion for contraception). Well, it has. Now what do we do about it?

I absolutely agree the 8th needs to be repealed, but the POLDP Act criteria wasn't met in this case. Not wanting to carry a pregnancy through satisfies none of the criteria of the act. Suicidal intent arising from the pregnancy on its own doesn't satisfy the criteria either.

The girl's detainment had nothing to do with her pregnancy but had everything to do with her initial presentation.

Can you cite the report on this case or the relevant parts of the POLDP Act that show where it was abused? I've shown several times before here where protocol was not broken in this case but people seem keen to persist in fitting this story to the repeal narrative.

volchitsa

Anita Blow wrote: »

I absolutely agree the 8th needs to be repealed, but the POLDP Act criteria wasn't met in this case. Not wanting to carry a pregnancy through satisfies none of the criteria of the act. Suicidal intent arising from the pregnancy on its own doesn't satisfy the criteria either.

The girl's detainment had nothing to do with her pregnancy but had everything to do with her initial presentation.

Can you cite the report on this case or the relevant parts of the POLDP Act that show where it was abused? I've shown several times before here where protocol was not broken in this case but people seem keen to persist in fitting this story to the repeal narrative.

You may be right, but given what POLDPA was brought in specifically in order to do (legislate for the X case ruling) then if the bolded part is accurate, POLDPA is not fit for purpose.

Zubeneschamali

One eyed Jack wrote: »

volchista you keep referring back to evidence based on statistics as though they're meant to carry any weight in people making decisions for themselves based on their own circumstances and their own feeling that they know better than anyone else what's best for themselves and what they are and aren't capable of.

Well, yes.

When someone says "You and your statistics! Cigarettes never make me sick, they help me concentrate at work and relax after!" they are doing exactly what you suggest - making decisions based on their own feeling that they have a pretty good grasp of things.

And it'll kill about half of them.

Anita Blow

volchitsa wrote: »

You may be right, but given what POLDPA was brought in specifically in order to do (legislate for the X case ruling) then if the bolded part is accurate, POLDPA is not fit for purpose.

Again it comes back to the limitation of the 8th amendment. The X case ruled that abortion be available for women suicidal due to their pregnancy, but it still must be interpreted in the context of the 8th amendment which requires that due consideration be given to the life of the fetus.
In practice this means that abortion must be the only treatment likely to cure the suicidal intent before it can be granted.

I haven't really been intending to debate the merits of abortion as a treatment for suicide arising from pregnancy. What I've been trying to do is demonstrate that the psychiatrist in question followed the law, as people have been determined to drag him/her through the mud and attribute malice to a person only acting within the legal limits placed upon them. Some have gone so far as to suggest a medical professional coaxed a family to Dublin telling them they're getting an abortion just so they can section them, despite no publication even alluding to this.

Zubeneschamali

Anita Blow wrote: »

What I've been trying to do is demonstrate that the psychiatrist in question followed the law, as people have been determined to drag him/her through the mud and attribute malice to a person only acting within the legal limits placed upon them.

I did no attribute any malice, just pro-life views. Since more than 200 practicing psychiatrists with pro-life views have stated that they will never allow anyone an abortion no matter what the law, constitution and Supreme court say, I don't think this amounts to dragging anyone through any mud that the profession has not smeared all over itself already.

Anita Blow

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I did no attribute any malice, just pro-life views. Since more than 200 practicing psychiatrists with pro-life views have stated that they will never allow anyone an abortion no matter what the law, constitution and Supreme court say, I don't think this amounts to dragging anyone through any mud that the profession has not smeared all over itself already.

Do you have a link for the 200 psychiatrists claim? I'm not sure there's even 200 consultant psychiatrists in the country.
A doctor may hold a personal view on a topic, but it does not mean that they form their professional opinion based on that view. As per the IMC, a doctor can decline a particular duty if it goes against their religious/moral beliefs but they are ethically and legally obliged to refer to another doctor who will. For example a GP can refuse to prescribe the pill but they must arrange for the patient to see a GP that will in a timely manner.
That is how personal beliefs are dealt with in the medical profession. A psychiatrist who did not agree with abortion would not be volunteering themselves to assess girls for an abortion and instead would defer to another colleague.

Samaris

RobertKK wrote: »

Please do quote a case in Ireland.

...Really? Savita Hallapanavar is the screamingly obvious one ("is abortion the cure for septicaemia now?" - it is when it's a septic ongoing miscarriage, so let's knock that on the head right-off). Amnesty International was concerned enough about that case that they spoke of it in their report on draconian abortion laws.

Sheila Hodgers died of multiple cancers right after giving birth to her third child. It is alleged that she was refused chemotherapy treatment on the basis on the law. If that sounds insane and unlikely, it happened only a few years ago in the Dominican Republic to a 16-yr-old girl. ("Esperanacita") And yes, because it's apparently the most important thing, the baby died straight after birth.

If I was allowed go into cases from other countries, I would rapidly run out of space. How many cases of women dying do we need in Ireland before it's considered a bit on the high side?

Zubeneschamali

Anita Blow wrote: »

Do you have a link for the 200 psychiatrists claim? I'm not sure there's even 200 consultant psychiatrists in the country.
A doctor may hold a personal view on a topic, but it does not mean that they form their professional opinion based on that view.

https://twitter.com/Luighseach/status/650344477400387584

Boggy Turf

When will this dysfunctional country escape the dark ages with their attitude to women and children? I still blame those weirdos in the Vatican and the flock that still listen to them. We are making progress but it's painfully slow.

RobertKK

Samaris wrote: »

...Really? Savita Hallapanavar is the screamingly obvious one ("is abortion the cure for septicaemia now?" - it is when it's a septic ongoing miscarriage, so let's knock that on the head right-off). Amnesty International was concerned enough about that case that they spoke of it in their report on draconian abortion laws.

Sheila Hodgers died of multiple cancers right after giving birth to her third child. It is alleged that she was refused chemotherapy treatment on the basis on the law. If that sounds insane and unlikely, it happened only a few years ago in the Dominican Republic to a 16-yr-old girl. ("Esperanacita") And yes, because it's apparently the most important thing, the baby died straight after birth.

If I was allowed go into cases from other countries, I would rapidly run out of space. How many cases of women dying do we need in Ireland before it's considered a bit on the high side?

Savita got a strain of E coli ESBL that is specific to India.
http://aac.asm.org/content/54/9/3564.full

It has a high mortality rate.
Infection is a major cause of miscarriage: http://whatcauses.blogspot.ie/2013/09/what-causes-miscarriages-in-early-pregnancy.html

So given the hospital were very slow to diagnose the e coli ESBL which is highly resistant to antibiotics, would an abortion have treated the infection which most likely caused the miscarriage?
People have used this woman to promote abortion when medical negligence -slow to diagnose the infection and treat the infection.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/victoria-white/savitas-death-is-not-about-abortion-it-is-about-medical-negligence-247993.html

btw Amnesty International are a joke of an organisation.

Zubeneschamali

RobertKK wrote: »

would an abortion have treated the infection which most likely caused the miscarriage?

Not sure what that sentence is supposed to mean, but if you are asking would she be alive today if she got an abortion when needed, then medical opinion is Yes:

HSE Report:
Key Causal Factor 2:
Failure to offer all management options to a patient experiencing inevitable miscarriage of an early second trimester pregnancy where the risk to the mother increased with time from the time that membranes were ruptured.

Inquest: Dr Peter Boylan said it was his view that the 31-year-old would be alive today if a termination had been carried out earlier, but this was not a practical proposition because of the law.

MrPudding

Murrisk wrote: »

Sweet jebus. Manslaughter is a more spur of the moment decision and is not premeditated, yes. Mansalughter verdicts are given when it can be shown that it wasn't planned. But in the moment, the person still intentionally ends a life. I just cannot see how you see manslaughter as analogous to miscarriage. Like... what?

Whilst I don't agree with his overall idea, he is actually right on this point. Pre-meditation is a thing in the USA, but not quite so much in Ireland and the UK. I mention the UK as the homicide laws in Ireland are based on and influenced by those laws in English law.

The key factor in Ireland is intent. I don't know the exact wording in Irish law, it in English law it is the intent to "cause death or really serious harm". So if you intended to kill someone or to cause them GBH, and they died, then the "mens rea" for murder is present. There does not need to be pre-meditation, though pre-meditation is an indication that there is intent.

A spur of the moment heat of argument death can still be murder. All it need is intent behind that action that caused the death.

MrP

volchitsa

RobertKK wrote: »

Savita got a strain of E coli ESBL that is specific to India.
http://aac.asm.org/content/54/9/3564.full

It has a high mortality rate.
Infection is a major cause of miscarriage: http://whatcauses.blogspot.ie/2013/09/what-causes-miscarriages-in-early-pregnancy.html

So given the hospital were very slow to diagnose the e coli ESBL which is highly resistant to antibiotics, would an abortion have treated the infection which most likely caused the miscarriage?
People have used this woman to promote abortion when medical negligence -slow to diagnose the infection and treat the infection.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/victoria-white/savitas-death-is-not-about-abortion-it-is-about-medical-negligence-247993.html

So two points then:
1) This is the problem with a law based on restricting access instead of allowing it : every hour counts in treating sepsis. So if she had had a termination when she asked, she'd have had a better chance of surviving than by having to wait to develop symptoms. In fact I believe that was Peter Boykan's conclusion : he said that when she had developed sepsis it may already have been too late.

But it's directly due to the 8th amendment that it's required to wait until doctors (possibly) notice the symptoms of sepsis.

2) Irish women are expected to believe that the same negligent doctors will be paying enough attention to take action at exactly that point at which their lives and not "just" their health is in danger. That's a lot harder to identify than sepsis. No other countries expect their medical staff to do that.

Do you agree that if Savita's death was due to negligence, that leaves questions over why we choose to leave such decisions to doctors instead of the the woman whose life is involved, the way they do everywhere else?

btw Amnesty International are a joke of an organisation.

It's not just Amnesty though is it? Can you name a single non religious human rights organization which has praised Ireland's position on abortion?

volchitsa

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Not sure what that sentence is supposed to mean, but if you are asking would she be alive today if she got an abortion when needed, then medical opinion is Yes:

HSE Report:
Key Causal Factor 2:
Failure to offer all management options to a patient experiencing inevitable miscarriage of an early second trimester pregnancy where the risk to the mother increased with time from the time that membranes were ruptured.

Inquest: Dr Peter Boylan said it was his view that the 31-year-old would be alive today if a termination had been carried out earlier, but this was not a practical proposition because of the law.

Oops. Sorry, I just noticed you had already replied to this point, and with the appropriate links too. Thanks.

Murrisk

MrPudding wrote: »

Whilst I don't agree with his overall idea, he is actually right on this point. Pre-meditation is a thing in the USA, but not quite so much in Ireland and the UK. I mention the UK as the homicide laws in Ireland are based on and influenced by those laws in English law.

The key factor in Ireland is intent. I don't know the exact wording in Irish law, it in English law it is the intent to "cause death or really serious harm". So if you intended to kill someone or to cause them GBH, and they died, then the "mens rea" for murder is present. There does not need to be pre-meditation, though pre-meditation is an indication that there is intent.

A spur of the moment heat of argument death can still be murder. All it need is intent behind that action that caused the death.

MrP

As said by a poster earlier, both murder and manslaughter are unlawful killing. The vast majority of miscarriages most certainly are not. In a small amount of cases, possibly the woman tried to make herself miscarry but this would be incredibly rare. The analogy simply doesn't work.

volchitsa

Murrisk wrote: »

As said by a poster earlier, both murder and manslaughter are unlawful killing. The vast majority of miscarriages most certainly are not. In a small amount of cases, possibly the woman tried to make herself miscarry but this would be incredibly rare. The analogy simply doesn't work.

If I drink and drive, and kill someone, I didn't intend to kill them. That's what, involuntary homicide, or am I mixed up through watching too many US judiciary series? Definitely against the law anyway.

So the point I think the poster was making is that a pregnant woman's careless behaviour can certainly lead to harming or killing her fetus, yet we don't open criminal investigations into possible causes of miscarriage even if there is strong evidence of drug taking or alcohol etc.

That makes it seem like we don't actually consider fetal death to matter nearly as much as the death of a baby. And I think that's true. So our law that the woman must be at risk of death before terminating even a miscarrying pregnancy is inconsistent. Which I think was the point being made.

GritBiscuit

volchitsa wrote: »

If I drink and drive, and kill someone, I didn't intend to kill them. That's what, involuntary homicide, or am I mixed up through watching too many US judiciary series? Definitely against the law anyway.

In Ireland it would be dangerous driving causing death...

BoatMad

Captain Obvious wrote: »

It didn't. It was changed to be more sepcific by democratic vote.

which is not the way to use a constitution . a constitution is meant to provide an overarching set of guarantees that then result in legislation

what was done was to take a 1980s moral code and attempt to lock the nation to it forever

that needs to change and I beleive it will be so changed

Captain Obvious

BoatMad wrote: »

which is not the way to use a constitution . a constitution is meant to provide an overarching set of guarantees that then result in legislation

what was done was to take a 1980s moral code and attempt to lock the nation to it forever

that needs to change and I beleive it will be so changed

What do you think the original Constitution was based on? Fortune cookies? It was based on the moral code of the early 1900's.

RobertKK

The 16 year old girl gave birth to a baby girl at 7 months, and the baby is now living with her mother and her grandmother at home.

gctest50

RobertKK wrote: »

The 16 year old girl gave birth to a baby girl at 7 months, and the baby is now living with her mother and her grandmother at home.

and ?

RobertKK

gctest50 wrote: »

and ?

It was in the paper today.

One could have also answered that 'no one died..' and the conflict over her mental health was correct by the psychiatrists who sent her home saying she was not suicidal.

_Whimsical_

RobertKK wrote: »

The 16 year old girl gave birth to a baby girl at 7 months, and the baby is now living with her mother and her grandmother at home.

From my reading of it she did not give birth. It says in the print edition of the Independent that she had a cesarian section at 7 months. It doesn't say she experienced medical difficulty so it's unclear as to whether this medical necessity or if it was an elective procedure intended to abort the pregnancy as the legislation allows for and the baby survived. She decided to keep her baby and bring it home then.

She was 6 months pregnant when she initially sought the abortion, it was too late to travel to the UK, that's why she was applying for this under our legislation. For me the late time in the pregnancy makes it more understandable that the psychiatrists involved took time to assess this girls mental state thoroughly, both for her sake and for the baby.

For the sake of an extra 4 weeks this child will have a much increased chance of healthy survival and better chance of a healthy future at least than if this procedure happened at 6 months - he probably would have survived then too, they were never going to kill him if he survived the procedure.
I really hope that anyone seeking a late term abortion for suicidal reasons can be helped in anyway possible to get to the point in pregnancy that will result in the baby being be able to live a healthy life and given that chance for adoption. I can imagine being a completely overwhelmed, overwrought 16 year old in the face of a pregnancy. I cannot imagine however having an abortion, knowing my baby survived and was extremely disabled due to being premature and was now living as a ward of the state. It would be a horrific thing to live with for a 16 year old, particularly as suicidal feelings abate for most people at some point and attitudes to motherhood do change as is evidenced by this story.

Hoping this girl and the baby will have a healthy and happy future.

AllForIt

I had only scant info on this case and I must admit I'm not fully clued up on the whole issue of abortion but I would be largely pro-abortion in some cases.

When I heard all the indignation in the Dail and in the press I just assumed the girl was just a couple of months or so pregnant, not 6 ! I wouldn't agree even in this case where the girl is suicidal that an abortion should be permitted. So this story wasn't represented accurately by some by manner of hiding the facts of the case. In other words the case wasn't as bad as some made it out to be.

Outlaw Pete

The baby was born seven months into the pregnancy and is now living with the girl and her mother.

Nice to hear.

Hopefully a case such as this will wake up a few of the more militantly prochoice who regularly cite abortion policies like that of Canada's as being utopic.

Had we had such a barbarous policy in place here... this baby would be dead.

Her body, her choice? Well, it's not always that simple and what this case is a clear testament to, is that sometimes there are other options which can be explored which don't include killing babies.

Some of the medics took a battering in the media over this case, to say the least, and Ireland to indeed with some ludicrously likening us to Soviet Russia as a result of it.... but I think ultimately the medical professionals have been vindicated here.

_Whimsical_

AllForIt wrote: »

I had only scant info on this case and I must admit I'm not fully clued up on the whole issue of abortion but I would be largely pro-abortion in some cases.

When I heard all the indignation in the Dail and in the press I just assumed the girl was just a couple of months or so pregnant, not 6 ! I wouldn't agree even in this case where the girl is suicidal that an abortion should be permitted. So this story wasn't represented accurately by some by manner of hiding the facts of the case. In other words the case wasn't as bad as some made it out to be.

I am also pro choice in a lot of instances but I am not at all comfortable with later term abortion. I feel like the facts of this case were kept out of view in order to fuel a pro choice/repeal the 8th agenda but at the expense of women and babies,and by 6 months we are undeniably talking a baby here. We deserve a mature discussion on these matters, one that includes careful consideration of all the nuances that exist in situations of suicidality in late term pregnancy as are illustrated by this case. I really feel suspicious of why the media is so quiet on this after giving intense coverage in the begining, even why this thread is so quiet. Is commitment to an agenda greater than the desire to have the very best legislation possible governing the care of some of the most vulnerable people in the state?
By vulnerable there I don't just mean the baby, I mean the mother too who is an extremely distressed state or mentally unwell.

Why is there no real media coverage or debate on this now?

gctest50

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

......

Why is there no real media coverage or debate on this now?

Because the "event" is over - same as if she terminated her pregnancy

Like all these things, has brought important things to light :

200 -ish hse psychiatrists say they would never go for the abortion option :

that makes then unprofessional anti-choice filth

https://www.twitter.com/Luighseach/status/650344477400387584

One eyed Jack

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

Why is there no real media coverage or debate on this now?

Because the people who were using what little they knew of this case (including the Irish Times which presented the case as an example of another "failure" of Irish legislation regarding abortion), now realise they scored a ferocious own goal in highlighting this particular case out of the other 21 cases in the report on cases relating to the laws regarding children.

Nobody wants to admit they goofed by trying to use this case to further their own agenda.

eviltwin

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Because the people who were using what little they knew of this case (including the Irish Times which presented the case as an example of another "failure" of Irish legislation regarding abortion), now realise they scored a ferocious own goal in highlighting this particular case out of the other 21 cases in the report on cases relating to the laws regarding children.

Nobody wants to admit they goofed by trying to use this case to further their own agenda.

What's to debate though? Its happened and hopefully she is doing well and in a good place and getting all the support she needs. Its her case though, nothing to do with the wider issue and we have to take each case on its merits.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Because the people who were using what little they knew of this case (including the Irish Times which presented the case as an example of another "failure" of Irish legislation regarding abortion), now realise they scored a ferocious own goal in highlighting this particular case out of the other 21 cases in the report on cases relating to the laws regarding children.

Nobody wants to admit they goofed by trying to use this case to further their own agenda.

I'd be very careful before attributing any own goal to the pro choice side of the debate, Jack. The girl was apparently questioned by five psychiatrists - remember the claim that women would not have this done to them? She was also declared suicidal and therefore entitled to a termination by c section, but sectioned for being suicidal - something that was also declared impossible by psychiatrists previously.

And then there's the 7 month "birth" : was this the termination? If so, what is the relevance of the British time limit for non medically essential abortions? The 24 week limit doesn't apply to women who are found to be suicidal, so why should it apply in Ireland, where there is no time limit at all? And what happens if the child has developmental sequels caused by what appears to be the choice of the psychiatrists not to allow her an abortion as she requested? Who is responsible?

It's about as clear as mud.

gctest50

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Nice to hear.

Hopefully a case such as this will wake up a few of the more militantly prochoice who regularly cite abortion policies like that of Canada's as being utopic.

Had we had such a barbarous policy in place here.............

The policy in Canada doesn't make abortion compulsory


To explain it simply :

It's legal in Ireland to go for a walk

The police are not going to come around and check your fitbit or whatever you have

hth

One eyed Jack

eviltwin wrote: »

What's to debate though? Its happened and hopefully she is doing well and in a good place and getting all the support she needs. Its her case though, nothing to do with the wider issue and we have to take each case on its merits.

Her case was used by the IT in an attempt to whip up public outrage in the first place though, and this thread was a result of it where people made all sorts of assumptions in the absence of facts. They made assumptions which supported their own biases.

I don't think the IT or this thread would have gone the way it did had the IT or people here that have argued for term limited abortions had known that the girl was six months pregnant at the time, or that she was granted a termination of her pregnancy.

The outcome of the case wasn't even mentioned in the IT who originally published the story. It was reported in the Irish Independent -

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/abortion-order-teenager-gives-birth-at-seven-months-35883412.html

There was far more to this case than just the abortion angle, but because the outcome is what it is now, IMO it will have done damage to the public perception of those people who highlighted this case to further their own agenda.

I'm all for taking each case on it's merits, which is why I said this particular case was never about abortion.

_Whimsical_

gctest50 wrote: »

Because the "event" is over - same as if she terminated her pregnancy

Like all these things, has brought important things to light :

200 -ish hse psychiatrists say they would never go for the abortion option :

that makes then unprofessional anti-choice filth

No it doesn't. It makes them professionals cognisant of the fact that suicidal thoughts and feelings are passing in most situations. Suicide is not the most likely outcome for the vast majority of people who experience suicidal feelings in any demographic. Also suicidal feelings, when they're the result of mental illness, will often not change because a person changes their circumstances .eg their job or their relationship. There is no medical evidence that termination of a pregnancy will cure suicidal thoughts in that situation.
This is not a black and white issue.

This case illustrates the nuances that apply to cases of suicidality in pregnancy. A girl who was suicidal at the thought of having a baby now has chosen to taken her baby home to live with her. She did have a choice to leave him as a ward of the state, she didn't take that.

Had that girl been immediately granted a termination and no effort to fully assess her mental state or help her change her mind she'd be a 16 year old who'd go home knowing her decision had most likely resulted in a severely disabled baby. She could leave him there in the hospital to become a ward of the state but at 6 months pregnant she would have required a cesarian section to remove him from her stomach and she'd wear the scar of that for the rest of her life as a daily reminder. Having an abortion at late state is not the easy option or the one that you walk away from with zero consequences. It could have dire implications for a girls future mental health.

That's why it deserves a mature conversation and not tired slogan's exchanges and name calling. It might be ok in a general debate but on this aspect of the issue there really are real awful life consequences for everyone involved even when a termination happens.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

I'd be very careful before attributing any own goal to the pro choice side of the debate, Jack. The girl was apparently questioned by five psychiatrists - remember the claim that women would not have this done to them? She was also declared suicidal and therefore entitled to a termination by c section, but sectioned for being suicidal - something that was also declared impossible by psychiatrists previously.

And then there's the 7 month "birth" : was this the termination? If so, what is the relevance of the British time limit for non medically essential abortions? The 24 week limit doesn't apply to women who are found to be suicidal, so why should it apply in Ireland, where there is no time limit at all? And what happens if the child has developmental sequels caused by what appears to be the choice of the psychiatrists not to allow her an abortion as she requested? Who is responsible?

It's about as clear as mud.

That's about the only thing we're likely to find agreement on volchista - the case was always clear as mud to protect the identity of the girl and her family, but there was a definite line of speculation taken by the IT and people here because of their own biases and they used this case to further their own agenda, and by highlighting it drew attention to the case which by now they appear to want to distance themselves from given the outcome as it doesn't fit with their agenda any more.

volchitsa

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

No it doesn't. It makes them professionals cognisant of the fact that suicidal thoughts and feelings are passing in most situations. Suicide is not the most likely outcome for the vast majority of people who experience suicidal feelings in any demographic. Also suicidal feelings, when they're the result of mental illness, will often not change because a person changes their circumstances .eg their job or their relationship. There is no medical evidence that termination of a pregnancy will cure suicidal thoughts in that situation.
This is not a black and white issue.

This case illustrates the nuances that apply to cases of suicidality in pregnancy. A girl who was suicidal at the thought of having a baby now has chosen to taken her baby home to live with her. She did have a choice to leave him as a ward of the state, she didn't take that.

Had that girl been immediately granted a termination and no effort to fully assess her mental state or help her change her mind she'd be a 16 year old who'd go home knowing her decision had most likely resulted in a severely disabled baby. She could leave him there in the hospital to become a ward of the state but at 6 months pregnant she would have required a cesarian section to remove him from her stomach and she'd wear the scar of that for the rest of her life as a daily reminder. Having an abortion at late state is not the easy option or the one that you walk away from with zero consequences. It could have dire implications for a girls future mental health.

That's why it deserves a mature conversation and not tired slogan's exchanges and name calling. It might be ok in a general debate but on this aspect of the issue there really are real awful life consequences for everyone involved even when a termination happens.

The girl was sectioned. That is barbaric and is not what we were told would happen when women were found to be suicidal due to a pregnancy.

There seems to be an implication that it's acceptable to do anything to a woman (or pregnant child) if the end result is that she takes a baby home with her. It's still not acceptable to commit people to mental hospitals except in very particular circumstances. Crisis pregnancy is not (we were assured) one of those. Except now suddenly it is. In Ireland.

So while I really hope things turn out well for this girl and her baby, I would also point out that there are still a lot of questions. Has she bonded with the child? Is she able to look after it? How will her life be compared to if she hadn't had a baby at that age? I hope there's a happy ending, but who knows?

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

The girl was sectioned. That is barbaric and is not what we were told would happen when women were found to be suicidal due to a pregnancy.

There seems to be an implication that it's acceptable to do anything to a woman (or pregnant child) if the end result is that she takes a baby home with her. It's still not acceptable to commit people to mental hospitals except in very particular circumstances. Crisis pregnancy is not (we were assured) one of those. Except now suddenly it is. In Ireland.

But it's just you is implying that volchista in the absence of facts. There are specific provisions in legislation under which children can be held in an appropriate facility, according to S. 25 of the mental health act. There's nothing in Irish law that allows for sectioning women solely on the basis that they are either suicidal, pregnant or both. We just don't know enough about the case to draw conclusions any one way or the other.

So while I really hope things turn out well for this girl and her baby, I would also point out that there are still a lot of questions. Has she bonded with the child? Is she able to look after it? How will her life be compared to if she hadn't had a baby at that age? I hope there's a happy ending, but who knows?

There are lots of questions, but I don't think there is any obligation on anyone who was involved in the case to answer them to the public. The girl and her family and the child and those who support them will know, and that's all the people that really need to know IMO.

Outlaw Pete

gctest50 wrote: »

The policy in Canada doesn't make abortion compulsory

Did somebody say it was?

Your comprehension of my post is quite poor if you think I did.

The point (which appears to have gone over your head) is that many on this thread (and other abortion threads on AH in recent times) have often citied Canada has having utopic abortion policies....... but if we had Canada's polices in place here, this baby would now be dead.... as the girl would have been granted an abortion no matter the stage of the pregnancy she was at.

gctest50

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Did somebody say it was?

Your comprehension of my post is quite poor if you think I did.

The point (which appears to have gone over your head) is that many on this thread (and other abortion threads on AH in recent times) have often citied Canada has having utopic abortion policies....... but if we had Canada's polices in place here, this baby would now be dead.... as the girl would have been granted an abortion no matter the stage of the pregnancy she was at.

More wonky logic :

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

.......
as the girl would have been granted an abortion no matter the stage of the pregnancy she was at.

Even if she was "granted an abortion", it doesn't mean she would go through with it

.......

This post has been deleted.

nozzferrahhtoo

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Nice to hear.

Hopefully a case such as this will wake up a few of the more militantly prochoice who regularly cite abortion policies like that of Canada's as being utopic.

That is one SPIN you could put on it, sure. But another spin one could put on it would be that it would be MUCH nicer to hear that we are going to live in a society where people can obtain an abortion without much question or red tape up to and including week 16.

Then maybe a girl like that could have had an easier, more convenient, more accessible, more sensible abortion MUCH earlier in the process before ever reaching the point of kerfuffle that it reached here.

Since no one, least of all you, has managed to erect an argument against the utility and morality of having such a system..... I would certainly welcome hearing that we were getting one.

the headbanger

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That is one SPIN you could put on it, sure. But another spin one could put on it would be that it would be MUCH nicer to hear that we are going to live in a society where people can obtain an abortion without much question or red tape up to and including week 16.

Then maybe a girl like that could have had an easier, more convenient, more accessible, more sensible abortion MUCH earlier in the process before ever reaching the point of kerfuffle that it reached here.

Since no one, least of all you, has managed to erect an argument against the utility and morality of having such a system..... I would certainly welcome hearing that we were getting one.

"More sensible abortion". Please - that's an oxymoron

Samaris

Mod: the headbanger - Please do not root up dead threads from two months ago for aggravated one-liners. At the very least, comment on the subject of the thread, rather than soapboxing.

Closing this thread, I know quite well that you have another one to talk about this in!