Girl sectioned after psychiatrist ruled out abortion

Anita Blow

Persephone kindness wrote: »

No they sue. And later more enlightened people look back in disgust if you really wanna know..just as other countries are looking at this country now.

No they don't. Detention for suicidal risk is a standard practice in every western country.

Persephone kindness

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm very concerned that you appear to view psychiatric hospitals as "the naughty step", for mentally ill people to be detained as punishment until they decide to make themselves well and stop acting up.

That's is actually what prisons are. And to be honest we treat prisoners much the same as the mentally ill who have committed no crime. Men and women. It's a separate issue but it's a serious issue for another thread.

greencap

Deleted User wrote: »

I agree that a decision such as termination should not be made in haste or hysteria. That part of your post isn't of any concern.

I'm very concerned that you appear to view psychiatric hospitals as "the naughty step", for mentally ill people to be detained as punishment until they decide to make themselves well and stop acting up.

would you stop.

whats wrong now. wrong terminology. on an internet forum. oh the humanity.

Persephone kindness

Anita Blow wrote: »

No they don't. Detention for suicidal risk is a standard practice in every western country.

You are not reading what other news papers are saying. You are in denial. I am sorry i don't think i can have a rational conversation with you.

One eyed Jack

Persephone kindness wrote: »

Please Excuse me but who you do you think you are to tell me my rights? Are you are garda reading me my rights? No.

And rights are not rights if they can be taken away. Then they are privileges.

Bodily autonomy is a necessary right to be a citizen if the state does not recognize it then it does not recognize me as a human being..

The State recognises your right to bodily autonomy, but I think you're also aware that human rights are not absolute, and that all rights are balanced against each other depending upon the circumstances, which is why the right to life of the unborn is acknowledged in law, conferred upon the unborn by law, and protected by law.

Because the State, as well as recognising your right to life, is also obliged to recognise the right to life of the unborn, and to this end a Judge can appoint a GAD to advocate for the child in question in this case, and a GAD to advocate for the welfare of the unborn.

You're absolutely right though that we shouldn't allow people to be so quick to undermine these rights when it doesn't suit those people to recognise and acknowledge them.

greencap

greencap wrote: »

would you stop.

whats wrong now. wrong terminology. on an internet forum. oh the humanity.

If you're going to argue you should at least try to make it effective, you destroy your own argument with your "wrong" terminology.

gctest50

greencap wrote: »

well jesus what more can you do than try.

ffs.

What if they don't belong on "the naughty step" ~ are not insane , happy enough and just want to end it ?

~ euthanasia should be legal



remember :

surely if any female presents as suicidal as a result of her pregnancy, there is an onus on that psychiatrist to involve two more?

What is to stop any anti-abortion psychiatrist from sectioning every woman who presents as suicidal as a result of their pregnancy?
Its extremely worrying that only a few days later a second doctor found she was not suffering from any condition that would need detaining?

greencap

Persephone kindness wrote: »

No they sue. And later more enlightened people look back in disgust if you really wanna know..just as other countries are looking at this country now.

w........................t..................................f


when someone is suicidal they get committed for their own good


would you prefer that some guy who's going through a hard time and stands on the edge of a bridge every night be just waved to. nothing to do with us.

coo-eee, alright mate, fcking yourself off the bridge again .... oooh that recession eh.

Anita Blow

Persephone kindness wrote: »

You are not reading what other news papers are saying. You are in denial. I am sorry i don't think i can have a rational conversation with you.

I don't think you can have a rational conversation either way. You said other "enlightened" countries look down on Ireland for detaining those at risk of suicide. I argued that it is incorrect because detention orders are standard practice across the world. What is there to misunderstand?

368100

Jamiekelly wrote: »

If abortion is murder then doesn't that make a miscarriage manslaughter? After all, if you believe the foetus in the womb deserves the same rights as a child outside of it then surely you should be getting the placards out for the women who neglected their child to death while they were in the womb.

Even if you didn't want to push for manslaughter charges you should still believe that at the very least its child neglect. But something tells me that issue would be far to complex and harrowing to even try and debate.

I've mentioned this argument to pro life people before and I still haven't gotten a straight answer, most boil it down to "individual cases and not a one size fits all solution." Which is laughable considering that's exactly what they want when it comes to abortion itself....

Wow......just wow.

You're an idiot

Charles Babbage

Jamiekelly wrote: »

If abortion is murder then doesn't that make a miscarriage manslaughter? After all, if you believe the foetus in the womb deserves the same rights as a child outside of it then surely you should be getting the placards out for the women who neglected their child to death while they were in the womb.

Even if you didn't want to push for manslaughter charges you should still believe that at the very least its child neglect. But something tells me that issue would be far to complex and harrowing to even try and debate.

I've mentioned this argument to pro life people before and I still haven't gotten a straight answer, most boil it down to "individual cases and not a one size fits all solution." Which is laughable considering that's exactly what they want when it comes to abortion itself....

This kind of 'reasoning' would mean that someone who didn't quite manage their health should then be considered as suicide. Should smokers be sectioned?

Deliberate killing is clearly wrong, whether dumping someone in Wicklow or having an abortion. There is whole set of neglect below that. The second does not in any way justify the first

gctest50

greencap wrote: »

w........................t..................................f


when someone is suicidal they get committed for their own good

Don't forget there is lots of money in it


say €1000 per day X 180 days

........until the VHI runs out 6 months later and they turf them out

Anita Blow

bubblypop wrote: »

surely if any female presents as suicidal as a result of her pregnancy, there is an onus on that psychiatrist to involve two more?

What is to stop any anti-abortion psychiatrist from sectioning every woman who presents as suicidal as a result of their pregnancy?
Its extremely worrying that only a few days later a second doctor found she was not suffering from any condition that would need detaining?

There is an onus on the psychiatrist to involve a 2nd one, hence a 2nd one was called and she was assessed a 2nd time. It's standard practice and as such the referring doctor's own beliefs don't come into it.

There is a legal and moral necessity to detain someone who is acutely suicidal. IE- Someone who has disclosed a credible plan to take their own life and has stated that they may do so in the near future if they are discharged from the hospital. If a psychiatrist released such a patient, who then subsequently killed themselves, they would lose their license.
It may indeed come to pass that the person doesn't have an actual mental illness, as revealed in a subsequent assessment (as happened with the 2nd psychiatrist) but that doesn't make the first psychiatrist's medical opinion invalid. I've had one of my psych seniors recite symptoms of Bipolar Disorder, Schizophrenia etc as if they were from a textbook and highly believable on first assessment but only to realise later on that they had fabricated it.

JP Liz V1

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

an unwanted pregnancy. is that not clear?

Did she or her partner use any sort of protection or morning after pill to prevent pregnancy?

greencap

gctest50 wrote: »

What if they don't belong on "the naughty step" ~ are not insane , happy enough and just want to end it ?

~ euthanasia should be legal



remember :

Well there are very convincing argument for leaving people to decide for themselves, and I agree with some of them.

But so what - they're irrelevant, you're still in Ireland, you're still subject to Irish laws, and the forces that be will stick you in a psych ward given the chance.

theres a whole globe on which to do yourself in, but you happen to be in boring old ireland and the govt are in control, asholes they may be but they'll still come and stick you in a funny vest, one way or the other, if they see you trying.

so build a raft, try somewhere that has different laws.

or take your ethical argument through the courts.

Anita Blow

Anita Blow wrote: »

There is an onus on the psychiatrist to involve a 2nd one, hence a 2nd one was called and she was assessed a 2nd time. It's standard practice and as such the referring doctor's own beliefs don't come into it.

There is a legal and moral necessity to detain someone who is acutely suicidal. IE- Someone who has disclosed a credible plan to take their own life and has stated that they may do so in the near future if they are discharged from the hospital. If a psychiatrist released such a patient, who then subsequently killed themselves, they would lose their license.
It may indeed come to pass that the person doesn't have an actual mental illness, as revealed in a subsequent assessment (as happened with the 2nd psychiatrist) but that doesn't make the first psychiatrist's medical opinion invalid. I've had one of my psych seniors recite symptoms of Bipolar Disorder, Schizophrenia etc as if they were from a textbook and highly believable on first assessment but only to realise later on that they had fabricated it.

from my reading of it, the second psychiatrist only became involved AFTER the young girl had been to court and a GAL had advocated on her behalf.

AnGaelach

Persephone kindness wrote: »

Please Excuse me but who you do you think you are to tell me my rights? Are you are garda reading me my rights? No.

You don't have the right to abortion, that's a fact.

Persephone kindness wrote: »

And rights are not rights if they can be taken away. Then they are privileges.

Wrong. All rights are given and all rights can be taken away, codified by tradition or legislation. They are not eternal and fixed, they are subject to what society at the time determines.

Persephone kindness wrote: »

Bodily autonomy is a necessary right to be a citizen if the state does not recognize it then it does not recognize me as a human being..

Bodily autonomy does not extend to abortion.

greencap

Deleted User wrote: »

If you're going to argue you should at least try to make it effective, you destroy your own argument with your "wrong" terminology.

I did. You just got whiney about the term 'naughty step' and went full aul-one about it.

JP Liz V1

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Did she or her partner use any sort of protection or morning after pill to prevent pregnancy?

why is this relevant?

AnGaelach

Persephone kindness wrote: »

No they sue. And later more enlightened people look back in disgust if you really wanna know..just as other countries are looking at this country now.

I look at Canada, where one in four pregnancies are terminated, in disgust. I look at the UK in disgust, I look at the former Soviet Union where abortions exceeded 90% at one point, in disgust.

JP Liz V1

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Did she or her partner use any sort of protection or morning after pill to prevent pregnancy?

The situation that led to this child being pregnant isn't clear from the article. It's very unfair to make judgements in this vein.

gctest50

AnGaelach wrote: »

I look at Canada, where one in four pregnancies are terminated, in disgust. I look at the UK in disgust, I look at the former Soviet Union where abortions exceeded 90% at one point, in disgust.

Will the rest of the aul ones be over tonight and tell you that was powerful powerful powerful :pac:

you missed all the other ones

greencap

greencap wrote: »

I did. You just got whiney about the term 'naughty step' and went full aul-one about it.

Whiney no, concerned yes - and your opinion is certainly less valid in my eyes only because of your flippant use of terminology. I doubt I'm the only one. Therefore, you damage your own argument by sounding like a wee bit of a tw@t.

And I'm not sure what's wrong with being "aul" either.

greencap

Deleted User wrote: »

and your opinion is certainly less valid in my eyes only because of your flippant use of terminology. I doubt I'm the only one. Therefore, you damage your own argument by sounding like a wee bit of a tw@t.

I'm fcking devastated.

Feisar

Effects wrote: »

It was a foetus, not a child.

Can someone please tell me when a fetus become a child.

Anita Blow

bubblypop wrote: »

from my reading of it, the second psychiatrist only became involved AFTER the young girl had been to court and a GAL had advocated on her behalf.

Apologies, you're right! I misread the article!

On further reading though I had a gander at the source report. It's quite light on details and makes it difficult to reach any definite conclusion.

The report states that at the time, the consultant psychiatrist felt that the child was at risk of self-harm and suicide due to the pregnancy, and that this was exacerbated by a high degree of agitation on the part of the child and mother because for some (unexplained) reason, both believed they were going to Dublin for an abortion. This would explain the detention, as the psych believed there was an elevated & substantial risk of suicide based on a background of suicidal intent.

It says the 2nd psychiatrist did not dispute this original account and the 2 psychiatrists were in agreement with each other, but that the 2nd psychiatrist believed the girl's depression was well managed and she was no longer at risk of suicide and so the order was lifted.

The reason the first psychiatrist didn't immediately refer to a second with a view to obtaining an abortion may stem from the DoH's guidance on applying the POLDP Act. The act says that

a. there is a real and substantial risk of loss of the woman’s life by way of suicide
b. in their reasonable opinion, this risk is one that can only be averted by a termination of pregnancy, and
c. in arriving at this opinion, the medical practitioners have, in good faith, had regard to the need to preserve unborn human life as far as practicable

While the first criterion was met, the psych didn't believe that b nor c were met. The report says that they felt the girl's depression could be managed medically first. Indeed the report says that she voiced specific reasons for wanting to terminate the pregnancy and it may be the case that these reasons were amenable to drug therapy first.

All my opinion of course considering I don't know the specifics of what happened

One eyed Jack

Feisar wrote: »

Can someone please tell me when a fetus become a child.

To be perfectly honest, the terms are absolutely interchangeable depending upon context, whether it be medical, political or social, and so you can really and honestly use either term to refer to the unborn, as Irish law does, which is the point between implantation and birth.

The posters who use the term foetus in the context of the 8th amendment are mixing terminology in a futile attempt to distance themselves from the fact that what everyone is referring to here is human life.

Euphemisms make their arguments just that bit more palatable, or grandiose, depending upon what they're going for, but people know what they're talking about. People aren't as stupid as some people need them to be.

gctest50

Anita Blow wrote: »

........The act says that

a. there is a real and substantial risk of loss of the woman’s life by way of suicide
b. in their reasonable opinion, this risk is one that can only be averted by a termination of pregnancy, and
c. in arriving at this opinion, the medical practitioners have, in good faith, had regard to the need to preserve unborn human life as far as practicable

There wouldn't be much in the way of a few doctors opening a centre for healthcare and always picking "option B" ?

Feisar

gctest50 wrote: »

Will the rest of the aul ones be over tonight and tell you that was powerful powerful powerful :pac:

you missed all the other ones

Just to take the pistachios, the vast amount of the blue is taken up by the US who elected Trump, Russia who have Putin and China who are are hardly bastions of human rights.

Anita Blow

Anita Blow wrote: »

Apologies, you're right! I misread the article!


While the first criterion was met, the psych didn't believe that b nor c were met. The report says that they felt the girl's depression could be managed medically first. Indeed the report says that she voiced specific reasons for wanting to terminate the pregnancy and it may be the case that these reasons were amenable to drug therapy first.

All my opinion of course considering I don't know the specifics of what happened

The criteria as outlined in your post though, does use the word 'their', as in the opinion of 3 psychiatrists is needed to determine whether or not the criteria under the Act exist.
so, in my opinion, the psychiatrist that sectioned this girl, seems to have ignored the Act.

wonderfullife

bubblypop wrote: »

What is to stop any anti-abortion psychiatrist from sectioning every woman who presents as suicidal as a result of their pregnancy?

Its extremely worrying that only a few days later a second doctor found she was not suffering from any condition that would need detaining?

Psychiatrists are doctors and while the Hippocratic Oath is not the 'done thing' in Ireland, you'll find that they all get into the profession from a desire to 'do no harm'.

It's a little insulting to doctors up-and-down the land to even ask the question.

You're implying they would be willing to risk the health and, ultimately, the life of their patient due to some private opinion on abortion?

Our doctors work hard in this country. Nobody is saying they are flawless and nobody is saying our health services have no problems.

But questioning the core ethics of doctors is shameful.

Dirty Dingus McGee

Jrop wrote: »

My heart is breaking for this 14 year old girl. She must have been terrified being held against her will.
The core issue here is that a young woman rights were taken away from her. We have learned nothing in this country.

She has no right to an abortion in our legislation so her rights weren't denied.

If people care so much about the entire abortion issue then perhaps they need to start lobbying TD's, protesting, petitions etc and do it in a much stronger way than has been in the past.Turn it into a key issue however too many people in this country just whinge and moan about this law without actually doing anything to change it.

Lots of people get sectioned so for all that you know about this entire case the 100% correct decision could have been reached and I'd trust the judgment of a medical professional who has dealt with the girl than somebody on the internet with zero knowledge of the case.

Anita Blow

gctest50 wrote: »

There wouldn't be much in the way of a few doctors opening a centre for healthcare and always picking "option B" ?

There would be a lot in the way. The 2 psychiatrists and 1 Obstetrician have to be from a mix of University hospitals (and the 2nd psych has to have experience in working with pregnancy/abortion psychiatric cases) and HSE Mental Health teams. The psych has to clinically reason their decision and document this, which leaves them open to legal challenge and suspension of their license if they have made a decision which cannot be justified by themselves or their peers. The patient in question can appeal the medical decision.

ohnonotgmail

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

She has no right to an abortion in our legislation so her rights weren't denied.

If people care so much about the entire abortion issue then perhaps they need to start lobbying TD's, protesting, petitions etc and do it in a much stronger way than has been in the past.Turn it into a key issue however too many people in this country just whinge and moan about this law without actually doing anything to change it.

Lots of people get sectioned so for all that you know about this entire case the 100% correct decision could have been reached and I'd trust the judgment of a medical professional who has dealt with the girl than somebody on the internet with zero knowledge of the case.

a judge with all the facts disagreed that the decision was correct

Anita Blow

bubblypop wrote: »

The criteria as outlined in your post though, does use the word 'their', as in the opinion of 3 psychiatrists is needed to determine whether or not the criteria under the Act exist.
so, in my opinion, the psychiatrist that sectioned this girl, seems to have ignored the Act.

The opinion of 3 psychiatrists isn't needed. The process of obtaining an abortion under the act does require approval by 3 doctors (2 psychiatrists & 1 obstetrician) but not at the same time. It's a step-by-step process and the case has to pass each step to progress to the next. As per the DoH guidelines

The Act does not specify that the three doctors have to examine the woman together or that they examine the woman at the same location

Depending on the circumstances, the woman might be examined by any of the
three specialists first and then, if the first specialist deems that the requirements of the test have been met, he/she shall refer her on to the second specialist, and so on. If the first specialist deems that the requirements of the test have not been met, then section 5 in this document on ‘Non-Certification’ will apply.

greencap

wonderfullife wrote: »

Psychiatrists are doctors and while the Hippocratic Oath is not the 'done thing' in Ireland, you'll find that they all get into the profession from a desire to 'do no harm'.

It's a little insulting to doctors up-and-down the land to even ask the question.

You're implying they would be willing to risk the health and, ultimately, the life of their patient due to some private opinion on abortion?

Our doctors work hard in this country. Nobody is saying they are flawless and nobody is saying our health services have no problems.

But questioning the core ethics of doctors is shameful.

Boooo. too boring.

vhi conspiracy is better. or something church and statey.

py2006

I don't get it. Why was she sectioned? Surely there is a reason other than her wanting an abortion?

cnocbui

AnGaelach wrote: »

I look at Canada, where one in four pregnancies are terminated, in disgust. I look at the UK in disgust, I look at the former Soviet Union where abortions exceeded 90% at one point, in disgust.

And I look at Ireland in disgust, that women can not avail of abortions and have to travel to other countries so you and your ilk can enjoy your self-satisfied glow of erroneously perceived, superiority.

py2006

py2006 wrote: »

I don't get it. Why was she sectioned? Surely there is a reason other than her wanting an abortion?

I think the psychiatrist believed she was suicidal.

gctest50

py2006 wrote: »

I don't get it. Why was she sectioned? Surely there is a reason other than her wanting an abortion?

Surely part of it must be the inbreds would be howling for that psychs head if a pregnant girl went out a few days later and topped herself ?

koumi

God, this thread is painful

wonderfullife

wonderfullife wrote: »

Psychiatrists are doctors and while the Hippocratic Oath is not the 'done thing' in Ireland, you'll find that they all get into the profession from a desire to 'do no harm'.

It's a little insulting to doctors up-and-down the land to even ask the question.

You're implying they would be willing to risk the health and, ultimately, the life of their patient due to some private opinion on abortion?

Our doctors work hard in this country. Nobody is saying they are flawless and nobody is saying our health services have no problems.

But questioning the core ethics of doctors is shameful.

everybody needs oversight, doctors, nurses, teachers, gardai etc etc
sure there have been cases where doctors have been murderers, there is no harm at all in oversight.

Im not sure where you plucked the questioning the core ethics of doctors from!!

cnocbui

Feisar wrote: »

Just to take the pistachios, the vast amount of the blue is taken up by the US who elected Trump, Russia who have Putin and China who are are hardly bastions of human rights.

A stupid line of un-reasoning if ever there were one.

JP Liz V1

Deleted User wrote: »

The situation that led to this child being pregnant isn't clear from the article. It's very unfair to make judgements in this vein.

I take it she had no mental health issues before the pregnancy?

I feel that abortion should not be seen as birth control instead of the many other forms of contraception that is available and yes I know nothing is 100% besides abstinence

I know we don't know all the facts of this girl's story

cnocbui

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

She has no right to an abortion in our legislation so her rights weren't denied.

If people care so much about the entire abortion issue then perhaps they need to start lobbying TD's, protesting, petitions etc and do it in a much stronger way than has been in the past.Turn it into a key issue however too many people in this country just whinge and moan about this law without actually doing anything to change it.

Lots of people get sectioned so for all that you know about this entire case the 100% correct decision could have been reached and I'd trust the judgment of a medical professional who has dealt with the girl than somebody on the internet with zero knowledge of the case.

FFS!

The Furore over this case is exactly because she should have had a good prospect of having an abortion, allowed for by legislation. The act does not say a woman who is suicidal at the thought of carrying her pregnancy to term should be immediately incarcerated in a mental institution! I wouldn't trust the opinion of a medical professional who tried to subvert the act and did not seek second or third opinions from other medical professionals.

A judge and another medical professional did not agree with the 'professional' who's judgement you think should not be questioned.

JP Liz V1

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

I take it she had no mental health issues before the pregnancy?

I feel that abortion should not be seen as birth control instead of the many other forms of contraception that is available and yes I know nothing is 100% besides abstinence

I know we don't know all the facts of this girl's story

I think the most important fact that has been reported on to take into consideration is the fact that she is a child.

A child cannot consent to sex below the age of 17 - never mind expecting them to consent responsibly.

gctest50

bubblypop wrote: »

wonderfullife wrote: »

Psychiatrists are doctors and while the Hippocratic Oath is not the 'done thing' in Ireland, you'll find that they all get into the profession from a desire to 'do no harm'.

It's a little insulting to doctors up-and-down the land to even ask the question.

You're implying they would be willing to risk the health and, ultimately, the life of their patient due to some private opinion on abortion?

Our doctors work hard in this country. Nobody is saying they are flawless and nobody is saying our health services have no problems.

But questioning the core ethics of doctors is shameful.

everybody needs oversight, doctors, nurses, teachers, gardai etc etc
sure there have been cases where doctors have been murderers, there is no harm at all in oversight.

Im not sure where you plucked the questioning the core ethics of doctors from!!

It's not "questioning core ethics" - maybe someday one of them will go off the beaten path

you might end up with some really wonky variation of this sort of thing :

Nurse induced respiratory depression by succinylcholine--the 'hero syndrome'.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23677532

AnGaelach

cnocbui wrote: »

A stupid line of un-reasoning if ever there were one.

So is thinking "well everyone else is doing it why can't we do it as well?!"

gctest50

AnGaelach wrote: »

So is thinking "well everyone else is doing it why can't we do it as well?!"

So why aren't we doing it then ?

Do it just like the UK where the women all get "sent" ?