The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

It wasnt me123

I think highlighting InHerShoes and other FB pages does make a difference - their stories are very powerful.

I can't canvas/hand out pamphlets, my job (not saying what) doesn't allow me to visibly say whether I'm for or against in any referendum or election - so I do what I can to say Repeal Repeal Repeal which is better than nothing (I think anyways)

baylah17

thee glitz wrote: »

To a point though, restricted, like you believe in?

[/QUOTE]
Misrepresent much??
Or just too scared to quote my whole post?
Sad wikkie boy be sad!

_Dara_

kylith wrote: »

Had she lived in Ireland it would not have been ‘we would like to’ it would have been ‘we are going to’ and if she refused she could have been brought to court to force her to be induced early against her will.

Brought to court? I seriously doubt that. Let's keep the 'Repeal' arguments cogent.

thee glitz

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Yes, you did.[/quite]

So the thing that I said was a question, and what you said I did didn't actually happen.

[What issues do you think I have, exactly?

None now that you've cleared it up.

thee glitz

Ave Sodalis said

Yes, you did.

So the thing that I said was a question, and what you said I did didn't actually happen. 


This edit post option is rubbish.

.......

This post has been deleted.

NuMarvel

_Dara_ wrote: »

Brought to court? I seriously doubt that. Let's keep the 'Repeal' arguments cogent.

There has been at least one instance of a hospital bring a woman to court under the 8th to induce delivery. The judge in that case refused the hospital's application, but that's not to say a judge wouldn't make a different decision in future.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hse-used-eighth-to-try-to-force-me-to-have-a-caesarean-gz62kr9tb

It's obviously not a common step, but it's arguments go, it's certainly relevant and cogent.

Triceratops Ballet

frag420 wrote: »

Are those of us living outside Ireland allowed to donate?

Just out of a lunch meeting with my CEO here, I have convinced them to make a sizeable donation (from our charity fund) but it would be under my and several colleagues names and split up accordingly under each name so that it is not flagged!? All colleagues are Irish nationals living abroad but have Irish addresses and will be voting come May!

Any ideas on where we stand?

If you're an Irish citizen or a person living in Ireland then all good, when you go to donate it just asks you to confirm you are one or the other!

Good job on getting the company donation!!

Ave Sodalis

thee glitz wrote: »

Ave Sodalis said


So the thing that I said was a question, and what you said I did didn't actually happen.

I take it that we are to believe you weren't implying anything by that question then so?

Not even the "happy convenience" thing, that you edited out of the post I quoted?

seamus

_Dara_ wrote: »

Brought to court? I seriously doubt that. Let's keep the 'Repeal' arguments cogent.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/judge-refused-to-order-woman-to-undergo-caesarean-section-1.2852130

And some might say, "But the court refused, she wasn't forced to do anything, all is OK". But the fact is that the 8th amendment made the HSE think that they could. Why should a pregnant woman be dragged into court to have her rights tested because she tried to make a decision about her own fncking body?

The existence of the eighth amendment means that the HSE can in future do the same to any woman who is pregnant. And whether they win or not is irrelevant.

_Dara_

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And the judge deemed it a step too far. So, yes, I do. I guess it was brought to court, which Kylith said but was deemed to be ridiculous. So it’s highly unlikely AND was thrown out when it happened.

I’m undergoing cancer treatment and there’s a lot you can say no to. Actually you can refuse all treatment if you want. I’m quite forthright actually.

Most doctors want to do what they can for pregnant women but are constrained. Do we want to be casting them as the villains here? I don’t think it’s a great way to go personally.

Ave Sodalis

_Dara_ wrote: »

And the judge deemed it a step too far. So, yes, I do. I guess it was brought to court, which Kylith said but was deemed to be ridiculous.

I’m undergoing cancer treatment and there’s a lot you can say no to. Actually you can refuse all treatment if you want.

Most doctors want to do what they can for pregnant women but are constrained. Do we want to be casting them as the villains here?

I don't think anyone is casting doctors as the villains. They are as tied to the 8th as the rest of us. More so, hence why the Institute of O&G are pro-repeal. They may have felt they had to bring the woman to court in order to fulfill the 8th, or they could have faced consequences. Either way, it's the 8th that is at fault for causing the confusion and uncertainty in the first place.

Triceratops Ballet

_Dara_ wrote: »

And the judge deemed it a step too far. So, yes, I do. I guess it was brought to court, which Kylith said but was deemed to be ridiculous.

I’m undergoing cancer treatment and there’s a lot you can say no to. Actually you can refuse all treatment if you want. I’m quite forthright actually.

Most doctors want to do what they can for pregnant women but are constrained. Do we want to be casting them as the villains here? I don’t think it’s a great way to go personally.

I don't think it's the doctors at fault, I think the hospitals are afraid of acting in a way that doesn't comply with the 8th. If they feel the mothers decision is endangering the life of their other patient they are compelled to act, regardless of how they personally feel about it. It puts them as individuals in a bad position and that's why so many advocate for a repeal

_Dara_

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

I don't think anyone is casting doctors as the villains. They are as tied to the 8th as the rest of us. More so, hence why the Institute of O&G are pro-repeal. They may have felt they had to bring the woman to court in order to fulfill the 8th, or they could have faced consequences. Either way, it's the 8th that is at fault for causing the confusion and uncertainty in the first place.

And that’s why a court order is so unlikely. A doctor may want to help you but they can’t force you to take medical treatment of any kind. You consent to everything. You have to, in fact. The above example shows that we are safe in that regard.

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

I don't think it's the doctors at fault, I think the hospitals are afraid of acting in a way that doesn't comply with the 8th. If they feel the mothers decision is endangering the life of their other patient they are compelled to act, regardless of how they personally feel about it. It puts them as individuals in a bad position and that's why so many advocate for a repeal

I support repeal. I should point that out.

Annasopra

_Dara_ wrote: »

And the judge deemed it a step too far. So, yes, I do. I guess it was brought to court, which Kylith said but was deemed to be ridiculous. So it’s highly unlikely AND was thrown out when it happened.

I’m undergoing cancer treatment and there’s a lot you can say no to. Actually you can refuse all treatment if you want. I’m quite forthright actually.

Most doctors want to do what they can for pregnant women but are constrained. Do we want to be casting them as the villains here? I don’t think it’s a great way to go personally.

This isnt painting doctors as villians. It is highlighting the faults of the 8th that causes Doctors to often go against their better judgement.

PhoenixParker

_Dara_ wrote: »

And the judge deemed it a step too far. So, yes, I do. I guess it was brought to court, which Kylith said but was deemed to be ridiculous. So it’s highly unlikely AND was thrown out when it happened.

I’m undergoing cancer treatment and there’s a lot you can say no to. Actually you can refuse all treatment if you want. I’m quite forthright actually.

Most doctors want to do what they can for pregnant women but are constrained. Do we want to be casting them as the villains here? I don’t think it’s a great way to go personally.

The thing is that as a cancer patient your rights with regard to consent are much stronger than those of a pregnant woman specifically because the 8th amendment exists.

You can say no and that's that. A pregnant woman must ask to say no and if the doctor agrees then she is permitted to.

Ending up in court is the extreme example, and I agree unlikely to happen, but the shift in the power dynamic and how the whole conversation regarding treatment plays out is very real and present in thousands of decisions and conversations that never get near a court or review panel.

NuMarvel

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

I don't think it's the doctors at fault, I think the hospitals are afraid of acting in a way that doesn't comply with the 8th. If they feel the mothers decision is endangering the life of their other patient they are compelled to act, regardless of how they personally feel about it. It puts them as individuals in a bad position and that's why so many advocate for a repeal

Zubes mentioned something similar in the politics forum thread. The 8th doesn't just allow these types of actions, it requires them. The 8th not only recognises the unborn's right to life, it says the state guarantees to protect and vindicate that right.

That puts an incredible onus on the state, and organs of the state such as public hospitals, so it's unsurprising that in times of uncertainty doctors here will seek advice from the courts when in other countries there would be no need to do so.

.......

This post has been deleted.

_Dara_

PhoenixParker wrote: »

The thing is that as a cancer patient your rights with regard to consent are much stronger than those of a pregnant woman specifically because the 8th amendment exists.

You can say no and that's that. A pregnant woman must ask to say no and if the doctor agrees then she is permitted to.

Ending up in court is the extreme example, and I agree unlikely to happen, but the shift in the power dynamic and how the whole conversation regarding treatment plays out is very real and present in thousands of decisions and conversations that never get near a court or review panel.

I don’t know about that. It’s not like there are no stakes for oncologists. They don’t want people thinking that patients are needlessly dying on them. The incentive is there for them to get patients to take the treatments.

If you think that cancer patients don’t feel pressure to try treatments, you’re very wrong. It’s exceptionally hard to say no when people are trying to help you. But ultimately you can. And I have. And so can pregnant women. The above-linked case only reinforces my view. That case seems isolated and didn’t get anywhere.

.......

This post has been deleted.

.......

This post has been deleted.

frag420

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

If you're an Irish citizen or a person living in Ireland then all good, when you go to donate it just asks you to confirm you are one or the other!

Good job on getting the company donation!!

Thanks. I am Irish but living outside the state. Does it ask for confirmation of citizenship/residency?

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

If you are Irish citizens you can donate upto €2500 perferctly legally. Corporate donors have to register.


http://m.sipo.gov.ie/en/Guidelines/Explanatory-Notes/Explanatory-Notes-for-Third-Parties/Explanatory-Notes-for-Third-Parties.html

Thanks. If we were to split the full amount amongst us then it would be significantly more than £2,500 each. We may have to look for volunteers to donate on our behalf. I am assuming that way we would not have to register as its would be a foreign owned multinational company giving a cash advance to an employee who can do what they want with it including donating to a good cause!

Triceratops Ballet

frag420 wrote: »

Thanks. I am Irish but living outside the state. Does it ask for confirmation of citizenship/residency?

It's ok if you're living outside the state, it only asks you to check a box confirming that you are an Irish citizen or resident, I wasn't required to prove either (though I am both)

kylith

_Dara_ wrote: »

And the judge deemed it a step too far. So, yes, I do. I guess it was brought to court, which Kylith said but was deemed to be ridiculous.

I’m undergoing cancer treatment and there’s a lot you can say no to. Actually you can refuse all treatment if you want.

Most doctors want to do what they can for pregnant women but are constrained. Do we want to be casting them as the villains here? I personally don’t think it’s a great way to go personally.

But it was brought to court in the first place! A pregnant woman does not have the right to refuse, or even necessarily to be informed about, procedures.

Are you pregnant, Dara? Because if a pregnant woman is diagnosed with cancer and it’s decided that treatment would harm the foetus her ‘treatment’ Is to go to the UK or to hope, because effective treatment which can’t be given without damaging the foetus can’t be given.

As you say; doctors aren’t villains, but they are constrained. Medically a woman and the foetus she carries can’t be considered the same because if treatment for one will damage the other then one of them has to be the secondary consideration.

kylith

_Dara_ wrote: »

And that’s why a court order is so unlikely. A doctor may want to help you but they can’t force you to take medical treatment of any kind. You consent to everything. You have to, in fact. The above example shows that we are safe in that regard.

I’m sorry Dara, but a suicidal woman was strapped to a bed and force fed because she didn’t want to have her rapist’s baby, so you’ll have to forgive me for not being confident that we can’t be forced into anything.

_Dara_

kylith wrote: »

But it was brought to court in the first place! A pregnant woman does not have the right to refuse, or even necessarily to be informed about, procedures.

People are in thrall to doctors. They don't question them enough. It's very frustrating to me because I question them a lot. They are fallible.

A very effective campaign would be for pregnant women to refuse anything they are not comfortable with left, right and centre.

Gonna take thousands of women to court, HSE? I doubt it. And the case above only highlights the futility of that action.

Say no to anything you want and DARE them to do anything about. The more pregnant women that do so, the bigger the issue becomes.

Like I said, cancer patients come under pressure to take treatments all the frickin' time. Oncologists and other doctors are trained to keep trying new things. They don't think in terms of failure.

kylith

_Dara_ wrote: »

Like I said, cancer patients come under pressure to take treatments all the frickin' time. Oncologists and other doctors are trained to keep trying new things. They don't think in terms of failure.

But again: at no point can your doctors legally threaten you with legal action in order to compel you to have or not have treatment. Legally they can do this to a pregnant woman. Sure, every woman could try call their bluff but this is hardly an option when they rupture your membranes in the delivery room or give you an episiotomy without so much as a by-your-leave.

NuMarvel

_Dara_ wrote: »

People are in thrall to doctors. They don't question them enough. It's very frustrating to me because I question them a lot. They are fallible.

A very effective campaign would be for pregnant women to refuse anything they are not comfortable with left, right and centre.

Gonna take thousands of women to court, HSE? I doubt it. And the case above only highlights the futility of that action.

Say no to anything you want and DARE them to do anything about. The more pregnant women that do so, the bigger the issue becomes.

Like I said, cancer patients come under pressure to take treatments all the frickin' time. Oncologists and other doctors are trained to keep trying new things. They don't think in terms of failure.

I think we're getting off the point here. The fact is that the 8th can and does result in these kinds of cases. It's not a regular occurrence, but it's not impossible. I think it's right that they should form part of the campaign to repeal it because it highlights that bad law makes hard cases.

Everyone in this particular discussion is in favour of pregnant women being able to freely consent or not consent to treatment in the same way that everyone else can. We're also all in favour of repeal. The latter is the surest way to lead to the former.

Neyite

_Dara_ wrote: »

People are in thrall to doctors. They don't question them enough. It's very frustrating to me because I question them a lot. They are fallible.

A very effective campaign would be for pregnant women to refuse anything they are not comfortable with left, right and centre.

Gonna take thousands of women to court, HSE? I doubt it. And the case above only highlights the futility of that action.

Say no to anything you want and DARE them to do anything about. The more pregnant women that do so, the bigger the issue becomes.

Like I said, cancer patients come under pressure to take treatments all the frickin' time. Oncologists and other doctors are trained to keep trying new things. They don't think in terms of failure.

Pressure is one thing. The simple fact is that any other medical procedure is presented to the patient as a choice. These are your options. This is what we can do for you. We strongly suggest you take option A. If you don't agree, feel free to get a second opinion. The choice is yours.

As a cancer patient, you can choose to decline all and any treatment. You can even choose death if your cancer is terminal and you don't want it. A pregnant woman can't even choose that.

I had no choice in my pregnancies. I was told when I was getting an appointment. I was told what tests I was getting. I was told I was getting induced. I was told if I didn't dilate quickly enough I was getting prepared for a c-section (which subsequently happened). I was told I was getting an internal exam. I was given 17 different types of medication from the time I stepped over the threshold of the hospital, and not given a choice or much discussion over what was being given.

And if I didn't do what I was told, the 8th amendment meant that I was breaking the law and could be compelled by force to undergo whatever the doctors wanted me to undergo.

Ave Sodalis

http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2018/01/24/choosing-the-most-offensive-image-for-your-pro-life-campaign-poster/?utm_source=WWN_Facebook_Page&utm_medium=Facebook&utm_campaign=Social_Link&utm_content=Article


This is incredibly spot on