Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

SusieBlue

SusieBlue wrote: »

I can't believe the referendum is over and people are still putting forward the same nonsensical arguments as if it never happened.

Really I'm not given those who are doing so.

Fighting Tao

Trasna1 wrote: »

If you read what I wrote I never said that this was on a knife edge, it obviously wasn't. Nor am I trying to devalue or question the yes win. It was emphatic as I have stated several times. I want to be clear on that as this is getting lost in the noise, as some people here seem to think I am questioning the vote/sore/bitter. I am none of those, how could I be when my side won.

I have never endorsed the home to vote no either. I have always started that those that came back to vote illegally, whatever way that was, was wrong. My point is that it's easy to ignore wrongdoing when the wrongdoers are by and large amongst the group you support.

If it was 51/49 and hometovote was what won it for no, Together for yes would have been in the high court already challenging the result. Likewise if it had gone the other way. And that's no good for anyone.

And that is the problem, in tightly contested elections hometovote brings the result into disrepute. It's to do with integrity, not the result.

Talk to your TDs about fixing the register then. Tell them your concerns and watch them take action.

spookwoman

Trasna1 wrote: »

If you read what I wrote I never said that this was on a knife edge, it obviously wasn't. Nor am I trying to devalue or question the yes win. It was emphatic as I have stated several times. I want to be clear on that as this is getting lost in the noise, as some people here seem to think I am questioning the vote/sore/bitter. I am none of those, how could I be when my side won.

I have never endorsed the home to vote no either. I have always started that those that came back to vote illegally, whatever way that was, was wrong. My point is that it's easy to ignore wrongdoing when the wrongdoers are by and large amongst the group you support.

If it was 51/49 and hometovote was what won it for no, Together for yes would have been in the high court already challenging the result. Likewise if it had gone the other way. And that's no good for anyone.

And that is the problem, in tightly contested elections hometovote brings the result into disrepute. It's to do with integrity, not the result.

How do you know how that a high number of the yes home to vote with illegal votes do you have proof? Do you have a list of names that were illegal votes?

Cupcake_Crisis

retro:electro wrote: »

How dare women use their bodies for anything other than procreation. The horror!
Ladies, where are our manners?

Under his eye :rolleyes:

The Legend Of Kira

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

Its a different survey altogether to the ones on pro life websites (life institute ) in the past, these are some surveys the (life institute ) carried out.

http://www.thelifeinstitute.net/am_cms_media/uploaded/l/0e3243629_1401101891_localelectioncandidate-list.pdf

http://www.thelifeinstitute.net/past-projects/be-the-change-vote-pro-life/candidates-europe/

The whichcandidate.ie online survey website was mentioned in different media outlets prior to the last general election including the irish times .

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/compare-your-views-with-500-candidates-1.2523156?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Fcompare-your-views-with-500-candidates-1.2523156

Thanks did a little research (ongoing) and finding similar so far.

blanch152

Sile Na Gig wrote: »

Does anyone wonder if Mary Lou and the Shinners put themselves behind the Yes campaign in order to dangle abortion rights in front of women in the North. They might get more support for a united Ireland if they were offering more than the DUP/Unionists are willing to give.

Sinn Fein were in favour of repealing the 8th, but they are not in favour of unrestricted access to abortion up to 12 weeks. They only favour the hard cases. This got lost in the referendum debate.

blanch152

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

My understanding is that you are entitled to come home to vote if you are out of the country less than 18 months on 1 September preceding the election and intend to return. This means you could be over 2 years gone and eligible to vote.

That reduces the number considerably who would be illegal. I doubt if there more than a few thousand of the home to vote who were illegal.

Then again, the divorce referendum was only carried by 9,000 votes.

fxotoole

blanch152 wrote: »

Sinn Fein were in favour of repealing the 8th, but they are not in favour of unrestricted access to abortion up to 12 weeks. They only favour the hard cases. This got lost in the referendum debate.

It didn't "get lost". The referendum was not nuanced. It was a binary decision. All that mattered was that they favoured repealing the 8th.

CruelCoin

Mavis Some Insignia wrote: »

Lots of emigrants received voting cards even though the 18 month time limit had lapsed. Any of those who went ahead and voted, did so illegally.

And so what?

The vote was 2:1.

So far in this thread we've seen:
- People claiming that the elderly were intimidated into voting yes (even though that age bracket voted no, and nobody can with be with you in the booth)
- People claim they got 2 polling cards
- People claim that people were not on the register. If only there were some way of checking the register! :rolleyes:
- Emigrants.

Now, lets give all this bollox some credance. Do you think they could even remotely reverse a 2:1 lead? Assuming every single one of those discrepancies would be a no voter?

It's nonsense, so why bring it up.

It's little more than being a sore loser and bleating about it.

DickSwiveller

CruelCoin wrote: »

And so what?

The vote was 2:1.

So far in this thread we've seen:
- People claiming that the elderly were intimidated into voting yes (even though that age bracket voted no, and nobody can with be with you in the booth)
- People claim they got 2 polling cards
- People claim that people were not on the register. If only there were some way of checking the register! :rolleyes:
- Emigrants.

Now, lets give all this bollox some credance. Do you think they could even remotely reverse a 2:1 lead? Assuming every single one of those discrepancies would be a no voter?

It's nonsense, so why bring it up.

It's little more than being a sore loser and bleating about it.

Still doesn't make it right.

nozzferrahhtoo

Doesnt need to given the lack of any arguments showing it is wrong.

Overheal

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I steered clear of it during the ref for fear I would get annoyed by it all and abstain (which I was close to doing)

Do people not see nuance and other alternatives.

Abortion the quick fix answer for the next generation people now like getting a Caffè mocha or herbal tea?

No mention of adoption laws etc etc

If you steered clear of it what position are you in to say adoption laws weren’t discussed? They were, on a daily basis.

Overheal

iguana wrote: »

9 months of little pains? I love my son more than anything on earth. I struggled to maintain a pregnancy and was only able to do so after surgery to remove endometrioma from my right ovary. For the first half of my pregnancy I vomited so hard and so often that I burst blood vessels in my eyeballs. The whites of my eyes were almost entirely red from the blood pooling up behind the scelra. I was absolutely terrified the first time I looked up from vomiting in the sink and saw what my eyes looked like. I often couldn't hold down water so struggled to stay hydrated, I had near constant migraines from low blood pressure. I often couldn't get out of bed from the pain and would just hang over the side of the mattress vomiting into a basin. With my immune system lowered, I succumbed to numerous viral infections that I could receive no treatment for. I was literally advised to try flat 7-up by my doctor. Thankfully I managed to avoid being hospitalised when I drank a glass of cola and held it down. I couldn't drink water, juice, milk (especially), fruit teas, etc without vomiting but I could drink cola. It was very bizarre but I'm glad it kept me out of hospital.

At 22 weeks I discovered that I had become completely intolerant to any dairy. So once I cut that out of my diet the vomiting finally stopped. Though by the the Symphysis pubis dysfunction had started so my ability to get about was limited. I blame that in part on the earlier sickness as I had been unable to exercise as much as I should have. I tried recommended pregnancy exercises like water aerobics to help build my stamina but ultimately discovered they made it worse. The other thing was that I was carrying an enormous bump. I'm 5'1" - a very small woman, my son was born weighing 9lb14oz - a monster baby. The discomfort was immense.

But worse than the discomfort, my son was badly positioned. He was head down but was lying back to back with a lot of his weight pressed into my right abdomen. Back to back labour is awful. For 2.5 days I experienced contractions every 5 minutes with no progress. On the 3rd morning of labour I was having contractions lasting 90seconds every 45 seconds. My waters broke but there was still no progress. By this point I was living in Wales, so had phenomenal maternity care. After a lot of discussion with my midwife, who offered me a range of options, I chose an epidural and oxytocin. It took 14 hours and an increased level of oxytocin to finally dilate fully. During this time my son's bad positioning was discovered and we attempted to gently get him to turn but he couldn't. The effects of the epidural was wearing off at this point as the contractions were too strong. I spent 2 hours in second stage labour but my son was stuck due to being badly positioned.

In the end I needed a c-section. The epidural was completely worn off by this point and I was given a spinal block. My heart reacted very badly to this and began to slow. To save my life I was given adrenalin. Then my body was cut open and, thanks to the adrenalin, I started losing blood at a dangerous rate. My son was born, I could hear him crying and while aware that the moment I'd waited so many years was happening, I was entirely detached due to blood loss. Stitching me up took a long time and I was aware the surgeons were having difficulty stemming the blood loss. I had a platelet transfer which slowed the blood flow enough to let them complete their work. As a result of the shock I started to vomit and let me tell you, vomiting when you are paralysed is one of the most horrible experiences imaginable. I had to be strapped to the bed which was then lifted, turned over and tilted to let gravity do the work my body couldn't. It was awful.

5 and a half years on and my body has never and will never recover. I have diastis recti which is particularly bad on the right side, with my torn muscles poking out and hanging over the section scar which was sewed tighter than it would have been due to bloodloss. My muscles are damaged and if I ever do routine abdominal exercises like sit-ups, I will damage them further. So reducing the slackness is impossible without surgery. I have stretch marks and pocked skin on my abdomen that is clearly not going to fade. And as much ridicule as women not wanting stretch marks received by pro-lifers on this forum, let me tell you that it's a physical disfigurement and something that is not that easy to come to terms with. I have a birthmark on my face, so I have lived all my life with a disfigurement that I can never hide, and even still the changes in the appearance of my body after birth have effected how I feel about myself. And beyond all that, I feel pain where the torn muscles are, my digestive tract is more sensitive and foods I never had an issue with bother me now.

As experiences go, I'd call my pregnancy, birth and post-birth experiences on the worse end of middling. It was pretty awful but ultimately my son is fine, I'm mostly fine and despite my maternity team's concerns, I managed to come away without any PTSD and suffered no postnatal depression which I was at high risk for. The thing is though, I wanted motherhood, desperately. I had gone long past the point where I was ready for motherhood and onto the part where I craved it. Where I'm not sure I'd have ever been whole without it, especially not with a miscarriage history. So the awfulness of the experience was tempered with gaining the thing I wanted more than anything in life. For someone who didn't want to be pregnant, who was ambivalent to motherhood, who ended up with a burden they weren't ready for/never wanted, someone who had conceived in trauma, who went through all that for a baby who was too ill to live, etc. I don't know if they ever could recover after going through all of that. And again, many pregnant women go through much, much worse.

**** me Iguana after reading that what we really need to ban is pregnancy :eek: all the best!

Outlaw Pete

retro:electro wrote: »

It’s all well and good saying Savita didn’t die due to the 8th until you’re the one hauled up in a hospital bed miscarrying and riddled with sepsis, clinging to life begging for medical intervention that doctors are hesitant to give you because although you’re dying you’re not dead enough for them to intervene.

What an absolutely ridiculous thing to say but then it's just the kind of nonsense we heard all throughout the campaign.

As for the 'dying' aspect of your comment, if there was a risk to life the 8th allowed a termination of pregnancy. Also, many pregnant women in Ireland get treatment for sepsis long before they reach anything close to a stage that could be aptly described as 'dying' .

It’s well and good defending the 8th until the last words you hear before you die are “you’re in a Catholic country”.

Oh please. The idle chat of a midwife was not the last thing Savita heard and it had little if anything to do with her medical treatment anyway, hence her apology for saying it.

The moment Savita's consultant realized Savita had Sepsis (Wednesday afternoon after receiving results she ordered 5 hours previous) she immediately arranged for the pregnancy to be terminated and there is no reason to think that she would have no acted similarly on the Monday had the infection come to light at that point and as we know, all three reports found that the infection should very much have come to light then. It's one of the main reasons that nine members of the staff were disciplined in fact.

.. the whole point is the 8th was such a clusterfcuk of legal red tape and medical limbo they didn’t know when to, and if the bloody thing never existed she wouldn’t have had to die slowly over the course of a week begging for her life.

This is just not true. The 8th did not cause the staff to ignore test results, fail to observe signs of infection, use the wrong equipment and fail also to carry out basic duties required of them (such as recording vital signs at regular intervals). It was these errors that resulted in Savita's sepsis being missed and therefore to her dying.

The situation in this country now is that they believe Savita died for reasons she did not and that is unlikely to change. In fact I would say it will get worse over time. If people really cared about Savita though, then their anger would be directed at the sheer ineptitude of some of our hospital staff in this country. On October 24th that woman slept in a room with a broken radiator and both her and her husband had to ask for blankets to be brought into her on multiple occasions. This was after two full days of staff not looking at her test results when they had been available and failing to monitor and observe her as instructed by the consultant. But no, all that is largely ignored in preference to blame the 8th amendment. Something which clearly states that medical professionals would well be in their rights to terminate Savita's pregnancy on the Monday, had that is, she had the medical care that she deserved.

With all due respect, I find it pretty rich that the ones most vocal about retaining the 8th across the myriad of threads about it have been the ones who are at least risk of dying from it; 3 men and a nun.

And the women who wanted to keep the 8th, what of them, retro?

Some of whom were medics, midwives, rape victims, women who received a prenatal abnormality diagnosis and who were treated for sepsis here while pregnant.

Or what of the women in the following:










Not so easy to sneer at these people and label them 'three men and a nun' or suggest it's easy for them given they're at the "least risk of dying from it".

Technocentral

The old, woman hating Ireland is almost gone and these dinasours can't take it so have to come up with pathetic excuses. Sad losers.

zedhead

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

The moment Savita's consultant realized Savita had Sepsis (Wednesday afternoon after receiving results she ordered 5 hours previous) she immediately arranged for the pregnancy to be terminated and there is no reason to think that she would have no acted similarly on the Monday had the infection come to light at that point and as we know, all three reports found that the infection should very much have come to light then. It's one of the main reasons that nine members of the staff were disciplined in fact.

So just to ask, why should she have had to wait until she had sepsis to get treatment. She was miscarrying. She asked for intervention to speed it up and was denied. Had she been given input into how much risk she was willing to take in her medical care and given the termination when she requested it then she would never have got sepsis and never had died. But her views on the matter were irrelevent while there was a heartbeat.

Overheal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

What an absolutely ridiculous thing to say but then it's just the kind of nonsense we heard all throughout the campaign.

As for the 'dying' aspect of your comment, if there was a risk to life the 8th allowed a termination of pregnancy. Also, many pregnant women in Ireland get treatment for sepsis long before they reach anything close to a stage that could be aptly described as 'dying' .



Oh please. The idle chat of a midwife was not the last thing Savita heard and it had little if anything to do with her medical treatment anyway, hence her apology for saying it.

The moment Savita's consultant realized Savita had Sepsis (Wednesday afternoon after receiving results she ordered 5 hours previous) she immediately arranged for the pregnancy to be terminated and there is no reason to think that she would have no acted similarly on the Monday had the infection come to light at that point and as we know, all three reports found that the infection should very much have come to light then. It's one of the main reasons that nine members of the staff were disciplined in fact.



This is just not true. The 8th did not cause the staff to ignore test results, fail to observe signs of infection, use the wrong equipment and fail also to carry out basic duties required of them (such as recording vital signs at regular intervals). It was these errors that resulted in Savita's sepsis being missed and therefore to her dying.

The situation in this country now is that they believe Savita died for reasons she did not and that is unlikely to change. In fact I would say it will get worse over time. If people really cared about Savita though, then their anger would be directed at the sheer ineptitude of some of our hospital staff in this country. On October 24th that woman slept in a room with a broken radiator and both her and her husband had to ask for blankets to be brought into her on multiple occasions. This was after two full days of staff not looking at her test results when they had been available and failing to monitor and observe her as instructed by the consultant. But no, all that is largely ignored in preference to blame the 8th amendment. Something which clearly states that medical professionals would well be in their rights to terminate Savita's pregnancy on the Monday, had that is, she had the medical care that she deserved.



And the women who wanted to keep the 8th, what of them, retro?

Some of whom were medics, midwives, rape victims, women who received a prenatal abnormality diagnosis and who were treated for sepsis here while pregnant.

Or what of the women in the following:










Not so easy to sneer at these people and label them 'three men and a nun' or suggest it's easy for them given they're at the "least risk of dying from it".

The “idle chat of a midwife?” She was the attendending consultant. The same person responsible for ordering the abortion, but she didn’t because it was “sepsis but not severe sepsis.” A doctor. For ****s sake. Get your ****ing facts my dude. Anything the midwife said about Catholicism after that was based off of that.

Tuesday 23 October

Aware that her baby will not survive, Mrs Halappanavar asks her consultant Dr Astbury for a termination.

The consultant tells her that "in this country it is not legal to terminate a pregnancy on the grounds of poor prognosis for a foetus". A foetal heartbeat is present and her life is not at risk so it is not legally possible to carry out the termination.

It’s also horsesh!t to say the consultant immediately ordered an abortion on diagnosis of sepsis. She diagnosed sepsis that morning and because she misjudged the “severity” of the sepsis no call for an abortion was made until the afternoon.

While we can agree that “The 8th did not cause the staff to ignore test results, fail to observe signs of infection, use the wrong equipment and fail also to carry out basic duties required,” we should also agree the 8th caused medical staff to refuse to administer an abortion when it was clear there was no saving the fetus. The words imminent miscarriage should have been the only qualifier.

nozzferrahhtoo

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

And the women who wanted to keep the 8th what of them, retro?

What of them? They were outvoted. Massively. There is little more to be said about them other than I hope that they, and your good self, go back to the drawing board and finally find an argument showing that the termination of a 10 week old fetus is morally or ethically problematic.

This you never did, choosing instead to get emotional over moving tongues and fingers. Had you found such an argument you not only could have won the election, you would have had my No Vote too.

Technocentral

spookwoman wrote:

that's some sweeping statement! I suggest if you have proof then go to the police.

No side have no argument so make up lying crap like this, the country has changed, old, repressive Ireland is gone, they can't face it, wake up and get a life saddos.

Fighting Tao

I find it weird that medical "professionals" in Savitas case would go on about Ireland being a catholic country and not adhere to the 5th commandment...Thou shalt not kill. By not terminating the pregnancy, they broke the commandment and killed her. I suppose god forgives them once they confess.

If it were me I would have no problem going against the constitution to save a life. The situation is fcuked up.

Wrongway1985

Ha Photo 1 50% & photo 3 100% look like they aren't even of voting age

Fighting Tao

Wrongway1985 wrote: »

Ha Photo 1 50% & photo 3 100% look like they aren't even of voting age

Probably dragged out by their mammies to make up numbers. It happened me once when the local hospital was closing down. I was dragged on a protest march.

spookwoman

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

.

They knew on the Sunday she was having a miscarriage. They knew she was having a "inevitable/impending pregnancy loss" but because there was a heart beat they did not perform an abortion as requested.

Sunday 21st of October 2012: This entry was timed as at 14.20HRS within the
medical record

O&G SpR 1 recalled at interview that the patient was actively having pain and that “it was
probably a matter of hours before miscarriage”. The management option considered by
O&G SpR 1 and discussed with the patient was “conservative management, wait and see
what would happen naturally” and that “no other forms of management were discussed”.
O&G SpR (Specialist Registrar) 1 documented that these findings were discussed with the
patient and her partner.
O&G SpR 1 recalled at interview discussing with the patient and her husband that the
pregnancy was not viable. O&G SpR 1 did not recall a discussion including options to speed
up the process of inevitable miscarriage. O&G SpR 1 recalled leaving review room as “the
couple wanted time alone”.

Sunday 21st of October 2012: (Untimed. Between 15.00HRS and 17.00HRS Approx)
Staff Midwife 2 who had seen the patient earlier in the day documented that the patient had
been admitted at 17 weeks gestation with a history of abdominal pain. Staff Midwife 2
documented that the patient had been reviewed by SHO (Senior House Officer) 1 and O&G
Specialist Registrar 1 and that a speculum examination had been carried out and the findings
indicated the presence of bulging membranes almost to the introitus and that the cervix was
not felt. The documented diagnosis for handover to the night staff was of an
inevitable/impending pregnancy loss and that the fetal heart was heard using a sonicaid in
the presence of the Senior House Officer.
To give the patient privacy the nursing staff arranged for the patient to be admitted to a single
room in the gynaecology ward (Women experiencing miscarriage are generally not treated
on wards with other obstetric patients).

Sunday 21st of October 2012: 16.50HRS
Staff Midwife 2 stated that the patient “was very upset, she was crying, and I would have
been very sympathetic and they knew I was there to help in any way, I said ‘if there’s
anything I can do please ask me’…her distress was more noticeable when I went down to
the room, I offered pethidine for pain and she accepted”.
Staff Midwife 2 documented (in the note written at a time between 15.00hrs and 17.00hrs)
that the patient was administered analgesia - pethidine 75mgs and an antiemetic - Stemetil
12.5mgs at 16.50 hrs. Staff Nurse/Midwife 2 stated at interview that whilst the patient was in
pain, she did not have the appearance of a sick woman and the level of pain she was
experiencing was usual for patients experiencing inevitable pregnancy loss.


Sunday 21st of October 2012: 21.00HRS
Staff Midwife 3 (night staff) stated that (s)he visited the patient’s room at 21.00 hrs. Staff
Midwife 3 documented in an untimed ward round report that (s)he recalled completing at
approximately 21.00 hrs that the patient was admitted with a history of abdominal pain at 17
weeks. She had been seen by the registrar and, on speculum examination, bulging
membranes could be seen at the introitus and no cervix was felt. The impression was that of
an inevitable/impending miscarriage and that cervical suture was not appropriate. The fetal
heart had been heard with sonicaid. Also documented in the notes was that the findings had
been discussed with patient and husband.
An IV cannula was sited in the left hand and bloods had been taken for full blood count and
group and hold (in case blood transfusion will be required). Vital signs were stable early
nocte. No per vagina (PV) loss. Declined analgesia and denies pain at present. The
patient’s husband was noted as staying in the room with his wife overnight.

Igotadose

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Some of whom were...women who received a prenatal abnormality diagnosis and who were treated for sepsis here while pregnant.

Not so easy to sneer at these people and label them 'three men and a nun' or suggest it's easy for them given they're at the "least risk of dying from it".

The family in the prenatal abnormality diagnosis has committed their child to living with a heart abnormality. Let me tell you, having lived with a child with a heart abnomality (not diagnosed prenatally, this was some time ago), who died young, it's not a particularly generous thing to do to doom another human being to such misery. Further, it's only by luck the child in question doesn't have cognitive issues - and time usually will tell with that. The parents in question are selfish beyond belief. I'm certain their 5 other children's lives will be impacted by their decision to ignore the doctor's recommendation.

The woman treated for sepsis in the article wasn't miscarrying, not comparable to Savita Halappanavar at all.

Finally, the '3 men and a nun' was probably intended for boards posters, not the public at larger.

Oh, and you're certain all the women in the photos did in fact vote No? I have my doubts...

Fighting Tao

spookwoman wrote: »

They knew on the Sunday she was having a miscarriage. They knew she was having a "inevitable/impending pregnancy loss" but because there was a heart beat they did not perform an abortion as requested.

Sunday 21st of October 2012: This entry was timed as at 14.20HRS within the
medical record

O&G SpR 1 recalled at interview that the patient was actively having pain and that “it was
probably a matter of hours before miscarriage”. The management option considered by
O&G SpR 1 and discussed with the patient was “conservative management, wait and see
what would happen naturally” and that “no other forms of management were discussed”.
O&G SpR (Specialist Registrar) 1 documented that these findings were discussed with the
patient and her partner.
O&G SpR 1 recalled at interview discussing with the patient and her husband that the
pregnancy was not viable. O&G SpR 1 did not recall a discussion including options to speed
up the process of inevitable miscarriage. O&G SpR 1 recalled leaving review room as “the
couple wanted time alone”.

Sunday 21st of October 2012: (Untimed. Between 15.00HRS and 17.00HRS Approx)
Staff Midwife 2 who had seen the patient earlier in the day documented that the patient had
been admitted at 17 weeks gestation with a history of abdominal pain. Staff Midwife 2
documented that the patient had been reviewed by SHO (Senior House Officer) 1 and O&G
Specialist Registrar 1 and that a speculum examination had been carried out and the findings
indicated the presence of bulging membranes almost to the introitus and that the cervix was
not felt. The documented diagnosis for handover to the night staff was of an
inevitable/impending pregnancy loss and that the fetal heart was heard using a sonicaid in
the presence of the Senior House Officer.
To give the patient privacy the nursing staff arranged for the patient to be admitted to a single
room in the gynaecology ward (Women experiencing miscarriage are generally not treated
on wards with other obstetric patients).

Sunday 21st of October 2012: 16.50HRS
Staff Midwife 2 stated that the patient “was very upset, she was crying, and I would have
been very sympathetic and they knew I was there to help in any way, I said ‘if there’s
anything I can do please ask me’…her distress was more noticeable when I went down to
the room, I offered pethidine for pain and she accepted”.
Staff Midwife 2 documented (in the note written at a time between 15.00hrs and 17.00hrs)
that the patient was administered analgesia - pethidine 75mgs and an antiemetic - Stemetil
12.5mgs at 16.50 hrs. Staff Nurse/Midwife 2 stated at interview that whilst the patient was in
pain, she did not have the appearance of a sick woman and the level of pain she was
experiencing was usual for patients experiencing inevitable pregnancy loss.


Sunday 21st of October 2012: 21.00HRS
Staff Midwife 3 (night staff) stated that (s)he visited the patient’s room at 21.00 hrs. Staff
Midwife 3 documented in an untimed ward round report that (s)he recalled completing at
approximately 21.00 hrs that the patient was admitted with a history of abdominal pain at 17
weeks. She had been seen by the registrar and, on speculum examination, bulging
membranes could be seen at the introitus and no cervix was felt. The impression was that of
an inevitable/impending miscarriage and that cervical suture was not appropriate. The fetal
heart had been heard with sonicaid. Also documented in the notes was that the findings had
been discussed with patient and husband.
An IV cannula was sited in the left hand and bloods had been taken for full blood count and
group and hold (in case blood transfusion will be required). Vital signs were stable early
nocte. No per vagina (PV) loss. Declined analgesia and denies pain at present. The
patient’s husband was noted as staying in the room with his wife overnight.

I'm sorry to say that he is not going to read it properly and digest it because he doesn't give a sh1t that women died because of the 8th.

DickSwiveller

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2018/05/its-hour-come-round-at-last-reflections-on-the-abortion-referendum-in-ireland.html

Interesting blog post by Peter Hitchens

Fighting Tao

DickSwiveller wrote: »

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2018/05/its-hour-come-round-at-last-reflections-on-the-abortion-referendum-in-ireland.html

Interesting blog post by Peter Hitchens

Ah come on. Not the daily fail!

DickSwiveller

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Ah come on. Not the daily fail!

He writes for the Mail on Sunday

Fighting Tao

DickSwiveller wrote: »

He rights for the Mail on Sunday

Sister paper. He is outsider who is reacting to a situation rather than understanding it. His stance is anti abortion regardless. Death doesn't matter when it's a woman.

Technocentral

DickSwiveller wrote:

Interesting blog post by Peter Hitchens

Is that the pro Brexit, anti gay equality, far right bloke?

DickSwiveller

Technocentral wrote: »

Is that the pro Brexit, anti gay equality, far right bloke?

The person you disagree with, yes.

DickSwiveller

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Sister paper.

What's your point? What has it got to do with his blog post?

Technocentral

DickSwiveller wrote:

The person you disagree with, yes.

Your facile answer to every critisism because you have nothing else to say.

DickSwiveller

DickSwiveller wrote: »

The person you disagree with, yes.

Probably why some voted no, birds of a feather and all that?

What about yourself?

DickSwiveller

Technocentral wrote: »

Your facile answer to every critisism because you have nothing else to say.

You're far too intolerant of people who disagree with you. It's dangerous.

DickSwiveller

DubInMeath wrote: »

Probably why you voted no, birds of a feather and all that?

Wow, you people are very touchy. I just thought it was an interesting read.

Billy86

Fighting Tao wrote: »

I find it weird that medical "professionals" in Savitas case would go on about Ireland being a catholic country and not adhere to the 5th commandment...Thou shalt not kill. By not terminating the pregnancy, they broke the commandment and killed her. I suppose god forgives them once they confess.

If it were me I would have no problem going against the constitution to save a life. The situation is fcuked up.

I'm not expert on the ins and outs of the bible, but they more 'let her die' than killed her.

Overheal

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Wow, you people are very touchy. I just thought it was an interesting read.

Cool story, bro.

DickSwiveller

Overheal wrote: »

Cool story, bro.

Sorry I don't speak American.

DickSwiveller

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Wow, you people are very touchy. I just thought it was an interesting read.

Not really very happy with the result, what about yourself happy or not?

Technocentral

DickSwiveller wrote:

The person you disagree with, yes.

Your facile answer to every critisism because you have nothing else to say.

DickSwiveller

DubInMeath wrote: »

Not really very happy with the result, what about yourself happy or not?

No I'm not. Should I be silenced.

Overheal

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Sorry I don't speak American.

Commiserations.

DickSwiveller

DickSwiveller wrote: »

No I'm not. Should I be silenced.

Personally no, similar statements helped the vote go for repeal. Similar statements after just make ye look even worse so keep going your doing a great job.

Cupcake_Crisis

DickSwiveller wrote: »

You're far too intolerant of people who disagree with you. It's dangerous.

Pot, meet kettle.

Fighting Tao

Billy86 wrote: »

I'm not expert on the ins and outs of the bible, but they more 'let her die' than killed her.

But they choose not to save her, therefore killing her.

Billy86

DickSwiveller wrote: »

No I'm not. Should I be silenced.

You are not being silenced - you had your vote. A lot more people voted the other way. Therefore their agenda is the one that will pass. You are free to talk all you like. But nobody is obligated to agree, listen, take notice, or adhere as democracy has already spoken for you, for me, and for the entire country.

DickSwiveller

Billy86 wrote: »

You are not being silenced - you had your vote. A lot more people voted the other way. Therefore their agenda is the one that will pass. You are free to talk all you like. But nobody is obligated to agree, listen, take notice, or adhere as democracy has already spoken for you, for me, and for the entire country.

I just linked to a ****in column and straight away the mob attacked. Forget it.

spookwoman

Fighting Tao wrote: »

But they choose not to save her, therefore killing her.

hmm maybe
Proverbs 18:21
The tongue has the power of life and death, and those who love it will eat its fruit.

Billy86

DickSwiveller wrote: »

I just linked to a ****in column and straight away the mob attacked. Forget it.

It would seem to me as if you simply do not want people to criticise you or your sources. Yet you are complaining about people wanting to 'silence' you.

So if they do not agree with you or your sources but should not criticise you or your sources, what should they do? Keep silent?