Healthy baby aborted at 15 weeks

nozzferrahhtoo

mvl wrote: »

Yes, there are other smaller development stages, but I think once there is HB, there is less risk of miscarriage

Less than what exactly??? You are being rather unclear here. There are MANY developmental milestones in the biological development of a fetus any one of which if it failed would likely result in miscarriage. What criteria are you using exactly to measure relative likelihoods here?

What likely is true is that the longer a fetus develops without miscarriage, the more likely it is to continue to do so. And as such the heart beat is not a milestone so much as it is merely temporally later in the process than somethings and earlier than others.

What any of this otherwise interesting conversation has to do with abortion though, I have kinda lost the thread on. Even were I/we to grant it as a narrative milestone.... is there any reason to think such a milestone relevant ethically?

BoJack Horseman

We voted for babies to be aborted a 25 weeks..... Or max-term if mother says she's mentally ill.

15 is hardly controversial.

Plumbthedepths

political analyst wrote:

What makes you think pro-lifers don't care about both? What evidence is there that pregnancy causes harm to a 14-year-old girl? Abortion punishes the girl's unborn child for the rape of the girl.

Wanting to force a girl/woman to remain pregnant against their will displays an absence of care towards the expectant female in my opinion.

Sardonicat

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

We voted for babies to be aborted a 25 weeks..... Or max-term if mother says she's mentally ill.

15 is hardly controversial.

Eh, no we didn't!

AulWan

petalgumdrops wrote: »

To add I'm currently 16 weeks pregnant and I was offered testing in NMH even though there was no clinical indication to do so. This was something I was not offered pre repeal! Overtesting when not clinically necessary opens a can of worms with the potential for mistakes to be made!

Would your previous history not be grounds for offering you the test?

Also, how easily accessible is the animocentesis test? Considering some maternity hospitals don't even offer scans routinely, I could see an issue with accessing amniocentesis, (especially if a public patient).

If a woman has already had two tests and been told they are accurate to 99% I can understand why someone wouldn't wait, if an amnio takes "a few weeks" to access, then another few weeks for the results. All those weeks add up, and I could see how that would be very difficult, mentally, for some to deal with.

Plumbthedepths

BoJack Horseman wrote:

We voted for babies to be aborted a 25 weeks..... Or max-term if mother says she's mentally ill.

Absolutely untrue.

SusieBlue

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

We voted for babies to be aborted a 25 weeks..... Or max-term if mother says she's mentally ill.

15 is hardly controversial.

You must have voted in a different referendum to the rest of us then.

BoJack Horseman

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

We voted for babies to be aborted a 25 weeks..... Or max-term if mother says she's mentally ill .

What referendum did you vote in?

If true you could provide a link to show that this is the case, unless of course the hse page I'm reading is out of date
https://www2.hse.ie/conditions/abortion/how-to-get-an-abortion/when-you-can-have-an-abortion.html

kaymin

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

For me it is not opinion. It is inevitable if you ask and honestly answer a simple question series:

What is morality, ethics and rights. Specifically what are they FOR? What do they do? Why do we have them?

I think when you realise the answer to those question, the conclusion about the massive ethical difference between a sentient agent, and a potentially MAYBE sentient agent, is absolutely massive. And there is no coherent basis upon which to afford the potential one any moral or ethical concern at all.



Oh certainly in terms of biology and physical shape and appearance they are entirely human. But what has, for example, shape got to do with anything? A mannequin in a clothing store is more human shaped than most fetus. Yet we have ZERO ethical concern on that basis for a mannequin. It would be ridiculous for us to have any.

Shape, taxonomy, biology.... I am not seeing why these are focal points for morality. THAT they are a focal point for your ethics is clear, do not get me wrong. WHY is the what is unclear.

As I said before if I instantiated your consciousness in a computer and removed it from your body.... I doubt many loved ones would have much concern for your body any more. And I think we both know why. And it has NOTHING to do with your shape or biology in that moment. Would it?



I do not think it SHOULD determine if it lives or dies. I think it should determine whether we should have any moral or ethical concern for it. Specifically whether it should have rights. If a fetus should have a right to life, I want to know why. It is human shaped.... not so much a reason for me. Nor do I see why it should be.

As for the accuracy of tests, I am not clear I know what you mean. It is deeper than that. It is more the accuracy of the science that has determined what the pre-requisites for consciousness and sentience even are in the first place. And if those things are absent, which they are in a fetus, we therefore have NO basis to think it is sentient.

There is no real "sentience test" per se in other words. There is a great line in a movie I saw once where an AI is created. The government agent comes to meet it and says "Can you prove you are conscious?" and the AI simply replies "Can you?".

Which of course, he can't.

But if we list the reasons we might have to think something sentient, a fetus at early stages pretty much has the same number of them as a rock. It is not that we test it for sentience. It is that we have NO reason to think it is there.

True the shape of the baby / fetus arguably shouldn't matter if there was nothing else going on but our understanding of the brain is fairly primitive so I wouldn't rely on a doctor / quack that concludes there's no sentience because s/he can't see / prove it.

There's even views out there that sentience isn't present in newborns:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-does-consciousness-arise/?redirect=1

volchitsa

kaymin wrote: »

True the shape of the baby / fetus arguably shouldn't matter if there was nothing else going on but our understanding of the brain is fairly primitive so I wouldn't rely on a doctor / quack that concludes there's no sentience because s/he can't see / prove it.

There's even views out there that sentience isn't present in newborns:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-does-consciousness-arise/?redirect=1

Okay but you're forgetting the fact that abortion only concerns one person's right to end the pregnancy, namely the woman inside whose body it is.

If the newborn isn't sentient, that may or may not raise questions about what rights we should grant it, but no other human being is required to nurture it 24/7 at some risk to their own health.

That's why we allow abortion, and it is the pregnant woman and nobody else who can avail of it.

petalgumdrops

AulWan wrote: »

Would your previous history not be grounds for offering you the test?

Also, how easily accessible is animo - considering some maternity hospitals don't even offer scans routinely, I could see an issue with accessing amniocentesis.

If you've already had two tests and been told they are accurate to 99% I can understand why someone wouldn't wait, if an amnio takes "a few weeks" to access, then another few weeks for the results. All those weeks add up, and I could see how that would be very difficult, mentally, for some people to deal with.

I'm sorry but your point In saying if you do two tests and they are accurate to 99% is like relying on contraception as infallible even though it only claims to be 99% effective! Yes side stated throughout the campaign when the use of contraception was debated, that contraception fails, not full proof and accepted there was a margin of error so unwanted pregnancies will occur. (Which is true) we take that risk knowing it may fail.
This lady presumably had two tests but only the CVS was diagnostic the Harmony is a screening tool the same way an NT scan is a screening tool. It should never ever be taken as a diganosis. Had the referendum campaign allowed honest, open debate on this then people would be a lot more informed.

You stated the few weeks that an amnio takes can be too difficult for a family to deal with. You are right it is tough and doctors used this length of time to try to encourage me to have a termination. I would have to give birth if I waited for results. It would be kinder more compassionate to do it now! These were the things I was told!

The fact remains the couple made a choice. which is what we voted for, we didn't discuss the limitations or consequences of that choice. In fact Lisa chambers TD and Kate O'Connell disputed that there was even such a thing as abortion regret. "Makey uppy", "fatal means fatal there is no ambiguity"
The couple made that choice on the basis of FISH results and a screening harmony test that gave a risk assessment or probability for an abnormality. They did not have adequate information to make a decision that could never be undone. Perhaps the immediate access to termination or pressure from doctors contributed to this (only the couple can answer this). My immediate reaction was to abort too, flight or fight I was scared, vulnerable, unsure and definitely not thinking clearly enough to make any decision like that. Yet together4yes are looking to liberalise further the legislation to get rid of the 3 day cooling off period, that time and space for informed decisions to be made. This incident is the direct result of an inadequate system being put in place at haste. A campaign that refused to give credence to all aspects of the debate. It is tragic that this has happened.

kaymin

volchitsa wrote: »

Okay but you're forgetting the fact that abortion only concerns one person's right to end the pregnancy, namely the woman inside whose body it is.

If the newborn isn't sentient, that may or may not raise questions about what rights we should grant it, but no other human being is required to nurture it 24/7 at some risk to their own health.

That's why we allow abortion, and it is the pregnant woman and nobody else who can avail of it.

I've not forgotten that though my thoughts primarily concern the unborn who may well have a level of consciousness that none of us are aware of and whose rights to life are ignored by the pro-choicers.

AulWan

Maybe someone else can actually answer my question - how accessible is amniocentesis testing in Irish maternity hospitals?

Is it readily available and offered when other tests raise doubts? Can such a test be scheduled and carried out within 2-3 days?

Is it equally available (and offered) to public patients?

volchitsa

kaymin wrote: »

I've not forgotten that though my thoughts primarily concern the unborn who may well have a level of consciousness that none of us are aware of and whose rights to life are ignored by the pro-choicers.

So in your mind the rights of a living breathing sentient woman,take second place to the possibility that there might - despite some evidence to the contrary - be some tiny degree of sentience in the fetus?

As a living, breathing woman myself, what can I say? My rights can't be worth much to you if they are less important than a mere possibility.

petalgumdrops

AulWan wrote: »

Maybe someone else can actually answer my question - how accessible is amniocentesis testing in Irish maternity hospitals?

Is it readily available and offered when other tests raise doubts? Can such a test be scheduled and carried out within 2-3 days?

Is it equally available (and offered) to public patients?

Sorry I had edited to include this but it didn't appear. If clinically necessary it is absolutely offered. So a poor CVS would be grounds for an amnio as reccommended by the geneticist to me. I was public on all my pregnancies and if clinically necessary for me to see geneticist, fetal medicine, extra scans they were all made available.

up for anything

The thread title needs changing. It wasn't a healthy baby that was aborted. It was a viable fetus.

Plumbthedepths

up for anything wrote:

The thread title needs changing. It wasn't a healthy baby that was aborted. It was a viable fetus.

The thread title was chosen to incite outrage .

kaymin

volchitsa wrote: »

So in your mind the rights of a living breathing sentient woman,take second place to the possibility that there might - despite some evidence to the contrary - be some tiny degree of sentience in the fetus?

As a living, breathing woman myself, what can I say? My rights can't be worth much to you if they are less important than a mere possibility.

It's not an either or situation. Yes if the mother's life is in danger due to the pregnancy then abort if there is no alternative.

The 'evidence' of the presence / absence of sentience is almost non- existent from what I've read. What I do know is that the unborn yawns, kicks, moves, listens to noise from surroundings etc

mvl

petalgumdrops wrote: »

You stated the few weeks that an amnio takes can be too difficult for a family to deal with. You are right it is tough and doctors used this length of time to try to encourage me to have a termination. I would have to give birth if I waited for results. It would be kinder more compassionate to do it now! These were the things I was told!

I find this very odd, non-professional.
- In my case it was my OB who encouraged me to have other tests, wait for another scan before the actual abortion ... but different country, different methodologies.
Maybe this process is too new for some of these doctors too.

AulWan

petalgumdrops wrote: »

If clinically necessary it is absolutely offered. So a poor CVS would be grounds for an amnio as reccommended by the geneticist to me. I was public on all my pregnancies and if clinically necessary for me to see geneticist, fetal medicine, extra scans they were all made available.

Thanks for the reply. Were they able to arrange these tests quickly?

petalgumdrops

mvl wrote: »

I find this very odd, non-professional.
- In my case it was my OB who encouraged me to have other tests, wait for another scan before the actual abortion ... but different country, different methodologies.
Maybe this process is too new for some of these doctors too.

It puts people in a very vunerable position. Maybe the HSE and minister hasn't given clear guidelines or policies on how to approach this. Why would they though when we were assured tests were "gold standard"

volchitsa

mvl wrote: »

I find this very odd, non-professional.
- In my case it was my OB who encouraged me to have other tests, wait for another scan before the actual abortion ... but different country, different methodologies.
Maybe this process is too new for some of these doctors too.

That occurred to me too. My experience was like yours, but like you that wasn't in Ireland either.

petalgumdrops

AulWan wrote: »

Thanks for the reply. Were they able to arrange these tests quickly?

I didn't have the amnio in NMH but any other procedure I needed was organised and done in days. My fetal medicine clinics were quickly organised and dates were within a few days.
My friend had an amnio there and it was booked within a few days but bear in mind you do need to be a certain gestation for this. After the CVS result I had to wait for amino to reach the correct gestation. This period between tests is excruciating as doctors has wrongly given me the "no hope routine" and so I was stressed beyond words. It's an awful traumatic experience and so hospitals do not wait longer than they need to, to perform these tests.

volchitsa

petalgumdrops wrote: »

It puts people in a very vunerable position. Maybe the HSE and minister hasn't given clear guidelines or policies on how to approach this. Why would they though when we were assured tests were "gold standard"

Even gold standard tests need the full results to be valid though. That's what didn't happen, the termination was carried out before the results came through.

petalgumdrops

volchitsa wrote: »

Even gold standard tests need the full results to be valid though. That's what didn't happen, the termination was carried out before the results came through.

I remember many exchanges with you during the campaign about my story and all i'm going to say is that the concerns of I and many others who suffered a misdiagnosis were not listened to. Our stories showed that these results can be flawed as testified by so many women but these would have compromised repeal and so it really is no wonder when all parties are not afforded a voice to express concerns that issues would arisearise.
My story was pulled apart by many people currently on this thread- those same people thankfully have the sense not to engage with me now. Perhaps they know I had a point, a valid contribution they should have listened to. In incidents such as these its not nice to be right!

Hannibal_Smith

petalgumdrops wrote: »

I remember many exchanges with you during the campaign about my story and all i'm going to say is that the concerns of I and many others who suffered a misdiagnosis were not listened to. Our stories showed that these results can be flawed as testified by so many women but these would have compromised repeal and so it really is no wonder when all parties are not afforded a voice to express concerns that issues would arisearise.
My story was pulled apart by many people currently on this thread- those same people thankfully have the sense not to engage with me now. Perhaps they know I had a point, a valid contribution they should have listened to. In incidents such as these its not nice to be right!

What makes you think that, if the 8th hadn't been repealed the couple wouldn't have travelled? You are making this story personal to you but at the end of the day you haven't a clue what the couple discussed between each other and how it would be effected with or without the 8th.

I voted to repeal. I would vote again and every day of the week to repeal.

This case is tragic in its circumstances and my thoughts go to the couple involved, but it doesn't change the importance of repealing the 8th for me.

uptherebels

Nobelium wrote: »

what society are you claiming to represent ?

The one we live in, what other is there?

uptherebels

petalgumdrops wrote: »

I remember many exchanges with you during the campaign about my story and all i'm going to say is that the concerns of I and many others who suffered a misdiagnosis were not listened to. Our stories showed that these results can be flawed as testified by so many women but these would have compromised repeal and so it really is no wonder when all parties are not afforded a voice to express concerns that issues would arisearise.
My story was pulled apart by many people currently on this thread- those same people thankfully have the sense not to engage with me now. Perhaps they know I had a point, a valid contribution they should have listened to. In incidents such as these its not nice to be right!

Nothing to do with compromising repeal. Misdiagnosis happen unfortunately, but do you base your laws on the possibility of a 0.15% chance of a false positive! Or the 99% of being correct?

Nobelium

uptherebels wrote: »

The one we live in, what other is there?

Then why do you claim to be the spokesperson for our society ?

uptherebels

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

We voted for babies to be aborted a 25 weeks..... Or max-term if mother says she's mentally ill.

15 is hardly controversial.

I take it you haven't actually read the legislation?

petalgumdrops

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

What makes you think that, if the 8th hadn't been repealed the couple wouldn't have travelled? You are making this story personal to you but at the end of the day you haven't a clue what the couple discussed between each other and how it would be effected with or without the 8th.

I voted to repeal. I would vote again and every day of the week to repeal.

This case is tragic in its circumstances and my thoughts go to the couple involved, but it doesn't change the importance of repealing the 8th for me.

We know a "much wanted" baby was terminated on what appears to be an absolutely shambolic roll out of termination services. It is not the repeal/ provision of termination that I found issue with but the removal of the right to life of all babies wanted and unwanted. I said that a healthy wanted baby may mistakenly be terminated and this has now happened. I wonder now that the right to life is gone what can these poor parents do about it! Repeal, like many stated, was not going to affect those who were going to terminate anyway (choice, choice, choice) but now they could do it at home.-This situation, this horrific error, this loss of a "baby" and it was a baby to these parents will probably never hace any redress for whatever horrific chain.of events ensued.
what recourse do they have? The unborn they don't have rights their mother's their biggest protectors to their right to life as stated by Mary Lou in response to the repeal of the right to life! This mother trusted a broken, inadequate system to inform her decisions. Sure weren't we told termination would be rare and restrictive after 12 weeks. 3 doctors, counselling etc etc!
The 8th (that constitutional protection) made doctors accountable to two patients not just one. The hospital is liable only to the woman now and the baby it seems may just be collateral damage to the repeal cause!

If only we had some legal protection for the unborn child? Oh yes we did have that but we fully repealed it rather than inserting a constitutional limit (similar to divorce) in our constitution!

Hannibal_Smith

petalgumdrops wrote: »

We know a "much wanted" baby was terminated on what appears to be an absolutely shambolic roll out of termination services. It is not the repeal/ provision of termination that I found issue with but the removal of the right to life of all babies wanted and unwanted. I said that a healthy wanted baby may mistakenly be terminated and this has now happened. I wonder now that the right to life is gone what can these poor parents do about it! Repeal, like many stated, was not going to affect those who were going to terminate anyway (choice, choice, choice) but now they could do it at home.-This situation, this horrific error, this loss of a "baby" and it was a baby to these parents will probably never hace any redress for whatever horrific chain.of events ensued.
what recourse do they have? The unborn they don't have rights their mother's their biggest protectors to their right to life as stated by Mary Lou in response to the repeal of the right to life! This mother trusted a broken, inadequate system to inform her decisions. Sure weren't we told termination would be rare and restrictive after 12 weeks. 3 doctors, counselling etc etc!
The 8th (that constitutional protection) made doctors accountable to two patients not just one. The hospital is liable only to the woman now and the baby it seems may just be collateral damage to the repeal cause!

If only we had some legal protection for the unborn child? Oh yes we did have that but we fully repealed it rather than inserting a constitutional limit (similar to divorce) in our constitution!

I hope we never go back to the horror of legal protection for the unborn.

The termination services are not the issue. It's the advice the couple got that there was no hope that's the issue. That's what was reported the other day anyhow.. They were told there was no hope so they requested a termination.

uptherebels

petalgumdrops wrote: »

If only we had some legal protection for the unborn child? Oh yes we did have that but we fully repealed it rather than inserting a constitutional limit (similar to divorce) in our constitution!

That was the legal protection that was superceded by a woman's right to travel?
Medical issues have no place in the constitution.

petalgumdrops

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

I hope we never go back to the horror of legal protection for the unborn.

The termination services are not the issue. It's the advice the couple got that there was no hope that's the issue. That's what was reported the other day anyhow.. They were told there was no hope so they requested a termination.

As someone that is 16 weeks pregnant with a baby not a fetus! I worry that some feck up will be made before my baby has "fully emerged from the womb" and is granted their right to life. (This is when the legislation bestows the right to life to my baby! That magical trip through the birth canal that makes them suddenly human) Who do I turn to if my baby is affected? Test case will have to confirm if medical misadventure in relation to the unborn will be constitutional but it is not a nice time to be pregnant in Ireland. With simon Harris deflecting all of the money he promised would go into improved materity service now being used on free abortions my pregnancy can not pass soon enough.
Two women and a newborn dead since January as well as this misdiagnosis and Harris is still sailing on the crest of the repeal wave. 2/3 nurses for a ward of 30+ patients where a woman and her son died and people think he gives a crap about women!
We've just made it easier in Ireland to make medical mistakes and, feck ups in maternity care but that threat of litigation so many obs talked about is now gone!!

Hannibal_Smith

petalgumdrops wrote: »

As someone that is 16 weeks pregnant with a baby not a fetus! I worry that some feck up will be made before my baby has "fully emerged from the womb" and is granted their right to life. (This is when the legislation bestows the right to life to my baby! That magical trip through the birth canal that makes them suddenly human) Who do I turn to if my baby is affected? Test case will have to confirm if medical misadventure in relation to the unborn will be constitutional but it is not a nice time to be pregnant in Ireland. With simon Harris deflecting all of the money he promised would go into improved materity service now being used on free abortions my pregnancy can not pass soon enough.
Two women and a newborn dead since January as well as this misdiagnosis and Harris is still sailing on the crest of the repeal wave. 2/3 nurses for a ward of 30+ patients where a woman and her son died and people think he gives a crap about women!
We've just made it easier in Ireland to make medical mistakes and, feck ups in maternity care but that threat of litigation so many obs talked about is now gone!!

Not a nice time to be pregnant in Ireland?? Are you going to be strapped to a bed and forced to have an abortion? Choice is the key. Your body your choice.

You continue to make this tragic loss of this couple about you. They made the decision with the best of intentions and with the information available to them at the time. I don't know why that would affect your pregnancy.

Edgware

It's obvious that the medical profession can't be trusted. How many innocent little babies have been sacrificed to their incompetence?

petalgumdrops

uptherebels wrote: »

That was the legal protection that was superceded by a woman's right to travel?
Medical issues have no place in the constitution.

Again you need to focus on the babies like the baby in this case that was wanted. Unwanted babies that will be terminated anyway don't require constitutional protection I.e up to 12 weeks gestation. Those over should be afforded protection with allowance for FFA.
Repeal has affected wanted and unwanted babies by indiscriminately removing the right to life of all babies. Those that are wanted and those that are not.
Lets see how far this family get with a legal case? I've read they are speaking with solicitors!

SusieBlue

petalgumdrops wrote: »

As someone that is 16 weeks pregnant with a baby not a fetus! I worry that some feck up will be made before my baby has "fully emerged from the womb" and is granted their right to life. (This is when the legislation bestows the right to life to my baby! That magical trip through the birth canal that makes them suddenly human) Who do I turn to if my baby is affected? Test case will have to confirm if medical misadventure in relation to the unborn will be constitutional but it is not a nice time to be pregnant in Ireland. With simon Harris deflecting all of the money he promised would go into improved materity service now being used on free abortions my pregnancy can not pass soon enough.
Two women and a newborn dead since January as well as this misdiagnosis and Harris is still sailing on the crest of the repeal wave. 2/3 nurses for a ward of 30+ patients where a woman and her son died and people think he gives a crap about women!
We've just made it easier in Ireland to make medical mistakes and, feck ups in maternity care but that threat of litigation so many obs talked about is now gone!!

Before the 8th was put in the constitution there was no constitutionally protected right to life for unborn babies either.
Everyone managed fine. It’s not like your child would be denied medical treatment or intervention because the right to life is no longer constitutionally protected.

nullzero

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Not a nice time to be pregnant in Ireland?? Are you going to be strapped to a bed and forced to have an abortion? Choice is the key. Your body your choice.

You continue to make this tragic loss of this couple about you. They made the decision with the best of intentions and with the information available to them at the time. I don't know why that would affect your pregnancy.

You're speaking to someone who has had a personal experience of this type of situation and speaking to them as if they have committed some sort of offence by offering their experience as a reference.

People can have differing opinions on things and still respect the other person's right to their opinion, something which you seem to be unwilling to extend to this poster, why that is, I can only speculate but perhaps a little compassion and respect might be more appropriate than the pointing of an accusatory finger from whatever type of perch of self righteous moral indignation you're sitting atop of.

Abortion is an issue which is extremely divisive and people bring all sorts of baggage to the debate surrounding it. A reasonable place to begin would be for people to learn to respect each others rights to their opinions.

Just to clarify, I'm in no way attempting to suggest that you should not be allowed to make your point here, I'm merely trying to help suggest another way of looking at things.

petalgumdrops

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Not a nice time to be pregnant in Ireland?? Are you going to be strapped to a bed and forced to have an abortion? Choice is the key. Your body your choice.

You continue to make this tragic loss of this couple about you. They made the decision with the best of intentions and with the information available to them at the time. I don't know why that would affect your pregnancy.

I'm not really going to explain myself further. Mistakes of medical professions of which they are plenty and especially in maternity care are now safe from litigation if an unborn child is affected. A healthy child was aborted, will the hospital be made accountable for this? I'm guessing not as the child had no right to life anyway. Can't sue for "a clump of cells" with no rights!

you can keep pushing the "you're making this about you" comment or you could actually reflect on the situation.

Hannibal_Smith

nullzero wrote: »

You're speaking to someone who has had a personal experience of this type of situation and speaking to them as if they have committed some sort of offence by offering their experience as a reference.

People can have differing opinions on things and still respect the other person's right to their opinion, something which you seem to be unwilling to extend to this poster, why that is, I can only speculate but perhaps a little compassion and respect might be more appropriate than the pointing of an accusatory finger from whatever type of perch of self righteous moral indignation you're sitting atop of.

Abortion is an issue which is extremely divisive and people bring all sorts of baggage to the debate surrounding it. A reasonable place to begin would be for people to learn to respect each others rights to their opinions.

Just to clarify, I'm in no way attempting to suggest that you should not be allowed to make your point here, I'm merely trying to help suggest another way of looking at things.

Are you replying to the correct post? I have no sense of self righteous indignation and I know the poster from the previous thread.

I never denied the other poster their opinion... I am expressing my disagreement with it.

If you have a problem with my post.. Report it.

Hannibal_Smith

petalgumdrops wrote: »

I'm not really going to explain myself further. Mistakes of medical professions of which they are plenty and especially in maternity care are now safe from litigation if an unborn child is affected. A healthy child was aborted, will the hospital be made accountable for this? I'm guessing not as the child had no right to life anyway. Can't sue for "a clump of cells" with no rights!

you can keep pushing the "you're making this about you" comment or you could actually reflect on the situation.

What makes you think I haven't reflected on the situation. My sympathies continue to lie with the couple in this case who made the decision they thought was right at the time.

SusieBlue

Just found this online, in case it’s of interest to anyone.

If a child is born with injuries caused by a doctor’s medical negligence during pregnancy or birth, the parents can claim compensation on his or her behalf. This is confirmed by s. 58 of the Civil Liability Act 1961.

The 8th Amendment does not have any effect on this area of law, and so repeal would not change it.

petalgumdrops

SusieBlue wrote: »

Before the 8th was put in the constitution there was no constitutionally protected right to life for unborn babies either.
Everyone managed fine. It’s not like your child would be denied medical treatment or intervention because the right to life is no longer constitutionally protected.

I imagine we did not have such a litigious society prior to the 8th being inserted into the constitution. I presume our technology was not as advanced. Mistakes were not as easily identified by patients. Codes, policies and guidelines to keep detailed notes and records. Patients didn't have as much access to information, to know what was good acceptable practice, financial support to sue. It's not something I know much about but I will definitely look into this.

Bottom line is we live in a litigious society now. Not something that I grew up in!

nullzero

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Are you replying to the correct post? I have no sense of self righteous indignation and I know the poster from the previous thread.

I never denied the other poster their opinion... I am expressing my disagreement with it.

If you have a problem with my post.. Report it.

I'm wondering why you have made things so personal with that user. They have offered a valuable layer to the debate and perhaps deserve a little more in the way of respect than what you have afforded them.

I'm not suggesting your post is worthy of being reported, I don't see how you have broken any forum rules, and I already clarified this point in my previous post.

A big issue around this debate seems to stem from a complete lack of empathy towards anyone with a differing opinion (on both sides), I'm merely suggesting you re evaluate things somewhat here. I don't think you're being completely fair, regardless of some argument you had a year ago in another thread.

SusieBlue

petalgumdrops wrote: »

I imagine we did not have such a litigious society prior to the 8th being inserted into the constitution. I presume our technology was not as advanced. Mistakes were not as easily identified by patients. Codes, policies and guidelines to keep detailed notes and records. Patients didn't have as much access to information, to know what was good acceptable practice, financial support to sue. It's not something I know much about but I will definitely look into this.

Bottom line is we live in a litigious society now. Not something that I grew up in!

I don’t see what relevance litigation has, you said you were concerned that you and your baby would receive substandard care due to them no longer having a constitutionally protected right to life but that isn’t the case.
Doctors still have a duty of care to provide treatment to your baby and they would still be responsible for any injury to you or your child, even without the 8th.
I’m really confused as to what the problem is being honest.

petalgumdrops

SusieBlue wrote: »

Just found this online, in case it’s of interest to anyone.

This came up during the referendum and until a test case is brought to the supreme court I believe we will not have a full understanding of the impact that the removal of constitutional protection has on the 8th.

We have many rights that are guaranteed in the constitution, free speech, right to own property etc etc we have repealed the only right the unborn had and so until this is tested the outcome is not fully known.

petalgumdrops

petalgumdrops wrote: »

I'm not really going to explain myself further. Mistakes of medical professions of which they are plenty and especially in maternity care are now safe from litigation if an unborn child is affected. A healthy child was aborted, will the hospital be made accountable for this? I'm guessing not as the child had no right to life anyway. Can't sue for "a clump of cells" with no rights!

you can keep pushing the "you're making this about you" comment or you could actually reflect on the situation.

You and a number of pro life posters were saying before the referendum that maternity care in Ireland was of a higher standard than the UK because of the 8th, now suddenly it isn't because of the repeal of the 8th.

As a question do you feel that your doctors are not looking after you given the slightly increased risks a person over 40 may face in their pregnancy?

Hannibal_Smith

nullzero wrote: »

I'm wondering why you have made things so personal with that user. They have offered a valuable layer to the debate and perhaps deserve a little more in the way of respect than what you have afforded them.

I'm not suggesting your post is worthy of being reported, I don't see how you have broken any forum rules, and I already clarified this point in my previous post.

A big issue around this debate seems to stem from a complete lack of empathy towards anyone with a differing opinion (on both sides), I'm merely suggesting you re evaluate things somewhat here. I don't think you're being completely fair, regardless of some argument you had a year ago in another thread.

Im replying to the poster on a point they made about whether the 8th still being in place would have had an effect here. People respond to posters on points that pique their interest all the time. All I remarked on was that they are making this case about them.

I don't recall ever having an argument with the poster a year ago?

petalgumdrops

SusieBlue wrote: »

I don’t see what relevance litigation has, you said you were concerned that you and your baby would receive substandard care due to them no longer having a constitutionally protected right to life but that isn’t the case.
Doctors still have a duty of care to provide treatment to your baby and they would still be responsible for any injury to you or your child, even without the 8th.
I’m really confused as to what the problem is being honest.

Every professional has a duty of care as do doctors. When mistakes are made by doctors there are greater repercussions as it can literally be life/death. Doctors don't go around trying to give substandard care, don't confuse my point. The system in which they are working is so overstrected that mistakes have and will be made. I may be lucky and it won't affect me but you can guarantee that we will hear more of these stories and I would put my house on that. I am protected from malpractice as I have constitutional protection that guarantees my rights. The unborn..... not so clear!