Healthy baby aborted at 15 weeks

Faugheen

Nobelium wrote: »

Where did I claim any of this ? People can do whatever they like with their bodies if it only involves their own. However I don't believe that extends to taking another human life.

Unluckily for you you can't control women anymore.

Nobelium

Nobelium wrote: »

The morning after pill is an emergency contraceptive pill and not an abortion pill. That's a simple medical fact.

SusieBlue wrote: »

Completely incorrect, if fertilization has already happened it can stop the egg from attaching to the wall of the uterus (aborting implantation). It could end a pregnancy in extremely early stages, if the egg is fertilized.

Nobelium wrote: »

Find one credible medical source that claims the morning after pill is not an ECP but is in fact an abortion pill.

SusieBlue wrote: »

I didn’t say it was an abortion pill, I said it can stop a fertilized egg from implanting on the uterine wall, which in turn can cause an early pregnancy to terminate.
From web MD:

https://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/plan-b

.

Nobelium

DubInMeath wrote: »

In other words you've dug yourself into a hole with your morning after pill argument and are still digging

I'm not the one that thinks the morning after pill (an ECP) is an abortion pill.

Nobelium

SusieBlue wrote: »

Speak for yourself and not for me. You don’t get to choose for everyone.
Repeating yourself ad nauseum will not change that, the days of imposing your warped views on all of society are over.

Faugheen wrote: »

Unluckily for you you can't control women anymore.

I suppose when out of any logical argument you can try name calling and straw manning, but this won't justify taking another human life.

SusieBlue

Nobelium wrote: »

I'm not the one that thinks the morning after pill (an ECP) is an abortion pill.

It can end an early stage pregnancy if it stops the fertilized egg from implanting on the uterine wall.
I don’t know how to make this any plainer to you.
I don’t consider it to be an abortion pill either but many pro-life people do and consider it to also be murder/baby killing etc.

SusieBlue

Nobelium wrote: »

I suppose when out of any logical argument you can try name calling and straw manning, but this won't justify taking another human life.

In your opinion. Those who disagree can choose otherwise.
You talk about justifying it as if your authority on it is absolute, but as we can clearly see from this thread alone it’s subjective.
Not everyone believes as you do.
Afford others the respect you’d expect yourself.

Nobelium

SusieBlue wrote: »

It can end an early stage pregnancy if it stops the fertilized egg from implanting on the uterine wall.
I don’t know how to make this any plainer to you.
I don’t consider it to be an abortion pill either but many pro-life people do and consider it to also be murder/baby killing etc.

I'm only interested in the medical fact that the morning after pill is an ECP and not an abortion pill.

Faugheen

Nobelium wrote: »

I suppose when out of any logical argument you can try name calling and straw manning, but this won't justify taking another human life.

I'm not straw manning at all.

You will not give two flying sh*tes about a baby that's nothing to do with you is born, but you suddenly care when it's not born?

It's nothing to do with the unborn. It's all about controlling women and judging them when they make a decision you don't like.

Nobelium

SusieBlue wrote: »

In your opinion. Those who disagree can choose otherwise.
You talk about justifying it as if your authority on it is absolute, but as we can clearly see from this thread alone it’s subjective.
Not everyone believes as you do.
Afford others the respect you’d expect yourself.

I still haven't heard any credible reason to justify taking an innocent human life via abortion, have you got any ?

SusieBlue

Nobelium wrote: »

I still haven't heard any credible reason to justify taking an innocent human life via abortion, have you got any ?

There are plenty if you are willing to listen, but I’d only be wasting my time as you’d undoubtedly sneer at them or minimise their relevance.
Repeal won by landslide vote. You are still free to do as you choose.
People want choice. Respect that.

Nobelium

SusieBlue wrote: »

There are plenty if you are willing to listen, but I’d only be wasting my time as you’d undoubtedly sneer at them or minimise their relevance.
Repeal won by landslide vote. You are still free to do as you choose.
People want choice. Respect that.

Faugheen wrote: »

I'm not straw manning at all.

You will not give two flying sh*tes about a baby that's nothing to do with you is born, but you suddenly care when it's not born?

It's nothing to do with the unborn. It's all about controlling women and judging them when they make a decision you don't like.

As I've already stated, I believe people should be given the maximum possible freedom and choice to do whatever they want whenever they want, but I don't believe that freedom and choice should be extended to taking another innocent human life, because I've yet to see or find a credible argument that justifies doing so.

Other than name calling and attacking the poster, can anyone here present a credible argument that justifies taking an innocent human life via abortion ?

pjohnson

Nobelium wrote: »

I'm only interested in the medical fact that the morning after pill is an ECP and not an abortion pill.

I'm just picturing you covering your eyes screaming "la la la la la"


Your own repeatedly stated "logic" means you class the morning after as a means of abortion :pac:

pinkyeye

Mr.H wrote: »

What if a woman wanted an abortion at 38 weeks? Should that also be her choice?

I know that question is facetious but it is made to show how not black and white your statement is.

I agree with abortion as a medical option for serious circumstances.



Get over it!

Ok you realise that the woman in this instance was not given a choice yes?

You realise that human error forced her to have an unwanted abortion.

Dont confuse this story with your own opinions.

Hang on what??? No-one FORCED this woman to have an abortion.

It was still a choice. Albeit it was a choice made with incorrect information to hand, it wasn't a FORCED abortion.

Nobelium

pjohnson wrote: »

I'm just picturing you covering your eyes screaming "la la la la la"

Your own repeatedly stated "logic" means you class the morning after as a means of abortion :pac:

I'm not the one classifying it . . the scientific and medical community classifies the morning after pill as emergency contraception and not an abortion pill.

Other than attempting straw man fallacies, name calling, attacking the poster, can anyone here present a credible argument that justifies taking an innocent human life via abortion ?

Timberrrrrrrr

Nobelium wrote: »

I'm not the one classifying it . . the scientific and medical community classifies the morning after pill as emergency contraception and not an abortion pill.

Other than attempting straw man fallacies, name calling, attacking the poster, can anyone here present a credible argument that justifies taking an innocent human life via abortion ?

If the mothers life is in danger, if a woman/girl has been raped and is pregnant due to this, if the pregnancy result is a child that will die a painful death within minutes/hours of being born.

SusieBlue

Nobelium wrote: »

Other than attempting straw man fallacies, name calling, attacking the poster, can anyone here present a credible argument that justifies taking an innocent human life via abortion ?

You don’t agree with abortion so I’m not sure you’re asking for a ‘credible argument’ when it’s quite clear no reason will be good enough for you.

Regardless, no one needs to justify themselves to you, that’s why we had a referendum. The referendum passed.
Abortion has always been in Ireland and it will continue to be in Ireland, the only difference is that it’s now regulated and with aftercare.

Plumbthedepths

Nobelium wrote:

Other than name calling and attacking the poster, can anyone here present a credible argument that justifies taking an innocent human life via abortion ?

Frankly no one needs to justify abortion to you. It's legal and your consent or permission is not required.

pinkyeye

Why the hell has this turned into a thread about the rights and wrongs of abortion???

It's over lads, it's legal. Get over it. It's not going to change.

The days of locking women up in homes is long gone thank god and they are NEVER coming back.

Things will only go forwards, never backwards.

Taiga

pinkyeye wrote: »

Why the hell has this turned into a thread about the rights and wrongs of abortion???

It's over lads, it's legal. Get over it. It's not going to change.

The days of locking women up in homes is long gone thank god and they are NEVER coming back.

Things will only go forwards, never backwards.

Hear hear!

Igotadose

pinkyeye wrote: »

Why the hell has this turned into a thread about the rights and wrongs of abortion???

It's over lads, it's legal. Get over it. It's not going to change.

The days of locking women up in homes is long gone thank god and they are NEVER coming back.

Things will only go forwards, never backwards.

Defenders of women's health have to stay vigilant, because the forced birthers are like zombies - they just keep coming and coming. It's no surprise this case got the forced birther stirred up, and as is typical, the main protagonists get threadbanned once the lies and invective fly from them too fast. Lies are all they've got.

Mrsmum

Ah now, all you who are high fiving each other there above, how many of you respected and accepted the legal position two years ago. Does that mean you were all like "zombies" who kept "coming and coming" until you got what you wanted ? it's just life that there will always be differences of opinion where abortion is concerned regardless of the legal position. In fact an individual can (and people do) actually change his/her minds over the course of their lifetime, shocking and all as that may sound to you. Not only that but people on the same side of the argument can also differ on where restrictions should happen. If Abortion was a colour, it would definitely be fifty shades of grey.

STB.

Nobelium wrote: »

I'm not the one classifying it . . the scientific and medical community classifies the morning after pill as emergency contraception and not an abortion pill.

Other than attempting straw man fallacies, name calling, attacking the poster, can anyone here present a credible argument that justifies taking an innocent human life via abortion ?

quelle surprise

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=110220779&postcount=1073

Ally Dick

pinkyeye wrote: »

Why the hell has this turned into a thread about the rights and wrongs of abortion???

It's over lads, it's legal. Get over it. It's not going to change.

The days of locking women up in homes is long gone thank god and they are NEVER coming back.

Things will only go forwards, never backwards.

Good lord. It's moving forward, but not in a good way

pinkyeye

Ally Dick wrote: »

Good lord. It's moving forward, but not in a good way

In your opinion maybe.

What's bad about the way Irish society has changed in the last 40 years?

Jaster Rogue

pinkyeye wrote: »

In your opinion maybe.

What's bad about the way Irish society has changed in the last 40 years?

Soaring anti social behavior/crime/murder rate relative to 1979.

Housing/homeless crisis, we had an adequate supply of council owned property in 1979 and the means to build more if needed.

2 incomes required now to buy a house and raise a family relative to 1 back then. As a result we have parents dropping their children to creche at 8am and collecting them at 6pm.

Destruction of the family unit, single parents were rare back then compared to now.

Don't get me wrong a lot has improved since 1979, but to say there's NOTHING worse now than then is naïve.

Timberrrrrrrr

Jaster Rogue wrote: »

Soaring anti social behavior/crime/murder rate relative to 1979.

Housing/homeless crisis, we had an adequate supply of council owned property in 1979 and the means to build more if needed.

2 incomes required now to buy a house and raise a family relative to 1 back then.

Destruction of the family unit, single parents were rare back then compared to now.

Don't get me wrong a lot has improved since 1979, but to say there's NOTHING worse now than then is naïve.

Seriously? Were you even alive in the 70's or 80's? Because if you were you would know that things have MASSIVELY improved since then!

sabat

Ally Dick wrote: »

Good lord. It's moving forward, but not in a good way

Has there ever been a study made of the life-outcomes of children raised in mother and baby homes compared to those of single mothers given the key to a council flat and the dole? I'd imagine the result might prove embarrassing to those pushing the myth that getting rid of those awful evil nuns like you see in films meant everyone lived happily ever after under the care of the eternally benevolent and competent state.

Jaster Rogue

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Seriously? Were you even alive in the 70's or 80's? Because if you were you would know that things have MASSIVELY improved since then!

Can you read? I just countered his post that nothing is worse now than 1979. Address 1 single point in my post which is incorrect.

You ever quoted the part of my post where I said a lot has improved. I don't think you read my post at all. Because now you just look silly :-)

volchitsa

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Seriously? Were you even alive in the 70's or 80's? Because if you were you would know that things have MASSIVELY improved since then!

Ive seen this sort of stuff on Twitter, AFAICT it's basically a slight adaptation from claims about the USA or in some cases the UK (about council housing for instance) but I don't see how it could really be based on Ireland in the 70s.

I was a child in NI in the 70s, and I remember things that I now realize were a sign of the general poverty that many people lived in. I also remember that much of the south appeared even poorer.

Everyone had enough money to live properly in the 70s? What a joke.

AulWan

Jaster Rogue wrote: »

Destruction of the family unit, single parents were rare back then compared to now.

Single parents and their children are still a "family unit".

You have some neck implying otherwise.

sabat

sabat wrote: »

Has there ever been a study made of the life-outcomes of children raised in mother and baby homes compared to those of single mothers given the key to a council flat and the dole? I'd imagine the result might prove embarrassing to those pushing the myth that getting rid of those awful evil nuns like you see in films meant everyone lived happily ever after under the care of the eternally benevolent and competent state.

Bessborough home 472 infant deaths in 19 years. Many of those infants died from malnutrition, and many who survived from there and many other homes have a reduced life expectancy.

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/seanad/2019-02-06/15/

The world's most wealthiest religion allowed these are how many other children die from malnutrition, and your coming in with this ****e

Edit: After a little bit of searching, the death rates in these "homes" are reported to have been 5 times higher than the national average for the same period.

virginmediapls

cournioni wrote: »

... by killing another body inside of her? Yes it is.

You're a bit of a dickhead. Just so you know.

ToBeFrank123

Ah another abortion thread.

There is little chance of coming to an objective agreement on when human life begins, its always going to be subjective and based on your own outlook and ideology.

Its also a waste of time trying to shove down the necks of others when you think life begins.

Back to this case, again, the question is, did 2 doctors sign off on the abortion? It couldn't have gone ahead without their advice and agreement. That is the law. The parents were no doubt in a traumatic situation and depended on medical advice.

Candamir

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Ah another abortion thread.

There is little chance of coming to an objective agreement on when human life begins, its always going to be subjective and based on your own outlook and ideology.

Its also a waste of time trying to shove down the necks of others when you think life begins.

Back to this case, again, the question is, did 2 doctors sign off on the abortion? It couldn't have gone ahead without their advice and agreement. That is the law. The parents were no doubt in a traumatic situation and depended on medical advice.

Nah, that’s not really the important question at all.

There’s no issue in law with signing off on a termination on the basis that there’s a 99.9% chance of a FFA.

The only real issue with this case is how that information was explained to the couple - that they were made aware that there was a margin of error in the test, (but they could go ahead with a termination on this result alone, if that’s what they wished), and that there was the possibility of another test that could improve the reliability of the diagnosis.

The rest is just rehashing the abortion debate.

ToBeFrank123

Candamir wrote: »

Nah, that’s not really the important question at all.

There’s no issue in law with signing off on a termination on the basis that there’s a 99.9% chance of a FFA.

The only real issue with this case is how that information was explained to the couple - that they were made aware that there was a margin of error in the test, (but they could go ahead with a termination on this result alone, if that’s what they wished), and that there was the possibility of another test that could improve the reliability of the diagnosis.

The rest is just rehashing the abortion debate.

I'm not rehashing the abortion debate FFS. I said clearly there's no point rehashing the abortion debate as a 100 previous posters were doing.

Your post is completely contradictory. You say there is no issue in law signing off with 99.9% accuracy and yet you question how the information was explained to the couple and the exclusion of vital information about margin of error.

The takeaway is the particular test is not reliable by itself and the medical professionals should have waited for the 3rd test.

Mrsmum

We all usually want doctors to show empathy etc to people in difficult situations but I suspect that compassion for the parents contributed to the end result here where the parents on perhaps incomplete information or not fully understanding were allowed to jump the gun but going forwards where abortion for suspected ffa cases is concerned I think adhering to proper, no nonsense, procedures would serve pregnant parents better.

Step 1 : Test 1 completed & results in & explained - tick
Step 2 : Test 2 completed & results in & explained - tick
Step 3 : Test 3 completed & results in & explained - tick
No more possible tests
Step 4 : Parental decision based on all previous tests and with extra counselling if they wish.
Step 5 : Continued care or aftercare
End of story where hospital is concerned

Do it any other way and all concerned won't be long turning on each other when it all goes wrong.

nozzferrahhtoo

kaymin wrote: »

My point is that this sentience argument is very flawed / weak. As you admit yourself, you would have no problem killing a newborn if the views of certain scientists about sentience are to be believed. I find this quite disturbing.

The problem is you have not shown it to be weak at all. Even a little. Just that it disturbs you. Which is hardly an argument against it.

But yes I do have the courage of my convictions. I believe only sentient entities are a moral or ethical concern for us. IF it were to be shown new borns lacked that faculty entirely.... I would follow my convictions where that leads.

However the science supporting that position is, as I said, fringe and small. So it is not really my concern at this time.

kaymin wrote: »

Despite what you say about our knowledge of the brain, most knowledgeable people admit it is primitive in comparison to the brain's capability. After all, if we knew so much why haven't we come up with cures for Alzheimer’s, vascular dementia, Dewy body dementia, Parkinsonism, epilepsy and other seizure disorders, multiple sclerosis, brain cancers, mood disorders or psychoses.

You are conflating a LOT of things there in ways that are not at all warranted. Firstly although our knowledge is limited that does not mean we do not know a lot. You are pointing to things that we not only do not know but do not NEED to know to make the conclusions I am making on the sentience issue. Your error is akin to telling a plumber he does not know his job if he does not know the chemical make up of water. When in fact the chemical make up of water is irrelevant to the majority of what a plumber actually does.

Further though knowledge and ability are different things. There are many things we understand entirely but still can not "cure". Because knowledge on an issue, even complete knowledge, does not automatically imply we can cure it. Even where our knowledge is not limited, our means can be.

lazygal

I'm very confused by this case.
Last year I had NIPT done on the advice of my consultant in Holles Street. This consisted of a very detailed scan and bloodtest done at 12 weeks approx. The following week I got a call from my consultant advising there was a high risk result for trisomy 18. High risk for this test is anything over 1%-in my case the risk was classed as 11%. She then advised amniocentesis at 16 weeks, for diagnostic purposes and to reduce the risk of miscarriage. I agreed to proceed and had this testing done, along with another very detailed scan. The initial results tested for t13, t18 and t21. These came back within a week and thankfully all were clear. Then there was a wait of another week for the full set of results for all chromosones and again thankfully this was also clear.
I can't understand how a decision to terminate was made without waiting for all test results. When I was having all these tests the focus was on getting as much information as possible in order to make an informed decision. CVS can be done earlier but it isn't conclusive, amniocentesis is. There must be a full review of this case but this case should not be used to deny choices to anyone else.

nozzferrahhtoo

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Absolutely, Savita Halappanavar was one such person of coarse, but I bet the farm you weren't as philosophical about her death at the hands of medical error as you are about this baby's.

Yet the user you replied to clearly said "wrong decisions/wrong scan results/wrong diagnosis" whereas a large part of the issue with Savita was not just decisions that were "wrong" but specifically a decision she is on record as having sought but was denied her in our country at that time.

So I am not sure you win many credibility points from feigning ignorance here.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Pro-lifers are lunatics? You seriously believe that?

Not what the user said, apologies for the English Lesson here. The user said "the pro-life lunatics". In a venn diagram that is the point where the set "Pro Life" and the set "Lunatics" overlaps.

If I say for example "The Italian Irish are a well integrated community" it would be a nonsense to reply "The Irish are Italians? You seriously believe that?".

Referring to a subset Y of group X is not to say all of X are Y.

But to get back to the actual topic, I think it is only a fringe agenda driven few who are jumping on this. Whether we want to call them lunatics or not. Because a case like this is one we KNEW, always knew, was going to happen.

And guess what, it will happen again. Because people are making the decision to abort based on medical information..... statistically a small number of them WILL get bad information. That is just the nature of medicine. It is a statistical fact that supports NO political agenda here.

Loafing Oaf

Igotadose wrote: »

Defenders of women's health have to stay vigilant, because the forced birthers are like zombies - they just keep coming and coming.

I'd say in the wake of the Repeal of the 8th, they're more like the Army of the Dead after Arya Stark stabbed the Night King. Bit of twitching maybe, but they were essentially annihilated in one fell swoop.

*apologies if you don't watch Game of Thrones; I couldn't resist the analogy*

nozzferrahhtoo

cournioni wrote: »

So we keep hearing. Doesn’t make it right.

Nor does it make it wrong. So right back at you. To make it wrong you would have to erect an actual moral or ethical argument to indict the act of terminating a 0-16 week old fetus. This you have not done. But do not feel bad. No one else has either.

cournioni wrote: »

Doesn’t matter a toss if it’s a woman or a man. Killing shouldn’t be a choice, regardless of its location.

But killing IS a choice all the time. Had a steak recently? Swatted a fly? Used paper? Taken an anti biotic?

We kill all the time. So if we want to morally indict any one killing, or type of killing, you need a more cohesive and coherent argument than merely labelling it "killing". Or merely labelling anyone who shares your opinion "sane" to imply the opposite of everyone else.

cournioni wrote: »

Taking another persons life should never be an acceptable choice.

100% agree! The problem here however is the word "person" is not one you have mapped onto the fetus in even the smallest way.

No one here is advocating the killing of PEOPLE. You are just pretending they are for emotive effect.

cournioni wrote: »

I’d rather everyone be give the chance at having their voice heard, at least once.

Two points here.

The first is that their voice was heard in a way, through the people who voted in our referendum on their behalf. Problem is that they lost that vote by a large margin.

The second however is that you are pretending they have a voice TO be heard. This are fetuses. They do not have such a faculty to even "want" anything in the first place. There is noONE there to want anything.

Your average cow on the way to becoming a steak has more desires, wants, and agendas than a fetus. A fetus has the same number of them as your average rock. Yet you feel no moral or ethical compassion for rocks and, unless you are a vegetarian, for steaks.

So what you are doing therefore is taking YOUR faculty of "voice" and projecting it. Nothing more.

Call me Al

lazygal wrote: »

I'm very confused by this case.
Last year I had NIPT done on the advice of my consultant in Holles Street. This consisted of a very detailed scan and bloodtest done at 12 weeks approx. The following week I got a call from my consultant advising there was a high risk result for trisomy 18. High risk for this test is anything over 1%-in my case the risk was classed as 11%. She then advised amniocentesis at 16 weeks, for diagnostic purposes and to reduce the risk of miscarriage. I agreed to proceed and had this testing done, along with another very detailed scan. The initial results tested for t13, t18 and t21. These came back within a week and thankfully all were clear. Then there was a wait of another week for the full set of results for all chromosones and again thankfully this was also clear.
I can't understand how a decision to terminate was made without waiting for all test results. When I was having all these tests the focus was on getting as much information as possible in order to make an informed decision. CVS can be done earlier but it isn't conclusive, amniocentesis is. There must be a full review of this case but this case should not be used to deny choices to anyone else.

I'm confused too. I expected maternity hospitals to have formal procedures in instances like this, just as you describe above. Obviously any parents have the right to terminate a pregnancy in accordance with current legislation, but otherwise that rushed decisions would not be taken in the absence of all test results being reviewed and discussed thoroughly. I mean why do the test in the first place if not for further information in making serious decisions?.
Reading this morning's Irish Times the couple in question claim they were told by the relevant medical staff that it was essentially pointless to wait for the second set of results, in spite of the couple expressing their own concerns as to the chance of error with sample 1.
It's almost the flip side of the scenario with another couple in the media earlier this year, who claim they were initially told their baby had a FFA, but extensive further analysis by medical staff concluded that whilst the baby did have extensive abnormalities it wasnt conclusive at that stage that those health issues were fatal. There didn't seem to be any sense of being rushed into making decisions, unlike what allegedly appears to have transpired here.

AulWan

lazygal wrote: »

I'm very confused by this case.
Last year I had NIPT done on the advice of my consultant in Holles Street. This consisted of a very detailed scan and bloodtest done at 12 weeks approx.
The following week I got a call from my consultant advising there was a high risk result for trisomy 18. High risk for this test is anything over 1%-in my case the risk was classed as 11%. She then advised amniocentesis at 16 weeks, for diagnostic purposes and to reduce the risk of miscarriage. I agreed to proceed and had this testing done, along with another very detailed scan. The initial results tested for t13, t18 and t21. These came back within a week and thankfully all were clear. Then there was a wait of another week for the full set of results for all chromosones and again thankfully this was also clear.
I can't understand how a decision to terminate was made without waiting for all test results. When I was having all these tests the focus was on getting as much information as possible in order to make an informed decision. CVS can be done earlier but it isn't conclusive, amniocentesis is. There must be a full review of this case but this case should not be used to deny choices to anyone else.

So correct me if I'm wrong, but the timeline from the first test to getting a 100% conclusive result that all was okay took about five to six weeks? Bringing you up to nearly 17/18 weeks pregnant?

lazygal

AulWan wrote: »

lazygal wrote: »

I'm very confused by this case.
Last year I had NIPT done on the advice of my consultant in Holles Street. This consisted of a very detailed scan and bloodtest done at 12 weeks approx.
The following week I got a call from my consultant advising there was a high risk result for trisomy 18. High risk for this test is anything over 1%-in my case the risk was classed as 11%. She then advised amniocentesis at 16 weeks, for diagnostic purposes and to reduce the risk of miscarriage. I agreed to proceed and had this testing done, along with another very detailed scan. The initial results tested for t13, t18 and t21. These came back within a week and thankfully all were clear. Then there was a wait of another week for the full set of results for all chromosones and again thankfully this was also clear.
I can't understand how a decision to terminate was made without waiting for all test results. When I was having all these tests the focus was on getting as much information as possible in order to make an informed decision. CVS can be done earlier but it isn't conclusive, amniocentesis is. There must be a full review of this case but this case should not be used to deny choices to anyone else.

So correct me if I'm wrong, but the timeline from the first test to getting a 100% conclusive result that all was okay took about five to six weeks? Bringing you up to nearly 17/18 weeks pregnant?

Yes, about 5-6 weeks altogether. I was nearly 18 weeks when we got the results of the full screen. Meant to say these tests aren't processed in Ireland. Some went to the USA and others went to Scotland for analysis. So there'd be a couple of days delay in sending samples.

AulWan

lazygal wrote: »

Yes, about 5-6 weeks altogether. I was nearly 18 weeks when we got the results of the full screen. Meant to say these tests aren't processed in Ireland. Some went to the USA and others went to Scotland for analysis. So there'd be a couple of days delay in sending samples.

Thats a long time to not know. In those circumstances, I can fully understand why a couple might decide to act on the results of the CVS, without putting themselves through waiting another couple of weeks on the 0.15% off chance (or whatever it is) that the CVS was wrong.

In their shoes, I honestly think I would have made the same decision.

mvl

Call me Al wrote: »

I'm confused too. I expected maternity hospitals to have formal procedures in instances like this, just as you describe above. Obviously any parents have the right to terminate a pregnancy in accordance with current legislation, but otherwise that rushed decisions would not be taken in the absence of all test results being reviewed and discussed thoroughly. I mean why do the test in the first place if not for further information in making serious decisions?.
Reading this morning's Irish Times the couple in question claim they were told by the relevant medical staff that it was essentially pointless to wait for the second set of results, in spite of the couple expressing their own concerns as to the chance of error with sample 1.

can you link the article you're refering to ?what I read yesterday on this article, the tragedy was not only being told not to wait for second set of results, but how they were also advised there is no need for a different test they asked for (=amniocentesis). so imo, this thread should not be really about the debate pro-choice/pro-life, when the root cause is what is happening under the HSE umbrella.

lazygal

AulWan wrote: »

lazygal wrote: »

Yes, about 5-6 weeks altogether. I was nearly 18 weeks when we got the results of the full screen. Meant to say these tests aren't processed in Ireland. Some went to the USA and others went to Scotland for analysis. So there'd be a couple of days delay in sending samples.

Thats a long time to not know. In those circumstances, I can fully understand why a couple might decide to act on the results of the CVS, without putting themselves through waiting another couple of weeks on the 0.15% off chance (or whatever it is) that the CVS was wrong.

In their shoes, I honestly think I would have made the same decision.

But then why complain that the final test was a different result? If they proceeded knowing the test was not conclusive I struggle to see what they hope to achieve. You're told these tests are not 100 % conclusive apart from amniocentesis.

Call me Al

AulWan wrote: »

Thats a long time to not know. In those circumstances, I can fully understand why a couple might decide to act on the results of the CVS, without putting themselves through waiting another couple of weeks on the 0.15% off chance (or whatever it is) that the CVS was wrong.

In their shoes, I honestly think I would have made the same decision.

I understand what you mean.
I think what the couple are claiming in this case is that the medical professionals were discounting any need to wait on any results for any follow up tests, despite the couple's own misgivings, that this initial screening they had done was effectively conclusive, without any need to confirm with any other tests.
To me that's wrong. Fair enough if the couple themselves say they want a termination as per the legislation, but a doctor can't and shouldn't sign off an FFA unless they are certain of their facts, and in this case they obviously weren't as they hadn't got all test results back.
The Master of I think the Rotunda spoke on the radio on Friday and said procedure there is not to jump to any definite action until all facts are known. That means waiting for all test results to be assessed..

mvl

AulWan wrote: »

Thats a long time to not know. In those circumstances, I can fully understand why a couple might decide to act on the results of the CVS, without putting themselves through waiting another couple of weeks on the 0.15% off chance (or whatever it is) that the CVS was wrong.

In their shoes, I honestly think I would have made the same decision.

But have you been in a similar situation yourself ? I have, in a way. So my experience is that when parents want a baby, they would wait as much as it is needed, spend as much money as they can for other tests, hoping to be told that the baby is OK.
- currently I am inclined to think these parents were not provided with all support required from medical staff, until more information about the investigation will be revealed.
PS: I would be pro-choice on the general debate.

AulWan

lazygal wrote: »

But then why complain that the final test was a different result? If they proceeded knowing the test was not conclusive I struggle to see what they hope to achieve. You're told these tests are not 100 % conclusive apart from amniocentesis.

That's what I too am wondering about. I can only speak for myself, but I am assuming that the reason they are now complaining is because they feel they weren't given all the information.

You're the second lady that I've read on this thread who has confirmed that when she went through a similar ordeal she was thoroughly advised, so I am wondering what happened differently in this case.

I guess we'll only find out when there is a full inquiry.