Healthy baby aborted at 15 weeks

A Tyrant Named Miltiades!

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

He said:

“When the CVS test is taken two different samples are sent, one for a rapid result which comes back within 48 hours and the other which can take up to two weeks and it is 100%.

Also interesting that he's seen previous cases of the CVS giving a rapid positive, but they waited for the final result

He said he was aware of one case in the Rotunda where an abnormality was identified in the rapid CVS test, but there was no indication in the ultrasound and when the result came through in two weeks the result was normal.

https://www.echolive.ie/nationalnews/Master-of-Rotunda-hospital-Diagnosis-of-fatal-foetal-abnormality-difficult-to-interpret-952aea83-c322-4930-bedf-1e1f91eb6ec2-ds

We will just have to see what the resulst of this case is, medical negliance make enourmouns money for solicitors and barristers that is wrong there should be some other way for those who are affected by medical neglicane to be looked after with our the involvment of solicitors and barristers.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades!

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

He said:

“When the CVS test is taken two different samples are sent, one for a rapid result which comes back within 48 hours and the other which can take up to two weeks and it is 100%.

Also interesting that he's seen previous cases of the CVS giving a rapid positive, but they waited for the final result

He said he was aware of one case in the Rotunda where an abnormality was identified in the rapid CVS test, but there was no indication in the ultrasound and when the result came through in two weeks the result was normal.

https://www.echolive.ie/nationalnews/Master-of-Rotunda-hospital-Diagnosis-of-fatal-foetal-abnormality-difficult-to-interpret-952aea83-c322-4930-bedf-1e1f91eb6ec2-ds

H1e also said there is a .01% of the tests being incorrect.

mariaalice

mariaalice wrote: »

there should be some other way for those who are affected by medical neglicane to be looked after with our the involvment of solicitors and barristers.

You mean, for people who have been seriously harmed through medical negligence to have no legal assistance?

Yeah, that should be wonderful for patients. Dr Michael Neary would have been in his element.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades!

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

You mean, for people who have been seriously harmed through medical negligence to have no legal assistance?

Yeah, that should be wonderful for patients. Dr Michael Neary would have been in his element.

That is not what I said soem alternative that dose not involve soclisitor and barristers making millions from medical negliance case should be found, some other way of assisting people who are the victiums of medical negligence there are other countries doing it differently.

mariaalice

mariaalice wrote: »

H1e also said there is a .01% of the tests being incorrect.

Are you referring to the rapid test?

That would be expressed as six false positives in the country per year.

That's definitely a reason for a hospital to offer that information, and an opportunity to wait for the subsequent test, if the Mum wishes to.

antodeco

54&56 wrote: »

Do you really believe the couple can't complain about being given the wrong diagnosis?

Can you elaborate on why?

If you were wrongly diagnosed as having X and opted to have your leg amputated to mitigate or remedy the problem and it turned out the diagnosis was completely wrong would it not cross your mind to perhaps complain? Fair play to you if it wouldn't. It certainly would for me!!

Problem with that though, is that you wouldnt have a leg to stand on...


Anyway, I went for several tests last year about an ongoing pain. Doctors and hospitals said it is nothing, See how you get on. I knew it was gallstones (im not comparing gallstones as the same as abortion by the way). 4 diagnosis were all "you are fine, you dont have gallstones". I went private, paid for a private ultrasound, and there you go, I had gallstones and needed surgery. Doctors etc get things wrong. I know someone who was told there was nothing wrong with them (had a sore throat for months) and ended up dying of esophageal cancer. Look at the all the cervical cancer misdiagnosis. You cant blame a patient (the parents) for trusting the experts advice. As has been mentioned, better training and processes are whats needed, not hanging out individuals to dry (unless it was sheer incompetence)

Amirani

Edgware wrote: »

Very "worring"

Fantastic post that. :rolleyes:

Larbre34

I'm not sure why this is such a puzzle for some.

Before the 8th was repealed the CVS and amniocentesis tests were always routinely available. Parents could, and sometimes did, act on those outcomes and travel abroad for a termination based on the test results.

This particular case is a dreadful situation, the Master of the Rotunda said this morning the error risk is between 1:1,000 and 1:10,000 depending on the test and even the lab and thats a rough hand for the family.

The 8th amendment effectively had little or no bearing on the outcome, merely the geography. It should still be reviewed.

Amirani

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Are you referring to the rapid test?

That would be expressed as six false positives in the country per year.

That's definitely a reason for a hospital to offer that information, and an opportunity to wait for the subsequent test, if the Mum wishes to.

Agreed. We don't know whether that information was offered or not yet.

Anyone who immediately starts crying "medical negligence" and calling for people to be struck off as soon as there's as much as a news headline of a false positive/negative or a misdiagnosis is a ****ing moron.

Outlaw Pete

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Even the best medical intentions will result in bad and upsetting results eventually.

Absolutely, but strangely that wasn't the attitude when medical misadventure (the inquest jury's verdict) led to Savita being diagnosed with sepsis too late. Nope, then it was a case of:

'A very rare death has occurred as a result of medical misadventure........... our abortion laws must be changed immediately!'

Don't recall too many prochoicers saying what they're saying today anyway:

'Sure it's sad but these thing are bound to occur occasionally, to be expected tbf, medics make mistakes, they're not infallible you know'

Where was all this rationale not so long ago one has to wonder.

The 8th did not need to be repealed in order to save another Savita from occurring. There were no similar deaths before and (unless there had been diagnostic errors made) there's no rational reason to suggest there would be any after either.

Addressing poor medical care in our hospitals was the main takeaway from Savita's sad death but unfortunately very little attention was paid to that aspect of things. Surprising isn't it, that those who claimed they cared about her so much didn't devote much time to trying to make sure the conditions which led to her death never occurred again. Not just with regards to missed diagnosis by the way, but they even had the woman sleeping in a room with no working radiator, in October!

Anyway, sure we know why, abortion on demand was wanted above all else, which is why prochicers didn't just try and get the referendum framed around changing our abortion laws in the context of our health system and ensure that there was clarity there. No, they cared so much about Savita that they gambled losing the referendum by also having a Yes vote mean that abortion would be available at 12 weeks, for any reason, without there having to be a medical reason at all. Yeah, they really all about looking out for women like Savita alright.

Sad that this little tyke died and I'm sure his parents are devastated.

Reminds me of the following story I posted in the lead up to the referendum about a couple who thankfully had a happier ending:

The doctors told me my son would not live. He is now 18 months old

And the final line of the article is:

We need to amend the Eighth, not repeal it.

Sad that these kind of people were ignored during the referendum, drowned out by sanctimony and lies.

Faugheen

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Absolutely, but strangely that wasn't the attitude when medical misadventure (the inquest jury's verdict) led to Savita being diagnosed with sepsis too late. Nope, then it was a case of:

'A very rare death has occurred as a result of medical misadventure........... our abortion laws must be changed immediately!'

Don't recall too many prochoicers saying what they're saying today anyway:

'Sure it's sad but these thing are bound to occur occasionally, to be expected tbf, medics make mistakes, they're not infallible you know'

Where was all this rationale not so long ago one has to wonder.

The 8th did not need to be repealed in order to save another Savita from occurring. There were no similar deaths before and (unless there had been diagnostic errors made) there's no rational reason to suggest there would be any after either.

Addressing poor medical care in our hospitals was the main takeaway from Savita's sad death but unfortunately very little attention was paid to that aspect of things. Surprising isn't it, that those who claimed they cared about her so much didn't devote much time to trying to make sure the conditions which led to her death never occurred again. Not just with regards to missed diagnosis by the way, but they even had the woman sleeping in a room with no working radiator, in October!

Anyway, sure we know why, abortion on demand was wanted above all else, which is why prochicers didn't just try and get the referendum framed around changing our abortion laws in the context of our health system and ensure that there was clarity there. No, they cared so much about Savita that they gambled losing the referendum by also having a Yes vote mean that abortion would be available at 12 weeks, for any reason, without there having to be a medical reason at all. Yeah, they really all about looking out for women like Savita alright.

Sad that this little tyke died and I'm sure his parents are devastated.

Reminds me of the following story I posted in the lead up to the referendum about a couple who thankfully had a happier ending:



And the final line of the article is:



Sad that these kind of people were ignored during the referendum, drowned out by sanctimony and lies.

Why are you making this about the 8th Amendment?

Outlaw Pete

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Absolutely, but strangely that wasn't the attitude when medical misadventure (the inquest jury's verdict) led to Savita being diagnosed with sepsis too late. Nope, then it was a case of:

'A very rare death has occurred as a result of medical misadventure........... our abortion laws must be changed immediately!'

This is a valid point, as is the point that most people preferred to ignore the actual causes for Savita Halappanaver's death, as laid out in the official report (medical negligence). There's been no serious demand to improve maternity services for women alongside giving them Choice.

But the 8th Amendment is irrelevant to all of that, precisely because the 8th Amendment was not a direct cause of Savita Halappanaver's death

SusieBlue

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

This is a valid point, as is the point that most people preferred to ignore the actual causes for Savita Halappanaver's death, as laid out in the official report (medical negligence).

But the 8th Amendment is irrelevant to all of that, precisely because the 8th Amendment was not a direct cause of Savita Halappanaver's death

Completely incorrect.
If she had been offered an abortion when she first requested one, when it was confirmed her baby would not survive, the negligence could never have occurred and the sepsis would never have developed.

She requested the termination when she was admitted to hospital one week prior to her death.

She was refused and told ‘this is a catholic country’, and made sit there for a week in a great deal of pain and suffering, also grieving the loss of her child.
They made her sit there while her baby slowly died inside of her, that alone was a massive cruelty and completely unnecessary.

The sepsis occurred because her cervix was open for so long.
Her cervix was open for so long because it was taking an extrordinarily long amount of time for her baby to pass.

If they had sped up the process, rather than delaying the inevitable, her cervix wouldn’t have been open, the opportunity for infection to develop wouldn’t have been there, and she wouldn’t have died.

Either way, the baby wasn’t going to make it.
But there was no need for Savita to die too. The 8th absolutely had a hand in Savitas death.

Shop40

I voted no to repeal the 8th. Savita died due to medical incompetence and not because of the 8th, but this has been said before.
I’ve had these tests done. The results are never 100%, as is stressed to the mother when signing up for them. So aborting a healthy baby is the risk you take if you’re going down that route. The parents made the decision.

SusieBlue

Shop40 wrote: »

I voted no to repeal the 8th. Sabina died due to medical incompetence and not because of the 8th, but this has been said before.
I’ve had these tests done. The results are never 100%, as is stressed to the mother when signing up for them. So aborting a healthy baby is the risk you take if you’re going down that route. The parents made the decision.

At least have the respect to get Savitas name right before you make unfounded statements about the cause of her death.

Gimme A Pound

Well I voted to repeal - not at all because I think there should be abortion on demand but because I think the option needs to be there for some women in a bad situation (and I doubt most people would view abortion as a form of contraception or having abortion as a really easy standard straightforward procedure without additional baggage). Also I personally wouldn't want it to be any longer than 12 weeks, generally speaking.

I also agree pro choice folk came out with some right tripe, and I couldn't stand Savita's case being used to push an agenda.

Just like not all anti abortion folk are religious zealots/woman haters, not all who voted to repeal are totally cool with abortion in any circumstance. It's way too complex to be just one or the other, and usually those who take an "all or nothing" approach in relation to this highly nuanced, complicated matter - from either "side" - have much too simplistic, inconsistent outlooks, and show contradictory views elsewhere.

I totally understand someone genuinely not liking the idea of abortion (some I'd doubt how genuine they are) and would prefer it to be the absolute last resort, but it is sometimes only fairer to prioritise the mother's welfare.

DEFTLEFTHAND

It was never verified that she was told that 'this is a Catholic country'.

It was vehemently denied by medical staff at the inquest.

SusieBlue

SusieBlue wrote: »

Completely incorrect.

Did you read Sir Sabaratnam Arulkumaran's report? Because it identified three causal factors

https://www.hse.ie/eng/services/news/media/pressrel/newsarchive/2013archive/jun13/savitareport.html

1. Inadequate assessment and monitoring of Ms. Halappanavar that would have enabled the clinical team in UHG to recognise and respond to the signs that her condition was deteriorating. Ms. Halappanavar’s deteriorating condition was due to infection associated with a failure to devise and follow a plan of care for her that was satisfactorily cognisant of the facts that:

2. Failure to offer all management options to Ms. Halappanavar who was experiencing inevitable miscarriage of an early second trimester pregnancy where the risk to her was increasing with time from the time that her membranes had ruptured.

3. UHG’s non-adherence to clinical guidelines relating to the prompt and effective management of sepsis, severe sepsis and septic shock from when it was first diagnosed.

The Hospital was entitled to offer Savita Halappanavar an abortion. This was quite correctly not emphasised during the Repeal Campaign, because the Amendment did indirectly influence the decisionmaking at the hospital. But this nuance would have been confusing during a referendum, when a narrative has to be clear and concise.

At this stage though, seriously, read the report.

SusieBlue

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

It was never verified that she was told that 'this is a Catholic country'.

It was vehemently denied by medical staff at the inquest.

The midwife herself admitted saying it.

https://www.rte.ie/amp/380613/

hatrickpatrick

This is like the Cervical Check scandal - why the f*ck do we have to outsource all this sh!t to private companies in foreign countries? Do we not pour enough feckin' money into the HSE every year for them to be able to hire Irish scientists and run their own labs?

Amirani

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This is like the Cervical Check scandal - why the f*ck do we have to outsource all this sh!t to private companies in foreign countries? Do we not pour enough feckin' money into the HSE every year for them to be able to hire Irish scientists and run their own labs?

No, we don't is the answer. Would you like to spend more money to bring all this testing in-house within the HSE?

SusieBlue

SusieBlue wrote: »

At least have the respect to get Savitas name right before you make unfounded statements about the cause of her death.

No offence Susie (may I call you Susie?), not only are you taking the liberty of repeatedly calling her "Savita", you don't seem to know the facts of Savita Halappanavar's death yourself, whilst using her as part of an argument.

The woman is dead now and should be left to rest in peace, no longer a tool of either side. The circumstances of her controversial healthcare treatment are available online, as described in an unbiased way by external medical experts.

SusieBlue

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Did you read Sir Sabaratnam Arulkumaran's report? Because it identified three causal factors

https://www.hse.ie/eng/services/news/media/pressrel/newsarchive/2013archive/jun13/savitareport.html


The Hospital was entitled to offer Savita Halappanavar an abortion. This was quite correctly not emphasised during the Repeal Campaign, because the Amendment did indirectly influence the decisionmaking at the hospital. But this nuance would have been confusing during a referendum, when a narrative has to be clear and concise.

At this stage though, seriously, read the report.

If the hospital were entitled to offer an abortion then why didn’t they?
They didn’t because of the grey area caused by the dodgy wording of the 8th. It made it unclear at what point the woman’s right to life outweighed that of the baby.
It was a dangerous law that caused confusion in emergencies and ultimately cost Savita her life.

I’ve read the reports.
The fact of the matter is that the pregnancy was doomed and if she was offered a termination when she requested one she wouldn’t have died.

Riskymove

SusieBlue wrote: »

The midwife herself admitted saying it.

https://www.rte.ie/amp/380613/

as you can see from what she said she believes her meaning was misunderstood

it was oft reported as a kind of malicious statement of refusal to act by the Nurse when she says she was just trying to explain why abortion was not allowed in Ireland in responding to what was said about India and Hinduism

SusieBlue

SusieBlue wrote: »

If the hospital were entitled to offer an abortion then why didn’t they?

Because they were negligent.

SusieBlue

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

No offence Susie (may I call you Susie?), not only are you taking the liberty of repeatedly calling her "Savita", you don't seem to know the facts of Savita Halappanavar's death yourself, whilst using her as part of an argument.

The woman is dead now and should be left to rest in peace, no longer a tool of either side. The circumstances of her controversial healthcare treatment are available online, as described in an unbiased way by external medical experts.

No offense but it’s a bit patronizing that you taking issue with me calling her Savita, which is actually her name, yet completely bypassed a post in which someone referred to her as Sabina?

Here is an article where the professor who chaired the HSE enquiry into her death confirmed that the 8th had a hand in her death.
Maybe you should read up on the reports yourself.

The Eighth Amendment “played a major role” in the death of Savita Halappanavar during pregnancy, a leading international expert in obstetrics has said.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/eighth-amendment-played-major-role-in-savita-s-death-1.3261037?mode=amp

SusieBlue

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Because they were negligent.

They were negligent because the law created a legal grey area that was open to interpretation depending on the beliefs of the person reading it.
It tied the hands of medical professionals in an emergency and ultimately cost an innocent woman her life.

Shop40

SusieBlue wrote: »

At least have the respect to get Savitas name right before you make unfounded statements about the cause of her death.

That was just autocorrect at work, I know Savita’s name. Not an unfounded statement.

SusieBlue

SusieBlue wrote: »

Here is an article where the professor who chaired the HSE enquiry into her death confirmed that the 8th had a hand in her death.
Maybe you should read up on the reports yourself.

I've been saying in practically every post that the 8th Amendment played a role.

But it was not a direct cause.

The cause of the death was negligence. It's all there in the official report, and the obstetrician in the case has also settled a case of medical negligence with Praveen Halappanavar.

The Referendum is over, everything turned out well in the end. But for God's sake just stop 'appropriating' someone else's story, to use the vernacular.

SusieBlue

Shop40 wrote: »

That was just autocorrect at work, I know Savita’s name. Not an unfounded statement.

According to the professor who chaired the enquiry into her death, that’s not the case.

Savita Halappanavar died as a direct result of Ireland’s abortion laws and not simply because she contracted sepsis, the author of the independent report into her death has said.

Asked specifically by Independent senator Lynn Ruane “if the presence of the Eighth Amendment cost Savita her life”, Prof Arulkumaran said: “It was very clear the things holding the hands of physicians was the legal issue. Anybody, any junior doctor, would have said this is a sepsis condition, we must terminate.

“She did have sepsis. However, if she had a termination in the first days as requested, she would not have had sepsis. We would never have heard of her and she would be alive today,” he said.

https://amp.irishexaminer.com/ireland/medic-savita-died-as-result-of-abortion-laws-461173.html

SusieBlue

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I've been saying in practically every post that the 8th Amendment played a role.

But it was not a direct cause.

The cause of the death was negligence. It's all there in the official report, and the obstetrician in the case has also settled a case of medical negligence with Praveen Halappanavar.

The Referendum is over, everything turned out well in the end. But for God's sake just stop 'appropriating' someone else's story, to use the vernacular.

But surely you can agree that if she had been granted an abortion when she first requested one, when it was confirmed the baby wouldn’t survive, that she wouldn’t have developed sepsis and the negligence wouldn’t have occurred?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

SusieBlue wrote: »

At least have the respect to get Savitas name right before you make unfounded statements about the cause of her death.

That’s probably a typo in fairness as ‘b’ and ‘v’ are next to each other on the QWERTY keyboard and they’ve only typed the name once.

Candamir

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Did you read Sir Sabaratnam Arulkumaran's report? Because it identified three causal factors

https://www.hse.ie/eng/services/news/media/pressrel/newsarchive/2013archive/jun13/savitareport.html


The Hospital was entitled to offer Savita Halappanavar an abortion. This was quite correctly not emphasised during the Repeal Campaign, because the Amendment did indirectly influence the decisionmaking at the hospital. But this nuance would have been confusing during a referendum, when a narrative has to be clear and concise.

At this stage though, seriously, read the report.

This case has nothing to do with the 8th, and rehashing this woman’s death is in poor taste.

However, don’t distort the truth while you’re doing it.

Prof Arulkumaran was very clear that in his opinion the 8th directly contributed to her death.

He detailed it in the report, gave evidence of same st the Oireachtas hearing, and supported the repeal campaign on that basis.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/author-of-savita-halappanavar-report-says-8th-amendment-contributed-to-her-death-810432.html

“

Savita Halappanavar died as a direct result of Ireland's restrictive abortion laws and not simply because she contracted sepsis, the author of the independent report into her death has said.“

Charles Ingles

The poor parents they must be heartbroken, a beautiful perfectly normal baby deprived of life.
Please God they find some peace and get justice for their unborn child.

Odhinn

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This is like the Cervical Check scandal - why the f*ck do we have to outsource all this sh!t to private companies in foreign countries? Do we not pour enough feckin' money into the HSE every year for them to be able to hire Irish scientists and run their own labs?

It's to keep things off the states books - outsource to a private company.

Candamir

Candamir wrote: »

This case has nothing to do with the 8th, and rehashing this woman’s death is in poor taste.

However, don’t distort the truth while you’re doing it.

Prof Arulkumaran was very clear that in his opinion the 8th directly contributed to her death.

Don't distort my words.

I've been clear all along that the 8th Amendment to the Constitution contributed to Savita Halappanavar's death.

I said the direct cause was medical negligence. Read the report. I don't know why this is controversial. It isn't a personal affront to anybody, or to the philosophical justification of abortion, to point out that Savita Halappanavar was legally entitled to one.

I am not the one taking a woman's death and using it for political purposes on an internet discussion board, long after those purposes have already been met. Yes, let's give her back some dignity now, and stop pulling her apart as if she's the possession of a political campaign.

It's sick.

hatrickpatrick

Amirani wrote: »

No, we don't is the answer. Would you like to spend more money to bring all this testing in-house within the HSE?

100%. This should not be being done by private, for-profit organisations - and it certainly shouldn't be being done outside the state, by organisations outside the state. The CervicalCheck scandal should have been evidence enough that the model was flawed.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I've been saying in practically every post that the 8th Amendment played a role.

But it was not a direct cause.

The cause of the death was negligence. It's all there in the official report, and the obstetrician in the case has also settled a case of medical negligence with Praveen Halappanavar.

The Referendum is over, everything turned out well in the end. But for God's sake just stop 'appropriating' someone else's story, to use the vernacular.

The cause of death of sepsis if we're going down that rabbit hole.

Savita's parents made a statement supportive of repealing the 8th amendment and of her name and story being used, perhaps in response but certainly after the anti-repeal campaign continuously brazenly lied that her family did not wish her to be associated. Her story was appropriated, but not by the likes of Susie.

Saying the 8th didn't cause her death is like someone saying "this torrential rain destroyed my house" and someone just always has to pipe up "AAAACTUALLY, the flash flooding destroyed your house"

Atoms for Peace

Doctors and lab techs are not infallible, there is no 100% accurate test or diagnosis. From what I've seen do far the doctors acted in a professional manner with the info available on hand; but no doubt the courts won't see it this way, expect another huge payout.

hatrickpatrick

In fairness, the Halappanavar case is inexorably tied in with the 8th amendment because some complete and total pr!ck of a nurse told her "this is a Catholic country" when she requested an abortion. The fact that the non-existent separation of church and state in this country was linked to the case by one of the people directly involved is one of the reasons it justifiably became a flashpoint.

To tie a religion with the identity of a supposedly modern country in that manner is inevitably going to cause extreme anger, especially if it involves someone's death. We can debate until the cows come home whether an abortion would have helped her or not, but it's somewhat irrelevant. The fact remains that the reason given for denying her the medical choice she asked for was the (sadly somewhat accurate, and justifiably rage-inducing) suggestion that Ireland is a theocracy.

Candamir

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

100%. This should not be being done by private, for-profit organisations - and it certainly shouldn't be being done outside the state, by organisations outside the state. The CervicalCheck scandal should have been evidence enough that the model was flawed.

We don’t have the caseload required in this country to make doing the kind of tests required in this case here viable or even safe. Sometimes it’s better to outsource.
Afaik, there’s no suggestion that the lab errored. Outsourcing outrage is a red herring.

Faith Helpful Rabble-rouser

Faith Helpful Rabble-rouser wrote: »

Saying the 8th didn't cause her death is like someone saying "this torrential rain destroyed my house" and someone just always has to pipe up "AAAACTUALLY, the flash flooding destroyed your house"

How many of the recommendations made by Sir Sabaratnam Arulkumaran, Professor of Gynaecology at St George's London, have been implemented?

Do you know *any* of the recommendations, apart from the one about clarifying the law on abortion?

You seem to think that I'm anti repeal. I'm not even going to try and argue that because it's so preposterous.

If you want to know how Savita Halappanavar came into this, read back in the thread.
Anyone who gives a damn about women was concerned about the lack of provision for abortion in Irish law, as there was, AND the serious shortfalls described in the report into Savita Halappanavar's death -- quite an extraordinary series of medical negligence shortcomings.

The woman is still being used in a political dogfight, despite abortion finally being liberalised, and nobody seems to care whether the direct causes of her death as described in the report have been addressed.

That does not do justice to Savita Halappanavar, or to any woman.

eviltwin

Those poor people The guilt must be immense but they made the best decision they could at the time with the information they had.

It hurts me to see this personal tragedy being used to debate abortion, it's using this couple in a heartless way and I'd hoped we'd have a bit more empathy and compassion than that.

I do hope the inquest gives them answers and whatever happened never will happen again. My deepest sympathy and love to them both.

Sweet.Science

Charles Ingles wrote: »

The poor parents they must be heartbroken, a beautiful perfectly normal baby deprived of life.
Please God they find some peace and get justice for their unborn child.

But a normal abortion is fine . Isn’t that baby also deprived of life ?

Looney lefties

Candamir

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Don't distort my words.

I've been clear all along that the 8th Amendment to the Constitution contributed to Savita Halappanavar's death.

I said the direct cause was medical negligence. Read the report. I don't know why this is controversial. It isn't a personal affront to anybody, or to the philosophical justification of abortion, to point out that Savita Halappanavar was legally entitled to one.

I am not the one taking a woman's death and using it for political purposes on an internet discussion board, long after those purposes have already been met. Yes, let's give her back some dignity now, and stop pulling her apart as if she's the possession of a political campaign.

It's sick.

No, you didn’t bring that case up - apologies as me quoting you does seem to infer that.

However, it’s untrue to say the 8th didn’t directly cause her death.

It is true that there we’re clinical errors. You’ll find multiples of those in any retrospective review of any case. That’s human nature.

No doctor was found to be negligent in this case. (A civil case was settled out of court) No doctor was censured by the medical council or any other body as a result of this case. Her Consultant’s case load was retrospectively reviewed after this case, and her standards of care were not found wanting.

It’s not quite as simple as “medical negligence”.

Candamir

Candamir wrote: »

No, you didn’t bring that case up - apologies as me quoting you does seem to infer that.

However, it’s untrue to say the 8th didn’t directly cause her death.

Look, I don't even care about the semantics. I'm just going by the report. But fine, lets ignore the report and call it a direct cause.

If people are genuinely concerned, then lobby to have the report fully implemented across the maternity services.

Read the recommendations of the report. How many have been implemented?

https://www.hse.ie/eng/services/news/media/pressrel/newsarchive/2013archive/jun13/savitareport.html

Candamir

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Look, I don't even care about the semantics. I'm just going by the report. But fine, lets ignore the report and call it a direct cause.

If people are genuinely concerned, then lobby to have the report fully implemented across the maternity services.

Read the recommendations of the report. How many have been implemented?

https://www.hse.ie/eng/services/news/media/pressrel/newsarchive/2013archive/jun13/savitareport.html

I’m not arguing on that point. Plenty of improvements to be made.

Candamir

Candamir wrote: »

I’m arguing on that point. Plenty of improvements to be made.

Not when people are implying that the medical negligence is just a whitewash, and that if you talk about those causes, you're some kind of Iona shill or anti-choice.

That totally discredits the report and its recommendations, and potentially comrpomises other women in Savita Halappanavar's situation.

kowloon

Haley Incalculable Nerd wrote: »

Its not a baby, it's a foetus, what does it matter?

If they're not condemning them for the abortion they're belittling their tragedy, two sides of the same coin.

Alrigghtythen

A group of cells is all it was and unless they have other children they are not parents