Healthy baby aborted at 15 weeks

Discodog

stefanovich wrote: »

We should all have the choice to do whatever we please?

Not catholic. I'm just a person with morals.

& now you suggest that those who disagree with you don't have morals too

stefanovich

Mrsmum wrote: »

Just on that, is it not true, from what is known,that a baby in the womb cannot feel pain up to I think around 20 weeks. So the baby feeling any pain has no bearing on this case. The baby feeling pain was not why this child was aborted when it was.

Suddenly it's a child who can feel pain once the test results come back negative.

stefanovich

Discodog wrote: »

& now you suggest that those who disagree with you don't have morals too

They have very different morals.

markodaly

Discodog wrote: »

Their decision was based on medical advice. Of course they are accidental victims. You may disagree with the law but it is the law & it has the support of a majority of the public.

Who will be the doctors of the future if they are not allowed to make a mistake ?

Funny, Savita Halappanavar was also an accidental victim, where doctors made mistakes.
Were you hiding these words then?

Discodog

markodaly wrote: »

Funny, Savita Halappanavar was also an accidental victim, where doctors made mistakes.
Were you hiding these words then?

I wouldn't castigate any person who made a genuine mistake. Doctors are put under huge pressure.

uck51js9zml2yt

recedite wrote: »

Maybe they should.

People get on the witness stand and swear an oath. They then tell lies.

Let your yes be yes and no be no.

Discodog

Discodog wrote: »

I wouldn't castigate any person who made a genuine mistake. Doctors are put under huge pressure.

How magnanimous of you to be so forgiving in a situation where another family seem to think they've been injured.

I wonder if you'd be so forgiving if you were harmed by medical negligence or, in fact, harmed by anyone who was 'under huge pressure'.

stefanovich

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

How magnanimous of you to be so forgiving in a situation where another family seem to think they've been injured.

I wonder if you'd be so forgiving if you were harmed by medical negligence or, in fact, harmed by anyone who was 'under huge pressure'.

Were they injured?

Did the doctor recommend abortion? If so they should be struck off.

Mrsmum

markodaly wrote: »

The report will be interesting to see if doctors pressured the parents into making a quick decision on this or not.

The parents will say they absolutely believed there was no hope. The doctors will say the parents arrived at that belief through their (parents)inability to understand what was being said to them. Both are possibly true (although could be ass covering statements too). Meanwhile a wanted healthy baby was aborted and is no more. Can't bring baby back. All that can be done is lessons must be learnt so this can never happen again.

markodaly

Discodog wrote: »

I wouldn't castigate any person who made a genuine mistake. Doctors are put under huge pressure.

Ah, look I would agree with you there, but again, where was this mantra when Savita died?
The rhetoric at the time was that she was murdered and daft stuff like that.

markodaly

Mrsmum wrote: »

The parents will say they absolutely believed there was no hope. The doctors will say the parents arrived at that belief through their (parents)inability to understand what was being said to them. Both are possibly true (although could be ass covering statements too). Meanwhile a wanted healthy baby was aborted and is no more.

HSE and arse-covering? Again a national pastime.

I am awaiting the vigil outside the NIMH tonight.

stefanovich

stefanovich wrote: »

Were they injured?

It is implied that they have suffered some emotional trauma or mental anguish, so yes. That's considered an injury.

Igotadose

stefanovich wrote: »

We should all have the choice to do whatever we please?

Not catholic. I'm just a person with morals.

Is that what you call your repeated lying on the anti-vax thread? Just how many vaccines are required now? 100? 30? 482,355?

And, yes, the parents in question in this thread had the choice to abort in Ireland. Otherwise they'd have had to go to England, which you'd expect they would have done a year ago. Isn't it great they have the right to do so in Ireland now?

One other factoid we don't have - has an abortion based on misdiagnosis happened in Ireland prior to January? I'd wager it has. Didn't make the news then of course, as the media couldn't stir the anti-repeal drones up.

Of course, there's probably no data when you outsource your medical care to another country.

amcalester

recedite wrote: »

Maybe they should.

You want our doctors swearing to the god apollo and all other gods and goddesses?

Seems a bit antiquated.

To what end?

Plumbthedepths

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Medical students do not take take the Hippocratic oath in Ireland.

In RCSI they do.

But it's just a tradition and a gesture towards ethical practice, not a legal requirement obviously.

vriesmays

Some against abortion voted yes, now they're finding out what it's really for.

Faugheen

Phil.x wrote: »

Not a chance.

So you would rather a baby go through a slow, painful death after birth then not feel anything at all?

You're awful cruel to children, aren't you?

Mrsmum

Faugheen wrote: »

So you would rather a baby go through a slow, painful death after birth then not feel anything at all?

You're awful cruel to children, aren't you?

That's a really cruel thing to say to parents, like a friend of mine, who decided to give birth to their babies who had life limiting conditions. My friend, held and comforted, rocked and stroked her little baby for three hours till he passed away in her arms. Was she cruel to her baby. You obviously think so but I don't. All talk about choice. It seems now there should only be one choice or you are said to be cruel.

amcalester

Mrsmum wrote: »

That's a really cruel thing to say to parents, like a friend of mine, who decided to give birth to their babies who had life limiting conditions. My friend, held and comforted, rocked and stroked her little baby for three hours till he passed away in her arms. Was she cruel to her baby. You obviously think so but I don't. All talk about choice. It seems now there should only be one choice or you are said to be cruel.

The important word there is decided.

Phil would have forced your friend to give birth with no consideration to either the mother or the child.

And that is cruel.

amcalester

amcalester wrote: »

The important word there is decided.

Phil would have forced your friend to give birth with no consideration to either the mother or the child.

And that is cruel.

Ah no, that's just changing the subject and deflecting now.

Of course it's hurtful to say that it's cruel to give birth to a child with a FFA. The whole point of the recent referendum was that women deserve choice, and their choices are to be respected. It's no more acceptable to sigmatise a woman who proceeds with her pregnancy than one who chooses to terminate.

And nor are they comparable. Most people are doing whatever they feel is best in that situation.

Igotadose

Mrsmum wrote: »

That's a really cruel thing to say to parents, like a friend of mine, who decided to give birth to their babies who had life limiting conditions. My friend, held and comforted, rocked and stroked her little baby for three hours till he passed away in her arms. Was she cruel to her baby. You obviously think so but I don't. All talk about choice. It seems now there should only be one choice or you are said to be cruel.

But, who was your friend really comforting? Not the baby - herself. She knew she was doing wrong, but felt that a few hours of hugging and cooing absolved her. Sickening.

Yes, she was cruel. She knew enough to know the baby would have a short, painful life and then die.

And, she's always had the choice to do what she chose to do. Now, less cruel people have the choice, in Ireland, to not do what you friend did. Prior to this year, they had to go overseas, which was cruel to them. At least the voters in Ireland removed that cruelty.

Faugheen

Mrsmum wrote: »

That's a really cruel thing to say to parents, like a friend of mine, who decided to give birth to their babies who had life limiting conditions. My friend, held and comforted, rocked and stroked her little baby for three hours till he passed away in her arms. Was she cruel to her baby. You obviously think so but I don't. All talk about choice. It seems now there should only be one choice or you are said to be cruel.

And that was your friends choice, and it's one I respect.

That poster implied that it wouldn't have been cruel to have the child and it would have been more cruel to have a termination, so I provided a scenario to that poster where it could be seen as cruel to have the child.

Apologies for phrasing it in a way that allowed it to be taken up otherwise.

Moral of the story is it's about choice. These parents made the choice based on information they were supplied with and now they're left in a horrible situation.

The poster I quoted is blaming them, so is quite frankly a heartless bastard.

volchitsa

Mrsmum wrote: »

That's a really cruel thing to say to parents, like a friend of mine, who decided to give birth to their babies who had life limiting conditions. My friend, held and comforted, rocked and stroked her little baby for three hours till he passed away in her arms. Was she cruel to her baby. You obviously think so but I don't. All talk about choice. It seems now there should only be one choice or you are said to be cruel.

Doesn't that depend on the individual case though? In sone cases the child will be able ot be made comfortable, and if so, then the parents wanting to spend time with it before it dies is a loving act, but the point is that they get to decide.

In other cases, the baby will suffer no matter what, and TBH if someone decides to put their baby through that because they are afraid of going to hell otherwise, then while I feel terribly sorry for them for having been so brainwashed, I would have to say that yes, it is cruel to inflict that on the child for their own self interest.

But people do inflict terrible harm on themselves and others for mistaken beliefs. Throwing one's pregnant daughter out in the street is one example that happened many times in Ireland. I'm sure many parents did suffer terribly when they did that, but that doesn't lessen the cruelty to the girl and the baby.

amcalester

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Ah no, that's just changing the subject and deflecting now.

Of course it's hurtful to say that it's cruel to give birth to a child with a FFA. The whole point of the recent referendum was that women deserve choice, and their choices are to be respected. It's no more acceptable to sigmatise a woman who proceeds with her pregnancy than one who chooses to terminate.

And nor are they comparable. Most people are doing whatever they feel is best in that situation.

While I agree with what you say, Phil.x would force that mother to carry to term with no regard to any suffering both will experience.

The mother is best placed to make such a decision, so while I’d agree it’s not right to say a mother who carries to term is being cruel, I think it is fair to say that about someone who removes that choice.

Anteayer

54&56 wrote: »

Fixed that for you for three reasons:-

1. Everyone makes mistakes.
2. The person who made the mistake will have to live with the consequences of their error forever. Not an easy thing to do. In a civilised society you support people not throw them on the scrap heap. Who knows what pressure the person was under or whether they were in the last hour of a 12 hour shift when this error was made.
3. What is the benefit to society of throwing away 7 years of medical training (or whatever) because of one genuine mistake? Is it not better for that person to learn from the mistake, get some additional training/counselling and return to serving patients? Do you really think this person is EVER likely to make the same mistake again?

I think Ireland's headed down the route of making medicine over cautious, to the point that it's likely to lead to unnecessary diagnostic tests and either over agressive treatment of various illnesses or reluctance to diagnose and treat both of which may be contrary to the best of patients.

I mean you could end up getting say a round of likely unnecessary and extremely unpleasant chemotherapy or radiotherapy because an oncologist thought there was a chance they might get sued otherwise, should some highly improbable cancer return.

We're also making things increasingly litigious and expensive.

In the US, for example, there's vast over use or CT scanning (which is dangerous due to high x-ray doses involved) but it's because doctors are legally safer to have images than to avoid exposing them repeatedly to potentially dangerous tests.

The reality is that we're dealing with complex biological systems and information that's usually very good but often the best that's available with the technologies available. Decisions are made on the basis of that and on probability of best outcomes.

We're already in a situation where diagnostic labs are starting to have cold feet about providing services here if they're exposed to unlimited liability for misreads and so on.

I just think we're often confusing best effort and % of unavoidable human error and best efforts with negligence or incompetence.

If we make it so high stakes to make mistake, medicine will become very distorted.

Given the way things are going I definitely wouldn't want to be a medical professional here. Sounds like an awful career.

mazwell

Igotadose wrote: »

But, who was your friend really comforting? Not the baby - herself. She knew she was doing wrong, but felt that a few hours of hugging and cooing absolved her. Sickening.

Yes, she was cruel. She knew enough to know the baby would have a short, painful life and then die.

And, she's always had the choice to do what she chose to do. Now, less cruel people have the choice, in Ireland, to not do what you friend did. Prior to this year, they had to go overseas, which was cruel to them. At least the voters in Ireland removed that cruelty.

I don't think that's fair. Repealing the 8th was to give women a choice. You shouldn't judge someone who Carries a ffa baby to term any more than you should judge someone who chooses to abort. I am totally pro choice including up to 12 weeks without any medical problems with mother or fetus. But the key word there is choice, women should have the right to choose whether to continue a pregnancy or not, and it doesn't seem you get that.

amcalester

amcalester wrote: »

While I agree with what you say, Phil.x would force that mother to carry to term with no regard to any suffering both will experience.

I know but how's that relevant? More than one person can be wrong at a time.

Boggles

Igotadose wrote: »

She knew enough to know the baby would have a short, painful life and then die.

Wow, you feel qualified to make that statement based on?

I've said before and I'll say again, there is only one think worse than militant pro life numpties and that is militant pro choice numpties.

amcalester

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I know but how's that relevant? More than one person can be wrong at a time.

Because this was the statement about Phil.

Faugheen wrote: »

So you would rather a baby go through a slow, painful death after birth then not feel anything at all?

You're awful cruel to children, aren't you?

Ken.

Mod-Phil.X do not post in this thread again or you will be banned from the forum.

Anteayer

Anteayer wrote: »

I think Ireland's headed down the route of making medicine over cautious, to the point that it's likely to lead to unnecessary diagnostic tests and either over agressive treatment of various illnesses or reluctance to diagnose and treat both of which may be contrary to the best of patients.

I agree but this story is not going to get the same media traction that cervical check did. That ran for months.

This story doesn't "fit the narrative" as the saying goes.

Lefty politicians and campaigners aren't going to go crazy over problems in pregnancy screening, all are very much in favour of abortion.

ToBeFrank123

There needs to be better regulation around abortions like this. I thought input from a minimum of 3 doctors was required under the law?
There definitely should be a triple lock with regards tests.
Basing a decision on a single test leaves a margin for error, we've seen that repeatedly in Ireland.
I hope lessons are learned from this tragedy.

Boggles

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

There needs to be better regulation around abortions like this. I thought input from a minimum of 3 doctors was required under the law?
There definitely should be a triple lock with regards tests.
Basing a decision on a single test leaves a margin for error, we've seen that repeatedly in Ireland.
I hope lessons are learned from this tragedy.

They didn't wait for the test that was 100%, i.e. no margin of error.

Why not? is the question.

amcalester

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

There needs to be better regulation around abortions like this. I thought input from a minimum of 3 doctors was required under the law?
There definitely should be a triple lock with regards tests.
Basing a decision on a single test leaves a margin for error, we've seen that repeatedly in Ireland.
I hope lessons are learned from this tragedy.

Pretty sure it’s 2 doctors needed to sign off on a FFA abortion after 12 weeks.

Neamhshuntasach

We had the exact same sequences of events of what happened here with the exception of the end result. Panorama test came back high risk for trisomy 18. This is a screening and not diagnostic. Faced with the decision after being recommended to have a CVS done which can carry a risk as it is samples taken directly from the foetus. We went for the CVS. Explained to us that there are 2 samples taken, one that would be followed up on within 48 hours if i remember correctly. This would be a phone call. And then the 2nd final and more conclusive one would be up to 2 weeks later. We got the call that the initial expedited check showed trisomy 18. We went in to talk and discuss options. We left pretty much thinking of termination. But we were also told that anything conclusive would follow in the final results from the more thorough non-expedited check. So we waited, and it came back without trisomy 18 detected. Everything was fine. This wasn't in Ireland. So i'm not sure what happened in the communication part. But for us, we were told that the initial expedited test can show false positives. I've seen comments of negligence or mistakes being made when referring to this couple's first result.Not necessarily here. Just in general. But from our experience with the testing process,i think it's just the nature of the initial test. The full picture isn't available to those doing the testing.

Mrsmum

Faugheen wrote: »

And that was your friends choice, and it's one I respect.

That poster implied that it wouldn't have been cruel to have the child and it would have been more cruel to have a termination, so I provided a scenario to that poster where it could be seen as cruel to have the child.

Apologies for phrasing it in a way that allowed it to be taken up otherwise.

Moral of the story is it's about choice. These parents made the choice based on information they were supplied with and now they're left in a horrible situation.

The poster I quoted is blaming them, so is quite frankly a heartless bastard.

Apology accepted re the phrasing.

As it happens I can understand abortion from a ffa situation but I totally reject that to put your own 'can't bear it' feeling aside and carry your baby, to have it and let it be a really loved person for however long it has is anything but loving and the opposite to cruel. For those of us who are got past that stage ourselves, any of our children could be in that situation and I certainly will not be telling my children they are cruel either way.


I couldn't even begin to respond to people that have doubled down that choosing to not have an abortion is as a fact cruel. They are so far down a one track mind, they are no longer able to think independently. They only want choice in one direction.

Ps am off to a Communion and this case is just too upsetting so i'm out. Argue on folks. The healthy baby is dead.

political analyst

If this case had arisen before the Eighth was repealed, it would have taken a bit longer for the mother to have an abortion because she would have had to go across the Irish Sea and then the result of the third test might have been available before she would have travelled.

seamus

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

There definitely should be a triple lock with regards tests.

That's needlessly prescriptive. The margin for error varies between tests.

For example, the odds of two false positives with HIV is astronomically unlikely. "So why not do a third, just to be sure"; because realistically that doesn't give you anything. You're more likely to get a false negative on the 3rd test than 3 false positives in a row.

Same for these tests. The margin for error differs between tests, so the requirements for making an accurate diagnosis aren't as simple as saying, "All tests must be done thrice!". In some cases you won't have enough samples. In others you will delay or confuse the outcome unnecessarily.

stefanovich

political analyst wrote: »

If this case had arisen before the Eighth was repealed, it would have taken a bit longer for the mother to have an abortion because she would have had to go across the Irish Sea and then the result of the third test might have been available before she would have travelled.

Well I would argue that the government should have introduced legislation to make foreign abortions also illegal.

stefanovich

Mrsmum wrote: »

Apology accepted re the phrasing.

As it happens I can understand abortion from a ffa situation but I totally reject that to put your own 'can't bear it' feeling aside and carry your baby, to have it and let it be a really loved person for however long it has is anything but loving and the opposite to cruel. For those of us who are got past that stage ourselves, any of our children could be in that situation and I certainly will not be telling my children they are cruel either way.


I couldn't even begin to respond to people that have doubled down that choosing to not have an abortion is as a fact cruel. They are so far down a one track mind, they are no longer able to think independently. They only want choice in one direction.

Ps am off to a Communion and this case is just too upsetting so i'm out. Argue on folks. The healthy baby is dead.

Enjoy the Communion!

Plumbthedepths

stefanovich wrote:

Did the doctor recommend abortion? If so they should be struck off.

Abortion is legal, why should the doctor be struck off?

stefanovich

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Abortion is legal, why should the doctor be struck off?

If they recommended an abortion based on a test that was known to be inconclusive. That is gross negligence. I have no idea what advice they were given though.

Plumbthedepths

stefanovich wrote:

. That is gross negligence. I have no idea what advice they were given though.

It's not, and yes most of your comments indicate you have no idea......

El_Duderino 09

mvl wrote: »

What do you mean by in utero tests: CVS or amniocentesis ?
For this case, can it be that only CVS was run ? or has amniocentesis also been done as part of the investigations ?
- difference between them being (from original article): CVS is with placental cells while amniocentesis is carried out directly on the foetus; they may show different readings.
From process point of view, if there is a better test out there - should the hospital authorize such a termination (post 12 weeks) until all the tests are concluded ?
- not getting why professor Malone was suggesting some patients decide not to wait two weeks for the second CVS - did they not run amniocentesis at all, if so, does anyone know why ...

Like i said, I don;t know much about the case. But the hospital has no right to block a termination until tests come back. The first test came back and the couple opted for termination. That's all the hospital needs to know. The hospital should advise the couple that the other tests could reveal new information but that doesn't mean the hospital should refuse the termination.

Igotadose

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Abortion is legal, why should the doctor be struck off?

Actually, anyone on the thread with medical experience in Iteland? I strongly doubt any medical profession ever would RECOMMEND a termination.

Plumbthedepths

Igotadose wrote:

Actually, anyone on the thread with medical experience in Iteland? I strongly doubt any medical profession ever would RECOMMEND a termination.

You strongly doubt? So you don't know . I have been in the position where abortion was suggested as an option.

SusieBlue

Shop40 wrote: »

Can you stop having a go at people! Just because they mightn’t agree with you, don’t insult please! We are ALL entitled to our opinions on this thread.

His ‘opinion’ is they made the wrong choice because the baby didn’t have Edwards syndrome. When they got the abortion, they believed the baby DID have Edwards syndrome.

Now he’s ranting on that they made the wrong choice and ‘didn’t do their homework’, not acknowledging the fact that they didn’t have all the facts.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing and Im sure if the parents knew what they know now, they wouldn’t have had a termination.

Banging on and on about how it was the wrong choice because the baby doesn’t have an FFA is really nasty and is being dishonest, because it’s not acknowledging the fact that the parents DIDN’T KNOW the baby didn’t have Edwards syndrome.

I don’t see how pointing that out is having a go at someone or being insulting whatsoever.

Faugheen

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

You strongly doubt? So you don't know . I have been in the position where abortion was suggested as an option.

Suggested and reccomended are two different things.

I imagine doctors would recommend a termination if the mother's health is in danger.

SusieBlue

stefanovich wrote: »

Well I would argue that the government should have introduced legislation to make foreign abortions also illegal.

We thankfully don’t do that any more, since the international disgrace we as a country caused ourselves when we imposed an injunction on a 14yr old girl who had been raped & sexually assaulted for many years by a man in his 40’s known to her family, from travelling to the UK to abort her rapists baby.
She was just a child herself & a victim of sexual abuse and after the outrage surrounding the case, freedom to travel to obtain abortions in other jurisdictions was made legal.
We were a nation of hypocrites.
No abortion here but the right to travel for one was constitutionally protected.

stefanovich

SusieBlue wrote: »

We thankfully don’t do that any more, since the international disgrace we as a country caused ourselves when we imposed an injunction on a 14yr old girl who had been raped & sexually assaulted for many years by a man in his 40’s known to her family, from travelling to the UK to abort her rapists baby.
She was just a child herself & a victim of sexual abuse and after the outrage surrounding the case, freedom to travel to obtain abortions in other jurisdictions was made legal.
We were a nation of hypocrites.
No abortion here but the right to travel for one was constitutionally protected.

Two wrongs don't make a right.