Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

Options
1…224225227229230…330

Comments

  • Options
    #6782
    Obliq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    Ah, that makes much more sense. Who wouldn't welcome being the intermediary for a "quick note" asking their empolyer to stop seeing patients for a moment and write down the position they'd like to take on a politically charged question?

    You've really got this whole business down.

    Wow, you had a proper go at everyone last night. Chill, man....you have no idea what kind of clinic my local one is or what relationship I have with my doctors or the receptionists (who RUN the show actually). I could meet 2 of my doctors socially and ask them these questions, but wouldn't wish to put them on the spot in a social setting. You also appear to think that I'd just be some class of annoyance and not to be taken at all seriously. You would be thinking wrongly.

    Perhaps it doesn't bother you (as a man?) how your GP would react if you presented with an unwanted pregnancy, or with one that was requiring a termination for medical reasons. If you went looking to YOUR doctor for advice on abortion, what attitude would be you be exposed to? Don't you think women have a right to know, before that eventuality may arise?

    Although your initial conniption fit where you thought I'd make a special appointment for the question was quite amusing, I think it is good advice to anyone to bring it up with their doctor at the next visit, personally. The 50 euro visit sometimes seems like easy money. I've no problem asking their position on a "politically charged question" that relates to my health care, and that of my female friends.


  • Options
    #6783
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    Flier wrote: »
    I completely understand that the constitution limits what circumstances abortion may be available under. That does not change the fact that clarification is needed, so that doctors working in the area are clear as to when they can and cannot act.
    Yes, but the pertinent point is that clarification won't substantially alter the situation that applies if medical judgement is that the woman's life is not under substantial threat.
    Flier wrote: »
    Which by the way is why I think the whole "opening the floodgates to abortion' is just sensationalist nonsense.
    Well, we do have to get into the detail of what bothers our Pro Life friends on this score. It's that it's impossible to include "risk of suicide" as a ground without opening the door to abuse. And they're probably right on that score.
    Flier wrote: »
    I have already pointed out several reasons for the low turn out to the IMO conference. A lack of interest in abortion is not one of the prime reasons.
    Well, clearly we don't definitively know what they thought was more important. We only know that a motion about abortion won't make them drop everything and rush to a vote.
    Flier wrote: »
    I'm not sure why you think my opinion on dealing with medico-legal issues is confused.
    And I'm not sure what more I can say.
    Obliq wrote: »
    <...> the receptionists (who RUN the show actually).<...>
    Has anyone told them it's an offence to practice medicine if you're not registered?
    Obliq wrote: »
    <...> You also appear to think that I'd just be some class of annoyance and not to be taken at all seriously.<...>
    You got me down, there.
    Obliq wrote: »
    <...>I've no problem asking their position on a "politically charged question" that relates to my health care, and that of my female friends.
    And I'm not suggesting for a moment that you shouldn't. I'll be agog to hear how you get on. However, you'll appreciate, the conflict between what ethics apply in particular situations is broader than this. The standard guidance is that, where a medical practioner's personal ethics conflict with a patients needs, s/he should make the conflict known to the patient and refer that patient on to a doctor who does not have that ethical objection.

    And, of course, there's other issues as well around when a doctor can force treatment on you. For example, somewhat controversially, our Courts have decided that it's lawful for doctors to force treatment on an adult, if there's a risk of a child being left orphaned by the adult foregoing medical treatment.

    By all of which I mean the issue is more one of what uniform ethics apply, in a context where personal ethics of doctors and patients will always differ.


  • Options
    #6784
    aloyisious
    Registered Users Posts: 11,588 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    Yes, but the pertinent point is that clarification won't substantially alter the situation that applies if medical judgement is that the woman's life is not under substantial threat.

    So fatally true.


  • Options
    #6785
    Obliq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    You got me down, there.

    Y'know, I'd quite like Jernal not to have to barr anyone on his first day, so I'll just say that I wish your statement above didn't have a comma.

    the_boot.jpg


  • Options
    #6786
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    Obliq wrote: »
    Y'know, I'd quite like Jernal not to have to barr anyone on his first day, so I'll just say that I wish your statement above didn't have a comma.
    I'm flattered to make you so flustered.

    Moonlighting strangers, who just met 'long the WAAAAY.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6787
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Ladies, gents, and solitary boot. You guys were having a terrific discussion and exchange of points but recently you started digging the personnel handbags out of your coats. Let's not forget here that it's estimated that every one in five handbags in the UK gets stolen. So, can we please keep the handbags a little more restrained and secure? The discussion should flow more freely and comfortably too. Thanks. :)


  • Options
    #6788
    Flier
    Closed Accounts Posts: 345 ✭✭Flier


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    Yes, but the pertinent point is that clarification won't substantially alter the situation that applies if medical judgement is that the woman's life is not under substantial threat.

    What constitutes a 'substantial risk'?

    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    Well, we do have to get into the detail of what bothers our Pro Life friends on this score. It's that it's impossible to include "risk of suicide" as a ground without opening the door to abuse. And they're probably right on that score.


    So what should we do now? Not bother to legislate for an amendment to our constitution because some people might abuse it? What is your solution to this dilema?

    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    Well, clearly we don't definitively know what they thought was more important. We only know that a motion about abortion won't make them drop everything and rush to a vote.


    So what do you think might happen if 5000 GPs and NCHDs 'dropped everything' and rushed down to Killarney to voice their opinion? Was this an option?

    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    Has anyone told them it's an offence to practice medicine if you're not registered?

    Anyone can run a medical practice, so long as they are properly compliant with company law etc. Practicing medicine is something completely different.


  • Options
    #6789
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Well, well, well.
    Several members ineligible to vote at the IMO AGM may have done so this year during the controversial session where motions on abortion were defeated, IMN has learned.


    IMN understands that several former or never-before members joined in the weeks leading up to this year’s AGM and may have resigned hours after the abortion motions were debated.

    The IMO’s Constitution and Rules states that ordinary members who are eligible to vote must be “registered or provisionally registered under the Medical Practitioners Act for the time being in force in the State”.
    It is understood that some people who voted may not have been eligible to do so under this criteria.

    Dr Rory O’Hanlon, former Health Minister and retired GP, voted during the meeting but is no longer registered with the Medical Council.

    The Rules also state, however, that proceedings “carried on in good faith” cannot be invalidated later.
    http://imn.ie/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5223%3Aabortion-voting-eligibility-questioned&catid=61%3Anews&Itemid=28

    Surely Irish Medical News cannot be saying that unregistered doctors joined the IMO just to vote against any prospective motion on abortion and then resigned...that would be unethical - and Machiavellian. :eek:


  • Options
    #6790
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    Flier wrote: »
    What constitutes a 'substantial risk'?
    If you want a precise definition, you'll need both medical and legal expertise. However, according to the Master of Holles Street, it's an extremely rare event. She gave some indication of the level in her recent testimony to the Oireachtas Committee.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=83756336#post83756336
    In my hospital last year we had three cases in which we had to intervene prior to foetal viability because of our concern that a woman would die. There is a tiny number of cases, 30 or 40 is an overestimate. The figure nationally is more likely to be between ten and 20.
    So, you'll appreciate, however 'substantial risk' is defined is unlikely to impact on 99.9% (and possibly 99.99%) of women who experience pregnancy.
    Flier wrote: »
    So what should we do now? Not bother to legislate for an amendment to our constitution because some people might abuse it? What is your solution to this dilema?
    Oh, I'm not especially decrying the prospect. I'm simply acknowledging that the Pro-Lifers have a point when they say the process will be open to abuse. Bear in mind, my motive is just to be absolutely clear about what options are before us. My position is that all 'solutions' involve harm for someone, and it's just a matter of deciding what 'balance of harm' we can all agree to.
    Flier wrote: »
    So what do you think might happen if 5000 GPs and NCHDs 'dropped everything' and rushed down to Killarney to voice their opinion? Was this an option?
    About 150 of them turned up at an EGM in Mullingar about their former CEO's pension. How does that compare, in terms of the relative importance of these issues to IMO members?
    Flier wrote: »
    Anyone can run a medical practice, so long as they are properly compliant with company law etc. Practicing medicine is something completely different.
    So Obliq's receptionist mates own their local primary care centre? Keep digging.
    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Surely Irish Medical News cannot be saying that unregistered doctors joined the IMO just to vote against any prospective motion on abortion and then resigned...that would be unethical - and Machiavellian.
    Does this mean that even fewer real IMO members gave a toss?


  • Options
    #6791
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,349 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Just to put this IMO business in a bit of context:

    The IMO does not licence or regulate doctors. It has no disciplinary powers over them. It does not set professional ethical standards, or police or implement them. All those things are done by the Irish Medical Council, a statutory body.

    The Irish Medical Organisation is basically a trade union for doctors. It represents the interests of doctors in negotations with the state and state agencies regarding what doctors will do and what they will be paid to do it.

    Given that, while the loss of these motions has a "cheerleading" signficance for pro-life campaigners, I'm not sure that it will mean very much in practice. The national conference is not a terribly representative forum, and the IMO executive will not assume that the vote at the conference necessarily represents the views of members on the need for legislation. Even if they thought it did, actively opposing legislation to regulate the provision of abortions in line with the X Case is probably not a priority for them; they would be far more concerned about legislation or policy affecting doctors' earnings, or the funding of the health system.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6792
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Well, well, well.

    http://imn.ie/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5223%3Aabortion-voting-eligibility-questioned&catid=61%3Anews&Itemid=28

    Surely Irish Medical News cannot be saying that unregistered doctors joined the IMO just to vote against any prospective motion on abortion and then resigned...that would be unethical - and Machiavellian. :eek:

    Ballot stuffing. Given all the dirty tricks the pro-life campaign have been up to it is nowhere near as surprising as it should be.


  • Options
    #6793
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Galvasean wrote: »
    Ballot stuffing. Given all the dirty tricks the pro-life campaign have been up to it is nowhere near as surprising as it should be.

    I must admit I was faking the shock/surprise.

    It was a faux:eek:


  • Options
    #6794
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    How dismaying. Not surprising, but certainly disappointing.

    Heh, delightful nutcase on Twitter telling me I should accept defeat with dignity because the IMO was totally democratic and fair, and is the voice of doctors nationwide.


  • Options
    #6795
    Flier
    Closed Accounts Posts: 345 ✭✭Flier


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    If you want a precise definition, you'll need both medical and legal expertise. However, according to the Master of Holles Street, it's an extremely rare event. She gave some indication of the level in her recent testimony to the Oireachtas Committee.So, you'll appreciate, however 'substantial risk' is defined is unlikely to impact on 99.9% (and possibly 99.99%) of women who experience pregnancy.

    Hence the need for clarifying legislation.

    We know it's a very rare event. Dr Rhona Mahony believes there is a need for such legislation. She is not willing just to say, 'oh well, it will only affect a small percentage, so we won't bother'. Which seems to be what you are implying. Let's just get rid of the Heart Transplant program. And the kidney one, in fact all of the transplant programs. Let's see what other savings we can make by getting rid of expensive stuff that 99.9% of people won't need.


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    About 150 of them turned up at an EGM in Mullingar about their former CEO's pension. How does that compare, in terms of the relative importance of these issues to IMO members?


    Yes to discuss the future of their union, at a watershed time. Where opinions discussed might actually make a difference, and where any votes would be binding. Quite different to the meeting in Killarney. You clearly have no understanding of what the IMO is about.

    Oh, and the EGM was in Mullingar, (although many doctors would have preferred if it was in Dublin) an easy drive from major urban centres, in the evening AFAIK, and not in one of the more remote areas of the country.


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    So Obliq's receptionist mates own their local primary care centre? Keep digging.

    No, you must be right. How could she possibly own or even run a medical centre. It must be owned and run by the doctor. (What was that phrase you used? Confused thinking?)


  • Options
    #6796
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    From RTE's health correspondent on Twitter: "Staff midwife Miriam Dunleavey stuns inquest saying, entries in the nursing/medical notes 'were put in by the internal inquiry'."

    Sh*t just got real.


  • Options
    #6797
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Sarky wrote: »
    From RTE's health correspondent on Twitter: "Staff midwife Miriam Dunleavey stuns inquest saying, entries in the nursing/medical notes 'were put in by the internal inquiry'."

    Sh*t just got real.

    Linky:p


  • Options
    #6798
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Bah, fine. https://twitter.com/FergalBowers/status/321631864915914752




    *wanders off muttering about power tripping new mods*


  • Options
    #6799
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Sarky wrote: »
    Bah, fine. https://twitter.com/FergalBowers/status/321631864915914752




    *wanders off muttering about power tripping new mods*

    Pfft. I needed it for facebook and it was faster for you to post the link than me to google it (which would also have required the opening of yet another tab.). :p
    Mod or no Mod, I'd have done the same. I apologise. No wait I don't! I got the power now! Mwhahahaha !:D
    As Penance, you must say 10 our Darwins.

    Our Darwin, Who art a genius
    Hallowed be Thy Mind;
    Thy evolution come,
    Thy will be done,
    In fact as it is in theory.
    Give us today a transitional fossil,
    And forgive us our mutation,
    As we survive those who try to kill us;
    And lead our lot into natural selection,
    But deliver us from creationism.


  • Options
    #6800
    loveisdivine
    Registered Users Posts: 2,463 ✭✭✭loveisdivine


    This might be slightly OT but its been bugging me for a while. Is "Suicidality" really a word? Or just a term that's been thrown out and then latched onto by YD et al. Everytime I hear it or see it written I cant help rolling my eyes and tutting.


  • Options
    #6801
    Morag
    Registered Users Posts: 8,423 ✭✭✭Morag


    http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0409/380412-savita-halappanavar-inquest/


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6802
    Morag
    Registered Users Posts: 8,423 ✭✭✭Morag


    The Would You Believe episode is up online and will be available for the next 21 days.
    It's more nuanced then I expected.

    http://www.rte.ie/player/ie/show/10129348/


  • Options
    #6803
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Morag wrote: »
    The Would You Believe episode is up online and will be available for the next 21 days.
    It's more nuanced then I expected.

    http://www.rte.ie/player/ie/show/10129348/

    RTE is Anti-Catholic.:pac:


  • Options
    #6804
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Jernal wrote: »
    Pfft. I needed it for facebook and it was faster for you to post the link than me to google it (which would also have required the opening of yet another tab.). :p
    Mod or no Mod, I'd have done the same. I apologise. No wait I don't! I got the power now! Mwhahahaha !:D
    As Penance, you must say 10 our Darwins.

    Our Darwin, Who art a genius
    Hallowed be Thy Mind;
    Thy evolution come,
    Thy will be done,
    In fact as it is in theory.
    Give us today a transitional fossil,
    And forgive us our mutation,
    As we survive those who try to kill us;
    And lead our lot into natural selection,
    But deliver us from creationism.

    Has No time to google and/or open a new tab.

    Has time to deliver a poetry recital.

    Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm......


  • Options
    #6805
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Has No time to google and/or open a new tab.

    Has time to deliver a poetry recital.

    Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm......

    Gotta be prepared for the Vogons.
    *Discretely plans on moving to Sussex.*


  • Options
    #6806
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    Flier wrote: »
    We know it's a very rare event. Dr Rhona Mahony believes there is a need for such legislation. She is not willing just to say, 'oh well, it will only affect a small percentage, so we won't bother'. Which seems to be what you are implying.
    No, you're just trying to recast the issue in a way that's easier to respond to. The point being made, for quite some time, is that clarification won't alter the practical situation. Rhona Mahony is, reasonably, looking for more legal cover for what they already do in Holles Street, in the few cases that arise.
    Flier wrote: »
    Yes to discuss the future of their union, at a watershed time. Where opinions discussed might actually make a difference, and where any votes would be binding. Quite different to the meeting in Killarney. You clearly have no understanding of what the IMO is about.
    Well, no, as my posts demonstrate. For what it's worth, the Killarney meeting is their AGM. The EGM was just called by a faction that wanted to air the issue of the former CEO's enormous pension entitlement. The AGM is actually the normal forum where votes on policy are held. I'd guess they hold it in Killarney in the hope of coaxing more members down, on grounds of it being slightly more picturesque than Mullingar.
    Flier wrote: »
    No, you must be right. How could she possibly own or even run a medical centre. It must be owned and run by the doctor. (What was that phrase you used? Confused thinking?)
    What point are you actually trying to make here? If it's a primary care centre, I'd expect its either owned or leased by the HSE. Are you suggesting that such centres are typically owned and operated by the receptionists? Have you just got lost in a cycle of disagreement at this stage? That's what it reads like.


  • Options
    #6807
    aloyisious
    Registered Users Posts: 11,588 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    That is GUB, though the missing U might be usual in nature. As an aside, I like the Hanover Medical.ie Ad below, referring to Family Planning :)


  • Options
    #6808
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    The consultant obstetrician who treated Savita Halappanavar refused her request for a termination because of “the legal position in Ireland”, she has told the inquest into Ms Halappanavar’s death.
    However, a day later, when she formed the view that there was a “real and substantial risk” to Ms Halappanavar’s life, Dr Katherine Astbury resolved to go ahead with a termination even though a foetal heartbeat was still present.
    However, this did not prove necessary as a scan showed the foetus had died, four days after Ms Halappanavar was admitted to Galway University Hospital.
    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/savita-halapannavar-consultant-tells-inquest-she-refused-termination-over-legal-position-1.1355359

    Make of it what ye will....


  • Options
    #6809
    Rev Hellfire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭Rev Hellfire


    Ohh its started to get entertaining again.


  • Options
    #6810
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    More dodgy do-ings.
    A SMALL group of anti-abortion politicians who went on a fact-finding trip to the US have irked other TDs and senators by referring to themselves as the 'Oireachtas Research Group USA'.

    Others have objected to the group – who all have the same views on the contentious issue – using the title because they were not officially representing the Dail and Seanad.

    The group included Fine Gael TDs James Bannon, Terence Flanagan, Peter Mathews and John O'Mahony as well as party senators Paul Bradford and Fidelma Healy-Eames. It sent a report on their trip to all Oireachtas members warning "everything changes" once abortion legislation is brought in.

    Independent TD Mattie McGrath also travelled, as did Fianna Fail senators Paschal Mooney, Brian O Domhnaill and Jim Walsh...

    ...The all-expenses-paid trip, which took in New York and Washington, was organised by the anti-abortion group Family and Life...

    ...However, the presentations all came from anti-abortion figures and all of those who went on the trip have been written to by the Standards In Public Office commission (SIPO).

    It is concerned the TDs and senators have breached donation guidelines by accepting the trips.

    "The donation of free/sponsored travel and accommodation falls within the definition of a donation and such a donation is subject to the normal aggregation and reporting thresholds and donation limits," according to SIPO.
    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/anger-over-antiabortion-groups-use-of-oireachtas-name-29185714.html


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6811
    Lingua Franca
    Registered Users Posts: 2,800 ✭✭✭Lingua Franca


    I'm not sure if anyone else is keeping an eye on twitter.

    Fergal Bowers ‏@FergalBowers 57m
    Dr Astbury: 2 system failures. Vital signs not checked every 4 hours after rupt'd membranes. Dr not told of abnormal blood count.

    - This is sheer negligence, surely? Poor Savita didn't stand a chance.

    Fergal Bowers ‏@FergalBowers 43m
    Dr Astbury: 8am Oct 22, cervix dialated membranes ruptured. She still believed was 'a small prospect foetus would be viable'.

    - No words. :(

    Fergal Bowers ‏@FergalBowers 24m
    Dr Astbury tells inquest her understanding: 'Law does not permit termination even if there is no prospect of viability of foetus'

    - Well, there's that pro life argument blown apart.

    Fergal Bowers ‏@FergalBowers 25m
    Dr Astbury denies ever using 'Catholic country' phrase to #Savita

    - I read that it was claimed that a midwife said that.

    Asked if phrase 'this is a Catholic country' would of been insensitive, uncaring & wrong, Dr Astbury -'would of been insensitive'

    Dr Astbury told #Savita - 'In this country it's not legal to perform a termination on grounds of poor prospect for foetus'

    - Indeed. And it's disgraceful that it's not legal to perform a termination on grounds of poor prospect for both foetus and pregnant woman.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement