Abortion debate thread

28064212

doctoremma wrote: »

Perhaps if you were able to talk to a "pro-abortion" person without sneeringly pre-empting their response, you might find some who aren't "chewing their bone" about it?

...

JimiTime wrote: »

There ye go Dr Em. Even when it was the bears I knew it was the imigants!

Nothing if not predictable Jimi. Any chance of entering into a discussion and addressing points made? Or are you still sticking to your principle of not debating with people you don't agree with?

doctoremma

28064212 wrote: »

Medical negligence in a system which is operating without proper legislation means there's plenty of blame to be apportioned to the system

And I agree with this too.

But I suspect the first bit of the blame will be laid at the door of the doctors in charge of this case, whether for failing to spot the infection or failing to realise the implications of what they were allowing to happen. Unfortunately, that will provide some people with enough ammunition to try to derail any higher investigations/questions.

JimiTime

28064212 wrote: »

...

Nothing if not predictable Jimi. Any chance of entering into a discussion and addressing points made? Or are you still sticking to your principle of not debating with people you don't agree with?

Theres no debate to be had. We don't know whats gone on yet, and from the info we DO have, I've already made my feelings known.
As for your stupendously stupid claim about me not entering into debate with people I don't agree with well, I do remember being a lone person against a tide of nothing more than abuse, trying to turn it into a debate rather than a witch-hunt in a forum that is the anti-thesis of my outlook on life. Not to mention that it was I that was told I was not welcome there not vice versa. And I'M the one who wont debate with those who disagree? Pull the other one.

If you are referring to the one thread where I believed it would be better not to indulge in trying to convince people who believed that fathers and mothers were inconsequential in child rearing, well that was one thread, and it was a decision taken that such people could only come back from such a point of their own volition. In other words, It wasn't about reasonableness, but rather desire that I'd be up against. All I believe one can do in that circumstance, is try to appeal to such people to question themselves, and try get an answer from within. But yeah, anyway, your personal slur aside.....

28064212

So, no, there's no chance of you entering into a discussion and addressing points made. All you had to say

JimiTime

doctoremma wrote: »

And I agree with this too.

But I suspect the first bit of the blame will be laid at the door of the doctors in charge of this case, whether for failing to spot the infection or failing to realise the implications of what they were allowing to happen. Unfortunately, that will provide some people with enough ammunition to try to derail any higher investigations/questions.

Like what?

Benny_Cake

If posters could debate the issue at hand without making sarcastic or abusive swipes at those on the other side of the argument, that would be great. I'd rather not have to start handing down warnings / infractions.

Benny_Cake

It certainly seems that this could well amount to medical negligence. The State will still have to introduce legislation though as a result of the European Court of Human Rights decision, and would have had to even if this tragedy hadn't happened.

28064212

Benny_Cake wrote: »

The State will still have to introduce legislation though as a result of the European Court of Human Rights decision, and would have had to even if this tragedy hadn't happened.

Debatable. The ECHR ruling is not binding. Even though they predicted this event when they called the lack of legislation "chilling". It amounted to a public slap on the wrist for the government.

doctoremma

JimiTime wrote: »

Like what?

It seems abundantly clear from the past couple of days, from reading the opinions of doctors and lawmakers, that the guidelines surrounding the abortion of a child to save the mother's life are fuzzy, to say the least. By all accounts, it is still technically illegal to perform such an abortion, even though it is one that would be sanctioned by most people. This, despite your constitution saying that to deny an abortion in such cases is starkly contrary to the human rights of the woman involved. I cannot find any figures from Rep Ireland outlining when and where these procedures have been performed (because I'm certain that they will have been necessary in at least one case over the last few years).

These issues obviously need clarity. However, they have needed clarifying for some time, and the legislators have dragged their heels remarkably.

This dreadful event is an opportunity to demand clarity of these guidelines, to demand that the constitutional right of woman to access an abortion if it's required to save their life is enshrined in law. (Not that I'm suggesting exploitation of this event, I think it's a naturally arising issue and I'm not in any way seeing how discussion of this should include the premise of "abortion on demand").

However, if the investigations determine that the blame lies with the doctors, who made bad decisions/prevaricated/acted from their own conscience/whatever, there is a danger that the question of whether your country should pass legislation to protect the lives of mothers will be cast aside as irrelevant to this event. Why suddenly increase the campaigning when the death of this poor woman had nothing to do with the lack of clarity in Irish law? Why is it necessary to institute a law that wouldn't have helped this woman?

And so the heel dragging continues.

However, I suspect it may emerge, from at least one of the care team, that they felt an abortion was the right thing to do but that their hands were tied by law (or their fuzzy perception of it, or their lack of guidance in it). In which case, the investigations will rightfully move up a notch to encompass the failings of the system that allowed (or forced) doctors to make bad medical decisions.

PDN

28064212 wrote: »

Debatable. The ECHR ruling is not binding. Even though they predicted this event when they called the lack of legislation "chilling". It amounted to a public slap on the wrist for the government.

That was hardly a prediction of this event by any stretch of even the most fevered imagination. While I am respecting Emma's plea not to lump all the pro-abortion supporters together, there are a few that are really being quite dishonest in their determination to exploit this poor woman's death for political ends.

28064212

PDN wrote: »

That was hardly a prediction of this event by any stretch of even the most fevered imagination. While I am respecting Emma's plea not to lump all the pro-abortion supporters together, there are a few that are really being quite dishonest in their determination to exploit this poor woman's death for political ends.

Really? The ECHR called our abortion legislation (or lack thereof) "chilling" due to its confusing and paradoxical nature. Now we have a case where, it seems, the lack of legislation on abortion contributed to a woman's death. That's not a stretch.

And I am in no way dishonest, and in no way exploiting this woman's death. I have been consistently pointing out the dire need for legislation in this area for years.

JimiTime

28064212 wrote: »

Really? The ECHR called our abortion legislation (or lack thereof) "chilling" due to its confusing and paradoxical nature. Now we have a case where, it seems, the lack of legislation on abortion contributed to a woman's death. That's not a stretch.

Is this fact? Or is this assumption?

And I am in no way dishonest, and in no way exploiting this woman's death. I have been consistently pointing out the dire need for legislation in this area for years.

If this conspires that its due to our law that this woman died, then something needs doing QUICKLY. Am I wrong in saying that it is not yet known if this is the case?

28064212

JimiTime wrote: »

Is this fact? Or is this assumption?

It's a very strong possibility. No-one knows what went on in the medical staff's heads

JimiTime wrote: »

If this conspires that its due to our law that this woman died, then something needs doing QUICKLY. Am I wrong in saying that it is not yet known if this is the case?

Say it's not the case. Say nothing could have been done in this particular instance. We still have a situation where doctors are having to take the place of legislators and interpret the Supreme Court ruling, all the while being open to prosecution from either the DPP or the patient's next of kin. It's been this way for twenty years.

georgieporgy

From the reports available to us in the media so far, it would seem this lady died from septicemia due to miscarriage (spontaneus abortion). Why her case was mishandled by the hospital is anyone's guess but it has absolutely nothing to do with abortion laws.

People die on trollies in Irish and English hospitals on a regular basis while waiting for treatment. It's very unfortunate, and I understand further cutbacks to the healthcare budget are planned.

Had the lady been in her home country India where the maternal mortality rate is 30 times higher than Ireland, she may not have fared any better.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2223rank.html

JimiTime

28064212 wrote: »

It's a very strong possibility. No-one knows what went on in the medical staff's heads

It doesn't seem to have stopped people jumping to conclusions though.

Say it's not the case. Say nothing could have been done in this particular instance. We still have a situation where doctors are having to take the place of legislators and interpret the Supreme Court ruling, all the while being open to prosecution from either the DPP or the patient's next of kin. It's been this way for twenty years.

It is my rather ignorant understanding, that a doctor can legally abort a child if a womans life is at risk. Is that not so? I mean they abort children in ectopic pregnancies etc. I thought the X-Case controversy was the issue of suicide as a 'risk t the womans life'? Am I wildly off the mark here?

JimiTime

georgieporgy wrote: »

From the reports available to us in the media so far, it would seem this lady died from septicemia due to miscarriage (spontaneus abortion). Why her case was mishandled by the hospital is anyone's guess but it has absolutely nothing to do with abortion laws.

People die on trollies in Irish and English hospitals on a regular basis while waiting for treatment. It's very unfortunate, and I understand further cutbacks to the healthcare budget are planned.

Had the lady been in her home country India where the maternal mortality rate is 30 times higher than Ireland, she may not have fared any better.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2223rank.html

I think we're still in the dark about what exactly happened tbh.

28064212

JimiTime wrote: »

It doesn't seem to have stopped people jumping to conclusions though.

On the facts available, it is a perfectly reasonable assumption. If later facts contradict or challenge those assumptions, they change the argument. What they don't do is change arguments not based on the axiom that this happened.

JimiTime wrote: »

It is my rather ignorant understanding, that a doctor can legally abort a child if a womans life is at risk. Is that not so?

No. The Supreme Court ruled that it was constitutional in 1992. The government never legislated, so the law that is still in effect is the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, which makes all abortions illegal, regardless of the threat to the life of the mother. There are grey areas where doctors may decide that certain procedures aren't "real" abortions (e.g. ectopic pregnancies), but that is the doctor deciding what the legislation is, which is not their job

Oscorp

Quite shocking headline from India Times:

Ireland Murders Pregnant Indian Dentist

http://www.indiatimes.com/europe/ireland-murders-pregnant-indian-dentist-47214.html

Just because some on here think there's a chance that the current laws (or lack thereof) played no part in Savita's death doesn't mean that the push for legislation on X shouldn't continue.

Regardless of this sad story, we need to act on X. Not doing so will leave women in this country at danger should a dilemma like this arise again, and the rest of the world (including supposedly less developed countries like India and Egypt) will continue to view us a backward, triumphalist Catholic country, that refuses to protect its pregnant women.

doctoremma

georgieporgy wrote: »

From the reports available to us in the media so far, it would seem this lady died from septicemia due to miscarriage (spontaneus abortion). Why her case was mishandled by the hospital is anyone's guess but it has absolutely nothing to do with abortion laws.

The issue isn't that she died from septicaemia following a miscarriage. As you acknowledge, she died from septicaemia after her miscarriage was incredibly badly handled.

The main reason cited for this mishandling is the current status of abortion law in Ireland. Which very much makes it everything to do abortion laws.

georgieporgy

Ireland backward? Come on. Keep up to date with reality.
THE PROSPERITY INDEX

TOP 25


1 - Norway
2 - Denmark
3 - Sweden
4 - Australia
5 - New Zealand
6 - Canada
7 - Finland
8 - Netherlands
9 - Switzerland
10 - Ireland
11 - Luxembourg
12 - U.S.
13 - UK
14 - Germany
15 - Iceland
16 - Austria
17 - Belgium
18 - Hong Kong
19 - Singapore
20 - Taiwan
21 - France
22 - Japan
23 - Spain
24 - Slovenia
25 - Malta

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2227334/Scandinavian-countries-list-worlds-prosperous-nations--U-S-drops-time.html#ixzz2CJEO0SDD

'We believe that by measuring the quality of education, healthcare, social capital and opportunity, our Prosperity Index gives the clearest view of how countries are prospering today and how they are likely to prosper in the future.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2227334/Scandinavian-countries-list-worlds-prosperous-nations--U-S-drops-time.html#ixzz2CJF48Ev1
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

JimiTime

28064212 wrote: »

On the facts available, it is a perfectly reasonable assumption. If later facts contradict or challenge those assumptions, they change the argument. What they don't do is change arguments not based on the axiom that this happened.


No. The Supreme Court ruled that it was constitutional in 1992. The government never legislated, so the law that is still in effect is the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, which makes all abortions illegal, regardless of the threat to the life of the mother. There are grey areas where doctors may decide that certain procedures aren't "real" abortions (e.g. ectopic pregnancies), but that is the doctor deciding what the legislation is, which is not their job

Is the constitution not the highest law in the land? If the constitution says its ok, then how can someone be charged? It would be unconstitutional wouldn't it?

28064212

JimiTime wrote: »

Is the constitution not the highest law in the land? If the constitution says its ok, then how can someone be charged?

The law is unconstitutional. But for it to be struck down, it has to be challenged in court, and then appealed to the High Court (which is the lowest court which can strike down laws). Which means a doctor has to be willing to fight a long, expensive, public court battle, while putting their career on hold and spending at least some time in prison.

Corkfeen

georgieporgy wrote: »

Ireland backward? Come on. Keep up to date with reality.
THE PROSPERITY INDEX

TOP 25


1 - Norway
2 - Denmark
3 - Sweden
4 - Australia
5 - New Zealand
6 - Canada
7 - Finland
8 - Netherlands
9 - Switzerland
10 - Ireland
11 - Luxembourg
12 - U.S.
13 - UK
14 - Germany
15 - Iceland
16 - Austria
17 - Belgium
18 - Hong Kong
19 - Singapore
20 - Taiwan
21 - France
22 - Japan
23 - Spain
24 - Slovenia
25 - Malta

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2227334/Scandinavian-countries-list-worlds-prosperous-nations--U-S-drops-time.html#ixzz2CJEO0SDD

'We believe that by measuring the quality of education, healthcare, social capital and opportunity, our Prosperity Index gives the clearest view of how countries are prospering today and how they are likely to prosper in the future.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2227334/Scandinavian-countries-list-worlds-prosperous-nations--U-S-drops-time.html#ixzz2CJF48Ev1
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Every country above us on that list has abortion legalised in some form..... The country is backward when we fail to legislate for something that was voted on by the public over twenty years ago.

JimiTime

28064212 wrote: »

The law is unconstitutional. But for it to be struck down, it has to be challenged in court, and then appealed to the High Court (which is the lowest court which can strike down laws). Which means a doctor has to be willing to fight a long, expensive, public court battle, while putting their career on hold and spending at least some time in prison.

Bloody hell. If thats true, then I certainly see an issue. Must have a look a this a bit closer. If anyone has anymore details on this topic I'd appreciate it.

Oscorp

georgieporgy wrote: »

Ireland backward? Come on. Keep up to date with reality.
THE PROSPERITY INDEX

On the issue at hand I would argue that yes we are.

Keep up with reality? That's precisely what I'm doing by talking about a recent case that's related to the issue at hand, rather than boasting about our position on some vague broad-sweeping general prosperity list.

Even Fox News, infamously conservative, are viewing us with disdain on this issue: "Common sense fails to exist and bureaucratic rules interfere with the practice of medicine.”

Our laws are archaic and very much backwards. Do keep up with reality.

Gotham

You guys keep talking about pro life - but two lives were lost instead of one.
That does not compute.

Obliq

https://apps.facebook.com/theguardian/commentisfree/2012/nov/15/ireland-medieval-abortion-law-savita

I am ashamed that Ireland's medieval abortion law still stands | Emer O'Toole

"I am no longer a Catholic, so I need to look for earthly explanations as to what happened to Halappanavar. The medical technology to prevent this painful, senseless death was at hand. Yet doctors did not use it. Why? One could argue that they had to obey Irish law. In The Origins of Totalitarianism, speaking of defences mounted by the perpetrators of atrocities during the Holocaust, Hannah Arendt says that adult citizens cannot obey. Children and animals can obey, but adults have the capacity to morally assess the actions that their sociopolitical systems demand of them.

Adults do not obey, they consent. And yes, the system might punish you for failing to carry out its evil will – for choosing to remove a dying, insensate foetus from the womb of a woman in agony who is begging you to do so – but fear of consequence does not absolve you. To those doctors who continued to check for a heartbeat as Halappanavar deteriorated, this is also your fault.

I know what it's like to try to speak out against anti-choice hegemony in Ireland. I know how hard it is to even form pro-choice opinions at all. Like 95% of people schooled in Ireland, I had a Catholic education and was heavily propagandised against abortion. More, I had to navigate the biased information offered by the Irish press. RTÉ, our national broadcaster, did not even report on a 2,000-strong pro-choice march in Dublin earlier this year, while it continues to cover anti-abortion movements in the provinces. Teachers and journalists, this is your fault too.

Of course, this is made difficult in a country in which the entire political system, against the will of the electorate, enforces medieval attitudes to abortion. In 1992 the supreme court ruled that a suicidal teenage rape victim had the right to an abortion. In the referendum that followed, Irish people voted to uphold this judgment. Yet, 20 years later, no government has been brave enough to legislate. In 2010 the European court of human rights ruled against the Irish state in favour of a woman who had to travel to the UK to terminate a pregnancy while undergoing chemotherapy. Still Enda Kenny, our devoutly Catholic taoiseach, has said that abortion is "not of priority" for his government. Kenny, James Reilly, the health minister, and every other Dáil member – this is your fault too. You are responsible for the pain Halappanavar's loved ones are going through.

To her family, I want to say: I am ashamed, I am culpable, and I am sorry. For every letter to my local politician I didn't write, for every protest I didn't join, for keeping quiet about abortion rights in the company of conservative relations and friends, for becoming complacent, for thinking that Ireland was changing, for not working hard enough to secure that change, for failing to create a society in which your wife, your daughter, your sister was able to access the care that she needed: I am sorry. You must think that we are barbarians."

martinnew

Gotham wrote: »

You guys keep talking about pro life - but two lives were lost instead of one.
That does not compute.

There hasn't been a report publish on the failings. She died from septicaemia, which has killed 2 women in England you went for abortions. Lets get the findings and not all jump to conclusion.

The doctors in Ireland today have all the legal rights to save the Mother if her life is at risk. If they sat by in Galway and didn't do this then under current legislation they are negligent.

martinnew

28064212 wrote: »

No. The Supreme Court ruled that it was constitutional in 1992. The government never legislated, so the law that is still in effect is the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, which makes all abortions illegal, regardless of the threat to the life of the mother. There are grey areas where doctors may decide that certain procedures aren't "real" abortions (e.g. ectopic pregnancies), but that is the doctor deciding what the legislation is, which is not their job

Not true. You can't sit by an let Mother and Child die. Doctors In Ireland every year carry out procedures that result in the death of the Foetus to save the Mothers life.

Get your facts straight. Abortion is targeting the unborn child, If you do all you can to safe both but the results are that the child dies despite the best intentions of the doctors then its not abortion.

Elysian

martinnew wrote: »

She died from septicaemia, which has killed 2 women in England you went for abortions. Lets get the findings and not all jump to conclusion.

While it is tragic that two girls died in England, I'm sure everything was done to try to save them. Something that can't be said for Savita.