Abortion debate thread

santing · 15-11-2012 08:16PM

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/david-quinn-media-rushes-to-judge-but-we-dont-know-facts-3294515.html
I like David Quinn's analysis:

From the available facts, we know that Mrs Halappanavar was miscarrying and that she died within days of being admitted to hospital from septicemia and E Coli ESBL.

We do not know for certain whether ending the pregnancy upon her arrival in the hospital would have saved her life, but to repeat, if medical staff needed to do that they could have done it.

Therefore the 'woman dies because she was denied abortion' storyline is simply not true. The 'woman dies because of Catholic opposition to abortion' is also not true.

We simply do not know for certain at this stage whether Mrs Halappanavar would have died no matter what was done. This is what the investigation into her death will ascertain.

And we must also repeat for the umpteenth time that Ireland has one of the lowest maternal death rates in the world. It is lower than the British rate where abortion is available on demand.

Statisically the Irish health care (and therefore the Irish State) is better and a safer place to be done ... but an individual case is of course not statistic, and if death could have been avoided it is very tragic.
But before we rush to change the law, how many women die because of abortion? Any stats? How many healthy babies are born because of Irish practices?

martinnew · 15-11-2012 08:23PM

Elysian wrote: »

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.

If everything wasn't don't to save Savita its not because we don't have liberal abortion, its because the Doctors simply didn't do their job, its clear that EVERYTHING should be done to save a mothers life, even if it results in the death of her child.

Lets see what the report shows.

Clockwork Owl · 15-11-2012 08:47PM

santing wrote: »

But before we rush to change the law, how many women die because of abortion? Any stats?

The difference being, the women who chose abortion presumably did so of their own free will. They would have been told of the alternatives, and would have been made aware of the risks. It is no less a tragedy, but one of which they had ownership.

I really don't think it's reasonable to liken that to what happened here, where a woman was denied treatment against her desperate wish and that of her husband, based purely on the ruling of others.

15-11-2012 09:46PM

martinnew wrote: »

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.

"It's not abortion, except when it is". Doctor's carry out procedures that are against the legislation, using their own interpretation of the Supreme Court ruling, in the hope that if it ever came to court, they wouldn't get done, but there is no guarantee of that. In a classically Irish approach, there is a 'look the other way' mentality that has been employed by legislators for the past 20 years. Or preferably, ship her off to England.

georgieporgy · 15-11-2012 10:21PM

Elysian wrote: »

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.

Evidently having an abortion didn't save them. In fact it was the direct cause of their deaths.

Abortion has never saved anybody's life. Generally its proponents like to call it a termination of life. It certainly doesn't cure infections.

Sonics2k · 15-11-2012 10:26PM

georgieporgy wrote: »

Abortion has never saved anybody's life.

What?

I mean really, what? Are you truly this mind baffling ignorant?

philologos · 15-11-2012 10:32PM

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.

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.

Quite a number of people seem to be unwilling to make the distinction between:
1) Abortion as a medical necessity
2) Abortion as a mere choice.

By the by it is "chilling" if we don't have legislation in place that allows for an emergency procedure to take place to save the mother in cases where her life is in danger. As a Christian who is by logical extension pro-life, I support legislation that would support the saving of life.

I do find it dishonest that pro-choicers are trying to argue that this is a reason why abortion-by-choice should be brought in. It is just a reality that the State hasn't legislated for the 2002 Referendum / 1992 X-Case conclusion properly yet.

martinnew · 15-11-2012 11:33PM

28064212 wrote: »

"It's not abortion, except when it is". Doctor's carry out procedures that are against the legislation, using their own interpretation of the Supreme Court ruling, in the hope that if it ever came to court, they wouldn't get done, but there is no guarantee of that. In a classically Irish approach, there is a 'look the other way' mentality that has been employed by legislators for the past 20 years. Or preferably, ship her off to England.

Wrong. If the pregnancy is KILLING the mother.. It simply has to be terminated and is terminated in Ireland every year for some women. There is no other way to save the mothers life. Such as ectopic pregnancy or severe pre-eclampsia.

Doctors in Ireland don't sit by and let Mothers who a pregnant die.. Stop twisting reality. Everything has to be done to save the Mother and is done. Mothers are treated to the highest standards.

Regarding Galway .. Lets get the report and see the exact facts of what when wrong.

15-11-2012 11:38PM

martinnew wrote: »

Wrong. If the pregnancy is KILLING the mother.. It simply has to be terminated and is terminated in Ireland every year for some women. There is no other way to save the mothers life. Such as ectopic pregnancy or severe pre-eclampsia.

Doctors in Ireland don't sit by and let Mothers who a pregnant die.. Stop twisting reality. Everything has to be done to save the Mother and is done. Mothers are treated to the highest standards.

Stop twisting reality? The law states that abortions are illegal. That is the reality. That the law is unconstitutional is irrelevant until it actually comes to court, and if a doctor does not want to risk court, they will delay treatment. Why? Because our legislators abdicated their responsibility, and doctors have been doing their best to compensate for their cowardice

martinnew wrote: »

Regarding Galway .. Lets get the report and see the exact facts of what when wrong.

Didn't mention the Galway case

martinnew · 16-11-2012 12:04AM

28064212 wrote: »

Stop twisting reality? The law states that abortions are illegal. That is the reality. That the law is unconstitutional is irrelevant until it actually comes to court, and if a doctor does not want to risk court, they will delay treatment. Why? Because our legislators abdicated their responsibility, and doctors have been doing their best to compensate for their cowardice

Lets be clear... Its NOT ilegal to treat a Mother whose life is at risk. Even if this treatment means the baby may die. What doctors don't do it target the child with abortion. But abortive procedures are legally carried out in Ireland. Doctors don't delay treatment in fear of prosecution... They act with speed. Ectopic pregnancies are terminated the same day of diagnosis. The area is very very clear.

16-11-2012 12:17AM

martinnew wrote: »

Lets be clear... Its NOT ilegal to treat a Mother whose life is at risk. Even if this treatment means the baby may die. What doctors don't do it target the child with abortion. But abortive procedures are legally carried out in Ireland. Doctors don't delay treatment in fear of prosecution... They act with speed. Ectopic pregnancies are terminated the same day of diagnosis. The area is very very clear.

Which law allows for abortion when the mother's life is in danger? Because the 1861 law makes no such allowance, and there has been no update or repeal of that law. Abortive procedures are carried out, but in a massively grey area, which is why the ECHR called our abortion legislation framework "chilling"

jank · 16-11-2012 01:37AM

Oscorp wrote: »

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.”

For the sake of clarity that article was from AP so it wasnt written by anyone in Fox News. Its very common for other media organisations to post articles that come from the likes of AP or Reuters.

Morbert · 16-11-2012 02:08AM

To borrow a phrase: A lot of pro-lifers here couldn't be missing the point more if they fired straight up into the air and the point was in a different country altogether.

The only way Ireland, as a nation, will escape disgrace is if it is found that doctors explicitly concluded that a termination was a more dangerous option. Anything else amounts to an unacceptable gamble with the woman's life that would not have occurred anywhere that had competent legislation.

I am beginning to wonder if the pro-lifers as disingenuously hiding behind the excuse of malpractice to avoid taking a hard look at the country's legislation.

[edit]- Also, I have been digging into the (irrelevant) claim that Ireland is safe for pregnant women compared to other countries, and have found reputable sources that beg to differ.

http://www.medicalindependent.ie/page.aspx?title=maternal_death_%E2%80%93_into_the_great_unknown

Peregrinus · 16-11-2012 07:29AM

Morbert wrote: »

[edit]- Also, I have been digging into the (irrelevant) claim that Ireland is safe for pregnant women compared to other countries, and have found reputable sources that beg to differ.

http://www.medicalindependent.ie/page.aspx?title=maternal_death_%E2%80%93_into_the_great_unknown

I agree that the claim is irrelevant. Whatever the ethical issues are in a situation such as the one faced in UCHG, they are just as acute whether such situations are frequent or rare.

Having said that, I don’t think your source backs up your claim. It suggests that maternal mortality is undercounted in Ireland, but the factors that it points to as responsible for the undercounting are not unique to Ireland. (Indeed, the report is based on a project which is reviewing maternal mortality in both the UK and Ireland, and the counting mechanism they critique is one employed by the WHO and, therefore, presumably affecting all the countries against which Ireland is currently so favourably compared.)

Consequently if the Irish figures are adjusted on the basis suggested here, and then compared with similarly adjusted figures for other countries, there’s no reason to think that Ireland will not still be “safe for pregnant women compared to other countries”. It’s of course possible that it’s ranking in the table may move up or down, but the articles suggests no a priori reason to expect either.

PDN · 16-11-2012 10:44AM

Morbert wrote: »

To borrow a phrase: A lot of pro-lifers here couldn't be missing the point more if they fired straight up into the air and the point was in a different country altogether.

I think you are the one who is missing the point.

The only way Ireland, as a nation, will escape disgrace is if it is found that doctors explicitly concluded that a termination was a more dangerous option. Anything else amounts to an unacceptable gamble with the woman's life that would not have occurred anywhere that had competent legislation.

Not so, it is inaccurate to say that the absolute safest option must always be taken. If that were the case then every pregnancy would be terminated at onset and the human race would die out within generation. Why? Because not having a baby carries less risks than having a baby.

There are many situations, in the UK and other nations that you uphold as having 'competent legislation' where a course of treatment will be advised for a pregnant woman which, while carrying a very slightly higher risk than the treatment offered to a non-pregnant patient, avoids harming the foetus. Most reasonable people would see that as acceptable practice.

In this case we don't yet know all, or even many, of the factors that guided the doctors in making their decisions. I see the following possible scenarios:

a) The doctors may have felt that letting the miscarriage run its course would indeed present less risk to the patient's health than any other option. If so, then they would be duty bound to let that happen, irrespective of how much the patient insisted that she wanted an abortion.

b) The doctors may have felt that the risk of letting the miscarriage run its course was so small as not to warrant removing the foetus. These kind of judgement calls are taken in hospitals every day - and the vast majority of them turn out to be correct. Of course on the very rare occasion when it goes wrong then all hell breaks loose. This is why my American friends pay thousands of dollars every month for medical coverage - hospitals are so scared of being sued that they will carry out numerous expensive scans and tests to check for possibilities that are extremely unlikely.

c) The doctors may have concluded that the miscarriage was inevitable and that an abortion was, from a medical standpoint, the best possible course of action, but they then ignored the Medical Guidelines that should have led them to perform an abortion. If so, then heads will roll.

d) The doctors may have believed that there was a possibility that the pregnancy could be saved, therefore they followed a riskier course of action to preserve the babies life. If that case then this case would be a valid part of any discussion about abortion laws and the right to life of the unborn child.

Even under a very strict anti-abortion regime that gave the unborn child precisely the same rates as any person already born, I would see strong legal and medical reasons why a baby, already miscarrying, should be aborted to save the mother's life. The situation would be analogous to that of conjoined twins where one twin is dying. If the twins are not separated then both will inevitably die. I think most, if not all of us, would see it is ethically justified to separate the twins - even where the surgery hastens the death of the twin that is already dying.

I am beginning to wonder if the pro-lifers as disingenuously hiding behind the excuse of malpractice to avoid taking a hard look at the country's legislation.

And I'm beginning to wonder how far pro-abortion advocates will go in misrepresenting the views of pro-lifers.

I am not hiding behind an excuse of anything. I see this woman's death as a tragedy, and I have formed an opinion based on the few facts available, and having talked to doctors. I am also disturbed by the ghoulish glee with with a dishonest section of the pro-abortion brigade have seized on this woman's death to advance their agenda - and their determination to exploit her irrespective of their ignorance of all the facts.

As a pro-lifer I would fully support an amendment to the law clarifying this situation and stating that it is permissable to perform an abortion, where such a procedure is considered medically necessary (not just slightly less risky) to save the life of the mother. Such an amendment IMHO should not permit 'feeling suicidal' as a justification for carrying out an abortion. That would be bad ethics, bad morality, bad logic and bad law.

As it stands we have laws that are somewhat ambiguous and contradictory - but, as I understand it, no physician is realistically likely to be prosecuted for conducting an abortion to save a mother's life.

All countries have laws that are on the statute book but will never be enacted. For example, in the UK it is illegal under the Public Order Act of 1936 to wear a rosette or t-shirt signifying your allegiance to a political party. Nobody will be prosecuted under that law. It might be daft - but it isn't doing anyone any harm.

Now, if an investigation reveals that the ambiguity in the law really contributed to this woman's death - then that would be a different matter entirely - but my medical friends think that is extremely unlikely to have been the case.

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it this is our current situation:

a) The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution makes it legally permissable for doctors to carry out an abortion to save a mother's life, including where suicide is a risk.

b) Medical Guidelines issued to doctors permit them to carry out an abortion to save a mother's life - but not including a suicide risk.

(That is not a contradiction - not everything permitted under the Constitution is advisable. For example, it is permissable under the Constitution to hold all school lessons in Mandarin Chinese - but it is also OK for educational guidelines to instruct teachers to use English or Irish instead).

FWIW I would like to see the law amended to see the Medical Guidelines enshrined in law. That would remove the risk of doctors using claims of people being suicidal to open the door to abortion on demand.

The debate about abortion law is one worth having - and one pro-lifers want to have. So please don't misrepresent us because some of us honestly believe that this woman's tragic death was due to other factors.

doctoremma · 16-11-2012 10:58AM

philologos wrote: »

Quite a number of people seem to be unwilling to make the distinction between:
1) Abortion as a medical necessity
2) Abortion as a mere choice.
.......
I do find it dishonest that pro-choicers are trying to argue that this is a reason why abortion-by-choice should be brought in. It is just a reality that the State hasn't legislated for the 2002 Referendum / 1992 X-Case conclusion properly yet.

I think many (I would hope all) pro-choicers can see the distinction. I myself grumbled at some of the reporting here, where it was claimed as a matter of fact that Ireland needs 'abortion on demand', as I don't see it as necessarily following. The problem with this case is that it covers both bases.

If we assume, reasonably, that an earlier intervention would have been beneficial to Savita....

She asked for an abortion, but she was refused. The existence of a liberal 'abortion on demand' law would have saved her. This is why the 'abortion on demand' campaigners have ammunition. And I agree with them, the logic is sound, if not (in my opinion) the most parsimonious.

However, it is true to say that a liberal 'abortion on demand' law is not the only mechanism by which Savita might have survived. She would likely have survived if there was clear legal provision for 'abortion to save maternal life'. That is what I see most of the discussion on this thread focus on.

I think both parties have a right to campaign their cause. I'm not sure I've explained very well but I don't see the 'abortion on demand' campaign as an exploitative extension of the 'abortion to save maternal life' campaign. I think they are predicated on two different aspects of the case.

16-11-2012 11:06AM

PDN wrote: »

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it this is our current situation:

a) The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution makes it legally permissable for doctors to carry out an abortion to save a mother's life, including where suicide is a risk.

b) Medical Guidelines issued to doctors permit them to carry out an abortion to save a mother's life - but not including a suicide risk.

(That is not a contradiction - not everything permitted under the Constitution is advisable. For example, it is permissable under the Constitution to hold all school lessons in Mandarin Chinese - but it is also OK for educational guidelines to instruct teachers to use English or Irish instead)

That's an inaccurate analogy. A more accurate one would be if the Constitution says a child has a right to be instructed in Mandarin, the law says it's illegal to teach in Mandarin, and the educational guidelines (which have no legal force) say teaching Mandarin is ok.

PDN wrote: »

FWIW I would like to see the law amended to see the Medical Guidelines enshrined in law. That would remove the risk of doctors using claims of people being suicidal to open the door to abortion on demand.

What do you propose to do about the Constitutional right to an abortion in suicide cases? Another referendum? Removing it has already been rejected twice

Obliq · 16-11-2012 11:27AM

PDN wrote: »

a) The doctors may have felt that letting the miscarriage run its course would indeed present less risk to the patient's health than any other option. If so, then they would be duty bound to let that happen, irrespective of how much the patient insisted that she wanted an abortion.

b) The doctors may have felt that the risk of letting the miscarriage run its course was so small as not to warrant removing the foetus. These kind of judgement calls are taken in hospitals every day - and the vast majority of them turn out to be correct. Of course on the very rare occasion when it goes wrong then all hell breaks loose. This is why my American friends pay thousands of dollars every month for medical coverage - hospitals are so scared of being sued that they will carry out numerous expensive scans and tests to check for possibilities that are extremely unlikely.

c) The doctors may have concluded that the miscarriage was inevitable and that an abortion was, from a medical standpoint, the best possible course of action, but they then ignored the Medical Guidelines that should have led them to perform an abortion. If so, then heads will roll.

d) The doctors may have believed that there was a possibility that the pregnancy could be saved, therefore they followed a riskier course of action to preserve the babies life. If that case then this case would be a valid part of any discussion about abortion laws and the right to life of the unborn child.

In your scenario b): The tragedy here in your stance is that not once have you mentioned that she was left in appalling agony for 3 days. That is acceptable to you? For shame. There is no other country in Europe (except the tiny Malta) where this would happen. Offering an abortion of the miscarrying fetus is a matter of course anywhere else. AND THAT WAS THE CHOICE SHE AND HER HUSBAND WANTED.

And d) has to be a joke. This was a 17 week old fetus.

I am also disturbed by the ghoulish glee with with a dishonest section of the pro-abortion brigade have seized on this woman's death to advance their agenda - and their determination to exploit her irrespective of their ignorance of all the facts.

How dare you call what I am feeling either ghoulish or gleeful. Prior to this woman's awful death, I was up here arguing the very same reasoning for my CHOICE in the matter. I am not pro-abortion, I am pro-choice. I also note that Praveen, Savita's husband has CALLED on the Irish people never to forget what has happened here, and to bring about change so that people's choices are not ignored in these circumstances. Her family lay the blame with Ireland's abortion laws, and so do I.

I was fully aware that this appalling situation could happen in Ireland, just as many other appalling situations like women being denied abortion even for babies who have died in the womb. In Ireland, the choice in this case is to travel to England or become a walking coffin until such time as the dead baby can legally be induced. This country is TRULY barbaric. I am not jumping on any bandwagon here....I have been looking for choice since I was a teenager. How dare you deny me that?

As a pro-lifer I would fully support an amendment to the law clarifying this situation and stating that it is permissable to perform an abortion, where such a procedure is considered medically necessary (not just slightly less risky) to save the life of the mother. Such an amendment IMHO should not permit 'feeling suicidal' as a justification for carrying out an abortion. That would be bad ethics, bad morality, bad logic and bad law.

I would completely disagree with you. And I wish to have the right, upheld by the constitution, to completely disagree with you and have MY choice in the matter, as you have yours. My choice and the choice of 12 women every day in Ireland, is not enshrined in the constitution, unlike yours. The above, in bold, is your opinion, certainly not mine.

The debate about abortion law is one worth having - and one pro-lifers want to have. So please don't misrepresent us because some of us honestly believe that this woman's tragic death was due to other factors.

Well lets have at it then. As a pro-choice person, I want to see a referendum for change to the 8th amendment of the constitution to be put to the people again.

"The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right" was railroaded through for the sole reason to ban abortion in Ireland in the constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland

I did not have the opportunity to vote for that. There are 2 whole generations of Irish people who also didn't have the chance.

I do not believe in the sacredness of human life. I do not believe that an unborn child has equal right to life to that of the mother. I'd like to see this put to the people and I will CERTAINLY be lobbying every TD in my area for this chance.

I will not rest on this issue because the reproductive rights of 12 women every day are not enshrined in Irish law.

PDN · 16-11-2012 11:32AM

Obliq wrote: »

In your scenario b): The tragedy here in your stance is that not once have you mentioned that she was left in appalling agony for 3 days. That is acceptable to you? For shame. There is no other country in Europe (except the tiny Malta) where this would happen. Offering an abortion of the miscarrying fetus is a matter of course anywhere else. AND THAT WAS THE CHOICE SHE AND HER HUSBAND WANTED.

I have to go out to work, so will respond to some of your other points later. Please note that I never said it was acceptable to me. And only a complete liar would claim I said anything like that.

Obliq · 16-11-2012 11:36AM

PDN wrote: »

I have to go out to work, so will respond to some of your other points later. Please note that I never said it was acceptable to me. And only a complete liar would claim I said anything like that.

I didn't say you claimed it, I said "The tragedy here in your stance is that not once have you mentioned that she was left in appalling agony for 3 days"
and I notice this is barely mentioned by other "pro-lifers" on this thread too.

georgieporgy · 16-11-2012 12:40PM

Do people really expect to have their choices enshrined in the Constitution?

I'd like to have the choice not to pay the current high rate of income tax so I can use the cash to feed my family (and educate them in pro life values). ( like inthe Isle of Man)

I'd also like the choice to take my jag out on the motorway and open up the throttle if it's a nice day and I feel like it. (like in Germany)

And, though a non smoker, I'd like to have the choice to smoke in my local pub if I feel like it when sozzled out of my mind . (I'd also like the choice to be allowed drive home from said pub if its raining and I'm drunk) (like in mexico)

Obliq · 16-11-2012 12:51PM

georgieporgy wrote: »

Do people really expect to have their choices enshrined in the Constitution?

I'd like the constitution to reflect the FACT that there are a huge number of people in Ireland (possibly the majority) that think abortion should be permissible here. That 8th amendment denies this possible majority any choice in that matter. You are making light of how important this is. Not cool.

"The saddest and most shameful thing of all is that deaths of pregnant women in circumstances such as these were predictable once the 1983 amendment to the Constitution was passed, equating the right to life of the “unborn” with that of the pregnant woman." Ivana Bacik, reflecting the views of you don't know how many Irish people, here: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/1116/1224326666155.html

Morbert · 16-11-2012 12:56PM

PDN wrote: »

Not so, it is inaccurate to say that the absolute safest option must always be taken. If that were the case then every pregnancy would be terminated at onset and the human race would die out within generation. Why? Because not having a baby carries less risks than having a baby.

This is actually another reason I find the pro-life position to be problematic. I am troubled by the thought of politicians (probably men, to add insult to injury), sitting down and deciding at what level of risk should women be permitted to terminate their pregnancy.

There are many situations, in the UK and other nations that you uphold as having 'competent legislation' where a course of treatment will be advised for a pregnant woman which, while carrying a very slightly higher risk than the treatment offered to a non-pregnant patient, avoids harming the foetus. Most reasonable people would see that as acceptable practice.

Of course. It is perfectly acceptable practise, because the gambling in this case is done by the woman. She is in control of what risks she would like to take. In the recent case, we have a woman in deep pain begging to have her miscarriage terminated, and told no, and then dying.

In this case we don't yet know all, or even many, of the factors that guided the doctors in making their decisions. I see the following possible scenarios:

a) The doctors may have felt that letting the miscarriage run its course would indeed present less risk to the patient's health than any other option. If so, then they would be duty bound to let that happen, irrespective of how much the patient insisted that she wanted an abortion.

b) The doctors may have felt that the risk of letting the miscarriage run its course was so small as not to warrant removing the foetus. These kind of judgement calls are taken in hospitals every day - and the vast majority of them turn out to be correct. Of course on the very rare occasion when it goes wrong then all hell breaks loose. This is why my American friends pay thousands of dollars every month for medical coverage - hospitals are so scared of being sued that they will carry out numerous expensive scans and tests to check for possibilities that are extremely unlikely.

c) The doctors may have concluded that the miscarriage was inevitable and that an abortion was, from a medical standpoint, the best possible course of action, but they then ignored the Medical Guidelines that should have led them to perform an abortion. If so, then heads will roll.

d) The doctors may have believed that there was a possibility that the pregnancy could be saved, therefore they followed a riskier course of action to preserve the babies life. If that case then this case would be a valid part of any discussion about abortion laws and the right to life of the unborn child.

a) is the scenario I mentioned earlier, that will allow Ireland off the hook, and our status as a society can be restored to merely ignoring human rights courts. c) is highly unlikely. And still deeply troubling, albeit for different reasons. But if b) or d) turn out to be the case, then that is a scandal on a national level. One every Irish citizen should be deeply ashamed of.

And I'm beginning to wonder how far pro-abortion advocates will go in misrepresenting the views of pro-lifers.

I am not hiding behind an excuse of anything. I see this woman's death as a tragedy, and I have formed an opinion based on the few facts available, and having talked to doctors. I am also disturbed by the ghoulish glee with with a dishonest section of the pro-abortion brigade have seized on this woman's death to advance their agenda - and their determination to exploit her irrespective of their ignorance of all the facts.

As a pro-lifer I would fully support an amendment to the law clarifying this situation and stating that it is permissable to perform an abortion, where such a procedure is considered medically necessary (not just slightly less risky) to save the life of the mother. Such an amendment IMHO should not permit 'feeling suicidal' as a justification for carrying out an abortion. That would be bad ethics, bad morality, bad logic and bad law.

As it stands we have laws that are somewhat ambiguous and contradictory - but, as I understand it, no physician is realistically likely to be prosecuted for conducting an abortion to save a mother's life.

All countries have laws that are on the statute book but will never be enacted. For example, in the UK it is illegal under the Public Order Act of 1936 to wear a rosette or t-shirt signifying your allegiance to a political party. Nobody will be prosecuted under that law. It might be daft - but it isn't doing anyone any harm.

Now, if an investigation reveals that the ambiguity in the law really contributed to this woman's death - then that would be a different matter entirely - but my medical friends think that is extremely unlikely to have been the case.

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it this is our current situation:

a) The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution makes it legally permissable for doctors to carry out an abortion to save a mother's life, including where suicide is a risk.

b) Medical Guidelines issued to doctors permit them to carry out an abortion to save a mother's life - but not including a suicide risk.

(That is not a contradiction - not everything permitted under the Constitution is advisable. For example, it is permissable under the Constitution to hold all school lessons in Mandarin Chinese - but it is also OK for educational guidelines to instruct teachers to use English or Irish instead).

FWIW I would like to see the law amended to see the Medical Guidelines enshrined in law. That would remove the risk of doctors using claims of people being suicidal to open the door to abortion on demand.

The debate about abortion law is one worth having - and one pro-lifers want to have. So please don't misrepresent us because some of us honestly believe that this woman's tragic death was due to other factors.

Describing the outrage felt by people, even only a sector, as ghoulish glee is deeply unsettling to me. While you might wonder if pro-lifers are misrepresented. I will say that that ghoulish glee is a categorical misrepresentation of even the most ardent pro-choicer.

I say this because, at the most basic level, we have a woman in severe pain who was not given the choice to terminate her pregnancy, and dying as a result. This will be the case, regardless of what the investigation finds, or what your medical friends think, or any medical consensus. This is deeply angering. Even myself, who is often sympathetic to the pro-life position, in a flash of irrationality, toyed with the idea of renouncing my Irish citizenship, making me an exclusively U.S. citizen. You can call the anger, at the very very most, reactionary. But it is in no way cynical or exploitative.

In short, the point we are accusing each other of missing is there is a strong disagreement over whether it is ethical for a society to make the decision for a woman in deep agony. And unless the doctors genuinely felt that a termination was more dangerous (something the husband never alluded to), this case directly pertains to the abortion debate in Ireland.

Morbert · 16-11-2012 01:14PM

Peregrinus wrote: »

I agree that the claim is irrelevant. Whatever the ethical issues are in a situation such as the one faced in UCHG, they are just as acute whether such situations are frequent or rare.

Having said that, I don’t think your source backs up your claim. It suggests that maternal mortality is undercounted in Ireland, but the factors that it points to as responsible for the undercounting are not unique to Ireland. (Indeed, the report is based on a project which is reviewing maternal mortality in both the UK and Ireland, and the counting mechanism they critique is one employed by the WHO and, therefore, presumably affecting all the countries against which Ireland is currently so favourably compared.)

Consequently if the Irish figures are adjusted on the basis suggested here, and then compared with similarly adjusted figures for other countries, there’s no reason to think that Ireland will not still be “safe for pregnant women compared to other countries”. It’s of course possible that it’s ranking in the table may move up or down, but the articles suggests no a priori reason to expect either.

The report implied Ireland would have statistics comparable to the UK. Either way, it will be interesting to see what the 2013 report will say.

Lingua Franca · 16-11-2012 01:26PM

PDN wrote: »

The debate about abortion law is one worth having - and one pro-lifers want to have.

You personally might want to have that debate. The major pro life groups don't.

Here's their guidelines to debate which includes gems like this:

3) State as a fact that your opponent has not effectively presented his case.

and

It may seem obvious, but one of the best ways to control a debate is to talk more than one's opponent. This can be accomplished by using one or more of several different tactics. One way is to structure statements or replies and preface them with a phrase like "I'd like to make three points here." The pro-lifer may then number the points and, speaking at a relatively quick pace, get a lot of information across to the audience. Any interruption by the anti-life opponent or by the moderator will appear to be rude.

I'm sure you've seen Niamh Ui Briain and Bernadette Smyth on television where they constantly screech over their opponents and then DEMAND repeatedly to get their point across. They deliberately stifle debate so that only their voice can be heard.

You have the "Dublin declaration" from the "international symposium on maternal health" that "was not affiliated to any pro life groups" but was organised by Eamon O'Dwyer of Youth Defence, where every invited speaker is a pro-life activist and which had not a single pro choice voice at all.

Then you have the Youth Defence shambles of a facebook page where they delete anything that isn't "pro-life" making most of their comments threads a total mockery as it always ends up looking like one mad person shouting at themselves.

When questioned about this policy of deleting debate and opposing views they responded:

Youth Defence wrote:

hi michaela if i delete a person for being abusive on one post then their posts anywhere else in the page will automatically be deleted, it is a pro life page so i actually dont have to leave up pro abortion posts they can put them on their own page. majella
16 hours ago · 3

Again, you personally may want to have a debate but most pro lifers don't and indeed they go out of their way to stifle debate and dissent. I've been here for a few months reading threads about the abortion issue and I can tell you, it's not the pro-choice camp that keep posting nonsense like "It's established scientific fact that life begins at conception" "Abortion is never medically necessary, fact!" "Simples" and my favourite on a debate board, "END OF".

Obliq · 16-11-2012 02:23PM

""My main objective is that they should change the law so it won't happen to someone else. I know Savita won't come back but I hope that she will rest in peace, you know, if they change the law," Mr Halappanavar said.

"The question they keep asking is why did they not straight away terminate her the minute they came to know that the baby won't survive. That is the question I have been asked again and again and again. I don't have the answer so they have to change that.""

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/my-wife-can-rest-in-peace-if-these-laws-are-changed-3295414.html

Fanny Cradock · 16-11-2012 02:40PM

Obliq wrote: »

I didn't say you claimed it, I said "The tragedy here in your stance is that not once have you mentioned that she was left in appalling agony for 3 days"
and I notice this is barely mentioned by other "pro-lifers" on this thread too.

Yes, that's correct. By virtue of holding an anti-abortion stance people are oblivious to the suffering of Ms Halappanavar.

People are willing to have a discussion about how to prevent the further loss of life in similar situations. This is where we should begin. So please do the discussion a favour and stop with the silly insinuations.

Obliq · 16-11-2012 02:51PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Yes, that's correct. By virtue of holding an anti-abortion stance people are oblivious to the suffering of Ms Halappanavar.

People are willing to have a discussion about how to prevent the further loss of life in similar situations. This is where we should begin. So please do the discussion a favour and stop with the silly insinuations.

Some people are also willing to discuss how this loss of life has been predicted since 1983. And we are now shamed by the world that WE let this dreadful thing happen. So please do Ireland a favour and admit that at least. And we can begin there actually - in 1983 - with the constitutional change that allowed this tragedy.

I presume your first sentence is sarcasm? The point I made about pro-lifers not much mentioning the agony that Savita went through for 3 days in order to wait for the fetus to die naturally, is fair enough in my book.

Fanny Cradock · 16-11-2012 02:54PM

Obliq wrote: »

I presume your first sentence is sarcasm?

You presumed correctly.

Fanny Cradock · 16-11-2012 03:23PM

Obliq wrote: »

Some people are also willing to discuss how this loss of life has been predicted since 1983. And we are now shamed by the world that WE let this dreadful thing happen. So please do Ireland a favour and admit that at least. And we can begin there actually - in 1983 - with the constitutional change that allowed this tragedy.

This part of your post bothered me and it took me a while to figure out why this was.

I was expecting a response along the lines of: "Yes, although we stand on opposite sides of the fence when it comes to the wider issue of abortion on demand, we should indeed have a discussion about what can be done to stop suffering and death in such cases". In this regard, I'm quite happy to have a discussion about campaigning for an unambiguous law that would give doctors and mothers the right to abortion if there is a serious threat to the life of the mother. That, I think, is a reasonable discussion for us to be having.

Instead, what I got was an argument about how I should, for the sake of Ireland, no less, admit to what you see as Constitutional errors dating back 30 odd years ago.

Abortion debate thread

Comments