Savita dies due to refusal to terminate an unviable foetus.*Mod warning Post #1*

ASVM

Okay but i'd say the death of this woman is going to open a whole can of worms for the government and H.S.E This is only the start.It has to be a good thing though because apart from the abortion issue which is central it also raises the whole question of maternity care in Ireland. Consultants double job and in this situation public patients do not get the same level of continunity of care as the private ones. On top of that maternity hospital waiting room areas are like over crowded bus stations( at least that was my experience) the toilet floors were covered in pee( due to women giving urine samples) and sometimes I had to wait three hours to have a five minute consultation.

poeticseraphim

KamiKazeKitten wrote: »

Oh no I'm not trying to make it be of moral equivalence, just show it as an example of another situation where people may feel pressured into a medical decision.
I'm not putting this comment across well I feel, I've had a long day.

:):)
Don't worry
Oh no I was not saying it like that..I did not think you meant it as moral equivalence in actual life....just for the sake of debate really

And i am not putting myself across well either on this issue in these last few days...

It is trying...it is like walking on eggshells that have been balanced on a tightrope!:):o:)

username123

poeticseraphim wrote: »

Wow I am shocked....so in other hospitals ..they may....have knowingly allegedly allowed women to die??




To pro-long a pregnancy or even a non viable one or just in childbirth?

My mother is no longer with us so I cant question her on it but if memory serves it was just a known thing that some hospitals had a Catholic ethos and some didnt. It was understood that if a pregnancy got into difficulty (miscarriage or during childbirth) that the Coombe would direct efforts towards saving the mother over the child - I think perhaps the Rotunda was the same (although as I say, not sure)

You would have to ask a much older woman (someone who gave birth prior to 1983 in Dublin) about the ethos of the different maternity hospitals - I did think about this a few days ago but as I said, I cant confirm it as my mother isnt around to ask.

username123

ASVM wrote: »

Okay but i'd say the death of this woman is going to open a whole can of worms for the government and H.S.E This is only the start.

Its definitely only the start. This issue has been disgracefully exported to the UK for far too long.

poeticseraphim

ASVM wrote: »

Okay but i'd say the death of this woman is going to open a whole can of worms for the government and H.S.E This is only the start.It has to be a good thing though because apart from the abortion issue which is central it also raises the whole question of maternity care in Ireland. Consultants double job and in this situation public patients do not get the same level of continunity of care as the private ones. On top of that maternity hospital waiting room areas are like over crowded bus stations( at least that was my experience) the toilet floors were covered in pee( due to women giving urine samples) and sometimes I had to wait three hours to have a five minute consultation.

Agreed...and i hope BOTH sides will hold the govt to account on the standard of maternity care and healthcare in general.

Your experience is not air to you as a patient and belittles the idea of a health service.

I really hope the greater good or all can be achieved on the back of this.

This speaks to the general maternity and health care in the public service.

poeticseraphim

username123 wrote: »

My mother is no longer with us so I cant question her on it but if memory serves it was just a known thing that some hospitals had a Catholic ethos and some didnt. It was understood that if a pregnancy got into difficulty (miscarriage or during childbirth) that the Coombe would direct efforts towards saving the mother over the child - I think perhaps the Rotunda was the same (although as I say, not sure)

You would have to ask a much older woman (someone who gave birth prior to 1983 in Dublin) about the ethos of the different maternity hospitals - I did think about this a few days ago but as I said, I cant confirm it as my mother isnt around to ask.

I was only told this today or the first time! I am truly shocked.

I don't think that's pro-life is it???

That's mad..

We should ask older women...there input is probably not online....

Imagine treating women like that.....OOOoooh i had better be careful ....rage and the keyboard..not a good combo

pwurple

poeticseraphim wrote: »

But I also don't want to fall to the argument of personal infallibility due to your emotional circumstances or the circumstances of others.

My statement was regarding miscarriage and eclampsia. I understand fully what eclampsia is.

There is a difference between an elective abortion and a therapeutic abortion.However they are both still abortions.

Really and honestly, do you actually believe that an emergency c-section with eclampsia where the child may die due to their early delivery or complications, is an abortion? These are recorded as a neonatal death or stillbirth on the death certificate, which is a legal document. No-one in any profession I am aware of defines emergency c-sections as abortive or termination procedures.

I am not trying to claim any kind of infallibility, but to say these are abortions is just simply not the case in either law or in medicine.

I actually cannot even reconcile in my head how or why you think a 24 to 30 week c-section, with the explicit intention of saving both the mother and baby, is by definition, an abortion. It is a very skewed rationale to invent for yourself, and is of no value to anyone, legally, medically or to the patient. Is every full-term still birth also an abortion by extension of your defintion? It is pure unadulterated hyperbole.

I don't want to reduce this to semantics, but as soon as you even scratch the surface beneath the hand-wringing and moaning, the whole thing completely falls to pieces, as it is built on nothing except a media charade. Those reporters had awareness of this case a full 3 weeks before breaking it, they were waiting, quite literally, for a slow news day to spin this into a hot-topic abortion paper-seller, rather than a miscarriage with fatal infection.

This poor family is just a pawn in a horrendous public circus and I feel so sorry for them.

The only piece of this newspaper frenzy that worries me is the husband being told "this is a catholic country". If that is true, then that should not have happened. The rest is hot air.

poeticseraphim wrote: »

Imagine treating women like that.....OOOoooh i had better be careful ....rage and the keyboard..not a good combo

Another bad combo is lack of facts beyond gossip and rampant hysteria.

Flier

pwurple wrote: »

These are recorded as a neonatal death or stillbirth on the death certificate, which is a legal document.

Just on a point of semantics - In Irish law, to be registered as a stillbirth, the foetus must have reached 24 weeks or weigh greater than 500g. And as Ireland doesn't register abortions, I've no idea what a stillborn (for want of a better word) delivered before 24 weeks and less than 500g would be called.

Pawwed Rig

Flier wrote: »

Just on a point of semantics - In Irish law, to be registered as a stillbirth, the foetus must have reached 24 weeks or weigh greater than 500g. And as Ireland doesn't register abortions, I've no idea what a stillborn (for want of a better word) delivered before 24 weeks and less than 500g would be called.

Miscarriage?

Flier

I mean in the situation where the labour was induced or a c section was performed. Then it's not a misscaraige!

riclad

IT seems to be the policy ,to not do anything for the woman ,if theres a foetal heartbeat, unless theres a clear sign that the woman will be at risk of death,
even if they know the foetus was not viable .
I,M GOING by radio reports ,im not a medical expert .
I,M pro choice ,it sounds to me like doctors are afraid of legal action or discipline from medical boards ,superiors .
SO they prefer to let a woman suffer in pain even if the child has NO CHANCE of living ,and prefer to
leave her at the risk of dying or getting a serious infection.
I THOUGHT we were now a multicultural society ,
the quality of medical treatment you get should not
depend on your religion or the doctors religion.

it seems like doctors are happy to cease a pregnancy if theres no foetal hearbeat.
FROM reports i,ve heard doctors may be reluctant
to give painkillers or antibiotics ,cos it may effect the foetus.

i feel this woman may have lived or got better treatment in dublin,
or the doctors in dublin might be more experienced
or interfered quicker to save her life.
AS in many things country people tend to be more
conservative , cautious than dublin people.
OR certain hospital have a catholic ethos ,even though they are 100 per cent funded by the hse.
IF THE doctors in this case were female , she may have not died.
I HOPE they,ll have to bring in new laws ,to protect
women, and give the doctors protection against
possible lawsuits, ie if a doctor thinks a woman,s life
or health is at risk he can do whatever is necessary
to protect her , including having the choice of giving her painkillers or antibiotics ,if the think its necessary.
IF a woman is in that situation ,she should have the choice of getting a 2nd opinion from a doctor ,who doesnt work at that hospital.

Loafing Oaf

pwurple wrote: »

The only piece of this newspaper frenzy that worries me is the husband being told "this is a catholic country". If that is true, then that should not have happened. The rest is hot air.

And the suggestion that Savita might have been denied a life-saving medical intervention, sure who'd be worried about trivia like that?

poeticseraphim

pwurple wrote: »

Really and honestly, do you actually believe that an emergency c-section with eclampsia where the child may die due to their early delivery or complications, is an abortion? These are recorded as a neonatal death or stillbirth on the death certificate, which is a legal document. No-one in any profession I am aware of defines emergency c-sections as abortive or termination procedures.

Before 24 weeks they do.

I am not trying to claim any kind of infallibility, but to say these are abortions is just simply not the case in either law or in medicine.

I actually cannot even reconcile in my head how or why you think a 24 to 30 week c-section, with the explicit intention of saving both the mother and baby, is by definition, an abortion. It is a very skewed rationale to invent for yourself, and is of no value to anyone, legally, medically or to the patient. Is every full-term still birth also an abortion by extension of your defintion? It is pure unadulterated hyperbole.

I never said after 24 weeks ...pre 24 weeks emergency c sections for pre-eclampsia may happen from 20 weeks on. It is an abortion.

I don't want to reduce this to semantics, but as soon as you even scratch the surface beneath the hand-wringing and moaning, the whole thing completely falls to pieces, as it is built on nothing except a media charade. Those reporters had awareness of this case a full 3 weeks before breaking it, they were waiting, quite literally, for a slow news day to spin this into a hot-topic abortion paper-seller, rather than a miscarriage with fatal infection.

This poor family is just a pawn in a horrendous public circus and I feel so sorry for them.

The only piece of this newspaper frenzy that worries me is the husband being told "this is a catholic country". If that is true, then that should not have happened. The rest is hot air.



Another bad combo is lack of facts beyond gossip and rampant hysteria.

I disagree with everything you just said. I have a feeling you will be proven wrong.

The fact that you seem worried about everything except her death is weird. Who cares about the media circus it was bound to happen.

And it has emerged that it was the family and Savita's friends who contact the Pro-choice groups etc before ...they wanted to do everything they could to make the case public.

Other cases that have been documented are coming out again..this will not be swept under the carpet...

Sheila Hodgers ...Michelle harte....

This is only going to get bigger

A UK Prof ...Prof Alrulkulmaran is to lead the investigation.

This is a uk article of the family's account.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/17/ireland-abortion-case-father

It does not sound like hot air...it sounds like a logical plausible account and even the prof O'Dwyer said the pregnancy should have been terminated.(I am paraphrasing).

Before you said you did not want to come to a conclusion.

It seems clear that you do and have .

You have stated before you are pro-choice.(correct me if i am wrong)

Why on earth was this woman's life not saved??? Why is she dead??
That is the important issue...and making sure the law NEVER allows this again.

For me and others there is a wider issue of abortion on demand. Some may not like that but there you go.

pwurple

poeticseraphim wrote: »

Why on earth was this woman's life not saved??? Why is she dead??

You have no idea why she is dead. None of us do. This is my whole point.

She is likely to be dead because she got an infection that was either not treated with the correct antibiotics, or it wasn't detected on time.

The law does not prevent that treatment at all... but don't let that get in the way of a good story.

Macha

pwurple wrote: »

She is likely to be dead because she got an infection that was either not treated with the correct antibiotics, or it wasn't detected on time.

The law does not prevent that treatment at all... but don't let that get in the way of a good story.

Not detected in time? The women was in agony for 3 days before she died and before they carried out the d&c.

The law does prevent her getting the necessary treatment if that treatment is a d&c, the foetus is still alive and only the woman's health, not life, is considered in danger.

poeticseraphim

pwurple wrote: »

You have no idea why she is dead. None of us do. This is my whole point.

She is likely to be dead because she got an infection that was either not treated with the correct antibiotics, or it wasn't detected on time.

The law does not prevent that treatment at all... but don't let that get in the way of a good story.

First you state your point is that no one knows why she died. Claiming this you say is why no one should speculate. And then you state why you think died and and speculate away.

You want no one else to speculate ....except for what you want people to think..no other speculations are ok except your own.

What is with the attitude?

And what exactly is YOUR agenda?

And you have no idea what you are talking about either .

She was given antibiotics on day one which means she was swabbed which means they knew the strain of the infection and the level of infection....but you know what it does not matter giving anti-biotics to a woman with an open cervix for three days is like giving anti-biotics to a someone with a wide open headwound. It is not going to help much. What caused her infection? Sepsis is survivable if the source of infection is removed which may or may have not been the fetus. But the fact her cervix was open was identified as a cause of infection by the coroner. But if it was non viable it should have been a non brainer and she should had it removed as part of the treatment.

And if she was given anti-biotics she would have been swapped .This would have given them the strain of whatever infection she had and the level of infection .T hey would have been able to give her adequate anti-biotics where there a chance they would be affective at that time. Otherwise why bother? This indicates the swab did not show antibiotic resistant infection at this time. Otherwise administering them would be pointless. If she had sepsis before she needed or asked for a termination....then it would not have saved her. And the only way she could have had sepsis before that would mean the fetus or the open cervix was not the source. It could have been a line or something for example. But the Swab would have showed it. And the fact is that if she had the strain of resistant antibiotics before she requested a termination they would not have given her antibiotics. If she got that infection after she asked for an abortion...then it could have saved her life. But that is not what the coroner is reported to have said. He is reported to have said it was the open cervix.

However if the fetus was the source of the infection and an open cervix then unless it was removed she was screwed. And she was tested for infection before hand and they gave her antibiotics which indicated she had not septicemia at that point.

The question is when she got the infection...prior to asking for a termination means it would not have helped if it she got it after it could ave saved her. And she was tested for infection before hand and they gave her antibiotics which indicated she had not an anti-biotic resistant infection at that point. But got it after. Which would mean an abortion could have prevented it.

With the swab the level of infection should have been detected and the fetus removed. That would have been part of the treatment.


The fact that the fetus may have been the source of the infection will be an issue . It has been reported that the coroner said the infection was caused by the fact her cervix was open so long.


But anti-biotics are a mute point. It is not going to help if your cervix is open three days ...it is akin to prescribing them for a head wound.


The enquiry will no doubt throw light on it. And we will find out whether an abortion would have saved her life or not.And it would not have been an induction as Savita's cervix had not been primed which takes time and sometimes a few attempts and she was probably not far enough.


Look..there is a wider issue of professional culture and the system The HSE don't even keep statistics on abortions carried out in the state. We do not simply know if women have in the past died or not. We do not know how many women actually have abortions. We know nothing. The medical profession speak out frequently about this. The ECHR found the state's attitude to abortion to be somewhat chilling.

The enquiry will find out if an abortion would have saved her life and would have been best practise or not.
It is part of why Prof Arulkurmaran was chosen ....he has a lot of experience in this field.


The aim of the enquiry is to find out about the situation around her death whether an abortion would have saved her.Whether the fetus was the source of the infection along with her cervix being open so long. They know what killed her...sepsis...they want to know would and abortion have prevented that or helped the level of infection.

Yeah i know ..I am no medical expert..i am speculating..well so were you ..what is your agenda ?

You seem to want to frame the debate as much as anyone..as i said it seems no one else's speculations are ok but yours.

username123

Macha wrote: »

The law does prevent her getting the necessary treatment if that treatment is a d&c, the foetus is still alive and only the woman's health, not life, is considered in danger.

Exactly, it has been annoying to me the way the pro-life lobby have been muddying the water by constantly jumping on the 'lets wait for the exact facts before we make any decisions' bandwagon.

The point is, regardless of the exact facts of THIS case, the law prevents a woman from getting necessary treatment if that treatment is a termination and the foetus still has a heartbeat and only her health, but not her life, is in danger. The precise facts of Savitas case are irrelevant, the case has highlighted an area in law where a woman could die because of the lack of legislation (and totally archaic abortion laws) in this country.

The Corinthian

username123 wrote: »

Exactly, it has been annoying to me the way the pro-life lobby have been muddying the water by constantly jumping on the 'lets wait for the exact facts before we make any decisions' bandwagon.

While the 'pro-choice' lobby have been doing the opposite, by converting this tragedy into a vehicle to push their own agenda.

I'm not taking the 'pro-life' side here, quite the opposite - they tried the same thing recently over the recent counselling services offering the abortion pill scandal, while 'pro-choice' lobby equally attempted to dampen down that story, just as the 'pro-life' lobby is doing now.

What is quite depressing is the almost fanatical nature of both sides in this issue to exploit tragedy or scandal to push their diametrically opposed agendas. I can't help but feel that their agendas are more important to them than the people they claim to protect.

The point is, regardless of the exact facts of THIS case, the law prevents a woman from getting necessary treatment if that treatment is a termination and the foetus still has a heartbeat and only her health, but not her life, is in danger.

I think the facts though are relevant here, as my understanding is that the hospital was legally obliged to offer a termination where the mother's life was at risk due to the pregnancy. That is, it wasn't ultimately the law that stopped this poor woman getting the necessary treatment, but something else.

That this was not done may thus be down to a medical professional knowingly breaking the law, for religious or other ideological reasons, or gross medical negligence - and let's be honest, it's not as if the latter is unheard of.

username123

The Corinthian wrote: »

While the 'pro-choice' lobby have been doing the opposite, by converting this tragedy into a vehicle to push their own agenda.

Im sorry, but I do not see anything negative in this? Surely its right and good that the case has generated discussion and an investigation? Would you prefer if no one talked about it? What difference does it make what particular incident triggers discussion and change?

All the case itself has done is serve as a flashpoint. No one is disputing that it is a tragedy. Of course it is a tragedy.

I am unconcerned what cases are used for supporting evidence - by either side. What is far more important for women in this country, is that this discussion is finally happening.

I have not had a choice in what happens to my own body if I happen to become pregnant since before I was of childbearing age. Now I am coming to the end of my fertility and still I have no choice about what happens to my own body in this country. So yes, I welcome debate and do not get caught up in the irrelevancies of what triggered such debate - again, thats just muddying the water.

Loafing Oaf

The Corinthian wrote: »

I think the facts though are relevant here, as my understanding is that the hospital was legally obliged to offer a termination where the mother's life was at risk due to the pregnancy. That is, it wasn't ultimately the law that stopped this poor woman getting the necessary treatment, but something else.

That this was not done may thus be down to a medical professional knowingly breaking the law, for religious or other ideological reasons, or gross medical negligence - and let's be honest, it's not as if the latter is unheard of.

Going by the husband's account, it doesn't sound like common-or-garden negligence to me, the medical staff seemed to be tic-tacing regularly with the couple, closely monitoring Savita's condition. In any case, you have to think the staff will tell the inquiry they believed they were following the dictates of the law, saying anything else would leave them open to all kinds of legal consequences.

The Corinthian

username123 wrote: »

Im sorry, but I do not see anything negative in this? Surely its right and good that the case has generated discussion and an investigation?

Only as long as that discussion leads twoards your preferred ideological end apparently. As I pointed out, just as the 'pro-life' side is attempting to sideline this debate, the 'pro-choice' side did much the same a few weeks ago, when the story of abortion pills being handed out by councillors broke.

Would you prefer if no one talked about it? What difference does it make what particular incident triggers discussion and change?

Talked about what? Apparently, "regardless of the exact facts" we should discuss the question of the legalization of abortion - so if this event is triggering any discussion, it's only because it is being exploited for cynical ends, just as it would be were the 'pro-life' side to exploit a botched legal abortion, that resulted in a woman's death.

The exact facts are important, because if the law was already in place to allow a termination to save the woman's life, then directing the debate twoards changing this area of the law will do nothing other than distract from the actual reason she died. Ironically, hijacking the discussion may end up facilitating other women suffering the same fate in the future - regardless of whether abortion is legal in Ireland or not.

All the case itself has done is serve as a flashpoint. No one is disputing that it is a tragedy. Of course it is a tragedy.

The tragedy has become a secondary consideration - effectively a 'distraction' - and this is what I personally object to.

Indeed, I've come to the conclusion that so entrenched are the two sides that neither really gives a damn about womens' rights, the life of the unborn or whatever. It's just about winning.

I am unconcerned what cases are used for supporting evidence - by either side. What is far more important for women in this country, is that this discussion is finally happening.

The end justifies the mean, in other words. This is what I am criticizing.

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Going by the husband's account, it doesn't sound like common-or-garden negligence to me, the medical staff seemed to be tic-tacing regularly with the couple, closely monitoring Savita's condition. In any case, you have to think the staff will tell the inquiry they believed they were following the dictates of the law, saying anything else would leave them open to all kinds of legal consequences.

I think you're making some presumptions on the staff's motivations. It's quite possible that they may have been aware of the mother's condition and that the best course of action, to save her life, was a termination, yet neglected this for religious or ideological reasons - in effect a criminal action. It may also be ultimately down to incompetence, regardless of your husband's opinion. Or it may be something else or a combination of factors.

What it comes down to is that a termination is legal in Ireland where a mother's life is at risk. This was not done. Why?

username123

The Corinthian wrote: »

What it comes down to is that a termination is legal in Ireland where a mother's life is at risk. This was not done. Why?

Because according to what has been printed so far, her life was not at risk after Wednesday evening, after the D&C had already been performed. Up until that point, her health was at risk, not her life. And a womans health at risk is not enough - in this country.

Loafing Oaf

The Corinthian wrote: »

I think you're making some presumptions on the staff's motivations. It's quite possible that they may have been aware of the mother's condition and that the best course of action, to save her life, was a termination, yet neglected this for religious or ideological reasons - in effect a criminal action.

If that's what happened, do you think it's what they are going to tell the inquiry?

username123

The Corinthian wrote: »

Only as long as that discussion leads twoards your preferred ideological end apparently.

This discussion will never lead to my personal idealogical end, but hey, dont let your assumption of what Id like to see happening stop you.

Pawwed Rig

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

If that's what happened, do you think it's what they are going to tell the inquiry?

There may not be an inquiry

Enda Kenny is to make an appeal to Mr Halappanavar.

Hopefully he holds out for what he wants. He is really going against the way 'things are done here' by asking for independence and public accountability. The govt are not happy

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1121/howlin-halappanavar.html

The Corinthian

username123 wrote: »

Because according to what has been printed so far, her life was not at risk after Wednesday evening, after the D&C had already been performed.

Clearly it was though.

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

If that's what happened, do you think it's what they are going to tell the inquiry?

Nothing. Internal investigation, resulting in nothing happening to anyone. From what I can see, that's normally how the medical profession operates in Ireland.

username123 wrote: »

This discussion will never lead to my personal idealogical end, but hey, dont let your assumption of what Id like to see happening stop you.

I'm not assuming anything - in fairness, you've made it pretty clear what you want to see happening.

Pawwed Rig

There is an interview with Praveen Halappanavar on PrimeTime tonight which should shed some light on actual events rather than what has been reported to date

Loafing Oaf

The Corinthian wrote: »

Nothing. Internal investigation, resulting in nothing happening to anyone. From what I can see, that's normally how the medical profession operates in Ireland.

I don't think they'll get away with that this time, there will have to be some kind of public investigation. And, IMO, it will inevitably end up throwing the spotlight back on our abortion law, or lack thereof.

username123

The Corinthian wrote: »

Clearly it was though.

Can you link to where it clearly states this? According to newspaper reports and various doctors who have commented on the case (last night on PrimeTime for example), her life was not in danger (its a subjective clinical opinion anyway), until after the D&C when her condition worsened, although her health clearly was.

username123

The Corinthian wrote: »

I'm not assuming anything - in fairness, you've made it pretty clear what you want to see happening.

Feel free to enlighten me on what Id like to see happening?