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

The Corinthian

username123 wrote: »

Can you link to where it clearly states this?

I hardly need to; she died, after all - you don't need much more proof that her life was in danger, TBH.

The question remains was this a misdiagnosis, and if not, on what basis was it classified that her health rather than life was in danger? The ramifications of those questions are frankly a lot more important than the abortion debate, as they would likely affect the way that the medical establishment operates in Ireland, just not in natal care, but in all fields.

username123 wrote: »

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

It hardly takes a genius, given your previous posts, to figure out that what you'd like to see happening is if this tragedy ends up acting as a catalyst for the legalization of abortion in Ireland. Am I wrong?

username123

The Corinthian wrote: »

I hardly need to; she died, after all - you don't need much more proof that her life was in danger, TBH.

Yes, but we only know that retrospectively.

The Corinthian wrote: »

The question remains was this a misdiagnosis, and if not, on what basis was it classified that her health rather than life was in danger? The ramifications of those questions are frankly a lot more important than the abortion debate, as they would likely affect the way that the medical establishment operates in Ireland, just not in natal care, but in all fields.

Im not sure what you mean by this?
I think its been clear in everything Ive read or watched on the case so far that there is agreement that her health was what was in danger, not her life and that to terminate a living foetus would constitute a criminal act - so they didnt.

The Corinthian wrote: »

It hardly takes a genius, given your previous posts, to figure out that what you'd like to see happening is if this tragedy ends up acting as a catalyst for the legalization of abortion in Ireland. Am I wrong?

Yes you are wrong. What I would like to see is a referendum of scaled choices to get a notion of what the electorate of this country wants. My personal opinion on abortion is irrelevant, as is yours. I want to know what the people of this country as a whole think and then for the government to legislate based on that outcome. And I doubt that such a progressive action would come out of this debate.

The electorate of this country has changed since the constitutional ban on abortion in 1983. There has been far more access to education, the church has loosened its grip and people have been subjected to a far more open and varied media including use of the internet, tv, etc.. So I believe the subject needs to be revisited.

ashers22

The Corinthian wrote: »

Am I wrong?

I avoided delving into this thread originally, partially because the initial reports were so shocking that I personally wasn't emotionally able to confront it and also because I knew it would bring emotive viewpoints from both sides of the divide.
I'm not a medical practitioner and I'm aware (as are most) that pending investigation, the full facts of the case have yet to be disclosed but the issue has been brought to the table and I don't believe it is fair to say it has been done so just to accomodate any particular agenda other than the desire of a husband to determine whether his wife's death could have been prevented if our position regarding the legality of abortion were different.
He seems to think so.
I've found the discussion here to be for the most part, rational and civil and I fail to see why you have selected one particular poster who has conveyed her p.o.v. in that manner and decided to umpire this discussion. In effect you appear to be attempting to question the posters agenda rather than responding to, or even concerning yourself with their points.

It is unfortunate that a womans death has been the catalyst which brings us to this point of debate once more but that does not mean that it is being used nefariously to achieve some kind of underhand goal.

I'm sure the primetime interview will be of interest to many here.

The Corinthian

username123 wrote: »

Yes, but we only know that retrospectively.

I think you missed my point.

I think its been clear in everything Ive read or watched on the case so far that there is agreement that her health was what was in danger

That isn't clear though, if it was there wouldn't been much need for an investigation, would there?

Yes you are wrong. What I would like to see is a referendum of scaled choices to get a notion of what the electorate of this country wants. My personal opinion on abortion is irrelevant, as is yours. I want to know what the people of this country as a whole think and then for the government to legislate based on that outcome. And I doubt that such a progressive action would come out of this debate.

Hold on, you asked me to suggest what I thought you'd like to see happening, so your personal opinion on abortion is hardly irrelevant - it's actually the subject of this query. So hiding behind a political 'will of the people' answer doesn't really cut it, TBH, because you've been pretty open about what you would like to see happen in this thread and you weren't talking about the 'will of the people' then.

The electorate of this country has changed since the constitutional ban on abortion in 1983. There has been far more access to education, the church has loosened its grip and people have been subjected to a far more open and varied media including use of the internet, tv, etc.. So I believe the subject needs to be revisited.

Certainly the demographics of Ireland have changed dramatically in the last thirty years (although I'm not convinced that access to education has changed that dramatically). I'd also add immigration and increased acceptance of abortion in the EU as factors.

Importantly the 'pro-Life' lobby has lost most of its media influence, which it previously excreted principally through the Roman Catholic Church, while the 'pro-choice' lobby is far represented in the media, particularly with journalists and social groups that essentially didn't exist thirty years ago.

Personally, I suspect that abortion would likely be legalized in Ireland were there a referendum, but it's difficult to say by what margin - often the oddest people turn out to be against it or for it, I find.

This is why it is probably important to both lobby groups to exploit tragedies such as this - after all, the X Case on it's own changed public opinion to pass the legalization of abortion information - something that was considered a lost cause before that story broke.

So while I'd admit I'm a cynical old bugger, even I've been taken aback by quite how amoral in their pursuit of their agendas both lobbies have become.

ashers22 wrote: »

I've found the discussion here to be for the most part, rational and civil and I fail to see why you have selected one particular poster who has conveyed her p.o.v. in that manner and decided to umpire this discussion. In effect you appear to be attempting to question the posters agenda rather than responding to, or even concerning yourself with their points.

What I'm not allowed to disagree with another's POV?

My original post was not directed at the poster in question at all, but some of her assertions and how they unfortunately relate to the abortion debate in general - she just happened to post more recently than any other. After that, she has been responding to me, so unless you'd prefer if I just ignored her, I don't really see how else the discussion would turn out.

And please do not accuse me of attempting to umpire this discussion - I am simply giving a different POV. Ironically in accusing me of this, you become guilty precisely of the same thing.

Pawwed Rig

There we go. James Reilly has saved the situation by pushing ahead with a HSE inquiry whether Mr Halappanavar likes it or not. That should kick it down the road for a few weeks until the uneducated public stop whinging about an issue that has nothing to do with them.

We shouldn't be forced to change or bumbling inefficient bureaucratic nonsensical inquiry system that never ultimately points the finger at anyone for some foreigner just because his wife died.


Congratulations Mr Reilly.


Say No to accountability
No to transparency
No to justice
It is the Irish way

username123

The Corinthian wrote: »

Hold on, you asked me to suggest what I thought you'd like to see happening, so your personal opinion on abortion is hardly irrelevant - it's actually the subject of this query. So hiding behind a political 'will of the people' answer doesn't really cut it, TBH, because you've been pretty open about what you would like to see happen in this thread and you weren't talking about the 'will of the people' then.

Im really pretty unconcerned with what you think 'cuts it' in terms of my own opinion - thanks.

poeticseraphim

I have no issue with either side HAVING an agenda....it is silly to think that a genuine person does not have one.

But it is important to simply say it.

I am pro-choice that is my agenda.I also want to find out what happened to Savita and rectify what went wrong. The two issues are related for me ..but not the same.

If it comes about that Savita should have had an abortion then I will campaign for pro-choice.

If it turns out she should not have ....then I will campaign for pro-choice.

And it is important to be honest about that. I will not do so by lying or cheating or whatever.

I do not expect the anti-choice opinion on Irish law is going to be changed by the outcome of an inquiry.

I want a referendum where a pro-choice policy is on the ballot....there can be anti-choice policies on the ballot too.

Savita's family are free to use the media to wield power to force the Govt to act with the kind of expediency it is not otherwise known for. If her family want to try to change the law that is fine. If they want to use the pro-choice campaign to exert pressure and build momentum that is fine.

The family have demonstrated grace, dignity, guile and played this exceptionally well strategically. They have good legal and media counsel. People focus on the issue of whether Savita's inquiry caused a media circus.

It is the other way around the media circus was what exerted the pressure on the Govt to act.

My Halappanavar says he has no faith in the HSE , I would say he was blanked or fobbed off behind the scenes.

It is planned from both sides..with the Govt using te smokescreen of the pro-life side (which they often do) and Savita's family engaging with the pro-choice side.

Pro-choice campaigners have honestly said that Savita's family and friends came forward to them weeks ago and asked for help.

Don't give out about the media circus .....it is the only reason the Govt is doing anything.

Savita's advocates have exemplified perfectly how to get **** done, when you are one person against a system.

I will support them all the way....not because I am pro-choice...but because it is right to support them.

But one of the best ways to support them IS to link it to the pro-choice campaign and illistrate the state of care in Ireland and unsavory things are coming out of the woodwork. Because it puts pressure on the govt.

It may turn out to be a good old fashioned case of medical negligence or alternatively it could be the lack of emphasis on saving the life of the mother over the fetus in Irish legislation.

I have no problem saying whatever the outcome I have another agenda of trying to bring about a pro-choice referendum or legislation.

And i also do not have a problem with others having a problem with that or my stance.

I have a problem with the pro-life agenda..that's life.

The result of Savita's case inquiry may serve neither side....but i hope both sides keep the case in the papers for months!!! Otherwise the Govt will fob the family off .

I hope pro-lifers keep the abortion issue as much in the media as they did over the summer ...the pro-choice side could never have paid for that...

But the media circus is important for the family and justice for Savita....regardless of what the results are.

drkpower

The Corinthian wrote: »

I hardly need to; she died, after all - you don't need much more proof that her life was in danger, TBH.

The question remains was this a misdiagnosis, and if not, on what basis was it classified that her health rather than life was in danger? The ramifications of those questions are frankly a lot more important than the abortion debate, as they would likely affect the way that the medical establishment operates in Ireland, just not in natal care, but in all fields.

The assessment as to whether a mother's life is in danger is made prospectively, not retrospectively. It is a medical judgment; sometimes easy to make, often not.

The additional difficulty with our law, though, is that a risk to life is not sufficient. There must be a substantial risk of life, or else a terminiation is a criminal act. And the words 'substantial risk to life' are not defined. Anywhere. There are no guidelines assisting a doctor as to what the words mean in practice. Anywhere. Does it mean a 5% risk of death; does it mean 10%? Or 30? Or more? Does maternal subjectivity enter into the analysis (ie. the risk is 2%, and the mother herself believes that is a 'substantial' risk; does that mean the risk is, in law, substantial?) We dont know the answers to these questions.

We also know that there are complications of pregnancy that may cause a threat to health, but not life, which left untreated might develop into a threat to her life, but perhaps one that is short of substantial. Such complications, despite posing a threat to health and/or life, do not warrant a termination.

In that context, Savita may have been refused a termination at such time as there was a threat to her ife, but not a substantial one. That may have been because the doctors were unsure of the legal situation, and whether they would be criminally liable if they made the wrong call.

But here's the thing; even if Savita's case turn out to have been straightforward, and not muddied by the legal situation, that in no way changes the fact that our laws are unclear and need clarification.

Pawwed Rig

The latest is that James Reilly will get an interim report on this case by Christmas.
So it will take 6 weeks for a team of 6 highly paid experts to analyse the actions of one case in Galway. 6 weeks??? For an interim report!
Also it seems they will be doing it without access to the medical records as these are not going to be made available to the inquiry.

You couldn't make this stuff up

Curly Judge

drkpower wrote: »

The assessment as to whether a mother's life is in danger is made prospectively, not retrospectively. It is a medical judgment; sometimes easy to make, often not.

The additional difficulty with our law, though, is that a risk to life is not sufficient. There must be a substantial risk of life, or else a terminiation is a criminal act. And the words 'substantial risk to life' are not defined. Anywhere. There are no guidelines assisting a doctor as to what the words mean in practice. Anywhere. Does it mean a 5% risk of death; does it mean 10%? Or 30? Or more? Does maternal subjectivity enter into the analysis (ie. the risk is 2%, and the mother herself believes that is a 'substantial' risk; does that mean the risk is, in law, substantial?) We dont know the answers to these questions.

We also know that there are complications of pregnancy that may cause a threat to health, but not life, which left untreated might develop into a threat to her life, but perhaps one that is short of substantial. Such complications, despite posing a threat to health and/or life, do not warrant a termination.

In that context, Savita may have been refused a termination at such time as there was a threat to her ife, but not a substantial one. That may have been because the doctors were unsure of the legal situation, and whether they would be criminally liable if they made the wrong call.

But here's the thing; even if Savita's case turn out to have been straightforward, and not muddied by the legal situation, that in no way changes the fact that our laws are unclear and need clarification.

Can any risk to life be insubstantial.
Health and safety in industry waste billions every year guarding against insubstantial risks.
But then, I suppose, pregnancy is different!:rolleyes:

drkpower

Curly Judge wrote: »

Can any risk to life be insubstantial.

Isnt that the question?!And the problem!

I'd like to say yes, but in law, I dont think so. The obvious retort to an argument along those lines is that if any risk to life were substantial, why did the Spreme Court choose to use that word, when to do so would be superfluous. A standard rule of legal interpretation is that words tend not to be used when they are superfluous in that manner.

Curly Judge

drkpower wrote: »

Isnt that the question?!And the problem!

I'd like to say yes, but in law, I dont think so. The obvious retort to an argument along those lines is that if any risk to life were substantial, why did the Spreme Court choose to use that word, when to do so would be superfluous. A standard rule of legal interpretation is that words tend not to be used when they are superfluous in that manner.

Perhaps a better rule and one that would serve us all better in the long run, in all branches of the law, would be to not use words that are ambiguous.
Up is not ambiguous. Upward is.
Down is not ambiguous. Downward is.
Substantial definatly is!
Where is Binchy these days?
He's keeping very quiet.
And it was his stupid wording which got us all in this mess.

periodictable

Perhaps it's time to leave men out of this business and let women decide what the law should be. They are the ones most affected by it.

Curly Judge

periodictable wrote: »

Perhaps it's time to leave men out of this business and let women decide what the law should be. They are the ones most affected by it.

Could ye all not do what our grandmothers did and go out and find babies under heads of cabbage?
No trouble with pesky lawyers back in dem days!:)

Carlos Orange

periodictable wrote: »

Perhaps it's time to leave men out of this business and let women decide what the law should be. They are the ones most affected by it.

Posts like this always make me wonder what sort of future fatherhood has in western society.

poeticseraphim

http://www.fiamc.org/fiamc/03events/0209seoul/texts3/01odwyer/odwyer.htm

By Prof Eamon O'Dwyer retired head of Obstetrics at Galway Hospital.

Read it.

Unfortunately, not so --- Nine years later, a girl of 14, pregnant after consensual intercourse with a grown man, a case of unlawful carnal knowledge, was injuncted by the High Court.

??Oh WOW.....Besides the fact that legally a 14 yr old cannot consent ..it was a well known case of rape. And what kind of person writes that?

He is also against contraception for women.

This decision of the Supreme Court opened the flood gates, as it were, to the widespread use of the contraceptive pill in Ireland. I stated earlier that Ireland was a Catholic country, with 94 per cent of the population in a recent census describing themselves as Roman Catholic. Unfortunately, we appear to lack the fortitude which enabled our ancestors steadfastly to remain Catholic in word and deed; many nowadays are what might be called al a carte Catholics. While the Country has never been so affluent, with more people gainfully employed than ever before in our history, there has been a significant increase in drug addiction, crimes of violence, suicide, especially among young men, and at the same time a decline in religious observance.

This guy is crazy!!!

And he is head of obstetrics and gynecology at Galway hospital. Where Savita died. How can someone with those beliefs provide adequate medical care.

He has no place in medicine.

Not only does he not believe in contraception, he believes a 14 yr old is capable of giving consent to having sex with a grown man and he does not believe in contraception.

*MOD edit* Some of your post removed. I realise this is a very emotive subject but please let us dial back on the kinda posts that could get the poster and this website in trouble. Thank you.

Ellsbells

I feel dreadfully sorry for the pain the lady must have gone through and the pain her husband is suffering however I do think the media and certain invested individuals have turned this into a roadshow. Is there room for a debate on abortion? Yes. Is there an investigation to be completed? Yes.

However I do believe that if this lady was not a dentist and Indian then there would not be this furore. Ill bet there would not be the same coverage and outroar is the lady who died was an Irish traveller for example. We, as a country, like to be seen to be 'nice' and not racist and this is applicable here. A harsh reality but the truth and pretty typical of the manner in which Irish public responds to tragedy and the associated news stories are run in the Irish media...

The Indian govenrnment, especially based on the selective gender abortions which are carried out there should not be telling another state how to govern. I also find it ironic that the couple did not want the religious based Irish laws to apply to them wanted to out out of the laws on the land based on the fact that they are Hindu.

Bottom line is that we are talking about two separate issues - or should be!! One issue is the right to abortion in this state. The other is that an impartial medical investigation needs to take place to discover why this death occured and if improvments need to be made in the processes that they are put in place. The lady should not die in vain but the country should not be held to random or subjected to an expensive public enquiry, which only serves to make barriesters rich on the basis of one death.

planetX

Ellsbells wrote: »

I feel dreadfully sorry for the pain the lady must have gone through and the pain her husband is suffering however I do think the media and certain invested individuals have turned this into a roadshow. Is there room for a debate on abortion? Yes. Is there an investigation to be completed? Yes.

However I do believe that if this lady was not a dentist and Indian then there would not be this furore. Ill bet there would not be the same coverage and outroar is the lady who died was an Irish traveller for example. We, as a country, like to be seen to be 'nice' and not racist and this is applicable here. A harsh reality but the truth and pretty typical of the manner in which Irish public responds to tragedy and the associated news stories are run in the Irish media...

The Indian govenrnment, especially based on the selective gender abortions which are carried out there should not be telling another state how to govern. I also find it ironic that the couple did not want the religious based Irish laws to apply to them wanted to out out of the laws on the land based on the fact that they are Hindu.

Bottom line is that we are talking about two separate issues - or should be!! One issue is the right to abortion in this state. The other is that an impartial medical investigation needs to take place to discover why this death occured and if improvments need to be made in the processes that they are put in place. The lady should not die in vain but the country should not be held to random or subjected to an expensive public enquiry, which only serves to make barriesters rich on the basis of one death.

maybe there is an uproar because so many people in this country no longer want religious based laws. I find the concept so unbelievably offensive, it's from the dark ages.

Ellsbells

planetX wrote: »

maybe there is an uproar because so many people in this country no longer want religious based laws. I find the concept so unbelievably offensive, it's from the dark ages.

I didnt explain that clearly...

I dont agree with religious based laws especially as I have no religion at all.

My point was that there should be no option to influence law either way based on religion i.e. the laws shouldnt be 'catholic' in the first place but then again you shouldnt be exempt from the law of the land because you are not catholic...

username123

Ellsbells wrote: »

I also find it ironic that the couple did not want the religious based Irish laws to apply to them wanted to out out of the laws on the land based on the fact that they are Hindu.

I could be wrong but I got the impression that this was something uttered in desperation because the lady couldnt bear the pain she was in - as opposed to a calculated 'opt out'.

On your point about Irish Travellers - of course you wouldnt hear anything, but for the reason that Irish Travellers wouldnt be educated enough to question the authority of a doctor. How an Irish Traveller would be treated would be just as open to a call of racism as an Indian person. This is the first time Ive seen racism mentioned at all actually, I wasnt under the impression racism had any part in this case?

Yes, there are definitely two separate issues, but one has been the trigger for discussion about the other - and although many people like to muddy the water by claiming that it is somehow amoral to discuss abortion off the back of a tragedy or claim that more facts need to be known etc... The fact is that there is the Savita case - a tragedy and more investigation needed. Then there is, the abortion issue, for which our laws are woefully archaic, unclear and in need of clarification if not complete overhaul.

Pawwed Rig

I agree with previous post although I think the fact that the couple were Indian and the Indian government are putting pressure on the Irish is a big factor in this case.
If it was an traveller or an Irish person then I think this would have been swept under the carpet

pwurple

Macha wrote: »

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.

Macha, I don't want to dismiss this, but I don't think it's as obvious as you're claiming. I've read contradicting reports on it. Her parents interview in the guardian said she was in great spirits two days before her death, sitting up smiling in the bed, seemingly fine. The independant is the one that said 3 days in agony.

I'll repeat for about the 5th time, we don't actually know what happened here yet. There is no report published yet.

@poeticseraphim

I am pro-choice that is my agenda.

You are free to have a point of view, and I even share it, but I don't think it's right to hijack this families tragedy and use it for that particular agenda.

I think this family are dealing with enough without the constant barrage of media attention, which I think can only harm them. I'm cynical enough to consider that a solicitor makes a boatload more fees from a public inquiry than a private one. I'm warey that anyone who comments publicly in particular from a pro-choice point of view is USING this poor family to get what they want for themselves. I think that's unethical.

Ellsbells

I absolutely agree with the last poster who said it more succinctly than I did - let no one be fooled, there are people, including pro abortion people using these people's tragedy to promote their own agendas.

Of course there is a race issue here - does that mean its racism to acknowledge that the couple have been treated differently, esp by the media, because they are non Irish? Not in my book!

Lingua Franca

If I had a euro for every time an anti-choice person said "agenda"... I'd give it all to the Abortion Support Network.

Ellsbells

Lingua Franca wrote: »

If I had a euro for every time an anti-choice person said "agenda"...

Who said I was antichoice?

Everyone has an agenda and everyone is entitled to an opinion.

Lingua Franca

Ellsbells wrote: »

pro abortion people

Ahem.


You're also not the only person saying "agenda" repeatedly, it wasn't particularly directed at you.

username123

Why do we have to keep talking about agendas anyway?

Can a person not just have an opinion and not be pushing an 'agenda'?

And since when was pro-abortion a stance? And since when was anti-abortion a stance?

The correct terms are pro-choice and pro-life and using a term like pro-abortion gives the impression that there are people out there with sticks calling for abortions for all - when in fact, the stance is pro-choice and advocates personal choice, one of those choices may be an abortion, but others may not.

And what difference does it make if people use the flashpoint of the tragedy of Savita to talk about their feelings (not their agendas) on abortion.

eviltwin

"Pro abortion" is a bad choice of words. I don't know a single person who is pro abortion. No one wants to see women forced into making that choice. We want all pregnancies to be wanted, I think we're all on the same page there but some people just accept thats never going to happen so believe that choice should be there for those who want it /need it.

LegacyUser

poeticseraphim wrote: »

By Prof Eamon O'Dwyer head of Obstetrics at Galway Hospital.

Very misleading. This guy may be crazy, but he is definitely not head of Obstetrics at Galway Hospital. He was head 20 years ago (appears he retired in 1993). From the article you yourself linked, his title is
Professor, emeritus, of Obstetrics and Gynaecology National University of Ireland, Galway.

And he is head of obstetrics and gynecology at Galway hospital. Where Savita died.

Again, was. He is the former head.

Ellsbells

I am not trying to be argumentative here and the Mods can take down the post if they think it is but if you choose to have an abortion or want the option to have an abortion in the future, what is so wrong with calling it pro abortion?