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

Wibbs

Eve_Dublin rather than accusing someone of being a *description deleted*(which could get this website and a user into trouble) it would be better for the debate if individual points made in such an article were taken part by contentious part and alternatives or better yet facts be laid against them.

I get this is a well emotive and contentious topic(TBH I'm personally fuming about it), but we wouldn't allow one user to call someone a liar and certainly not without backing it up so we have to extend that beyond the shores of tLL and the site to others. Don't get me wrong Honey-ec I'd love to make a long roll call of eye swiveling morons that are in positions of trust and power in this nation of ours, but... well for a start an contrary to what seems a given with many folks, sad to say we don't actually have free speech to any degree a la the US constitution.

PS I edited your post to reflect your position and not far off your original pre edit post.

Eve_Dublin

Wibbs wrote: »

Honey-ec rather than accusing someone of being a *description deleted*(which could get this website and a user into trouble) it would be better for the debate if individual points made in such an article were taken part by contentious part and alternatives or better yet facts be laid against them.

I get this is a well emotive and contentious topic(TBH I'm personally fuming about it), but we wouldn't allow one user to call someone a liar and certainly not without backing it up so we have to extend that beyond the shores of tLL and the site to others. Don't get me wrong Honey-ec I'd love to make a long roll call of eye swiveling morons that are in positions of trust and power in this nation of ours, but... well for a start an contrary to what seems a given with many folks, sad to say we don't actually have free speech to any degree a la the US constitution.

PS I edited your post to reflect your position and not far off your original pre edit post.

It wasn't Honey-ec, it was me. Sorry for posting what I said above. I added it on after posting the article and asking Boardsies what they thought. I didn't think. I'll state my argument tomorrow.

Eve_Dublin

THE case of Savita Halappanavar should make us all stop and reflect. Anyone who shares a concern for the protection of life extends their deepest sympathies to the Halappanavar family.

The question that needs to be asked is: was Ms Halappanavar treated in line with existing obstetrical practice in Ireland? In this kind of situation the baby can be induced early (though is very unlikely to survive). The decision to induce labour early would be fully in compliance with the law and the current guidelines set out for doctors by the Irish Medical Council

Those guidelines allow interventions to treat women where necessary, even if that treatment indirectly results in the death to the baby. If they aren't being followed, laws about abortion won't change that.

Okay, this bit needs to be explained to me. This is the bit I need to question: the baby wouldn't have survived at 17 weeks. If it was induced early, this would have constituted as an abortion.

noun
1.
Also called voluntary abortion. the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy.
2.
any of various surgical methods for terminating a pregnancy, especially during the first six months.
3.
Also called spontaneous abortion. miscarriage ( def. 1 ) .
4.
an immature and nonviable fetus.


Irish law hasn't legislated for this yet since case x in 1992. Would this really have been "in compliance with the law"? This is what I was questioning previously.

Perhaps I'm wrong and I'll admit to being wrong but this doesn't make sense.

MrCreosote

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I don't really care what a newspaper types up in big bold attention-grabbing print in the hope of garnering sales. What I care about is this case.

Let's forget all this stuff about the law, the Catholic church and whatever else the international media and the general public seem to be so focused on. Look at this from a medical perspective. So far, we know the following.

• She died of a septicaemic ESBL-producing E.Coli infection.
• She was admitted to hospital on a Sunday complaining of back pains and was told she was suffering a miscarriage. At this point, it doesn't appear she was in abnormally huge pain.
• On Monday, she asks for an induction to resolve the miscarriage and her request is refused due to the presence of a foetal heartbeat. At this point, i'd imagine the pain very slowly started to increase. At an estimation based on when she became symptomatic, i'd she was at least suffering from systemic inflammatory response syndrome + the early stages of sepsis.
• On Tuesday morning, she asked for another induction and was refused again. Symptoms of advanced septicaemia started to show that evening and the medical team responded by starting her on antibiotics.
• Wednesday lunchtime, the foetus died and the womb contents were removed. By evening, she is critical with weak vital signs and a high fever.
• By Saturday, her infection progressed to multiple organ failure and by the end of the day she had died.

Let's consider the scenario where they agreed to her request and aborted on Monday evening. She would have still been in a bit of pain which would have written off as normal and she would have been discharged with a prescription for painkillers. The abortion would have removed the source of the infection and some portion of the bacteria but if (as I suspect) the infection had already reached the bloodstream all it really would have done is prolong the incubation time. Instead of becoming symptomatic on Tuesday evening, she would have become symptomatic later on in the week. She'd return to the hospital again, they'd treat her with a standard antibiotic (Empirical prescribing is standard practice until they identify the species responsible for the infection) which probably wouldn't have any effect on the strain she was infected with and she'd die in the exact same way.

What medically sound reason is there to suggest that an abortion would definitely have stopped her death by septicaemia? (Providing it was already underway before she suggested an abortion as appears to be the case)

Your reasoning is incorrect. Once signs of infection develop the correct treatment is antibiotics and URGENT (basically immediate) evacuation. In hindsight this was even more important than usual because of the multiresistant strain of E coli. But regardless of the exact strain, ANY sepsis is a serious life-threatening event, even when caused by a bacterium highly sensitive to antibiotics. Another example of this would be meningococcal septicaemia, where the meningococcus are supremely sensitive to penicillin, but a person can die very quickly even after starting on huge doses of antibiotics.

The definitive treatment at 17 weeks is termination of the pregnancy- the presence or absence of a foetal heartbeat is immaterial. Would it have definitely have saved her life? Noone can say for sure with 100% certainty, but delaying treatment to see if the foetal heart has stopped (as seems to be the case from the reports) massively increased the risk that the sepsis would progress to multiorgan failure. She may not have become unwell later in the week as you suggest- her own immune defences would have been much more likely to mop up the infection if the source was removed early.

The analogy I'd use is a battlefield wound from pre-antibiotic times- if you had a wound from bullet or shrapnel, it HAD to be surgically removed or you would die from infection. Even if removed you could still get an infection of course, but it was pretty much guaranteed if it was left in you body. Still the same these days, although usually antibiotics buy more time.

The problem to me seems that, according to the husband's reports anyway, the correct treatment was delayed for religious reasons.

partyatmygaff

MrCreosote wrote: »

Your reasoning is incorrect. Once signs of infection develop the correct treatment is antibiotics and URGENT (basically immediate) evacuation. In hindsight this was even more important than usual because of the multiresistant strain of E coli.

Serious signs of infection didn't begin until Tuesday evening, a few hours before lunch time on wednesday when they evacuated the womb. As far as i'm concerned, the best treatment method would have been to watchfully wait for 24 hours and then intervene by abortion after 24 hours of admission if the miscarriage didn't resolve itself. After all that, an immediate start to a prophylactic course of antibiotics and a screening for infection.

You say my reasoning is incorrect and go on to talk about the "correct treatment" despite the fact that I didn't actually suggest a treatment plan in my post. Have a read of it again. All I did was state the technical facts available and went through the alternative scenario of an abortion on the Monday as she requested.

The definitive treatment at 17 weeks is termination of the pregnancy- the presence or absence of a foetal heartbeat is immaterial.

Treatment of what exactly?

To the medical team, it was a relatively uncomplicated miscarriage up until the moment she showed symptoms of septicaemia. I don't know how they handle situations like a prolonged miscarriage but the best treatment plan that I can think of is: Wait and watch for the first 24 hours, abort if there's no sign of it resolving itself soon and then a prophylactic course of antibiotics and an immediate test for infection as a precautionary measure.

Would it have definitely have saved her life? Noone can say for sure with 100% certainty, but delaying treatment to see if the foetal heart has stopped (as seems to be the case from the reports) massively increased the risk that the sepsis would progress to multiorgan failure. She may not have become unwell later in the week as you suggest- her own immune defences would have been much more likely to mop up the infection if the source was removed early.

It might have and it mightn't have, you really can't say for septicaemia.

Even with "normal" bacterial species and an otherwise healthy patients, septicaemia has a huge mortality rate.

The problem to me seems that, according to the husband's reports anyway, the correct treatment was delayed for religious reasons.

The government not clearing up the legality of therapeutic abortion =/= Religious reasons

If the government had made it clear that abortion was legal providing it was necessary to save the life of the mother and/or if the foetus was non-viable, then there would have been no issue with going with the ideal treatment plan. It might have worked better than the treatment plan they were forced to use but on the other hand it mightn't have made any difference. In the interests of not letting the law get in the way of the best possible treatment plan, it would be best to get legislation in place for therapeutic abortion to avoid situations like this in the future.

annettea

its such a tricky situation, at the end of the day its legal to perform an abortion in ireland if the mothers health is in danger, which obviously in this case it was , so I dont see why they didnt do it..
do people really want to have an abortion clinic in ireland,, abortions are upsetting, most people that have one wish they never went through with it. but also most people that have one are not ready to be a parent and would it be worse to bring a child into the world where it would not be taken care of properly, parents were struggling to make ends meet etc etc..some people may say if they're not ready to be a parent than they shouldnt have had unprotected sex but sure how many of us have slip ups , condoms break, or your just in the moment unplanned pregnancies can happen to the best of us.
what happened to savita should never have happened, is it at fault that there was no terminition of the pregnancy? or maybe of the hospitals not to pick up that she had septecimia and ecoli.
Irelands legislation needs to change about terminitions- it is a womans choice after all.. Especially a case like this where the baby is going to die. This man has lost a baby and now because of this country he has lost his wife.
This pro-life campaign needs to stop , you need to be in the situation to deal with it. It's not fair on women to be a branded a murderer if she choose an abortion, she choose it for a reason. Its not like people go in the clinic because they changed their mind
I dont know if this made any sense, or if I made a fair point, but its just my opinion

Stheno

annettea wrote: »

its such a tricky situation, at the end of the day its legal to perform an abortion in ireland if the mothers health is in danger, which obviously in this case it was , so I dont see why they didnt do it..
do people really want to have an abortion clinic in ireland,, abortions are upsetting, most people that have one wish they never went through with it. but also most people that have one are not ready to be a parent and would it be worse to bring a child into the world where it would not be taken care of properly, parents were struggling to make ends meet etc etc..some people may say if they're not ready to be a parent than they shouldnt have had unprotected sex but sure how many of us have slip ups , condoms break, or your just in the moment unplanned pregnancies can happen to the best of us.
what happened to savita should never have happened, is it at fault that there was no terminition of the pregnancy? or maybe of the hospitals not to pick up that she had septecimia and ecoli.
Irelands legislation needs to change about terminitions- it is a womans choice after all.. Especially a case like this where the baby is going to die. This man has lost a baby and now because of this country he has lost his wife.
This pro-life campaign needs to stop , you need to be in the situation to deal with it. It's not fair on women to be a branded a murderer if she choose an abortion, she choose it for a reason. Its not like people go in the clinic because they changed their mind
I dont know if this made any sense, or if I made a fair point, but its just my opinion

It's illegal to perform an abortion if the mothers health is in danger, it must be that their life is in danger, sorry for being pedantic. Of course there comes a point where a deterioration in health can be life threatening which must be a very grey area for any medic.

There was an article I read today that stated that standard practice if someone is having a miscarriage and the cervix is fully dilated for more than 24 hours is to focus on evacuation of the foetus via the most appropriate method.

The big question here seems to be why it took three days for this to happen and did that lead to an advancement of septicemia that may not have happened if it had been dealt with sooner?

MrCreosote

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Serious signs of infection didn't begin until Tuesday evening, a few hours before lunch time on wednesday when they evacuated the womb. As far as i'm concerned, the best treatment method would have been to watchfully wait for 24 hours and then intervene by abortion after 24 hours of admission if the miscarriage didn't resolve itself. After all that, an immediate start to a prophylactic course of antibiotics and a screening for infection.

You say my reasoning is incorrect and go on to talk about the "correct treatment" despite the fact that I didn't actually suggest a treatment plan in my post. Have a read of it again. All I did was state the technical facts available and went through the alternative scenario of an abortion on the Monday as she requested.

You suggested that the timing of the ERPC made no difference, as she would have developed septicaemia anyway. She may have done, but the risk was higher because of the delay...

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Treatment of what exactly?

A septic miscarriage

partyatmygaff wrote: »

To the medical team, it was a relatively uncomplicated miscarriage up until the moment she showed symptoms of septicaemia. I don't know how they handle situations like a prolonged miscarriage but the best treatment plan that I can think of is: Wait and watch for the first 24 hours, abort if there's no sign of it resolving itself soon and then a prophylactic course of antibiotics and an immediate test for infection as a precautionary measure.

Watching and waiting was fine, as long as the patient chooses that option, and there are no signs of infection. From the reports neither was the case- the option was forced on the patient and she had signs of infection.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

It might have and it mightn't have, you really can't say for septicaemia.

Even with "normal" bacterial species and an otherwise healthy patients, septicaemia has a huge mortality rate.

You can't say for sure, but you can say that delaying the correct treatment once signs of infection developed worsened the chances of something serious happening.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

The government not clearing up the legality of therapeutic abortion =/= Religious reasons

According to the reports, the husband said they were told "this is a catholic country" and that the medical team couldn't intervene until the foetal heart beat was absent. This is =religious reasons, (as well as failure to legislate)

Jack B. Badd

cdaly_ wrote: »

Their hands were essentially tied up until the point where it became clear that Savita's life was in danger. For all the time she was there, her health was at risk (from infection) but her life was possibly not clearly under threat. Unless somebody could say for certain that her life was in danger, they were powerless to intervene while a heartbeat could be detected. By the time the heartbeat stopped, they could legally go ahead with the D&C but that was too late.

Does this not scare the crap out of anyone else? The foetus was confirmed as non-viable - it would have died regardless (as far as I'm aware). Putting aside the risk to life for a minute, there was a risk to her health which was ignored because a non-viable foetus was deemed to have more rights to a few days of "life" than a woman had rights to her health. If I walked into a hospital under those circumstances, I'd be terrified that my health would be permanently affected because of this nonsense (sorry, I can't actually think of a better word than nonsense!). I am beyond thankful that I no longer live in Ireland & while I have always actively avoided pregnancy, I will be even more paranoid now. This is truly terrifying!

Wibbs

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

It wasn't Honey-ec, it was me. Sorry for posting what I said above.

FMP :o and I'm sorry I said Honey-ec. I have no idea, nor excuse for the brain failure. *cue H beating me to a pulp on general principle :) )

Stheno

Wibbs wrote: »

FMP :o and I'm sorry I said Honey-ec. I have no idea, nor excuse for the brain failure. *cue H beating me to a pulp on general principle :) )

Just can't get the staff these days

@ Jack B. Badd, risk to health is not grounds for a termination here, only risk to life as I've mentioned above.

Very grey area, and not one any medic should have to randomly resort to, there should be legislation to guide them

Jack B. Badd

Stheno wrote: »

@ Jack B. Badd, risk to health is not grounds for a termination here, only risk to life as I've mentioned above.

I'm aware of that Stheno but I still find it terrifying. We're not talking about the rights of a healthy foetus vs the rights of a woman, we're talking about a foetus that would have died anyway. That her health was put at risk for that just seems insane from my pov. Besides which, the change in status from risk to health to risk to life isn't a definite switch in all cases, it can be slow progression from one to the other - if my GP declined to treat a serious potentially life-threatening illness until it had progressed to full-on life-threatening I'd be distraught.
I think it indicates a failure not only of the lacking framework but also the law. In this case with tragic consequences

ASVM

The death of this girl is utterly tragic and such an emotive subject. I previously suffered two miscarriages. The first was at eight weeks and I did not go to hospital until the following day. One of the nurses at the hospital told me I should have taken Panadol as a pain killer while I was miscarrying and was surprised that I hadn't. I found this a shocking suggestion from a member of the medical profession as I believed it to be wrong to take any drug during a miscarriage; in case the baby might stand a chance of surviving.I got the feeling that it was common practice to give women pain killers while miscarrying which would then be a form of termination, would it not?

My second miscarriage was at twenty weeks of pregnancy, however the baby had been dead for six weeks and this had not been detected by my GP using a dopper. When I was admitted to hospital at twenty weeks with pains a scan showed the absence of a heartbeat, obviously I was devasted. That was on a Saturday and I was told that a second medical opinion would have to confirm that I had miscarried so I was sent home and brougt back on Monday afternoon, induced and had the baby on the Wednesday.

When the autopsy results came back it was shown that my baby had died at week fourteen and that there was an ecoli infection on part of the baby. Looking back I wonder about the level of care in maternity hospitals and at GP level. How could my GP have got it so wrong and why can't women who have miscarried be induced straight away?

My thoughts are with Savita's husband and family and I hope we get clarity in Ireland on what the situation is regarding termination. I also think maternity hospitals are straining at the seams and the H.S.E needs to do so much more.

Stheno

Jack B. Badd wrote: »

I'm aware of that Stheno but I still find it terrifying. We're not talking about the rights of a healthy foetus vs the rights of a woman, we're talking about a foetus that would have died anyway. That her health was put at risk for that just seems insane from my pov. Besides which, the change in status from risk to health to risk to life isn't a definite switch in all cases, it can be slow progression from one to the other - if my GP declined to treat a serious potentially life-threatening illness until it had progressed to full-on life-threatening I'd be distraught.
I think it indicates a failure not only of the lacking framework but also the law. In this case with tragic consequences

Yes I agree, ultimately in my opinion from what I have read here, the doctors acted conservatively and according to IMC guidelines due to lack of clarity in legislative terms.

Sponge Bob

What I find utterly distasteful about the issue is that Clare Dalys Bill which essentially only gave a woman faced with a Potentially Life Threatening situation the right to seek a second opinion on the life threateningness aspects of it, was voted out of the Dáil by the government and also by FF in an unusual display of bipartisanship last April.

Every Single TD in Galway WEST where NUHG is located voted AGAINST the Bill. While they are a cross party selection they are all men.

If you ever come across any of them you should make your personal feelings about their actions clear to them. Here are the names of the 5 Boyos.

Eamonn O Cuiv FF
Brian Walsh FG
Seán Kyne FG
Noel Grealish Ind
Derek Nolan Lab

gozunda

Apologies for interrupting ladies - not to sure if this has been brought up before but there is a suggestion that those that wish to forward their views on this matter do so using the Post Cards sent out for the "The Gathering"

The idea is that the postcards are used to highlight concerns on this issue and also make the point the impact that this willl have on our international reputation. Stick a stamp on and send to your favourite politician.

seenitall

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

Okay, this bit needs to be explained to me. This is the bit I need to question: the baby wouldn't have survived at 17 weeks. If it was induced early, this would have constituted as an abortion.

noun
1.
Also called voluntary abortion. the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy.
2.
any of various surgical methods for terminating a pregnancy, especially during the first six months.
3.
Also called spontaneous abortion. miscarriage ( def. 1 ) .
4.
an immature and nonviable fetus.


Irish law hasn't legislated for this yet since case x in 1992. Would this really have been "in compliance with the law"? This is what I was questioning previously.

Perhaps I'm wrong and I'll admit to being wrong but this doesn't make sense.

No, Eve, you got it right.

The pro-lifers are invoking the Irish Medical Council guidelines, and how they should have been followed instead of the law, because, of course, "we don't need another law when we have these guidelines" :rolleyes: (Law vs. Guidelines, what do you think wins?), because they are terrified of the X-case legislation actually coming to pass as a result of this case. It's about their worst nightmare.

(See examples of the above all over the pro-lifers' posts in the relavant AH thread.)

I'll leave you to draw further conclusions yourself, as for me I'd better not write anything on that article you posted, I don't want a ban.

Stheno

seenitall wrote: »

No, Eve, you got it right.

The pro-lifers are invoking the Irish Medical Council guidelines, and how they should have been followed instead of the law, because, of course, "we don't need another law when we have these guidelines" :rolleyes: (Law vs. Guidelines, what do you think wins?), because they are terrified of the X-case legislation actually coming to pass as a result of this case. It's about their worst nightmare.

(See examples of the above all over the pro-lifers' posts in the relavant AH thread.)

I'll leave you to draw further conclusions yourself, as for me I'd better not write anything on that article you posted, I don't want a ban.

From another thread those guidelines are:

21.1 Abortion is illegal in Ireland except where there is a real and
substantial risk to the life (as distinct from the health) of the
mother. Under current legal precedent, this exception includes
where there is a clear and substantial risk to the life of the mother
arising from a threat of suicide. You should undertake a full assessment
of any such risk in light of the clinical research on this issue.
21.2 It is lawful to provide information in Ireland about abortions
abroad, subject to strict conditions.4 It is not lawful to encourage
or advocate an abortion in individual cases.
21.3 You have a duty to provide care, support and follow-up services
for women who have an abortion abroad.
21.4 In current obstetrical practice, rare complications can arise where
therapeutic intervention (including termination of a pregnancy)
is required at a stage when, due to extreme immaturity of the
baby, there may be little or no hope of the baby surviving. In these
exceptional circumstances, it may be necessary to intervene to
terminate the pregnancy to protect the life of the mother, while
making every effort to preserve the life of the baby.

There is a direct conflict there for me, the doctors may have had problems trying to prioritise which life? It's still very unclear and only classed as precedent and not law.

Were those guidelines to say " in the case where a foetus is unviable, the life of the mother should be preserved against that of the foetus" there might have been a different outcome in this case. Or "due to the extreme immaturity of the baby, and there being little hope of the baby surviving it may be necessary to intervene to terminate the pregnancy to protect the life of the mother"

Morag

https://www.facebook.com/events/452409004796258/

Vigils tomorrow The Liberty Tree Carlow and The Town Hall Kilkenny 4pm on Saturday.


https://www.facebook.com/events/485537601491091/

Vigil in on Friday.

Message in a Bottle ...To remember Savita
Today at 18:00
Wexford Quay in Wexford, Ireland

FoxT

I signed the petition..


I am angry about this. Looking back, it is clear that the medical profession (Who are , I know, deeply divided on this issue) and Government, have adopted a strategy of sitting back & hoping everything would be OK.

As things stand today - I find it hard to blame the hospital staff involved. Any staff member involved in a termination could end up facing some / all of
-disciplinary action
-HSE internal enquiry
- Garda interview/arrest
-fitness to practice enquiry from their professional body
-possible suspension/disbarment
- possible criminal case
-possible civil case brought on by Youth Defence or similar body
-suspension from job/loss of earnings/career stall
-etc

The situation as it stands today, is impossible for the medical professional at the coalface.

But yet, as a body, they have kept silent on this issue for a long time. This, in my view is shameful, and we deserve better.

-FoxT

Idbatterim

The India Times reported the death of Ms Halappanavar with the headline: "Ireland Murders Pregnant Indian Dentist."

just took that from rte news. Im sure the spineless b**tards will act now that we are under international scrutiny!

partyatmygaff

MrCreosote wrote: »

You suggested that the timing of the ERPC made no difference, as she would have developed septicaemia anyway. She may have done, but the risk was higher because of the delay...

I know that and I don't deny it. It would have made more sense to have the ERPC sooner rather than later but the medical team took the risk of taking the legally straightforward option of continuing to wait and watch instead of entering a legal minefield by involving abortion. Up until the last few hours before the uterus was cleared, her condition (Superficially at least) appeared to be a relatively uncomplicated miscarriage.

You can't say for sure, but you can say that delaying the correct treatment once signs of infection developed worsened the chances of something serious happening.

It sure did but in the grand scheme of things if she had an abortion on the Monday and was discharged on the same night with nothing but painkillers she'd still more than likely have died from septicaemia.

According to the reports, the husband said they were told "this is a catholic country" and that the medical team couldn't intervene until the foetal heart beat was absent. This is =religious reasons, (as well as failure to legislate)

That isn't a religious reason. That is purely the fault of the government failing to legislate properly.

MrCreosote

partyatmygaff wrote: »

It sure did but in the grand scheme of things if she had an abortion on the Monday and was discharged on the same night with nothing but painkillers she'd still more than likely have died from septicaemia.

We'll never know for sure obviously, but I would say that if she had a termination/ERPC on the Monday, she would never have developed septicaemia.

However it's the religious overtones that turn it from a case of possible medical mismanagement, to the hugs issue it has become.

Totally agree with you about the lack of legislation by the way- this is the main issue. The spineless waste of space that is the government has only had 20 years to do this, and they've delayed and obstructed over all that time. I sure until that is done the medical staff always have in the back (or front) of their mind that they don't want to be the test case to test the boundaries of the law.

poeticseraphim

What is REALLY annoying me is the way pro-lifers KEEP saying this is NOT about the wider issue of abortion.

If this is not about abortion what is this about???


I have no idea whether the Doctors could have predicted her death..infact I highly doubt they would have refused a termination if they KNEW she would die.

I think this will come out , the fact that they DID NOT expect her life to be in danger.

Another thing disturbs me...they seem to be suggesting that if she had been given antibiotics then she would have lived .....so thats ok then.

They seem to believe allowing that type of pain and emotional turmoil is ok....so long as she survives.


These people make me sick


I will NEVER ever vote for a pro-life politician again.


Ivana Bacik in the senate has been a pro-choice campaigner....Claire Daly has disappointed me with the Mick Wallace scandal..but at least she has her head screwed on with this.


On the other hand many politicians and pro-life posters seem to think Ireland has 'more important issues' like bankers!

Even in questions to the Taoiseach in the Dáil the first sentence seemed to be 'I had wanted to ask about bankers...but instead i have to ask this..' and the reaction seems to have shocked pro-lifers.


The fact that this got women and men to protest seems to make some people on AH bitter .


The term 'Feminazi' has been bandied about. Seriously this country IS in the dark ages. Well some people are.

Liberal Ireland was thrown under the bus by 'Independant Ireland' and women's rights took a knocking under DeValera and co.


Women come last in the Irish constitution. Back of the bus.


I would like a socially liberal political party.....i think it represents Ireland today.


Sorry to go off on a Tangent. It is not like you can take this case in isolation though. This would not have happened in Denmark or Sweden.

I feel disillusioned.


I WILL NOT BE FOBBED OFF WITH LEGISLATION FOR A CASE THAT HAPPENED 20 YRS AGO!

Memnoch

The idea of the life of the mother being at risk is not quite as solid as one might think. At what point can you make the determination that the woman's life is definitely in danger as opposed to might be in danger.

I think it makes much more sense to consider the health of a mother, because at that stage intervention is much more likely to be successful. If you wait till you are certain that her life is imminently in danger, then by that time it might be too late to act as it proved to be so in this case.

The health of the mother must be paramount and if that makes the pro-life lobby queasy, so be it. I'd rather that than play russian roulette with women's lives as is currently the case in this country. This despite my own stance on the issue of abortion overall being far from clear. But as a qualified medic, I don't want to be in the position of having to wait and guess, 'okay, is her life in danger now? What about now?' and so on.

poeticseraphim

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I know that and I don't deny it. It would have made more sense to have the ERPC sooner rather than later but the medical team took the risk of taking the legally straightforward option of continuing to wait and watch instead of entering a legal minefield by involving abortion. Up until the last few hours before the uterus was cleared, her condition (Superficially at least) appeared to be a relatively uncomplicated miscarriage.

It sure did but in the grand scheme of things if she had an abortion on the Monday and was discharged on the same night with nothing but painkillers she'd still more than likely have died from septicaemia.

That isn't a religious reason. That is purely the fault of the government failing to legislate properly.

The head of Obstetrics of NUI has claimed abortion is never medically necessary in the past. I am uncertain if this had any bearing on this case. But I think some in the hospital itself have an agenda that may interfere with medical care. It does not matter whether that agenda is religious or not. But it certainly seems pro-life.

Yes the problem is also largely obstructionist pro-life politicians and cowardice.

Lets be honest...it is also an electorate that for 20 yrs knew how women had to 'travel', but never got angry enough to get action.


It is crazy it takes foreign pressure to get things done.

They intend to stretch these reports out for three months....before they act...they are hoping it will go away and people will forget.

poeticseraphim

Memnoch wrote: »

The idea of the life of the mother being at risk is not quite as solid as one might think. At what point can you make the determination that the woman's life is definitely in danger as opposed to might be in danger.

I think it makes much more sense to consider the health of a mother, because at that stage intervention is much more likely to be successful. If you wait till you are certain that her life is imminently in danger, then by that time it might be too late to act as it proved to be so in this case.

The health of the mother must be paramount and if that makes the pro-life lobby queasy, so be it. I'd rather that than play russian roulette with women's lives as is currently the case in this country. This despite my own stance on the issue of abortion overall being far from clear. But as a qualified medic, I don't want to be in the position of having to wait and guess, 'okay, is her life in danger now? What about now?' and so on.

This is what worries me too. And what criteria would meet a case of endangered health though? Gestational diabetes???

I don't like the idea of a Doctor deciding rather than advising. If a woman feels her best interests are an abortion then they are.

Surely the only way of providing a safety net for any situation is legalizing abortion.

You will forever get these one off cases that end in tragedy otherwise.

Yes I am pro-choice but i really believe it is the easiest way to legislate.

Also on the other hand there are women who will want to voluntarily go to the extreme of sacrificing themselves. Or carrying an unviable fetus.


I want a referendum where the legalization of abortion is on the table by request of the mother for the first 12 weeks. After 12 weeks in cases where the health of the mother is impaired or in danger or the fetus is nonviable it should also be allowed.

Every poll shows the majority of Irish people favor it.

realgirl

poeticseraphim wrote: »

Yes the problem is also largely obstructionist pro-life politicians and cowardice.

Lets be honest...it is also an electorate that for 20 yrs knew how women had to 'travel', but never got angry enough to get action.

It is crazy it takes foreign pressure to get things done.

They intend to stretch these reports out for three months....before they act...they are hoping it will go away and people will forget.

I have read so many comments on this awful situation in the last few days and this is the first one I have seen that acknowledges how the Irish public at large have also been complicit in this shocking event. If things really are to change in Ireland regarding abortion & medical treatment of pregnant women then it is up to all of us to make sure the government and medical profession sit on the fence no longer. Finger pointing outwards at the church, government, medical profession, pro-life groups achieves nothing in terms of change. Turn that finger towards yourself and ask what you can do to help make this change happen. Then do it, and keep doing it for as long as is necessary. Tell the government how you feel, what is acceptable or what is not and why. Let them know you are not going to just send one email or attend one protest and then forget about it. Our feelings on this issue need to be voiced before they can be heard. The reason why the government have avoided legislating on this issue is because we have not demanded that they do. It looks as though the public appetite for this is now showing itself but I hope that the pressure is kept up on the powers that be as without this there will be no change. Hoping that international pressure will force the government to act seems so wrong, sadly we don't seem to value our women's health and rights enough to demand this change for ourselves. I believe we can make this change happen, but we need to stop finger pointing at others and take action ourselves.

Oryx

I got a reply to my email from John Browne. While it seems to be a stock reply it reads well and expresses sorrow and concern, like it was written by a real person rather than a pr machine.

Jack B. Badd

poeticseraphim wrote: »

I don't like the idea of a Doctor deciding rather than advising. If a woman feels her best interests are an abortion then they are.

Surely the only way of providing a safety net for any situation is legalizing abortion.

You will forever get these one off cases that end in tragedy otherwise.

Yes I am pro-choice but i really believe it is the easiest way to legislate.

Also on the other hand there are women who will want to voluntarily go to the extreme of sacrificing themselves. Or carrying an unviable fetus.

I think this is an important point - there's an awful lot of discussion about the medical establishment's role in decision making but very little about the right of the women to choose what's in their best interests (both for their lives & health). Lets be honest, the law doesn't stop women from choosing, it just exports them if they choose termination. And that's for women who can afford to travel to the UK. If they can't afford it, then tough. If they are unlucky enough to have our health/life significantly and urgently at risk (to the extent that they don't have time to travel even if they can afford it), then even tougher, they're at the hands of inadequate laws and a medical establishment that doesn't have clear guidelines. They're the women who are really affected by the approach of the government.