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

CroatoanCat

eviltwin wrote: »

I see this as a women's health issue moreso than an abortion issue.

People hear the word "abortion" and those who are against it or don't feel they would ever make that decision themselves don't feel its really applies to them. And sure why would they? When most people think of "abortion" they think of the women who travel to the UK. I'm as guilty as that as anyone, I never think of women like Savita.

Any one of us who gets pregnant could be in a similar situation. Now we have to wait and see what the reports say but if it turns out that lack of action from the doctors put this woman in danger WE all should be outraged.

Remember this family wanted this baby, it was a normal pregnancy but some thing went wrong, the baby was dying, it was never going to live, she was in the process of having a miscarriage and she should have been dealt with quickly and not left for days over a legal ambiguity that has been in existance for 20 feckin years

Sadly I can see prolife people I know back away from this because they hear the word abortion and think "that will never be me".

Its first and foremost, for me at least, an issue of womens health that affects us all.

Absolutely superb post. Thank you, eviltwin. I hope you don't mind if I send an edited version of this to every Member of the Oireachtas.

I am in favour of safe, legal abortion for any woman who requests it - as early as possible, as late as necessary. I am sure as I can be of anything, however, that it will never happen in my lifetime (I'm 37). What we simply must have, as an absolute minimum, is legislation to enact the X case. Medics in this country must have clarity as to what action they can take in circumstances where there is a clear threat to the life of a woman. That is the first step.

The problem, of course, as other posters have mentioned, is that it is not clear whether Savita would have been eligible for an abortion even if we had legislation to implement X. What seems to have happened here is that the medics took a conservative position on the question of whether there was a substantial threat to the life, as opposed to the health, of the patient. They had little choice other than to do so, given the legal lacuna in which they are operating. It is completely unacceptable that any woman should be left in agony and denied a treatment that would certainly have alleviated her pain and might potentially have prevented her death. It seems to me that the only way to deal with situations such as this is to ensure there is explicit provision that where a woman is miscarrying a non-viable foetus, she must have the option to request and be granted an abortion. That would have enabled Savita to have the treatment for which she pleaded for three days and which might possibly have prevented her death. In effect, therefore, we need legislation to ensure that abortion is available where there is a threat to the life of the woman and, where the foetus is not viable, to her health (which is a much lower bar to reach, so to speak).

As I said, I am in favour of safe, legal abortion for all women who require it. What I have suggested above is the absolute minimum required to protect women. Moreover, it is probably the absolute maximum we have any real prospect of pushing through given the strength and influence of the anti-choice sector at this time.

RIP Savita.

restingpilgrim

I feel this is very much an issue of a miscarriage, and should not be turned into a fight between pro life or pro choice, which was complicated by the lack of hard and fast laws regarding abortion. In a situation which was very unfortunate it seems that this lady died in pain which I also feel was totally unnecessary and may in some places even be considered barbaric. I have watched the argument between Pro life and Pro Choice and if it forces the Government to come down finally to make the life of the mother a priority in cases where the foetus is not viable then perhaps some hope will come from this tragic situation. Also if it turns out that proper care was not administered by medical staff because of their beliefs then I hope that they are dealt with by the authorities and struck off. The govt of this country has dragged its feet long enough and needs to firmly legislate so that if people feel it is wrong they can challenge it in the courts of Law.

At present we do not have the full details of what happened but with respect to the family of Savita I hope all results of the enquiries are released as it is of public interest.

Whilst acknowledging that Galway is one of the safest places in the world to have a baby I will be attending my local vigil as a mark of respect to a lady who I felt has been badly let down by medical practices in Ireland.

Jack B. Badd

restingpilgrim wrote: »

Whilst acknowledging that Galway is one of the safest places in the world to have a baby

I've seen a couple of articles & comments that call this into question because in Ireland, maternal mortality is only taken up to 42 days after delivery, miscarriage or termination whereas other countries take it up to 1 year afterwards. So it may be under-reported in Ireland & not a like-for-like comparison - see http://www.medicalindependent.ie/page.aspx?title=maternal_death_%E2%80%93_into_the_great_unknown for example

Sorry, the article's a bit out of date, I'm on my phone & can't easily search.

MrCreosote

partyatmygaff wrote: »

What religious overtones? It's medical mismanagement (A forced hand thanks to the lack of clarity of the law) from start to finish.

"This is a Catholic country"- those religious overtones.

partyatmygaff

gozunda wrote: »

pamg - your opinion on this womans best options for treatment are are direct odds with at least one respected obstetrician.

At 17 weeks - it would not have been classed as "straight forward miscarriage" and "Expectant Care" or as I have seen it put "watchful Wait" (sic) is not the best practice in such a scenario as explained by this obstetrician

LINK

Yet it isn't too far off what other obstetricians would suggest:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301211506002843

Management of premature rupture of membranes before 25 weeks

Catherine Murisa, Bénédicte Girarda, Christian Creveuilb, Luc Durina, Michel Herlicovieza, Michel Dreyfusa, ,
Abstract

Objectives

The aim of our study was to define the benefits and risks related to expectant management in the midtrimester rupture of membranes and to assess the prognostic factors in order to give objective informations to parents facing these obstetrical situations.
Study design

We conducted a retrospective study. The study population included 49 patients with premature rupture of membranes at 16–23 weeks’ gestation during the period January 1998–June 2003. The main criterion for judgement was neonate survival. Statistical analysis included χ2-test for the qualitative variables and Student's test for the quantitative variables. The threshold for significance was 5%.
Results

Twenty couples out of 49 chose medical termination of pregnancy. Among the 29 other pregnancies, the mean latency period was 2.1 weeks. The mean gestational age at delivery was 23.2 weeks. Nineteen patients were delivered after 22 weeks. The main prognostic factors were the initial amniotic fluid index (2.9 cm versus 0.8 cm) (p = 0.042) and gestational age at delivery (26.7 weeks versus 22.6 weeks) (p < 0.001). About 2% of the pregnancies were complicated by maternal infection. Eighty-three percent of the survivors had neonatal respiratory distress syndrome. 41.2% of them presented sepsis. We observed no cases of severe intraventricular haemorrhage. The number of infants born after 24 weeks of gestation and still alive at 1 week was 12, representing 24% of pregnancies and 63% of the infants born after 24 weeks.
Conclusion

Expectant management can be widely suggested to patients. However, termination of pregnancy is acceptable, in cases with a poor prognosis including anamnios and premature rupture of membranes before 21 weeks.

While obviously it would have helped to remove the source of infection when she asked I'm not confident it would have changed the outcome. If they aborted and missed the infection, she still would have died.

username123

partyatmygaff wrote: »

While obviously it would have helped to remove the source of infection when she asked I'm not confident it would have changed the outcome. If they aborted and missed the infection, she still would have died.

pamg - could you state your medical qualifications if you have any please?

partyatmygaff

username123 wrote: »

pamg - could you state your medical qualifications if you have any please?

None just yet. Pharmacy student.

username123

partyatmygaff wrote: »

None just yet. Pharmacy student.

Thank you.

gozunda

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Yet it isn't too far off what other obstetricians would suggest:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301211506002843



While obviously it would have helped to remove the source of infection when she asked I'm not confident it would have changed the outcome. If they aborted and missed the infection, she still would have died.

That extract is meaningless in relation to the current discussion imo. It looks at "expectant management" as a methodology where there is an expectation of the pregnancy continuing and the foetus being viable ie " the main criterium for judgement (of the study) was neonate survival". From the diagnosis in this scenario it is evident that the foetus was not viable in this instance.


You are neither a doctor or an obstetrician so I will discount your conclusion given above compared to that of the obstetrician. From my knowledge a doctor must make a decision based on the best possible outcome for the patient. If this involves the removal of the source of the infection, where there are no additional significant contraindications for the patient in doing so then this would be a logical course of action in order to minimise infection by allowing the cervix to close and also to maximise the chances of the patients recovery. As the obstetrician linked above states there is never a case where termination would not be considered in such a scenario and as infection is a significant risk, treatment should be commenced immediately. The patient should have been given the optimal treatment in this situation as highlighted - this was denied and she died. She was not allowed to at least the chance to benefit from what would be a straightforward procedure and treatment. Saying if they had aborted and if they missed the infection is just too many 'ifs' to speculate on with relation to her chances of survival.

partyatmygaff

gozunda wrote: »

The patient should have been given the optimal treatment in this situation as highlighted - this was denied and she died.

We're all aware of that. What i've been saying for the past while is we can't say for certain that her not having an abortion was the primary reason for her death. Equally, we can't be certain that an abortion would have prevented her death. We all know it would have definitely helped the situation but to what extent it would have changed the final outcome is unknown. It's nowhere near as certain as "If they accepted her request for an abortion, none of this would have happened." as everyone seems to be making it out to be.

As I've said time and time again, It would have helped and we should legislate for it to keep doctors focused solely on their practice and not on the ambiguities of the law.

All that needs to be done is to draft clear legislation allowing for therapeutic abortion where the foetus is dying or dead and the mother is at risk of dying or suffering unnecessarily.

lazygal

I got a lot of pain relief after my section. Always delivered to my room and for the first two days I had diffene (sp) suppositories (nice!) and other pain relief. I hate to say this but I'm convinced because I was a fully private patient I got a lot more attention. I also breastfeed from birth and was never told I couldn't have any pain medication because of this. At the start, you're only producing small amounts of colostrum anyway (I know how little it is because I had to express) so I'd imagine any pain medication that makes its way into the breastmilk is negligible.


I would not have my baby in the public system in Ireland. That might sound snobbish or elitist or whatever, but we have already starting putting money aside if and when we have another. The public system might be ok, but I'm not taking my chances.

gozunda

partyatmygaff wrote: »

..,We all know it would have definitely helped the situation but to what extent it would have changed the final outcome is unknown. It's nowhere near as certain as "If they accepted her request for an abortion, none of this would have happened." as everyone seems to be making it out to be.

Pamg - I do not believe that is the case. I have seen few if any that have said definitively she would have have survived if the pregnancy had been terminated.

However what many have suggested is that a termination would have given the woman the best possible chance allowing for the risk of infection to be minimised early on.

It is of some note that this woman was a qualified dentist and would have had an excellent professional knowledge of infection and infection control.

I believe she also knew the risk her condition posed and sought in the only way she could to maximise her chances of recovery and reduce the risk of infection by asking for a termination.

She was denied this because the foetus within her although not viable had a heartbeat and her life was put at risk only to enable that heartbeat to continue even though there was no chance that the pregnancy would continue further.

...

I agree with this...

All that needs to be done is to draft clear legislation allowing for therapeutic abortion where the foetus is dying or dead and the mother is at risk of dying or suffering unnecessarily.

partyatmygaff

lazygal wrote: »

II also breastfeed from birth and was never told I couldn't have any pain medication because of this

Just on that note...

Some painkillers can be used while breastfeeding. Paracetamol and ibuprofen are quite safe as very little makes it out to the milk. Codeine can be ok but it's best avoided unless absolutely necessary due to some people metabolising more of it in to morphine than others. Aspirin is definitely one to avoid though due to the risk of Reye's syndrome (And that goes for after breast feeding too, up until the age of 16)

Lucyfur

lazygal wrote: »

I got a lot of pain relief after my section. Always delivered to my room and for the first two days I had diffene (sp) suppositories (nice!) and other pain relief. I hate to say this but I'm convinced because I was a fully private patient I got a lot more attention. I also breastfeed from birth and was never told I couldn't have any pain medication because of this. At the start, you're only producing small amounts of colostrum anyway (I know how little it is because I had to express) so I'd imagine any pain medication that makes its way into the breastmilk is negligible.


I would not have my baby in the public system in Ireland. That might sound snobbish or elitist or whatever, but we have already starting putting money aside if and when we have another. The public system might be ok, but I'm not taking my chances.

Just on that, and I know we are swaying slightly off topic but I have to say, I was a public patient when I went through 2 miscarriages and an ectopic. I was treated with the utmost respect, on all occasions. I had quite invasive surgery with the ectopic, with the uterus being opened and full tube and part ovary being removed. I was never left in pain, and never had to ask for pain relief. I was offered counselling before I was discharged and I was completely respected when I asked for it not to be mentioned as I wanted to do my grieving at home, with my partner. Counselling was arranged for us both after I was discharged. We were give memorial cards on the day I was discharged. All as a public patient. I was re-admitted with pain from internal bruising and again, treated with respect, and promptly treated.

But obviously, what has happened with Savita is without doubt, barbaric. Just horrible and my heart is breaking for her poor husband. Legislation NEEDS to change.

Neyite

lazygal wrote: »

I would not have my baby in the public system in Ireland. That might sound snobbish or elitist or whatever, but we have already starting putting money aside if and when we have another. The public system might be ok, but I'm not taking my chances.

You get treated the exact same in a complicated pregnancy public or private. A friend paid for a consultant on each of her 3 children, which were delivered by midwives. For the first one, he was abroad, for the second, he was held up with a complicated delivery, and for the third, he only arrived when it was all over. She still had to pay him his fee, which is a few thousand if I'm not mistaken. Nice work if you can get it!

I had a slight elevated hormone. Did not threaten the pregnancy, but I was placed in the care of a consultant and a professor. I had monthly checks from 11 weeks, and had access to anesthetist, and obstetrician during my delivery.

Like I said earlier, I was very well looked after. However being on a public ward for 5 days was noisy around the clock, so in that case, I'd have loved a private room. I got more rest when I finally got home. I would have no hesitation in going public again and keeping my money.

lazygal

Lucyfur wrote: »

Just on that, and I know we are swaying slightly off topic but I have to say, I was a public patient when I went through 2 miscarriages and an ectopic. I was treated with the utmost respect, on all occasions. I had quite invasive surgery with the ectopic, with the uterus being opened and full tube and part ovary being removed. I was never left in pain, and never had to ask for pain relief. I was offered counselling before I was discharged and I was completely respected when I asked for it not to be mentioned as I wanted to do my grieving at home, with my partner. Counselling was arranged for us both after I was discharged. We were give memorial cards on the day I was discharged. All as a public patient. I was re-admitted with pain from internal bruising and again, treated with respect, and promptly treated.

But obviously, what has happened with Savita is without doubt, barbaric. Just horrible and my heart is breaking for her poor husband. Legislation NEEDS to change.

I know the vast majority have an excellent experience in the public system. But I know for sure for me I wouldn't have made such a good recovery without access to a private room and the better attention from the nurses made a massive difference when it came to support for breastfeeding. I know women who had babies in the public system in the same hospital at the same time as me and they are also going private the next time.

Stheno

lazygal wrote: »

I know the vast majority have an excellent experience in the public system. But I know for sure for me I wouldn't have made such a good recovery without access to a private room and the better attention from the nurses made a massive difference when it came to support for breastfeeding. I know women who had babies in the public system in the same hospital at the same time as me and they are also going private the next time.

TO be honest, I think that applies to the entire health system in Ireland.

I suffered an injury went to my GP had an MRI two days later and got an appointment with a surgeon ten days later for a non critical case.

That's private, public, I'd be waiting months even for an MRI scan.

Shows the gap overall.

lazygal

Neyite wrote: »

You get treated the exact same in a complicated pregnancy public or private. A friend paid for a consultant on each of her 3 children, which were delivered by midwives. For the first one, he was abroad, for the second, he was held up with a complicated delivery, and for the third, he only arrived when it was all over. She still had to pay him his fee, which is a few thousand if I'm not mistaken. Nice work if you can get it!

I had a slight elevated hormone. Did not threaten the pregnancy, but I was placed in the care of a consultant and a professor. I had monthly checks from 11 weeks, and had access to anesthetist, and obstetrician during my delivery.

Like I said earlier, I was very well looked after. However being on a public ward for 5 days was noisy around the clock, so in that case, I'd have loved a private room. I got more rest when I finally got home. I would have no hesitation in going public again and keeping my money.

Horses for courses i guess. I liked the personal relationship I built with one consultant, she was in theatre to deliver my baby and came in to check me twice a day. I also would not have survived on a busy ward and having to share bathroom/shower facilities. The best money we spent, worth every single penny. I'd have no hesitation saving my money for it again. I know from other mums who delivered the same time as me the support for breastfeeding was almost non existent on some wards, I would have given up on it if I'd not had good attention from the nurses on my ward.

pwurple

lazygal wrote: »

Horses for courses i guess. I liked the personal relationship I built with one consultant, she was in theatre to deliver my baby and came in to check me twice a day. I also would not have survived on a busy ward and having to share bathroom/shower facilities. The best money we spent, worth every single penny. I'd have no hesitation saving my money for it again. I know from other mums who delivered the same time as me the support for breastfeeding was almost non existent on some wards, I would have given up on it if I'd not had good attention from the nurses on my ward.

I think it depends on the hospital. In CUMH I was public. The 'ward' was a room with two beds in it and a bathroom. There was nobody in the other bed in my room for a good part of my stay. I was considered high risk and was treated very well at all points. I could not fault the public service here. The lactation consultant spent nearly 8 hours with me.

On Savita's case, I really don't think it is as clearcut as the media is making out. I don't see how there was any indication that an abortion would have saved her, or how this would have even been evident to the medical team. I have had a miscarriage recently at 11 weeks, and I have to say, while very traumatic, the care has been again, very thorough. I was advised to take as much pain relief as I needed, and come back into the hospital if I needed anything stronger. My miscarriage is still incomplete after two weeks of conservative care, so bloods are taken every two days to monitor for infection, and my three options were laid out clearly for me. 1) more conservative care, where I wait for my body to pass the pregnancy itself, 2) drugs to increase my contractions or 3) surgical intervention to remove it. In my case there is no heartbeat, but if there was, I would be doing everything I could to hold onto that pregnancy, and I expect the doctors would be doing the same thing.

As I am going through this at the moment, and the media coverage is so huge, of course I ask the obgyns about risk of infection and they tell me it is extremely rare. The specific infection Savita got was even rarer again, in that it did not respond to the antibiotics and moved so fast.

I really don't understand how this is an abortion issue. From my own experience it looks like they treated this miscarriage as they do all miscarriages, and this woman got a very rare infection, from which she died.

Terrible situation, for both her to die suffering and for her family to lose her and the future baby. My heart goes out to them.

I will read the reports and inquirys when they come out.

Wibbs

Stheno wrote: »

TO be honest, I think that applies to the entire health system in Ireland.

I suffered an injury went to my GP had an MRI two days later and got an appointment with a surgeon ten days later for a non critical case.

That's private, public, I'd be waiting months even for an MRI scan.

Shows the gap overall.

This for me. It's why I have health insurance for me and mine and it would be about the last expense I'd consider dropping. I've seen a mate of mine suffer well suspicious symptoms with her reproductive bits and she had to wait over 9 months to see someone/get scanned/begin treatment and it didn't turn out roses. Thankfully she's OK overall, but it was a very long road back and has left scars and it wouldn't have been such a long road if she had been seen more quickly. A couple of doctors told her as much. The famous case of the lady(whose name crimally escapes me:() a few years back who actually died(bowel cancer IIRC) because of such a delay really copperfastened it for me. With the downturn I've seen quite a few of my friends having to drop health insurance for pure economic reasons and I do fear for them and their families should the need ever arise.

The two tier health system in this country is in need of overhaul, but with our current woes I can't see it happening anytime soon. Throw in the lack of political will and the insurance companies reticence to be turkeys who vote for xmas I really can't see it happening. I'd hate for us to go down the extreme example of the US healthcare route where the dollar and the insurance companies are king and the patient is judged and treated according to his or her wallet.

eviltwin

Public vs private is a thread all of it own In terms of this issue I doubt it has any relevance, its not going to matter if you have the best team in the country at your bedside if they are not able to make decisions in your best interest.

This case has been a real eye opener for me. I've had two kids and have always been happy with my care, I have always felt like I was a part of the process and that my wishes were respected. Before this story I would have assumed that a miscarriage even if the heartbeat was still present was going to be treated like a miscarriage, that I would be given the medication I needed to bring it to a conclusion in a way that was best for my health, both mental and physical.

I never knew that the law was so vague that doctors were basically waiting for a foetus to die before they could act.

I have to say I am now thinking how many more Savitas are there? How many more women are there who have been left with long term damage over delayed treatment. How many women are carrying mental scars from being forced to endure the agony of waiting to lose their baby.

I've never marched before but I will be out today in Dublin. I hope everyone who feels even the tiniest bit of outrage goes to one of the events today. Everyone says the Government won't act because they are afraid of losing the moral vote, if we go out in volumes and show them that people want action now it might just make them realise that Ireland has changed.

Flier

pwurple wrote: »

I think it depends on the hospital. In CUMH I was public. The 'ward' was a room with two beds in it and a bathroom. There was nobody in the other bed in my room for a good part of my stay. I was considered high risk and was treated very well at all points. I could not fault the public service here. The lactation consultant spent nearly 8 hours with me.

On Savita's case, I really don't think it is as clearcut as the media is making out. I don't see how there was any indication that an abortion would have saved her, or how this would have even been evident to the medical team. I have had a miscarriage recently at 11 weeks, and I have to say, while very traumatic, the care has been again, very thorough. I was advised to take as much pain relief as I needed, and come back into the hospital if I needed anything stronger. My miscarriage is still incomplete after two weeks of conservative care, so bloods are taken every two days to monitor for infection, and my three options were laid out clearly for me. 1) more conservative care, where I wait for my body to pass the pregnancy itself, 2) drugs to increase my contractions or 3) surgical intervention to remove it. In my case there is no heartbeat, but if there was, I would be doing everything I could to hold onto that pregnancy, and I expect the doctors would be doing the same thing.

As I am going through this at the moment, and the media coverage is so huge, of course I ask the obgyns about risk of infection and they tell me it is extremely rare. The specific infection Savita got was even rarer again, in that it did not respond to the antibiotics and moved so fast.

I really don't understand how this is an abortion issue. From my own experience it looks like they treated this miscarriage as they do all miscarriages, and this woman got a very rare infection, from which she died.

Terrible situation, for both her to die suffering and for her family to lose her and the future baby. My heart goes out to them.

I will read the reports and inquirys when they come out.

Firstly, I wish you well and am sorry to hear of your misscarraige.
However, two points I have to make.
Firstly, the overwhelming medical opinion is that termination the pregnancy would have given her the best chance of survival, and would have been best practice in this case.
Secondly, you have been given options, which you have been able to choose from, with the guidance of your doctors. That was no so in Savita's case.

rainbow kirby

eviltwin wrote: »

This case has been a real eye opener for me. I've had two kids and have always been happy with my care, I have always felt like I was a part of the process and that my wishes were respected. Before this story I would have assumed that a miscarriage even if the heartbeat was still present was going to be treated like a miscarriage, that I would be given the medication I needed to bring it to a conclusion in a way that was best for my health, both mental and physical.

I never knew that the law was so vague that doctors were basically waiting for a foetus to die before they could act.

I have to say I am now thinking how many more Savitas are there? How many more women are there who have been left with long term damage over delayed treatment. How many women are carrying mental scars from being forced to endure the agony of waiting to lose their baby.

This is what scares the crap out of me about this case and the thought of having children in Ireland. The thought that an unviable foetus seems to take precedence over a woman's wishes is pretty disturbing tbh.

iguana

When I was pregnant I remember feeling relief the day I turned 24 weeks as that is the day the foetus is considered viable. It was a pleasing milestone because it meant if I went into spontaneous labour my son would receive treatment and stand a reasonable chance of survival. But now I think I got it backwards. At 24 weeks pregnant it was my life that became protected because the doctors would have been free to induce the pregnancy if it was necessary for my health. That just seems so crazy.

horsemaster

krudler wrote: »

Story has gone international, welcome to the Ireland of 2012, where people die because of political hand wringing and catholic laws.

I am fortunate enough to have 2 Indian channels and its big news there. I know the Irish Embassy or High Commission (I am not sure which) has got an earful from the folks there. They are being respectful of the Irish culture and laws but there is a lot of negative feelings underneath too. But basically they are saying a life could have been saved and medically,this death was preventable. But due to Irish religious and political stance, they can't do much about it.

Red Alert

First, we need a direct provision that exempts any doctor who performs a termination in the course of treating the mother for a condition from either legal or medical council sanctions.

Second, we should legalise abortion on demand up to some defined number of weeks, say 10-12. We should not be exporting this, and should deal with it as a mature society.

The only way to be truly "pro life" in the real sense of the word, as opposed to the warped "Pro Lifers" in this country, is to be Pro Choice.

fly_agaric

horsemaster wrote: »

I am fortunate enough to have 2 Indian channels and its big news there. I know the Irish Embassy or High Commission (I am not sure which) has got an earful from the folks there. They are being respectful of the Irish culture and laws but there is a lot of negative feelings underneath too.

Would have imagined India has some beams to extract from its own eyes before getting overly critical of another country's health service or backward religious and social mores etc.

Given India's status as an incipient "superpower" + possible future source of cash, tourists etc for this bankrupt little outpost on the Atlantic it is probably impolitic to give voice to such thoughts!:)

horsemaster

horsemaster wrote: »

I am fortunate enough to have 2 Indian channels and its big news there. I know the Irish Embassy or High Commission (I am not sure which) has got an earful from the folks there. They are being respectful of the Irish culture and laws but there is a lot of negative feelings underneath too.

In much the same way that I am respectful of Indian culture, but with a lot of negative feelings about a society that has tolerated the illegal carrying out of ten million abortions - for no other reason than that the foetuses were female.

Flier

Flier wrote: »

Firstly, the overwhelming medical opinion is that termination the pregnancy would have given her the best chance of survival, and would have been best practice in this case.

Ah, I didn't realise that a report into the specifics of the case has already been published. If you have a link that would be appreciated.

Flier

Deleted User wrote: »

Ah, I didn't realise that a report into the specifics of the case has already been published. If you have a link that would be appreciated.

Medical opinions as offered so far, based on the facts as we know, and best practice in similar cases. Sorry if you needed clarification on that one.