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

Flier

Flier wrote: »

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.

No clarification needed. When we have the full facts reported to us, we can make a fully informed decision. We don't have those yet.

Flier

Deleted User wrote: »

No clarification needed. When we have the full facts reported to us, we can make a fully informed decision. We don't have those yet.

True, but people are still going to give their opinions based on what they know so far. Better tell the various professionals around the country and abroad to zip until then :eek:

Flier

Flier wrote: »

True, but people are still going to give their opinions based on what they know so far. Better tell the various professionals around the country and abroad to zip until then :eek:

That'd work alright.

You see, I think this was ghastly, and a quite horrifying thing to happen. I also think we as a society have made a complete b****x of the abortion issue repeatedly since 1983.

But I am not yet sure that these things are connected, and we will not know for sure until a full report is available. Don't get me wrong; if it turns out that this specific case is a symptom of the wider malaise in Ireland's body politic regarding the abortion issue, then I won't be surprised. But I think it would be very dangerous to jump to conclusions in the meantime until we know for sure.

Lyaiera

Deleted User wrote: »

But I am not yet sure that these things are connected, and we will not know for sure until a full report is available. Don't get me wrong; if it turns out that this specific case is a symptom of the wider malaise in Ireland's body politic regarding the abortion issue, then I won't be surprised.

So the issue isn't important until someone dies because of it? If it turns out it wouldn't have mattered here you'd be happy to let the situation continue where there is the potential for a death?

No matter what happened in this particular case the fact is that people are still at risk because of the way the law currently is. Just because it hasn't (possibly) happened doesn't mean it won't. It's a problem in this country and it needs to be fixed.

MagicMarker

Even if she didn't die, she had to go through days of agony simply because the law doesn't allow an abortion even when the foetus is nonviable. If the pregnancy was terminated as soon as it was determined the foetus was nonviable then she likely would have lived. The law needs to change, we don't need any reports to tell us that.

Lyaiera

Lyaiera wrote: »

So the issue isn't important until someone dies because of it?

Is that a question or a statement? It ends with a question mark, which makes it look like a question, but it starts with "so", which suggests you may already have leapt to a conclusion about my views.

MagicMarker

MagicMarker wrote: »

.....the law doesn't allow an abortion even when the foetus is nonviable.

I'll ask a favour. Can you tell me what an abortion when the foetus is nonviable is? What actually happens? And in what circumstances does it happen?

Lyaiera

Deleted User wrote: »

Is that a question or a statement? It ends with a question mark, which makes it look like a question, but it starts with "so", which suggests you may already have leapt to a conclusion about my views.

Being snarky about my writing tells me about as much as I need to know about your views.

gozunda

MagicMarker wrote: »

Even if she didn't die, she had to go through days of agony simply because the law doesn't allow an abortion even when the foetus is nonviable. If the pregnancy was terminated as soon as it was determined the foetus was nonviable then she likely would have lived. The law needs to change, we don't need any reports to tell us that.

Ok right and wrong
The constitution does allow for termination where the life of the woman is in danger. The Medical Council have issued specific guidelines to doctors on this matter.

There is however no law legislated under the constitution. So it is not the case that 'the law doesn't allow' rather successive governments have failed to enact any specific law in relation to the constitution

I also believe that there was no guarantee that their would have been a definitive positive outcome had a termination been carried out earlier but it is quite clear that this would have been best medical practice and would have provided for for the minimisation of infection and best chance of recovery

That said UCHG have serious questions to answer imo

pwurple

Flier wrote: »

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.

Can you give any reference to the medical opinions that say that termination would have been best practice? The reports and inquirys are not out yet. All I have heard is conjecture based on hearsay from a lot of non qualified sources. There isn't a single fact available, unless you call details in newspapers facts... Which I don't.

And we have no idea what choices Savita was given either. All we have is the words of an angry grieving husband, which while completly understandable, may not be the full story.

Boards has loads of threads on this, but I think perhaps the better one is on Health Sciences.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056807486

MagicMarker

gozunda wrote: »

Ok right and wrong
The constitution does allow for termination where the life of the woman is in danger. The Medical Council have issued specific guidelines to doctors on this matter.

There is however no law legislated under the constitution. So it is not the case that 'the law doesn't allow' rather successive governments have failed to enact any specific law in relation to the constitution

I also believe that there was no guarantee that their would have been a definitive positive outcome had a termination been carried out earlier but it is quite clear that this would have been best medical practice and would have provided for for the minimisation of infection and best chance of recovery

That said UCHG have serious questions to answer imo

I'm not talking about when the mother's life is in danger. I'm talking about when a person is in intense pain and it is known that the foetus is nonviable, neither the law nor the constitution allows the pregnancy to be terminated if there is still a foetal heartbeat. There's no reason for someone to spend days in agony waiting for a heartbeat to stop, when it's already been determined that the foetus has no chance of survival. The health of the woman should come first in this case, but it doesn't.

Deleted User wrote: »

I'll ask a favour. Can you tell me what an abortion when the foetus is nonviable is? What actually happens? And in what circumstances does it happen?

An abortion is the same thing whether the foetus is viable or not, it's the termination of the pregnancy, either by surgical or chemical methods. Do you want a step by step guide as to what happens? It happens in all kinds of circumstances, like a miscarriage.

therealgirl

Would it be possible for the law to change just to allow abortion in the case of the foetus being nonviable?

Stheno

therealgirl wrote: »

Would it be possible for the law to change just to allow abortion in the case of the foetus being nonviable?

That would be very narrow in the context of the x case and not legislate for cases where the life of the mother is in danger due to the pregnancy where the foetus was viable. Just imo.

poeticseraphim

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.

Prof Eamon O'Dywer of NUIG himself has stated that Savita should have been given a termination in his opinion.
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/leading-gynaecologist-urges-use-of-international-experts-for-savita-inquiry-3296308.html

Prof O'Dwyer said that from the information available to him, he believed that Ms Halappanavar should have been given a termination.

It was in the Irish Independant yesterday.

Bear in mind he is one of the most pro-life medical doctors in the country ...verging on extreme infact.

Infact he is known for very conservative and at times extreme catholic views on many issues. And yes this does have bearing in this case.


He has been a staunch defender of the church and the Christian brothers in particular... http://www.irishsalem.com/religious-congregations/christian-brothers/defendingthebrothers-06nov03.php


He has also been involved with Youth Defense...

He wrote in2000

http://www.youthdefence.ie/am_cms_media/what-the-experts-say-leaflet.pdf

– There is no conflict of interest between the mother and her unborn
child
– There are no medical indications for abortion
– There is no risk to the mother that can be avoided by abortion
– Prohibition of deliberate intentional abortion will not affect, in any
way, the availability of all necessary care for the pregnant woman.”
Eamon O’Dwyer MB, MAO, LLB, FRCPI, FRCOG
Professor Emeritus, Obstetrics and Gynaecology, NUI Galway

I understand that was 12 yrs ago and people can change a lot in 12 years. But to go from saying a woman never needs a termination to saying that in his opinion a woman should have been given a termination is quite a change.

In evidence to the All Party Oireachtas Committee, 2000
“…those who want abortion – and there are people who want abortion,
there are colleagues of mine who want abortion – are masters at muddying
the waters and bringing in things that have no relevance whatsoever
to the discussion, for example, ectopic pregnancy.……There is
not a country in the world that regards the treatment of ectopic pregnancy
as abortion. The only time I ever heard it was from a few people
here in Ireland. It is just nonsense.”
Dr PJK Conway, Consultant and Obstetrician

This groups ethos seems to be..a) A woman never needs an abortion b) and even if she does it is not an abortion.

This is a worrying find. There are doctors who are so pro-life ..yet dedicated doctors....and their is a contradiction that even their great intelligence cannot handle ..and they must lie to themselves.

This makes no sense to me ??? Does it to anyone else????

Also ..Prof Eamon O'Dywer has not PUBLICLY said his opinion is that Savita SHOULD have been given a termination....This is is an adamant pro-lifer here...if he think she should have....well quite frankly that can't be dismissed.

What worries me is the bizzarre logic of these men and the fact that they are men of huge influence in Irish maternal medicine.

Prof Eamon O'Dywer has suggested international experts should investigate as he feels Irish doctors are too close and could not be non biased he has said.


What on earth is going here???

Eamon O'Dwyer, MAO, LLB, FRCPI, FRCOG, was Professor of Gynaecology & Obstetrics at N.U.I., Galway for 35 years. A graduate of University College, Dublin is as a doctor well respected for his opinion.


I think this is weighing heavy on him...understandably.

As regards DR Conway...sorry to bring up the church again...but it considers direct abortion in ectopic pregnancy murder...it allows the tube to be removed ...making the mother infertile and indirectly aborting the fetus...

"the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever". This view was also advocated by Pius XII in a 1953 address to the Italian Association of Urology.[39]

Using the Thomistic Principle of Totality (removal of a pathological part to preserve the life of the person) and the Doctrine of Double Effect, the only moral action in an ectopic pregnancy where a woman's life is directly threatened is the removal of the tube containing the human embryo (salpingectomy). The death of the human embryo is unintended although foreseen.[40]

Dr Conway has a CATHOLIC VIEWPOINT ON THIS IT IS NOT A MEDICAL ONE IT IS CATHOLIC CHURCH TEACHING..HE SAID THIS TO AN OIREACHTAS COMMITEE. OUTRAGEOUS.


I am losing faith in Irish medicine...and BS this is not a systematic institutional problem..there is an obvious culture in Irish institutions....it needs to be outed ASAP

pwurple

Why are you quoting me above? You are not referring to my post at all in that rambling mess.

Lyaiera

Lyaiera wrote: »

Being snarky about my writing tells me about as much as I need to know about your views.

I wrote a four and a half line post, in plain English. Was it that difficult to analyse?

Honestly?

MagicMarker

MagicMarker wrote: »

An abortion is the same thing whether the foetus is viable or not, it's the termination of the pregnancy, either by surgical or chemical methods. Do you want a step by step guide as to what happens? It happens in all kinds of circumstances, like a miscarriage.

No need to be rude. I know precisely what happens; regrettably, circumstances have given me more familiarity in this area than I would have wished.

However, not everyone has the same level of familiarity. That, coupled with the tendency to over-dramatisation, hyperbole and lack of clarity in language means that not everyone has such a precise definition of "abortion". And that, as much as anything else, leads to a lot of the confusion in this debate.

You didn't get around to saying what you thought "non-viable" meant, by the way.

pwurple

pwurple wrote: »

Boards has loads of threads on this, but I think perhaps the better one is on Health Sciences.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056807486

Yep, definitely the best thread on Boards about the subject, although a touch of the OTTs has surfaced in a couple of posts.

What if the report shows that there was no legal barrier to an EPRC procedure, but that the medics made a professional judgement call based on the evidence in front of them and - as occasionally happens - got it wrong?

I'm not saying that was the case - but what if it was?

Flier

pwurple wrote: »

Can you give any reference to the medical opinions that say that termination would have been best practice? The reports and inquirys are not out yet. All I have heard is conjecture based on hearsay from a lot of non qualified sources. There isn't a single fact available, unless you call details in newspapers facts... Which I don't.

And we have no idea what choices Savita was given either. All we have is the words of an angry grieving husband, which while completly understandable, may not be the full story.

Boards has loads of threads on this, but I think perhaps the better one is on Health Sciences.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056807486

poeticseraphim wrote: »

Prof Eamon O'Dywer of NUIG himself has stated that Savita should have been given a termination in his opinion.
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/leading-gynaecologist-urges-use-of-international-experts-for-savita-inquiry-3296308.html


It was in the Irish Independant yesterday.

Bear in mind he is one of the most pro-life medical doctors in the country ...verging on extreme infact.

Infact he is known for very conservative and at times extreme catholic views on many issues. And yes this does have bearing in this case.


He has been a staunch defender of the church and the Christian brothers in particular... http://www.irishsalem.com/religious-congregations/christian-brothers/defendingthebrothers-06nov03.php


He has also been involved with Youth Defense...

He wrote in2000

http://www.youthdefence.ie/am_cms_media/what-the-experts-say-leaflet.pdf




I understand that was 12 yrs ago and people can change a lot in 12 years. But to go from saying a woman never needs a termination to saying that in his opinion a woman should have been given a termination is quite a change.




This groups ethos seems to be..a) A woman never needs an abortion b) and even if she does it is not an abortion.

This is a worrying find. There are doctors who are so pro-life ..yet dedicated doctors....and their is a contradiction that even their great intelligence cannot handle ..and they must lie to themselves.

This makes no sense to me ??? Does it to anyone else????

Also ..Prof Eamon O'Dywer has not PUBLICLY said his opinion is that Savita SHOULD have been given a termination....This is is an adamant pro-lifer here...if he think she should have....well quite frankly that can't be dismissed.

What worries me is the bizzarre logic of these men and the fact that they are men of huge influence in Irish maternal medicine.

Prof Eamon O'Dywer has suggested international experts should investigate as he feels Irish doctors are too close and could not be non biased he has said.


What on earth is going here???

Eamon O'Dwyer, MAO, LLB, FRCPI, FRCOG, was Professor of Gynaecology & Obstetrics at N.U.I., Galway for 35 years. A graduate of University College, Dublin is as a doctor well respected for his opinion.


I think this is weighing heavy on him...understandably.

As regards DR Conway...sorry to bring up the church again...but it considers direct abortion in ectopic pregnancy murder...it allows the tube to be removed ...making the mother infertile and indirectly aborting the fetus...



Dr Conway has a CATHOLIC VIEWPOINT ON THIS IT IS NOT A MEDICAL ONE IT IS CATHOLIC CHURCH TEACHING..HE SAID THIS TO AN OIREACHTAS COMMITEE. OUTRAGEOUS.


I am losing faith in Irish medicine...and BS this is not a systematic institutional problem..there is an obvious culture in Irish institutions....it needs to be outed ASAP

pwurple wrote: »

Why are you quoting me above? You are not referring to my post at all in that rambling mess.

Maybe to give you an answer to the reference you asked for from me. To be honest I haven't the time or inclination to produce any, so I'll leave you with that one. And the good doctor is a NUIG man. I would assume he has more of the facts of this particular case than most.

Neyite

poeticseraphim wrote: »

Prof Eamon O'Dywer of NUIG himself has stated that Savita should have been given a termination in his opinion.
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/leading-gynaecologist-urges-use-of-international-experts-for-savita-inquiry-3296308.html


It was in the Irish Independant yesterday.

Bear in mind he is one of the most pro-life medical doctors in the country ...verging on extreme infact.

Infact he is known for very conservative and at times extreme catholic views on many issues. And yes this does have bearing in this case.


He has been a staunch defender of the church and the Christian brothers in particular... http://www.irishsalem.com/religious-congregations/christian-brothers/defendingthebrothers-06nov03.php


He has also been involved with Youth Defense...

He wrote in2000

http://www.youthdefence.ie/am_cms_media/what-the-experts-say-leaflet.pdf




I understand that was 12 yrs ago and people can change a lot in 12 years. But to go from saying a woman never needs a termination to saying that in his opinion a woman should have been given a termination is quite a change.




This groups ethos seems to be..a) A woman never needs an abortion b) and even if she does it is not an abortion.

This is a worrying find. There are doctors who are so pro-life ..yet dedicated doctors....and their is a contradiction that even their great intelligence cannot handle ..and they must lie to themselves.

This makes no sense to me ??? Does it to anyone else????

Also ..Prof Eamon O'Dywer has not PUBLICLY said his opinion is that Savita SHOULD have been given a termination....This is is an adamant pro-lifer here...if he think she should have....well quite frankly that can't be dismissed.

What worries me is the bizzarre logic of these men and the fact that they are men of huge influence in Irish maternal medicine.

Prof Eamon O'Dywer has suggested international experts should investigate as he feels Irish doctors are too close and could not be non biased he has said.


What on earth is going here???

Eamon O'Dwyer, MAO, LLB, FRCPI, FRCOG, was Professor of Gynaecology & Obstetrics at N.U.I., Galway for 35 years. A graduate of University College, Dublin is as a doctor well respected for his opinion.


I think this is weighing heavy on him...understandably.

As regards DR Conway...sorry to bring up the church again...but it considers direct abortion in ectopic pregnancy murder...it allows the tube to be removed ...making the mother infertile and indirectly aborting the fetus...



Dr Conway has a CATHOLIC VIEWPOINT ON THIS IT IS NOT A MEDICAL ONE IT IS CATHOLIC CHURCH TEACHING..HE SAID THIS TO AN OIREACHTAS COMMITEE. OUTRAGEOUS.


I am losing faith in Irish medicine...and BS this is not a systematic institutional problem..there is an obvious culture in Irish institutions....it needs to be outed ASAP

Maybe you'd like to edit your above wall of text to specify which Dr. Conway Consultant Obstetrician in Galway you are referring to, to include his full name more prominently -Dr. PJK Conway. There is also a second Dr. Conway Consultant Obstetrician in Galway- Dr. UNA Conway. It would be easy to read your post and assume wrongly that it is Dr. Una Conway that is being discussed. I did until I re-read it.

MagicMarker

Neyite wrote: »

Maybe you'd like to edit your above wall of text to specify which Dr. Conway Consultant Obstetrician in Galway you are referring to, to include his full name more prominently -Dr. PJK Conway. There is also a second Dr. Conway Consultant Obstetrician in Galway- Dr. UNA Conway. It would be easy to read your post and assume wrongly that it is Dr. Una Conway that is being discussed. I did until I re-read it.

Fair play for even trying to read it.

pwurple

poeticseraphim wrote: »

This exactly.

You know what would have made that clear? Quoting the post of mine which you intended to respond to... Which was a different one to what you dumped in there. Or even try clipping the bit you meant.

@Pwurple
It is not a rambling mess...it is quite a referenced insight.

Heh, nope. You have referred to at least two people in vague ways, and then used "he" for both so we don't know who the heck you are talking about at all.

You have also reworded what they said to suit your own admitted anti-religion agenda, rather than actually unbiasedly quoting them. What the man was reported to have said, and what you said he said are not the same.

Then you bring out this random mumbo jumbo about tube removal making women infertile (it doesn't, we have two fallopian tubes. The other will take over. Even if both are removed, as long as the ovaries are functioning you can still have children with assistance)

I honestly don't even know what your point was. If it was to tell me that we know all we need to know to enable flying off the handle to some ill informed conclusion, I will agree with that.

But I will repeat, the inquiries or facts are not in the public arena yet. It is hardly controversial to wait for those to be released before forming an opinion of my own? Unless we are all turning into individual outraged off-shoots of the tabloids.

Flier

pwurple wrote: »

You know what would have made that clear? Quoting the post of mine which you intended to respond to... Which was a different one to what you dumped in there. Or even try clipping the bit you meant.

Well I'm glad I was able to clear that up for you. I think it was fairly obvious :rolleyes:

poeticseraphim

Neyite wrote: »

Maybe you'd like to edit your above wall of text to specify which Dr. Conway Consultant Obstetrician in Galway you are referring to, to include his full name more prominently -Dr. PJK Conway. There is also a second Dr. Conway Consultant Obstetrician in Galway- Dr. UNA Conway. It would be easy to read your post and assume wrongly that it is Dr. Una Conway that is being discussed. I did until I re-read it.

As far as I know Dr PJK CONWAY does not work at GALWAY hospital and never has. He collaborated with DR EAMON O'DWYER in other groups like Youth Defense etc and signing similar declarations on abortion as Dr O'Dwyer. He worked in Portlaoise Hospital.

It is stated in the quote it is Dr PJK CONWAY, it would only be assumed that it was Dr Una Conway if a) you knew Dr Una Conway worked there already You did not read the quote. Dr Una Conway works in the fertility unit which i imagine is a totally different part of the hospital.

There is also another O'Dwyer there in haemotology....Dr Michael O'Dwyer also nothing to do with this...but i refer to Prof Eamon O'Dwyer as O'Dwyer often too.

I will think about just deleting it ...to be honest if it seems to irk people i dont like.

I deleted the other one already.

I think you are just irked it showed something you don't like.

It is not exactly clear but your response was actually nasty and a little hurtful. But I am probably over sensitive.

Anyway going to take a breather first ...then decide what to do with it.

RDM_83 again

MagicMarker wrote: »

An abortion is the same thing whether the foetus is viable or not, it's the termination of the pregnancy, either by surgical or chemical methods. Do you want a step by step guide as to what happens? It happens in all kinds of circumstances, like a miscarriage.

Ok I'd disagree that the definition of the word abortion is as clear cut as your saying (had this from a previous thread, African journal but probably relevant),
E.G this paper can say

"The definition of abortion or miscarriage as stated in the Act seems to depart from the generally accepted medical definition of abortion as ‘termina-tion of pregnancy before viability’, that is the ges-tational age at which the foetus is capable of sur-viving as an independent entity."

and still pass peer review

Link
http://www.ajol.info/index.php/gmj/article/viewFile/55256/43723

poeticseraphim

pwurple wrote: »

You have also reworded what they said to suit your own admitted anti-religion agenda, rather than actually unbiasedly quoting them. What the man was reported to have said, and what you said he said are not the same.

But I will repeat, the inquiries or facts are not in the public arena yet. It is hardly controversial to wait for those to be released before forming an opinion of my own? Unless we are all turning into individual outraged off-shoots of the tabloids.

I put links to their exact words

I copied and pasted???

And if I then paraphrased you had the exact quotes right there .

The link to the http://www.youthdefence.ie/am_cms_media/what-the-experts-say-leaflet.pdf

I never said you had to form an opinion now.

You possibly are holding me responsible for something someone else said??

I never admitted I had an anti-religion agenda...i believe in the separation of powers and that religion should not influence a doctor..is that anti religion?

I disagree with some aspects of the religion...

I did copy and paste their words and I gave links to their own written words here is the PDF again.

Here is the copy and paste

– There is no conflict of interest between the mother and her unborn
child
– There are no medical indications for abortion
– There is no risk to the mother that can be avoided by abortion
– Prohibition of deliberate intentional abortion will not affect, in any
way, the availability of all necessary care for the pregnant woman.”
Eamon O’Dwyer MB, MAO, LLB, FRCPI, FRCOG
Professor Emeritus, Obstetrics and Gynaecology, NUI Galway
In evidence to the All Party Oireachtas Committee, 2000
“…those who want abortion – and there are people who want abortion,
there are colleagues of mine who want abortion – are masters at muddying
the waters and bringing in things that have no relevance whatsoever
to the discussion, for example, ectopic pregnancy.……There is
not a country in the world that regards the treatment of ectopic pregnancy
as abortion. The only time I ever heard it was from a few people
here in Ireland. It is just nonsense.”
Dr PJK Conway, Consultant and Obstetrician
Hearings of the All Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution, 2000

From the Irish Independant

Prof O'Dwyer said that from the information available to him, he believed that Ms Halappanavar should have been given a termination.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/leading-gynaecologist-urges-use-of-international-experts-for-savita-inquiry-3296308.html

And he is him speaking about it on youtube!

5.35 check it......

poeticseraphim

He seems like a well meaning man.
But what he says....eek
I don't know what do others think about that clip?

Neyite

poeticseraphim wrote: »

As far as I know Dr PJK CONWAY does not work at GALWAY hospital and never has. He collaborated with DR EAMON O'DWYER in other groups like Youth Defense etc and signing similar declarations on abortion as Dr O'Dwyer. He worked in Portlaoise Hospital.

It is stated in the quote it is Dr PJK CONWAY, it would only be assumed that it was Dr Una Conway if a) you knew Dr Una Conway worked there already You did not read the quote. Dr Una Conway works in the fertility unit which i imagine is a totally different part of the hospital.

There is also another O'Dwyer there in haemotology....Dr Michael O'Dwyer also nothing to do with this...but i refer to Prof Eamon O'Dwyer as O'Dwyer often too.

I will think about just deleting it ...to be honest if it seems to irk people i dont like.

I deleted the other one already.

I think you are just irked it showed something you don't like.

It is not exactly clear but your response was actually nasty and a little hurtful. But I am probably over sensitive.

Anyway going to take a breather first ...then decide what to do with it.

How on earth are you getting "nasty and hurtful" from it? Nothing in what I said is nasty or hurtful, I think you ARE being over sensitive. If anyone is irked, it's you, probably from others being critical of that long post. I'm not irked in the slightest.

To clarify, I DO know Dr. Una Conway as she was my doctor. the fertility unit is actually based in knocknacarra, but she does work in the maternity unit as she also is an obstretrican and delivers babies.

That's why I got confused reading your post and why I re-read it.
Since we are discussing the Galway maternity unit, then you mention o'dwyer working in Galway it's an easy assumption to make from your post that the Conway you are talking about works there too.

pwurple

poeticseraphim wrote: »

I put links to their exact words

Yes, you did, and then you quoted a paraphrase, as if it was a quote.

Here it is again

From the Irish Independant

Prof O'Dwyer said that from the information available to him, he believed that Ms Halappanavar should have been given a termination.

He never said that. That was one of the paraphrases. What he actually said was:
"If the mother's life was found to be at risk. I believe they should have acted"

This in no way contradicts what he says in the symposium in your you-tube link, where he says that medical treatment should not be withheld from a woman because she is pregnant. There is no turnabout there.

Savita did have an ERPC (is this what people think is an abortion??), and it is unclear at what point her infection became identified.

This isn't a termination, because treatment of miscarriage, just like ectopic pregnancy, and eclampsia, have absolutely nothing to do with abortion. The media are muddying the waters here to sell some newspapers. This was the management or mismanagement of a miscarriage. It will become clear hopefully what actually happened in a few days regarding the treatment of her infection., and if there was a delay for any reason which caused this woman's death, then those responsible will face the law, and/or losing their jobs.

Loafing Oaf

pwurple wrote: »

This isn't a termination, because treatment of miscarriage, just like ectopic pregnancy, and eclampsia, have absolutely nothing to do with abortion. The media are muddying the waters here to sell some newspapers. This was the management or mismanagement of a miscarriage. It will become clear hopefully what actually happened in a few days regarding the treatment of her infection., and if there was a delay for any reason which caused this woman's death, then those responsible will face the law, and/or losing their jobs.

It appears the doctors may have refused to intervene because they believed doing so would have contravened Ireland's abortion laws. Hence those laws may be very germane to the situation...