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

Flier

pwurple wrote: »

This isn't a termination, because treatment of miscarriage, just like ectopic pregnancy, and eclampsia, have absolutely nothing to do with abortion.

If the doctors had of treated her prolonged miscarraige by removing the contents of her uterus, while there was still a foetal heartbeat, well then, yes, it would have been an abortion

pwurple wrote: »

This was the management or mismanagement of a miscarriage. ........ 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.

I agree, it was the 'management or mismanagement of a miscarriage'. The point being that there may have been a legal impediment to this situation being managed appropriately. If that's the case, who should face the law and loose their jobs? The legislators - our politicians over the last 20 years who haven't done their job. Well we vote them in.....

poeticseraphim

pwurple wrote: »

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

Here it is again



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.

It was a quote from the paper. I indicated that it was a quote from the paper by putting the title of that paper over the quote along with a link to the piece or people to see.

Treatment of miscarriage or eclampsia if it includes the death of an fetus with any kind of vitals is an abortion.

Are you one of the ones who believes that abortion is never medically necessary then?????

Because if not what do you make of his statement in the clip that PARAPHRASING ..abortion is never medically justified???

The methods used are sometimes the same....it can be the same procedure.

His logic seems to be this A) A woman never needs abortion and if she does it is not an abortion.

The comment that the husband reported 'Ireland is a catholic country we don't do abortions' should never have been told by a professional to a patient.

And i am just left wondering...was it then clear in the mind of the doctor that an abortion was just not done in Ireland?? And that they were certain they were not going to do one??

Because that comment indicates that an abortion was not an option in the minds of those doctors from the outset regardless of risk.

It may be a casual remark but it would be strange to hear coming from a hospital staff member.

poeticseraphim

Neyite wrote: »

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.

Please accept my apologies I over reacted and I am sorry.

JupiterKid

IMO they should re-name the Galway Hospital maternity unit after Savita in her memory.

pwurple

poeticseraphim wrote: »

Treatment of miscarriage or eclampsia if it includes the death of an fetus with any kind of vitals is an abortion.

I sincerely hope you don't actually know what eclampsia is, and this was written in naievte. There is ALWAYS a fetus with a heartbeat with eclampsia, sometimes they don't survive. It is absolutely not abortion, and I think it extremely hurtful and offensive to parents who have had pre-term c-sections with eclampsia or pre-eclampsia, where their child has not survived, to call it one.

Miscarriage is also always the death of a fetus who previously had a heartbeat. I have no clue why you are being so horrendously offensive. My miscarriage treatment was not an abortion. I didn't choose for it to end.

Are you one of the ones who believes that abortion is never medically necessary then?????

I have no idea, I'm not an obgyn. I'm a moderate pro-choice... I wouldn't have an abortion myself, as I have fertility issues and would dearly love more children. But I understand that not everyone's situation is the same as mine, and a woman's body is her own business.

His logic seems to be this A) A woman never needs abortion and if she does it is not an abortion.

He is saying that an emergency c-section is not abortion, and an ERPC is not abortion. I agree with both. Neither of those procedures are abortions. Do you think they are?

The comment that the husband reported 'Ireland is a catholic country we don't do abortions' should never have been told by a professional to a patient.

Agreed, ridiculously unprofessional, uncaring and insensitive, and if it is true, I hope they find the idiot who said it and reprimand them severely.

poeticseraphim

pwurple wrote: »

I sincerely hope you don't actually know what eclampsia is, and this was written in naievte. There is ALWAYS a fetus with a heartbeat with eclampsia, sometimes they don't survive. It is absolutely not abortion, and I think it extremely hurtful and offensive to parents who have had pre-term c-sections with eclampsia or pre-eclampsia, where their child has not survived, to call it one.

Miscarriage is also always the death of a fetus who previously had a heartbeat. I have no clue why you are being so horrendously offensive. My miscarriage treatment was not an abortion. I didn't choose for it to end.



I have no idea, I'm not an obgyn. I'm a moderate pro-choice... I wouldn't have an abortion myself, as I have fertility issues and would dearly love more children. But I understand that not everyone's situation is the same as mine, and a woman's body is her own business.

He is saying that an emergency c-section is not abortion, and an ERPC is not abortion. I agree with both. Neither of those procedures are abortions. Do you think they are?

Agreed, ridiculously unprofessional, uncaring and insensitive, and if it is true, I hope they find the idiot who said it and reprimand them severely.

Hi I have a lot of compassion for your situation and with your fertility concerns. Of course i don't want to upset you. But I also don't want to fall to the argument of personal infallibility due to your emotional circumstances or the circumstances of others.

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

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

Whether it is hurtful or not to call them such is besides the point. It does not need to be if we de-stigmatise the word..WHICH WE NEED TO...

There is ALWAYS a fetus with a heartbeat with eclampsia, sometimes they don't survive. It is absolutely not abortion, and I think it extremely hurtful and offensive to parents who have had pre-term c-sections with eclampsia or pre-eclampsia, where their child has not survived, to call it one.

I would call this an abortion in the context of debate about abortion or a formal conversation. I would expect it to be defined as such and i would see it as evidence for the need for abortion in certain circumstances.

I would also say that if it were me going through that ..i would want the doctor to be honest.

In conversation with an individual i would bite my tongue, and allow them to say what they need to say to be able to deal with what they have been through. Sometimes dishonesty is the right thing to do that would be such a case. However sometimes dishonesty is wrong. I would consider it dishonest to say abortion is never medically necessary and label therapeutic abortions as something else.

On another note??? May I ask a question to everyone?? Sorry to go off on a tangent.But let us say a woman was in the position of having to make that decision and she wanted the life of the unborn to take precedence over her own life or her health ...I would want that choice to be respected.

Several cases like that have arisen in America by the way. And it is actually part of the reason I am pro-choice. We always have a choice.


I hope I have responded to you sensitively enough to your posts and questions to be honest whilst not offending or hurting you. And i certainly do not wish to hurt anyone else. My apologies if i have done so.

poeticseraphim

JupiterKid wrote: »

IMO they should re-name the Galway Hospital maternity unit after Savita in her memory.

If her family support it then yes.

Perhaps if there is a law or legislation because of this case we could name it Savita's law.

It is better than Xcase legislation.

Again ONLY if her family support it.

KamiKazeKitten

poeticseraphim wrote: »

On another note??? May I ask a question to everyone?? Sorry to go off on a tangent.But let us say a woman was in the position of having to make that decision and she wanted the life of the unborn to take precedence over her own life or her health ...I would want that choice to be respected.

Several cases like that have arisen in America by the way. And it is actually part of the reason I am pro-choice. We always have a choice.

Sorry if I'm picking you up wrong here, but I'm not really sure how this is a question? I would want the woman to be able to make the choice in that situation.
Tis pretty much the basis of being pro-choice, having the freedom to make your own choices over your body.

Loafing Oaf

poeticseraphim wrote: »

Hi I have a lot of compassion for your situation and with your fertility concerns. Of course i don't want to upset you. But I also don't want to fall to the argument of personal infallibility due to your emotional circumstances or the circumstances of others.

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

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

There were pro-life people on Frontline tonight repeating the old "abortion never necessary to save the woman's life" schtick, even though an ob/gyn guy on the panel had been explicitly referring to life-saving abortions. Pat should have asked them were they better informed than him...

ASVM

There is a website called baby and bump (google it) and if you have a look at it there's a post on there from a woman who has miscarried but will not be granted a D&C at an Irish hospital and has been sent home from the hospital a few times.
Apparently they are telling her the foetus is still growing although there is no heartbeat. The woman said she is only in Ireland because of her husband's job and is contemplating flying home as she is finding it very difficult to carry on with a dead life inside of her. This is a shocking story and is only dated the 2nd of November.

If you can find it it's worth looking at.

http://babyandbump.momtastic.com/miscarriage-support/1360317-but-irish-hospital-wont-perform-d-c.html

Pawwed Rig

Savita Halappanavar's husband has refused to cooperate with a HSE inquiry

Quote from RTE
"The solicitor for Savita Halappanavar's family has said her husband has no faith in the Health Service Executive inquiry into her death and will not cooperate with it."

I think this is a good decision from him as a HSE inquiry would most likely drag on for months with inconclusive conclusions. I don't think the HSE can conduct an inquiry without his consent.
I for one have no confidence in the HSE either. A public inquiry, I believe, would be more appropriate in this case.
I am not sure the politicians have an appetite for public inquiries though.

Full story here

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1120/savita-halappanavar-inquiry.html

Neyite

Cant blame the man really, I'd push for an independent inquiry too if I were him.

Stheno

Neyite wrote: »

Cant blame the man really, I'd push for an independent inquiry too if I were him.

That's a fair point, but they are bringing in non HSE people to lead the enquiry.

By not cooperating is he not denying himself input in terms of his and Savitas experience that may be useful?

Neyite

Stheno wrote: »

That's a fair point, but they are bringing in non HSE people to lead the enquiry.

By not cooperating is he not denying himself input in terms of his and Savitas experience that may be useful?

He wants an independent enquiry, in public, under oath, with no Galway consultants on it.

This is the team:

Professor Sir Sabaratnam Arulkumaran, Head of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, St. George’s Hospital, University of London (Chairperson)
Ms Cora McCaughan, HSE National Incident Management Team
Ms Cathriona Molloy, Service User Advocate, Patient Focus
Prof Morrison, Consultant Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Galway University Hospital
Ms Geraldine Keohane, Director of Midwifery, Director of Cork University Hospital
Dr Catherine Fleming, Consultant Infectious Diseases, Galway University Hospital
Dr Brian Harte, Consultant Anaesthetics, Galway University Hospital

LittleBook

Neyite wrote: »

He wants an independent enquiry, in public, under oath, with no Galway consultants on it.

This is the team:

Professor Sir Sabaratnam Arulkumaran, Head of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, St. George’s Hospital, University of London (Chairperson)
Ms Cora McCaughan, HSE National Incident Management Team
Ms Cathriona Molloy, Service User Advocate, Patient Focus
Prof Morrison, Consultant Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Galway University Hospital
Ms Geraldine Keohane, Director of Midwifery, Director of Cork University Hospital
Dr Catherine Fleming, Consultant Infectious Diseases, Galway University Hospital
Dr Brian Harte, Consultant Anaesthetics, Galway University Hospital

There was an old colleague of Prof. Arulkumaran on Newstalk this morning (can't remember his name but the interview is online). He said he thought it was unusual that three consultants from the hospital being investigated were on the team and that they would be investigating their own colleagues. He believed that these people would better serve the inquiry as witnesses rather than as part of the inquiry team.

I have to say, if I was Mr Halapannavar I'd be a bit dubious myself.

Prof. Arulkumaran wants to meet with Mr Halapannavar, presumably to discuss his decision not to co-operate with the inquiry.

poeticseraphim

KamiKazeKitten wrote: »

Sorry if I'm picking you up wrong here, but I'm not really sure how this is a question? I would want the woman to be able to make the choice in that situation.
Tis pretty much the basis of being pro-choice, having the freedom to make your own choices over your body.

I would interpret pro-choice in this way too. But i just wanted to know of other felt the same.

But there hav been cases in other countries where pressure has been exerted on women to have abortions in some situations where the fetus in non vioble and her health might be in danger.

And classing an abortion as 'treatment' seems to infer a woman SHOULD get it by a doctor....instead o it is an abortion that could save your life ..the choice is yours

The sentence 'This woman is refusing treatment that could save her life' is different to 'this woman is refusing an abortion that could save her life'

One makes her sound insane...the other you can see at least she has made a difficult decision...even i it would not be yours

And we are seeing these 'treatments' are not being given with equal consistency in appropriate cases why is a 'treatment' not ok for a miscarriage if it is not an abortion.

poeticseraphim

LittleBook wrote: »

There was an old colleague of Prof. Arulkumaran on Newstalk this morning (can't remember his name but the interview is online). He said he thought it was unusual that three consultants from the hospital being investigated were on the team and that they would be investigating their own colleagues. He believed that these people would better serve the inquiry as witnesses rather than as part of the inquiry team.

I have to say, if I was Mr Halapannavar I'd be a bit dubious myself.

Prof. Arulkumaran wants to meet with Mr Halapannavar, presumably to discuss his decision not to co-operate with the inquiry.

Not acceptable.....

And prof O'Dwyer of Galway suggested himself it should be international investigators ..he said felt Irish doctors were too close.

Do you think they are trustworthy or trying to hide something??

If they get found out for hiding anything...they will be screwed..

poeticseraphim

By the way.

I am not certain if this is true.

But i was told...allegedly years ago at Holles street hospital when the nuns were there that is there was a choice between mother and child that they would try to choose the child. And that the COMBE hospital was different they would try to save the mother.And that this was common knowledge.

Did anyone else ever hear this?? And does anyone know anything about it?

Stheno

poeticseraphim wrote: »

By the way.

I am not certain if this is true.

But i was told...allegedly years ago at Holles street hospital when the nuns were there that is there was a choice between mother and child that they would try to choose the child. And that the COMBE hospital was different they would try to save the mother.And that this was common knowledge.

Did anyone else ever hear this?? And does anyone know anything about it?

How is this relevant?

The Galway consultants have been removed from the inquiry.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1120/savita-halappanavar-inquiry.html

ASVM

ASVM wrote: »

There is a website called baby and bump (google it) and if you have a look at it there's a post on there from a woman who has miscarried but will not be granted a D&C at an Irish hospital and has been sent home from the hospital a few times.
Apparently they are telling her the foetus is still growing although there is no heartbeat. The woman said she is only in Ireland because of her husband's job and is contemplating flying home as she is finding it very difficult to carry on with a dead life inside of her. This is a shocking story and is only dated the 2nd of November.

If you can find it it's worth looking at.

http://babyandbump.momtastic.com/miscarriage-support/1360317-but-irish-hospital-wont-perform-d-c.html

What do people think about the treatment of the woman in this situation?
Is it this difficult to diagnose a miscarriage? I thougt the absence of a foetal heartbeat indicated miscarriage.What's going on in our maternity hospitals?

Nymeria

poeticseraphim wrote: »

By the way.

I am not certain if this is true.

But i was told...allegedly years ago at Holles street hospital when the nuns were there that is there was a choice between mother and child that they would try to choose the child. And that the COMBE hospital was different they would try to save the mother.And that this was common knowledge.

Did anyone else ever hear this?? And does anyone know anything about it?

It's interesting because speaking to my own mother about this case recently and she said the same thing, not specifically about Holles Street hospital but just about the treatment of pregnant women in general. Also, in many cases, that would mean choosing a foetus over a mother who may had had many other children at home depending on her. Obviously it is only hearsay, but it is interesting to think think that may have been some sort of unspoken policy.

And I do believe it's relevant in the broader context of how pregnant women were and still are being treated in our hospitals.

poeticseraphim

This is a really level headed article on the whole issue by an obstetrician
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/we-wont-let-women-die-says-professor-3294626.html












This is not to do with abortion but..
I thought this was interesting

It is called rate my hospital...

Staff and patients give feed back i thought it was interesting not to do with abortion at all..
http://www.ratemyhospital.ie/survey_cmt.html?h_id=16
Both side can say the HSE needs to have it's finger surgically removed from it's ass.....oh..there is a waiting list...

KamiKazeKitten

poeticseraphim wrote: »

I would interpret pro-choice in this way too. But i just wanted to know of other felt the same.

But there hav been cases in other countries where pressure has been exerted on women to have abortions in some situations where the fetus in non vioble and her health might be in danger.

And classing an abortion as 'treatment' seems to infer a woman SHOULD get it by a doctor....instead o it is an abortion that could save your life ..the choice is yours

The sentence 'This woman is refusing treatment that could save her life' is different to 'this woman is refusing an abortion that could save her life'

One makes her sound insane...the other you can see at least she has made a difficult decision...even i it would not be yours

And we are seeing these 'treatments' are not being given with equal consistency in appropriate cases why is a 'treatment' not ok for a miscarriage if it is not an abortion.

Well, I suppose the doctors would be trying to save their lives so that would be the reasoning behind it? Similar to Jehovahs Witnesses and blood transfusions in a way. Although I don't agree to pressuring anyone into that making any medical decision, trying to understand the logic there.

I go back and forth on my opinion of the abortion issue tbh, but some of the posts in this thread have been very interesting and are really making me think.

username123

poeticseraphim wrote: »

By the way.

I am not certain if this is true.

But i was told...allegedly years ago at Holles street hospital when the nuns were there that is there was a choice between mother and child that they would try to choose the child. And that the COMBE hospital was different they would try to save the mother.And that this was common knowledge.

Did anyone else ever hear this?? And does anyone know anything about it?

My mother specifically chose the Coombe for this reason - but I believe this was changed with the 1983 constitutional ban on abortion.

Pawwed Rig

Quote from RTE ""He (Praveen) feels that anybody who is appointed by the HSE or paid for by the HSE to conduct an inquiry into his wife's death won't meet the criteria that we would advise him as lawyers of getting to the truth," Mr O’Donnell said.
Mr O'Donnell said the removal of the three consultants from the Galway hospital from the inquiry team would not be enough to meet Mr Halappanavar's concerns."

It is sad to see the govt blundering on in their usual cronyism ways arguing about the makeup of an inquiry and the terms of reference of such an inquiry when this poor family has had to bury a wife and daughter. The fact that the world is looking on at the general incompetence that we have all come to accept as normal must seem incomprehensible to those outside. Luckily in this case the Indian government will be putting pressure on Ireland to do the right thing so uniquely in this case an inquiry might actually yield results. I don't believe the HSE can be involved in it though.

poeticseraphim

Nymeria wrote: »

It's interesting because speaking to my own mother about this case recently and she said the same thing, not specifically about Holles Street hospital but just about the treatment of pregnant women in general. Also, in many cases, that would mean choosing a foetus over a mother who may had had many other children at home depending on her. Obviously it is only hearsay, but it is interesting to think think that may have been some sort of unspoken policy.

And I do believe it's relevant in the broader context of how pregnant women were and still are being treated in our hospitals.

Barbaric:( IF true
It should be found out if it is hearsay or fact..and brought to public attention..i would REALLY like to know if anyone knows anything else.

But obviously women did not eel they were empowered over their care and as if they were treated humanely and they were making the decisions.






The link i showed 'rate my hospital' is nothing to do with abortion but general care and standards

but it shows a lot of staff and patients were horrified at treatment there ...some were happy ..but some staff were distressed and some women were not treated well ...again it is hearsay and these reports ratings on an online survey but some are scary and it appears particularly in post natal care

username123

ASVM wrote: »

What do people think about the treatment of the woman in this situation?
Is it this difficult to diagnose a miscarriage? I thougt the absence of a foetal heartbeat indicated miscarriage.What's going on in our maternity hospitals?

In the post the woman clearly states the reasoning given to her:

She told me that they only declare it a miscarriage in Ireland if a baby has no heartbeat, no growth for 10 days and is over 7mm

Presumably there are times when a heartbeat is difficult or impossible to detect due to position in the womb and cannot be taken as the only indicator.

I have no doubt there have been 100s or 1000s of women left in various states of pain and/or distress over the refusal of Irish doctors to hurry along a miscarriage but we are only hearing about it now due to the Savita case.

poeticseraphim

KamiKazeKitten wrote: »

Well, I suppose the doctors would be trying to save their lives so that would be the reasoning behind it? Similar to Jehovahs Witnesses and blood transfusions in a way. Although I don't agree to pressuring anyone into that making any medical decision, trying to understand the logic there.

I go back and forth on my opinion of the abortion issue tbh, but some of the posts in this thread have been very interesting and are really making me think.

Yeah it is good to read all the differing experiences and opinions isn't it
I don't think the analogy with a Jehovah's witness abstaining from a transfusion is a moral equivalence.

For a pregnant woman she may want to give her life to save her child or for preference to be given to her child.

She may want a pregnancy to be pro-longed to the critical 24 weeks or beyond at a lethal risk to her body.

If she succeeds she may die but her baby may live ....or at least have a slightly greater chance....she may feel compelled

A Jehovah's Witness (whilst i think the choice should in the end be respected after counsel and medical advice ) has less invested and if thy choose to save their life they have less emotional consequence.

There is a bigger consequence to her choice for her.

It is really up to the individual and the individual situation..if the child is only going to live an hour and be in great pain....then an abortion may be humane...again so individual...a powerful decision...

KamiKazeKitten

poeticseraphim wrote: »

I don't think the analogy with a Jehovah's witness abstaining from a transfusion is a moral equivalence.

For a pregnant woman she may want to give her life to save her child or for preference to be given to her child.

She may want a pregnancy to be pro-longed to the critical 24 weeks or beyond at a lethal risk to her body.

If she succeeds she may die but her baby may live ....or at least have a slightly greater chance....she may feel compelled

A Jehovah's Witness (whilst i think the choice should in the end be respected after counsel and medical advice ) has less invested and if thy choose to save their life they have less emotional consequence.

There is a bigger consequence to her choice for her.

It is really up to the individual and the individual situation..i th child is only going to live an hour and be in great pain....then an abortion may be humane...again so individual...a powerul decision...

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

poeticseraphim

username123 wrote: »

My mother specifically chose the Coombe for this reason - but I believe this was changed with the 1983 constitutional ban on abortion.

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




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