Savita Halappanavar case

echo beach

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

I'm not sure which, but some of the obstetricians I've heard commenting on this case are implying, if not quite asserting outright, that the problem ultimately lies with Article 40.3.3, and until that is repealed there will always be a 'sword of damocles' hanging over their practice.

That is the centre of the problem, without it there would be no X case judgement. It was put there for political reasons although there were warnings at the time of the dangers. This area is so complex that it would need a law running to hundreds of pages but we wanted a couple of sentences that could be put in the constitution.
The problem now is that unlike a law that can be repealed or amended by the Dail, the only way Article 40.3.3 can be repealed is by a referendum that would be at least as divisive as the ones we have had already on the subject.

Loafing Oaf

echo beach wrote: »

That is the centre of the problem, without it there would be no X case judgement. It was put there for political reasons although there were warnings at the time of the dangers. This area is so complex that it would need a law running to hundreds of pages but we wanted a couple of sentences that could be put in the constitution.
The problem now is that unlike a law that can be repealed or amended by the Dail, the only way Article 40.3.3 can be repealed is by a referendum that would be at least as divisive as the ones we have had already on the subject.

But what if the country's obstetricians came out en masse and said definitively we need Article 40.3.3 repealed if we are to do our job with confidence? What would the Pro-Life movement do then, tell them they don't know what they're talking about?

Here's a David Quinn article giving a more informed treatment of this issue, but also kind of missing the point: http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/david-quinn-leading-obstetricians-are-adding-to-public-confusion-3302918.html

However, if they are operating in a grey area that offers little legal protection, then why hasn't the Sword of Damocles fallen on any of them to date?

I think we can figure that one out for ourselves...

echo beach

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

But what if the country's obstetricians came out en masse and said definitively we need Article 40.3.3 repealed if we are to do our job with confidence?

Unless obstretricians are very different from every other group it is unlikely that all of them will have the same opinion.

What would the Pro-Life movement do then, tell them they don't know what they're talking about?

Perhaps not directly but they would create confusion about what is actually said.
If the pro-life movement trusted the medical profession they would not have needed an amendment to the constitution. Abortion was illegal then but having laws against it wasn't enough. They were afraid of abortion being somehow 'forced' on Irish people, and they still have that fear.

Loafing Oaf

echo beach wrote: »

Unless obstretricians are very different from every other group it is unlikely that all of them will have the same opinion.

Okay it's not likely that they would all come out with such a statement, but if even a few of them were to say so, I think most people would draw the conclusion that this is what the bulk of them feel deep down, but these guys are the only ones with the courage to come out and say it. If the inquiry into the Savita case points the finger at the law, I can see Ivana Bacik, Clare Daly et al appealing to the obstetricians to disown Article 40.3.3., if they do not do so of their own accord, because that could open the way to a swift and relatively painless victory for the pro-choice cause. Pro-Life know that once they find themselves telling the medical profession their business they've lost the argument, because most Irish people will side with the medics in that situation.


Having read and thought more about the Savita case, I've come to the conclusion that there wasn't even a 'grey area' in the law but that, if the husband's account is any way accurate, the hospital staff were adhering faithfully to the law and constitution as they currently stand. Of course that gives rise to the question of why these sorts of cases are not happening on a regular basis: as the Americans say, you do the math...

Truman Burbank

Truman Burbank wrote: »

No, it is not easy to see how a medical team......... There is a non-viable fetus; a mother with symptoms (and probable signs) of sepsis and someone is still checking for a fetal heartbeat? Please.

Thank you for your credentials - appreciated and acknowledged. As you know, I am not a lawyer but I do know, practically speaking, that I would classify 'septic' as a real and substantial risk, in the absence of a desktop dictionary on the term, because the patient could die. A skilled clinician should not need that desktop dictionary, at that moment in time (regardless of its existence or non-existence), because moments make minutes and all those minutes tick by, often rapidly, and look what happens. "Learning points" as the MPS would say. I must be thinking of a different standard of care. Assessment should be correct, otherwise we are all in trouble. That's patients I mean.

I never said there doesn't need to be clarity - I said that, in this case, on what we know (admittedly from one party), there is nothing grey to me about it.

As I was saying.............

drkpower

Truman Burbank wrote: »

As I was saying.............

I'm not sure how the inquest or the verdict does anything to substantiate your point.

pc11

you do the math...

I think we can figure that one out for ourselves...

Perfect illustrations of why I detest this debate. Everyone is disingenuous, no-one will say exactly what they mean, no-one will state exactly what it is they want to see happen or explicitly state their position, so many afraid to speak explicitly for fear of being labelled something or other. So many inconsistencies, agendas, propaganda, whatever.

When it's debated on TV/radio I want to scream at the hypocrites and cowards on all sides of this issue. Let me be clear, I mean ALL sides.