Woman dies after termination denied

conaire1

Media reports of the death of an Indian woman, Savita Halappanavar, who was 17 weeks pregnant, at University Hospital Galway last month, are now 24 hours old. Why is there no thread on the subject on the Galway city board?

Predalien

Because it's a national issue and there are threads elsewhere?

chickencurry02

if it is such a big concern for you why dont you start one

conaire1

After five minutes searching, I found the national thread at http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056806680
All shades of opinion there and some clear points being made in the midst of it all. My sympathies to her husband Praveen, who works in Boston Scientific, and her family in India.
Perhaps those who wish to express their views could do so on the national thread and this thread could be reserved for personal messages.

jc bamford

There is a big thread in The Ladies lounge

conaire1

I'm now an expert at finding national threads. The Ladies Lounge thread is at http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056806875

GekkePrutser

I'm a bit surprised that there's no demonstration organised here in Galway, there are in Dublin and Cork but not here, where it happened. If there was a silent march or something I would certainly join it.

Edit: I just saw on the Irish Times website that a vigil is planned here for Saturday 5pm.

BhoscaCapall

The Catholic Church has held this country back more than any empire ever did, and I say that as a staunch Republican.

biko

It's a bit of an odd thread start there OP. Instead of starting a thread on the tragedy it's a thread on why there isn't a thread on the tragedy
I don't mind it being discussed here even though location is coincidental.

FB on Saturday's vigil, see you there.
http://www.facebook.com/events/111469712349997/

snubbleste

Galway is famous worldwide.

conaire1

Biko
I came to the Board last night to read local response to a local tragedy. When I saw no posts, I thought they may have been moved to the national tread(s). I'm baffled and disturbed that nobody had started a thread much earlier.
Thanks for the Saturday Vigil Facebook thread, I hope to be there.

ben.schlomo

conaire1 wrote: »

Biko
I came to the Board last night to read local response to a local tragedy. When I saw no posts, I thought they may have been moved to the national tread(s). I'm baffled and disturbed that nobody had started a thread much earlier.
Thanks for the Saturday Vigil Facebook thread, I hope to be there.

An experienced user of boards would know that threads were started elsewhere so that there wasnt necessarily any need to add to it here, that should ease your distress.

conaire1

I wanted to read a local response to a local tragedy.

biko

It is very sad it'd have to come to this (a local woman's death) before it's brought up how flawed the system is in this regard. Hopefully this terrible death will be the spark that opens up a debate and a change in the law so any further tragedies can be prevented.

Shakti

The mortal consequences of the appalling standards of care in UCHG.

antoobrien

biko wrote: »

Hopefully this terrible death will be the spark that opens up a debate and a change in the law so any further tragedies can be prevented.

Since terminations are already allowed if the mother's life is in danger, does the law really need to be changed to cover this case?

Septicemia is a dangerous condition, so it has to be asked is this a case of the medical staff failing to grasp the seriousness of the problem until it was too late?

biko

From what I heard on the radio most cases are pretty clear but in this one case circumstances were different and not covered under proper legislation (I don't recall exactly what was said but that's the jist of it).

My condolences to Mr Halappanavar and the family btw.

Shakti

Her husband, Praveen Halappanavar (34), an engineer at Boston Scientific in Galway, says she asked several times over a three-day period that the pregnancy be terminated. He says that, having been told she was miscarrying, and after one day in severe pain, Ms Halappanavar asked for a medical termination.

This was refused, he says, because the foetal heartbeat was still present and they were told, “this is a Catholic country”.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/1114/1224326575203.html

Sponge Bob

Termination is not permitted where the baby has NO chance of surviving. IN this case she had a fully dilated cervix and survivability was 0%. The same applies in cases of Anencephaly where the foetus may go full term and will die upon birth, no termination is permitted despite the 100% probability of death after delivery.

Clare Daly attempted to introduce a Bill to allow for termination in limited circumstances earlier this year. The Bill, if enacted, MIGHT have saved Savita even if only to get her out of hospital before she caught the superbug that killed her, E Coli EBSL.

This is the Bill. "The Medical Treatment (Termination Of Pregnancy In Case Of Risk To Life Of Pregnant Woman) Bill 2012"

http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=20441&&CatID=59

Clare has some notes on it here . Read section 4 of the bill itself.

http://www.claredaly.ie/medical-treatment-termination-of-pregnancy-in-case-of-risk-to-life-of-pregnant-woman-bill-2012/

The following Galway West TDs voted AGAINST the Bill and are listed here.

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2012/04/19/00006.asp

Eamonn O Cuiv
Brian Walsh
Seán Kyne
Noel Grealish
Derek Nolan

Section 4

Provision of Medical Treatment
4.—(1) It shall be lawful for a medical practitioner to provide any
form of medical treatment to a woman, despite its consequences for
the life of the foetus, provided that—
(a) two medical practitioners have each formed an honestly
held and reasonable belief that there is a real and substantial
risk to the life of that woman, other than through
suicide or another condition ordinarily diagnosed and or
treated by a consultant psychiatrist or a clinical psychologist,
which can be averted only by the provision of that 25
medical treatment, or
(b) there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the woman
through suicide or another condition ordinarily diagnosed
and or treated by a consultant psychiatrist or a
clinical psychologist, as determined by— 30
(i) one medical practitioner and one consultant psychiatrist,
or
(ii) one medical practitioner and one clinical psychologist,
or
(iii) in the absence of an available consultant psychiatrist
or a clinical psychologist and to prevent undue delay
in the examination and or treatment of the woman,
two medical practitioners,
who have formed an honestly held and reasonable belief that there
is a real and substantial risk to the life of that woman which can be
averted only by the provision of that medical treatment.
(2) It shall be the entitlement of the woman—

(a) regarding the necessity of medical treatment under the
terms of this Act, to seek a further opinion from her
choice of such medical practitioner or practitioners, consultant
psychiatrist or clinical psychologist in such combi-
5 nation as is required by subsection 1 of this section—
(i) as have been nominated independently by her, or
(ii) to whom she has been referred by one or both of the
providers of the first opinion

Das Kitty

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Eamonn O Cuiv
Brian Walsh
Seán Kyne
Noel Grealish
Derek Nolan

It'll be interesting to see if any of them show up on Saturday.

antoobrien

BhoscaCapall wrote: »

The Catholic Church has held this country back more than any empire ever did, and I say that as a staunch Republican.

Actually I think you'll find that it was Queen Victoria's government that enacted the ban on abortions in 1861. A lot of our laws are carry overs or minor changes from British law.

Cleahaigh

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Termination is not permitted where the baby has NO chance of surviving. IN this case she had a fully dilated cervix and survivability was 0%. The same applies in cases of Anencephaly where the foetus may go full term and will die upon birth, no termination is permitted despite the 100% probability of death after delivery.

Clare Daly attempted to introduce a Bill to allow for termination in limited circumstances earlier this year. The Bill, if enacted, MIGHT have saved Savita even if only to get her out of hospital before she caught the superbug that killed her, E Coli EBSL.

This is the Bill. "The Medical Treatment (Termination Of Pregnancy In Case Of Risk To Life Of Pregnant Woman) Bill 2012"

http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=20441&&CatID=59

Clare has some notes on it here . Read section 4 of the bill itself.

http://www.claredaly.ie/medical-treatment-termination-of-pregnancy-in-case-of-risk-to-life-of-pregnant-woman-bill-2012/

The following Galway West TDs voted AGAINST the Bill and are listed here.

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2012/04/19/00006.asp

Eamonn O Cuiv
Brian Walsh
Seán Kyne
Noel Grealish
Derek Nolan

Section 4

Provision of Medical Treatment
4.—(1) It shall be lawful for a medical practitioner to provide any
form of medical treatment to a woman, despite its consequences for
the life of the foetus, provided that—
(a) two medical practitioners have each formed an honestly
held and reasonable belief that there is a real and substantial
risk to the life of that woman, other than through
suicide or another condition ordinarily diagnosed and or
treated by a consultant psychiatrist or a clinical psychologist,
which can be averted only by the provision of that 25
medical treatment, or
(b) there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the woman
through suicide or another condition ordinarily diagnosed
and or treated by a consultant psychiatrist or a
clinical psychologist, as determined by— 30
(i) one medical practitioner and one consultant psychiatrist,
or
(ii) one medical practitioner and one clinical psychologist,
or
(iii) in the absence of an available consultant psychiatrist
or a clinical psychologist and to prevent undue delay
in the examination and or treatment of the woman,
two medical practitioners,
who have formed an honestly held and reasonable belief that there
is a real and substantial risk to the life of that woman which can be
averted only by the provision of that medical treatment.
(2) It shall be the entitlement of the woman—

(a) regarding the necessity of medical treatment under the
terms of this Act, to seek a further opinion from her
choice of such medical practitioner or practitioners, consultant
psychiatrist or clinical psychologist in such combi-
5 nation as is required by subsection 1 of this section—
(i) as have been nominated independently by her, or
(ii) to whom she has been referred by one or both of the
providers of the first opinion

Or maybe an early abortion could have ended up the same way, given the nature of the intervention. Abortions do have an elevated risk of septicemia as well.

Sponge Bob

Cleahaigh wrote: »

Or maybe an early abortion could have ended up the same way, given the nature of the intervention. Abortions do have an elevated risk of septicemia as well.

She may have picked up the worst of it lying around UCHG, a hospital full of resistant bugs such as E Coli ESBL, for 3 days..and with her cervix dilated during all that time. A very good summary is provided in this post here.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81766884&postcount=119

Lying around for 3 days in severe pain tends to depress immune systems.

The jury was out on Monday. The big problems started to manifest on Tuesday and by Wednesday the infection had become too advanced for treatment.

So the nub of the question is whether a wider variety of resolutions should have been available to the medical staff on Tuesday when they were aware of septicemia and are always fully aware of the implications of not treating it. By Tuesday she had certainly been weakened by pain and lack of sleep and by wednesday she was proven fatally weakened.

Then there is the question of whether she would have gotten the right treatment had there been an abortion and had tests shown the miscarriage was caused by E Coli ESBL which had at that point not entered the bloodstream but which may have showed in uterine matter.

It's a hard one. The only truth is that the system did not respond to her requests which were shown to have been reasonable all along. The system couldn't.

What is certain is that all our local TDs voted against a measure which would have fully entitled her to ask ANOTHER consultant to examine the issue for her. She was trapped on the list belonging to one consultant in there and the system does not allow another consultant to intervene as was proposed in that Bill of Clare Dalys. You are at the mercy of the consultant under whom you are admitted.

From that link, read all of it perhaps starting with the last line and then top down.

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

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

What medically sound reason is there to suggest that an abortion would definitely have stopped her death by septicaemia?

_Whimsical_

It's very difficult to get a full grasp of what happened without all the facts involved. I think the case was definitely mismanaged and medical staff were clearly not alert enough to her level of pain and distress or to the possibility of developing infection. Whether this tragedy occurred as a result of our abortion laws is harder to ascertain. From what I can see the Irish Medical Councils guidelines would have allowed for termination here and it would've been considered surgical management of a miscarriage rather than a termination in a case where there was zero chance of life for the baby. Apparently that is not uncommon in these situations and happens as a standard response to ectopic pregnancy which would involve a threat the mothers life and a nonviable but alive foetus.Also without signs of infection the management of this miscarriage was medically valid. So it could be a case where the fault lies with the medical teams lack of alertness more than it does with our laws. I'm going to wait for further facts in this case before I decide.

Something went horribly wrong here and it is a truly tragic case.I think X should be legislated for but not necessarily because of this case until more facts emerge.

Lon Dubh

There is a vigil for Savita on Saturday (tomorrow) in Eyre Square at 5pm if anyone is interested in attending.

Mrs OBumble

Lon Dubh wrote: »

There is a vigil for Savita on Saturday (tomorrow) in Eyre Square at 5pm if anyone is interested in attending.

I'm kinda picking that half Galway is going to be there.

shampoosuicide

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

It's very difficult to get a full grasp of what happened without all the facts involved. I think the case was definitely mismanaged and medical staff were clearly not alert enough to her level of pain and distress or to the possibility of developing infection. Whether this tragedy occurred as a result of our abortion laws is harder to ascertain. From what I can see the Irish Medical Councils guidelines would have allowed for termination here and it would've been considered surgical management of a miscarriage rather than a termination in a case where there was zero chance of life for the baby. Apparently that is not uncommon in these situations and happens as a standard response to ectopic pregnancy which would involve a threat the mothers life and a nonviable but alive foetus.Also without signs of infection the management of this miscarriage was medically valid. So it could be a case where the fault lies with the medical teams lack of alertness more than it does with our laws. I'm going to wait for further facts in this case before I decide.

Something went horribly wrong here and it is a truly tragic case.I think X should be legislated for but not necessarily because of this case until more facts emerge.

whatever about medical management, surely the point is that the woman asked for an abortion and was refused, which is clearly to do with abortion laws

Unrealistic

shampoosuicide wrote: »

whatever about medical management, surely the point is that the woman asked for an abortion and was refused, which is clearly to do with abortion laws

It's only the point if you're starting at it from the point of view that a woman should have the sole right to make a decision about having an abortion. But the reality is that abortion on demand hasn't a hope of happening in Ireland at any time the next few decades. The reality is that our Constitution bans abortion unless the life of the mother is threatened. So the point has to be clearly defining what are the threats to the life of the mother that warrant an abortion so that doctors can work within that definition rather than in a vacuum.

shampoosuicide

Unrealistic wrote: »

It's only the point if you're starting at it from the point of view that a woman should have the sole right to make a decision about having an abortion. But the reality is that abortion on demand hasn't a hope of happening in Ireland at any time the next few decades. The reality is that our Constitution bans abortion unless the life of the mother is threatened. So the point has to be clearly defining what are the threats to the life of the mother that warrant an abortion so that doctors can work within that definition rather than in a vacuum.

there's a difference between 'abortion on demand' and a woman asking for a foetus that has no chance of surviving to be removed from her womb though. Abortion on demand is a very loaded phrase but - as you imply - there's a middle ground we should be working towards, that gives women at least some control over situations like this, rather than leaving it to law or medical practice.

inisboffin

Unrealistic wrote: »

But the reality is that abortion on demand hasn't a hope of happening in Ireland at any time the next few decades.

It's not going to happen overnight, but I don't see it taking 30 years tbh.

Unrealistic

shampoosuicide wrote: »

there's a difference between 'abortion on demand' and a woman asking for a foetus that has no chance of surviving to be removed from her womb though. Abortion on demand is a very loaded phrase but - as you imply - there's a middle ground we should be working towards, that gives women at least some control over situations like this, rather than leaving it to law or medical practice.

Agreed, but that is something specifically prohibited in our Constitution so the reality is that it is not even on the table at the moment.

Galwayguy35

inisboffin wrote: »

It's not going to happen overnight, but I don't see it taking 30 years tbh.

So would you want it to be like in Britain where someone would have an abortion at 24 weeks on non medical grounds?

I wouldn't.

Unrealistic

inisboffin wrote: »

It's not going to happen overnight, but I don't see it taking 30 years tbh.

Based on our track record so far I wouldn't be so confident. If it takes 20+ years just to take the tiny step of moving from a right defined by the Supreme Court in the X-case to legislating for that right then it will take a seismic shift to push us along the giant step to abortion on demand in a shorter time frame.

I'm old enough to remember the 1983 referendum and how divisive it was. The anti-choice side is very well resourced and organised (funded and trained by radical US anti-abortion groups) and very effective at what they do. In a question like this they don't need to convince voters that they are right. They just need to plant a seed of doubt in peoples minds that the other side are wrong. When they roll out the real life examples of a mother and child happy together where the mother had been considering or was advised an abortion but didn't have one; or the prospective mother who have had their mental health ruined from a feeling of guilt after having an abortion; then the subtext will be "if you vote yes you will be killing the first mother's child" or "if you vote no you could save the second mother's child". It will be painted as blood on your hands as a voter in such a way that it will be hard for many to ignore. Even on something as relatively non-contentious as the suicide provision the anti-choice side came within 0.4% of winning the vote as recently as 10 years ago.

As a side note, I noticed Declan Ganley (who would be one of the main movers on the anti-choice side) tweeting last night about the potential for a referendum in the UK on staying in the EU. An opinion poll showed that 56% wanted out and 31% wanted to stay in with only 13% undecided. He stated his opinion that even starting from an uphill struggle like this it would be possible for the pro-EU side to win. That's is these people's speciality. Wait for a substantial referendum and then throw all their weight behind promoting the most outlandish interpretation as long as it suits their aims. 3-4 months ago the Children's Referendum was viewed a distraction put together by the government to make it look like they are doing something to take attention away from their failures on the economic front. And at the same time there was an assumption that it would be uncontentious and pass almost unanimously; "sure who would vote against rights for children?". Then the no side, who are pretty much the same people on the no side on the abortion question, got stuck in. Cue lots of emotive arguments, a minority with some validity but mostly deceptive and self-serving. And the result is large numbers of people staying away from the polls because the waters have been muddied so much that they find it impossible to make an informed decision on how to vote. And the end result is a 42% vote against a referendum that had been expected to just fly through. If they can achieve that based on throwing out some distorted horror stories about children being taken into care then what do you think they could achieve if they are talking about 'babies being killed'?

Mrs OBumble

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

So would you want it to be like in Britain where someone would have an abortion at 24 weeks on non medical grounds?

I wouldn't.

If an Irish woman now wants an abortion that late on non-medical grounds, she simply goes to England. That's a whole different issue.

What this discussion is about is making it legal for doctors to act when they need to - apparently they cannot do so at the moment.

What people keep forgetting is that the law does not force women to have abortions - and it does not stop them from doing so either.

Personally, I don't think we should have any laws in the area, except for one requiring consultants to allow a woman to seek a second opinion if she wants one.

inisboffin

Unrealistic wrote: »

I'm old enough to remember the 1983 referendum and how divisive it was. The anti-choice side is very well resourced and organised (funded and trained by radical US anti-abortion groups) and very effective at what they do. In a question like this they don't need to convince voters that they are right. They just need to plant a seed of doubt in peoples minds that the other side are wrong. When they roll out the real life examples of a mother and child happy together where the mother had been considering or was advised an abortion but didn't have one; or the prospective mother who have had their mental health ruined from a feeling of guilt after having an abortion; then the subtext will be "if you vote yes you will be killing the first mother's child" or "if you vote no you could save the second mother's child". It will be painted as blood on your hands as a voter in such a way that it will be hard for many to ignore. Even on something as relatively non-contentious as the suicide provision the anti-choice side came within 0.4% of winning the vote as recently as 10 years ago.

I absolutely hear your point about how divisive the last referendum was. But I feel there has been a shift, particularly in the over 40's (and those who are now the over 40's). A lot of water has passed under the bridge in terms of church/state and the relationship between the two in the minds of the people. Just from conversations between generations witnessed now, I think there is a change.
TBH I don't think the comparison with the Children's Referendum (and how the 'Dana' camp etc decided to vote) is a simple one. In fact, I know of quite a few people who were undecided, possibly leaning to a no in fact, that absolutely voted yes, JUST because it was the opposite to the Dana camp. Most of the people I have in mind would be pro-choice by the way, which is interesting.
It's a little Monty Python and disturbing to me tbh, that people would vote a certain way, JUST to vote the opposite of a 'celeb', rather than doing research on facts as much as possible. Remember too the complications of the last referendum where extreme anti choicers AND pro choice all disagreed with the same wording, but for different reasons.
I think one more difference this time, emotional involvement of the people aside, is international interest, web/media coverage of same, and the 'judgement of our neighbours factor'.

This thread is about legislation to prevent a repeat of a tragedy. There is a scale from anti to pro choice of people, and, regardless of their personal views, I hope that many on there would not want this tragedy repeated.

Galwayguy35

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

If an Irish woman now wants an abortion that late on non-medical grounds, she simply goes to England. That's a whole different issue.

What this discussion is about is making it legal for doctors to act when they need to - apparently they cannot do so at the moment.

What people keep forgetting is that the law does not force women to have abortions - and it does not stop them from doing so either.

Personally, I don't think we should have any laws in the area, except for one requiring consultants to allow a woman to seek a second opinion if she wants one.

I'm well aware of all that, I was replying to someone who said that in their opinion abortion on demand would be here in less than 30 years.

Little My

How did the vigil go last night? Only a small mention of it on the Irish Times and a pic. A fairly good turn out?



http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/1117/breaking26.html
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/1117/breaking4.html

inisboffin

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I'm well aware of all that, I was replying to someone who said that in their opinion abortion on demand would be here in less than 30 years.

What I said is that I disagreed with the statement that it 'hasn't a hope' of happening in Ireland in the next 30 years. We cannot be that absolute about something so divisive.

inisboffin

Little My wrote: »

How did the vigil go last night? Only a small mention of it on the Irish Times and a pic. A fairly good turn out?



http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/1117/breaking26.html
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/1117/breaking4.html

It was a beautiful vigil. Great turnout, the crowd came and went and others came, so difficult to gauge numbers. There was coverage on RTE and I saw pictures on a good few sites.

_Whimsical_

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

If an Irish woman now wants an abortion that late on non-medical grounds, she simply goes to England. That's a whole different issue.

What this discussion is about is making it legal for doctors to act when they need to - apparently they cannot do so at the moment.

What people keep forgetting is that the law does not force women to have abortions - and it does not stop them from doing so either.

Personally, I don't think we should have any laws in the area, except for one requiring consultants to allow a woman to seek a second opinion if she wants one.

The thing is Drs can and do act in these situations at present. The medical council guidelines to drs call for action to be taken if a mothers life is in danger. It was in the papers yesterday that terminations have occurred in UCHG in similar circumstances in the past. However in this specific case the medical people I've spoken to have agreed they'd consider this surgically handling a miscarriage rather than a termination strictly speaking. Why it wasn't done here is hard to understand but it wasn't a legal issue as such as far as I can glean, unless it is that the dr took it upon him/herself to interpret the law and was unsure of their footing seeing as there's no exact legislation.Why that would be the case when are guidelines and a precedent already in place in the hospital is odd.

I whole heartedly agree with you that a second opinion should be very patient's right, not only pregnant women. Hopefully among the many things to come out of this case will be that Drs start listening to their patients and their level of suffering and will be more alert to developing illness etc.

Seaneh

shampoosuicide wrote: »

whatever about medical management, surely the point is that the woman asked for an abortion and was refused, which is clearly to do with abortion laws

If it was about somehting as simple as abortion on demand, she still would have been refused in most countries where abortion is legal.

Most countries only allow abortion up to 12 weeks, 9 weeks in some countries, she was 17 weeks pregnant.

Nobody knows the facts of what happened, blaming the medical team is pointless without knowledge of the case is I'd call it boarderline baseless defamation. In the thread in AH I've seen posts from people claiming it is "obvious neglect" or "negligence" both of which, if true would leave the consultant open to both civil and criminal charges, but if untrue, could leave the posters and possibly even boards.ie open to libel charges by the medical team involved.


I am absolutely stunned boards.ie have not stepped in and told people to stop throwing around blame with any evidence.

_Whimsical_

Seaneh wrote: »

If it was about somehting as simple as abortion on demand, she still would have been refused in most countries where abortion is legal.

Most countries only allow abortion up to 12 weeks, 9 weeks in some countries, she was 17 weeks pregnant.

Nobody knows the facts of what happened, blaming the medical team is pointless without knowledge of the case is I'd call it boarderline baseless defamation. In the thread in AH I've seen posts from people claiming it is "obvious neglect" or "negligence" both of which, if true would leave the consultant open to both civil and criminal charges, but if untrue, could leave the posters and possibly even boards.ie open to libel charges by the medical team involved.


I am absolutely stunned boards.ie have not stepped in and told people to stop throwing around blame with any evidence.

Unless there are names involved or heavy insinuation as to the identity of the Drs involved there wouldn't be any defamation case worries.

Infairness though none of us know what happened exactly so we will all have to await the facts. The outcome may have been so unforseeable that it was a case of terribly bad luck on everyone's part. Really such a tragedy deserves a respectful and considered response and anyone talking in absolutes right now without the fact isn't giving it that.

Seaneh

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

Infairness though none of us know what happened exactly so we will all have to await the facts. The outcome may have been so unforseeable that it was a case of terribly bad luck on everyone's part. Really such a tragedy deserves a respectful and considered response and anyone talking in absolutes right now without the fact isn't giving it that.

100% agreement.

shampoosuicide

Seaneh wrote: »

If it was about somehting as simple as abortion on demand, she still would have been refused in most countries where abortion is legal.

Most countries only allow abortion up to 12 weeks, 9 weeks in some countries, she was 17 weeks pregnant.

Nobody knows the facts of what happened, blaming the medical team is pointless without knowledge of the case is I'd call it boarderline baseless defamation. In the thread in AH I've seen posts from people claiming it is "obvious neglect" or "negligence" both of which, if true would leave the consultant open to both civil and criminal charges, but if untrue, could leave the posters and possibly even boards.ie open to libel charges by the medical team involved.


I am absolutely stunned boards.ie have not stepped in and told people to stop throwing around blame with any evidence.

she still would have been refused despite the foetus being all-but-dead, and despite being in intense pain? not a rhetorical question, but i'd be shocked if that's true.

Seaneh

shampoosuicide wrote: »

she still would have been refused despite the foetus being all-but-dead, and despite being in intense pain? not a rhetorical question, but i'd be shocked if that's true.

The person I quoted stated:

surely the point is that the woman asked for an abortion and was refused

That is what I replied to.

If you simplify to that level, she would have been refused in my developed nations.

As for the rest of my post.
It is all perfectly valid.

Nobody knows the facts of the case outside of those on the medical team.
Nobody can make any call about that was or wasn't done and why.
Doing so would be the actual definition of ignorance.

ig·no·rance   [ig-ner-uhns]
noun
the state or fact of being ignorant; lack of knowledge, learning, information, etc.

Brennans Row

Seaneh wrote: »

Nobody knows the facts of the case outside of those on the medical team.
Nobody can make any call about that was or wasn't done and why.
Doing so would be the actual definition of ignorance.

Ignorance

There is a whiff of arrogance in what you posted there.

I would take Mr. Halappanavar’s account of what happened to be genuine, as written in the Irish Times article from last Wednesday.

Both Ms. and Mr. Halappanavar were / are qualified professionals working in a medical environment too.

The HSE has not denied Mr. Halappanavar’s account of the events either.

Of course we will all have to wait for the reports to be published in the distant future, but I’m sure our outrage will be stone cold by then.

Woman 'denied a termination' dies in hospital

KITTY HOLLAND and PAUL CULLEN, Health Correspondent Wed, Nov 14, 2012

Two investigations are under way into the death of a woman who was 17 weeks pregnant, at University Hospital Galway last month.

Savita Halappanavar (31), a dentist, presented with back pain at the hospital on October 21st, was found to be miscarrying, and died of septicaemia a week later.
Her husband, Praveen Halappanavar (34), an engineer at Boston Scientific in Galway, says she asked several times over a three-day period that the pregnancy be terminated. He says that, having been told she was miscarrying, and after one day in severe pain, Ms Halappanavar asked for a medical termination.

This was refused, he says, because the foetal heartbeat was still present and they were told, “this is a Catholic country”.

She spent a further 2½ days “in agony” until the foetal heartbeat stopped.

Intensive care

The dead foetus was removed and Savita was taken to the high dependency unit and then the intensive care unit, where she died of septicaemia on the 28th.

An autopsy carried out by Dr Grace Callagy two days later found she died of septicaemia “documented ante-mortem” and E.coli ESBL.

A hospital spokesman confirmed the Health Service Executive had begun an investigation while the hospital had also instigated an internal investigation. He said the hospital extended its sympathy to the family and friends of Ms Halappanavar but could not discuss the details of any individual case.

Speaking from Belgaum in the Karnataka region of southwest India, Mr Halappanavar said an internal examination was performed when she first presented.

“The doctor told us the cervix was fully dilated, amniotic fluid was leaking and unfortunately the baby wouldn’t survive.” The doctor, he says, said it should be over in a few hours. There followed three days, he says, of the foetal heartbeat being checked several times a day.

“Savita was really in agony. She was very upset, but she accepted she was losing the baby. When the consultant came on the ward rounds on Monday morning Savita asked if they could not save the baby could they induce to end the pregnancy. The consultant said, ‘As long as there is a foetal heartbeat we can’t do anything’.

“Again on Tuesday morning, the ward rounds and the same discussion. The consultant said it was the law, that this is a Catholic country. Savita [a Hindu] said: ‘I am neither Irish nor Catholic’ but they said there was nothing they could do.

“That evening she developed shakes and shivering and she was vomiting. She went to use the toilet and she collapsed. There were big alarms and a doctor took bloods and started her on antibiotics.

“The next morning I said she was so sick and asked again that they just end it, but they said they couldn’t.”

Critically ill

At lunchtime the foetal heart had stopped and Ms Halappanavar was brought to theatre to have the womb contents removed. “When she came out she was talking okay but she was very sick. That’s the last time I spoke to her.”

At 11 pm he got a call from the hospital. “They said they were shifting her to intensive care. Her heart and pulse were low, her temperature was high. She was sedated and critical but stable. She stayed stable on Friday but by 7pm on Saturday they said her heart, kidneys and liver weren’t functioning. She was critically ill. That night, we lost her.”

Mr Halappanavar took his wife’s body home on Thursday, November 1st, where she was cremated and laid to rest on November 3rd.

The hospital spokesman said that in general sudden hospital deaths were reported to the coroner. In the case of maternal deaths, a risk review of the case was carried out.

External experts were involved in this review and the family consulted on the terms of reference. They were also interviewed by the review team and given a copy of the report.

© 2012 The Irish Times

Seaneh

Brennans Row wrote: »

Ignorance

There is a whiff of arrogance in what you posted there.

Yes, Ignorance, that is exactly what appointing blame and making brash statements on the case are without knowing any of the facts.

I never claimed Mr. Halappanavar lied, I feel extremely sorry for him and I wouldn't wish the death of a wife or unborn child on anyone, I couldn't even begin to imagine how much pain he is in.

However, even from his extremely limited account, it is impossible to make any judgement as there are very facts available to the public.


There is no arrogance in my post, I just don't see how it's acceptable to have this quasi-witchhunt going on with no facts available.

Brennans Row

Seaneh wrote: »

There is no arrogance in my post

I'll make myself clearer, as I did not find it acceptable to read where you infer in simple English, that . . .

Nobody knows (including Mr Halappanavar?) the facts of the case outside of those on the medical team.
Nobody can make (including Mr Halappanavar?) any call about that was or wasn't done and why.
Doing so would be the actual definition of ignorance (including Mr Halappanavar?).

The Irish Times use of two journalists (health correspondents) to write that article is an indication of their professionalism that merits the seriousness of this case.

Mr Halappanavar has every right to make public as to what he experienced irrespective if the HSE and the doctors involved refrain from commenting at this time.

That's their choice, that's their predicament and there is no denial from them either.

Sponge Bob

Seaneh. I think this was a miscarriage which needed to be determined quickly. The miscarriage process was allowed to continue for far too long and an infection set in. It was untreatable by the time the miscarriage proceess ended, and Savita died.

By the way the massive board of enquiry appointed today , 5 or 7 of them, has no legal status and speculation and commentary may continue here as always.

I actually agree with you that most civilised countries (not the UK) have considered limits on when abortion, as such, is available on demand.

Abortion is not permitted in many countries beyond 16 weeks and the UK has an obscenely long 'time window' set in the 1960's when medical science had a dramatically different view of survivability in case of being born prematurely. However that is, strictly speaking, a problem for the UK, not for us.

But I don't think Savita asked for an abortion, she asked for help in finishing a miscarriage that was evidently in train.

She did not get that help from UCHG in Galway.

Raging_Ninja

Was the miscarriage caused by septicemia?

Could a termination have made the situation worse?

Redhairedguy

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

Was the miscarriage caused by septicemia?

Could a termination have made the situation worse?

No. Mrs. Halappanavar was admitted to UCHG already miscarrying; the septicemia happened a few days after she was admitted.

Your second question is still a subject of massive debate amongst many professionals, but the general consensus from a few doctors and nurses, whom I have spoken to, is that the termination might have given Savita a better chance of survival.

Obviously, I speak with no authority and am only recounting what I have read in papers, and discussed with friends and family.