Death of Savita Halappanavar and the abortion issue

Dave!

Hey folks,

I presume this isn't the forum to have a debate on abortion, but it's topical to have discussion on the political aspects of this tragic case, which I gather everyone is familiar with now.

I can't remember what prompted it, but didn't the abortion debate get kicked off a few months ago? Then it faded out for a while, only to reappear again with this case.

James Reilly is (wisely) holding back on commenting in detail until an investigation is done. Will this government have the sack to legislate for the X case after this? Whether or not it would have made a difference here, the issue is back on the agenda.

Assuming they accept that they need to do something about it, I'm wondering if they'll wait to kick off the debate & campaign until they can use it distract from a harsh budget or somethin. Or would that just compound their unpopularity?

oppenheimer1

Dave! wrote: »

Hey folks,

I presume this isn't the forum to have a debate on abortion, but it's topical to have discussion on the political aspects of this tragic case, which I gather everyone is familiar with now.

I can't remember what prompted it, but didn't the abortion debate get kicked off a few months ago? Then it faded out for a while, only to reappear again with this case.

James Reilly is (wisely) holding back on commenting in detail until an investigation is done. Will this government have the sack to legislate for the X case after this? Whether or not it would have made a difference here, the issue is back on the agenda.

Assuming they accept that they need to do something about it, I'm wondering if they'll wait to kick off the debate & campaign until they can use it distract from a harsh budget or something. Or would that just compound their unpopularity?

I think it kicked off a few months ago because there was a bill brought forward by some in the Dáil that was voted down by the Government. Additionally that clinic opened up in the North which brought more attention to the topic. Anyway its something that has been burning away here for the past 30 years and probably won't go away until some form of it is legalised.

The Government should do something about it, however the issue will be more divisive than the budget - just among the government parties, let alone the general population. The result of this case will probably result in the guidelines being reviewed and clarified for Doctors rather than some outright legislative reform.

Stheno

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I think it kicked off a few months ago because there was a bill brought forward by some in the Dáil that was voted down by the Government. Additionally that clinic opened up in the North which brought more attention to the topic. Anyway its something that has been burning away here for the past 30 years and probably won't go away until some form of it is legalised.

The Government should do something about it, however the issue will be more divisive than the budget - just among the government parties, let alone the general population. The result of this case will probably result in the guidelines being reviewed and clarified for Doctors rather than some outright legislative reform.

Much as I dislike her Claire Daly was the TD who brought the bill in the Dail iirc.

There was also a big debate in the Seanad, where some of the abc case women gave their experiences, and there was a bit of a backlash against one of the more conservative members due to his comments.

pablomakaveli

I think they'll have to legislate after this. Had they done so earlier this womans death could have been avoided.

It shouldnt have taken a woman dying to ensure this legislation is pushed through. In fact its pretty unforgivable and it'll be even more so if nothing is done and it happens again.

Skrynesaver

pablomakaveli wrote: »

I think they'll have to legislate after this. Had they done so earlier this womans death could have been avoided.

It shouldnt have taken a woman dying to ensure this legislation is pushed through. In fact its pretty unforgivable and it'll be even more so if nothing is done and it happens again.

I wish I shared your optimism, FG are very divided on the issue and to legislate for this particular case would require recognising the mother's right to health as equal to the foetus' right to life, which is a step beyond the X Case judgement

pablomakaveli

Skrynesaver wrote: »

I wish I shared your optimism, FG are very divided on the issue and to legislate for this particular case would require recognising the mother's right to health as equal to the foetus' right to life, which is a step beyond the X Case judgement

True but i dont think they can really justify letting another woman die. The fact this has happened has angered a lot of people here and abroad and has put the international spotlight on Ireland.

JonathanAnon

I think Richard Boyd Barrett's speech in the Dáil yesterday was disgraceful.. blaming the Government for this tragedy.. He really should hang his head in shame for point scoring with this issue..

Skrynesaver

JonathanAnon wrote: »

I think Richard Boyd Barrett's speech in the Dáil yesterday was disgraceful.. blaming the Government for this tragedy.. He really should hang his head in shame for point scoring with this issue..

Only insofar as he forgot to mention the 6 previous governments that were too cowardly to legislate on the issue

spank_inferno

JonathanAnon wrote: »

I think Richard Boyd Barrett's speech in the Dáil yesterday was disgraceful.. blaming the Government for this tragedy.. He really should hang his head in shame for point scoring with this issue..

Indeed, had he mentioned all the previous governments who sat on their hands he would have had a point.

Though there is no point in blaming the current government in isolation.

(hopefully during the remainder of the term action will be taken).

Lennonist

spank_inferno wrote: »

Indeed, had he mentioned all the previous governments who sat on their hands he would have had a point.

Though there is no point in blaming the current government in isolation.

(hopefully during the remainder of the term action will be taken).

Boyd Barrett had a point, although he should have also mentioned that successive Irish governments have failed to legislate around abortion. Still that doesn't excuse the current government for their inaction on the issue.

Did it really take a situation like this - where a woman lost her life - for the government to finally grow a pair and bring in the legislation that was called for 20 years ago? That appears to be the case.

Everyone has an opinion about abortion, but that doesn't matter when it comes to abortion in medical circumstances. It's a personal issue that pertains to people on an individual/family basis. The state must legislate regardless of the views of the electorate. Too late for the woman who died in Galway though.

Kinski

Labour and FG both participated in previous govts which failed to legislate following the X case ruling. And the current govt could have acted decisively on this issue, but they didn't. Had this woman not died, they likely wouldn't take any decision on it. They share in the blame, and they happened to be in power when this happened. Nothing wrong with attacking them...others failed here too, but this time a tragedy has occurred on their watch.

carveone

Skrynesaver wrote: »

I wish I shared your optimism, FG are very divided on the issue

I never really understood why FGs (or FFs) opinion on the matter was relevant. It's the people's opinion that matters and we've given that twice now. I wouldn't last too long in my job if I ignored my employer.

Aside from that I've wondered what happened if a doctor performed an abortion within the constricts of the X case and Article 40.3.3. Is that illegal but constitutional? Does that even make sense? I'm not convinced you can send someone to jail for an action that constitutionally protected. (And no, I've likely no idea what I'm talking about).

Davidth88

I really feel the politicians on both sides of the house are basically too scared to mention the ' A ' word at all.

For this reason they have ' kicked the can down the road ' hoping that nothing too bad will happen , what happened in Galway I am afraid was the inevitable result of this procrastination. They should all ( with a few notable exceptions ) hang their heads in shame , but of course they won't , they will continue to feather their nests and when this hoo-ha blows over ( which it will I am afraid ) they will heave a collective sigh of relief and pretend the issue does not exist.

I have just been listening to BBC Radio 2 ( the most popular radio stn in the UK ) and they have had a 30 min slot discussing this , the general opinion coming across was that Ireland was ' in the stone age ' , not an image you want .

Oral Surgeon

This is a tragedy and not an opportunity for political point scoring...
The fact is that women can die during pregnancy, women can die as a result of having and not having an abortion.
It is inaccurate to say that this lady would have lived if she had this procedure, she may not have and then we would all be debating the death of a woman after having an abortion....!!!

Sierra Oscar

pablomakaveli wrote: »

I think they'll have to legislate after this. Had they done so earlier this womans death could have been avoided.

It should have been legislated for long ago. Successive governments have failed to get to grips with this issue, I hope the current government is more successful.

seamus

Oral Surgeon wrote: »

It is inaccurate to say that this lady would have lived if she had this procedure, she may not have and then we would all be debating the death of a woman after having an abortion....!!!

The entire field of medicine is not black-and-white, it's a game of probabilities. For example, it's not entirely accurate to say that a cold is not a fatal illness, because it can be.

While of course it's correct to say that if another woman was to go through the same process, she wouldn't be guaranteed to die, the main issue is that no woman should be forced to go to an unacceptable level of risk, when a more favourable alternative exists.

In this case, without specific law to tell doctors at what stage they are allowed to go to abortion, it's a matter of a judgement call. That is, up to a certain point, the woman's health is at risk, but her life isn't*, so the doctor will continue without abortion. At a certain point, a line is crossed and the risk to the woman's health becomes an unacceptable risk to her life, and abortion can proceed.

But without clear legislation the doctor risks his entire livlihood if he makes the wrong call, so doctors are naturally going to err on the side of self-preservation, and push the risk further than it needs to go.

In Savita's case, clear legislation would have allowed a doctor to say at 24 hours that the failure of the miscarriage to proceed represented a clear risk of serious infection, which in turn has a serious risk of death, therefore the best course of action is to proceed with abortion, given that the foetus was unviable.
Instead the current limbo position meant that the doctor had to look at her case, and while acknowledging the risk of infection, decided that didn't represent enough of a risk to her life to run the possibility of being hauled up in court for doing what a monkey could see was medically necessary.

Really it boils down to one question:

Which course of action had the higher chance of a fatal outcome for the mother?

If a failure to abort represents a higher risk than aborting, then abortion should be available, regardless of circumstance.

*Her life is always "at risk", but up to a point that risk is acceptable

creepellai

seamus wrote: »

The entire field of medicine is not black-and-white, it's a game of probabilities. For example, it's not entirely accurate to say that a cold is not a fatal illness, because it can be.

While of course it's correct to say that if another woman was to go through the same process, she wouldn't be guaranteed to die, the main issue is that no woman should be forced to go to an unacceptable level of risk, when a more favourable alternative exists.

In this case, without specific law to tell doctors at what stage they are allowed to go to abortion, it's a matter of a judgement call. That is, up to a certain point, the woman's health is at risk, but her life isn't*, so the doctor will continue without abortion. At a certain point, a line is crossed and the risk to the woman's health becomes an unacceptable risk to her life, and abortion can proceed.

But without clear legislation the doctor risks his entire livlihood if he makes the wrong call, so doctors are naturally going to err on the side of self-preservation, and push the risk further than it needs to go.

In Savita's case, clear legislation would have allowed a doctor to say at 24 hours that the failure of the miscarriage to proceed represented a clear risk of serious infection, which in turn has a serious risk of death, therefore the best course of action is to proceed with abortion, given that the foetus was unviable.
Instead the current limbo position meant that the doctor had to look at her case, and while acknowledging the risk of infection, decided that didn't represent enough of a risk to her life to run the possibility of being hauled up in court for doing what a monkey could see was medically necessary.

Really it boils down to one question:

Which course of action had the higher chance of a fatal outcome for the mother?

If a failure to abort represents a higher risk than aborting, then abortion should be available, regardless of circumstance.

*Her life is always "at risk", but up to a point that risk is acceptable

I must say that is the best argument I have seen so far to do with this case and in favour of abortion in certain cases. I don't think anyone could argue that!

Ellis Dee

Abortion was made illegal in legislation enacted around 1860, when Ireland was still part of the UK.

In the fullness of time - more than a century later - the British revised their legislation to bring it more into line with the needs of their society, which had become less religious and more modern.

However, the legislative changes did not apply to Ireland, which had become - at least nominally - independent in the meantime and remained a much more backward and far poorer country, in which the Roman Catholic Church retained massive influence in spite of our constitution claiming to guarantee a separation of church and state.

Until it became possible for people in the eastern and border regions of the Irish Republic to erect aerials and pick up British TV, there was no uncensored medium; movies and books were easily banned and the indigenous news media knew which side their bread was buttered on and never did anything that would trigger the wrath of the church or the self-appointed guardians of morality who were allied with the church and did a lot of its dirty work. Politicians, church and media worked together in an incestuous, symbiotic relationship and created a whited sepulchre, where few had any idea of the cesspit of child abuse (sexual and otherwise) that was being practised in and out of the gulag of church-run and state-funded industrial schools.

But that was all slowly changing from the 1960s onwards, with growing prosperity and a slight opening to the rest of the world. It wasn't changing half fast enough for me, so I left and went to Germany, then Sweden.

However, as unlikely as it seemed that we would soon emulate the British and bring our abortion laws into line with the modern world, the possibility clearly must have seemed too great to certain elements, who saw any kind of change as a threat. Indeed, I used to wonder why they felt they needed a kind of straitjacket of secular laws to keep themselves and others on the straight and narrow and living according to the dictates of their imaginary friend. They were rarely amused when I used to say: "Oy ye of little faith in yourselves!" to them.

They found useful allies in the American "pro-life" zealots, who had suffered severe setbacks to the forces of modernity and pragmatism in their own country, but still had the resources to launch proxy wars in a great many European countries. I saw them in Sweden and Finland with their slick "marketing" techniques and modern opinion-moulding methods, their gruesome foetus porn and their "Choose Life" T-shirts, but most people in those countries just saw them as rather amusing (but often irritating) cranks and ignored them. Even the mainstream Lutheran Church essentially told them to "get a life".

Not so in Ireland, where their techniques worked only too well. That led to the 1983 referendum and the constitutional amendment copperfastening (or so they thought) the ban on abortion.

The Irish people were well and truly hoodwinked, because the "pro-life" zealots played essentially on their good nature and what they were voting for was to protect an abstract concept, the "unborn", but without really any chance of being able to relate this to actual living people or their own lives.

It was not until the traumatic experience of the X case, and the appalling cruelty with which the 14-year-old rape victim and her family were treated, and the realisation that the zealots were de facto operating a Stasi-like spy network, that a lot of people's eyes were opened and at least they voted in two referendums for freedom of travel and freedom of information. I was back in Ireland by then and rejoiced when the Supreme Court made its historic decision.

If the X case opened eyes a little then, I believe the appalling way in which Savita has been sacrificed on the alter of religious zealotry will open them some more. Now, I am sure, a lot of Irish women will at least pause to imagine themselves in her situation, and maybe some of the menfolk will try to empathise enough to imagine how her husband feels. That is why I not only hope, but am reasonably confident that Ireland will now move towards a more secular society as at first some and later many more politicians decide that we are living in the here and now rather than just going through a valley of tears with pie in the sky waiting for us at the end.

sean200

pablomakaveli wrote: »

True but i dont think they can really justify letting another woman die. The fact this has happened has angered a lot of people here and abroad and has put the international spotlight on Ireland.

Wait for all the facts
we have heard one side of the story

southsiderosie

sean200 wrote: »

Wait for all the facts
we have heard one side of the story

What other side is there? Please explain it to us, because it seems pretty straightforward to me.

sean200

seamus wrote: »

The entire field of medicine is not black-and-white, it's a game of probabilities. For example, it's not entirely accurate to say that a cold is not a fatal illness, because it can be.

While of course it's correct to say that if another woman was to go through the same process, she wouldn't be guaranteed to die, the main issue is that no woman should be forced to go to an unacceptable level of risk, when a more favourable alternative exists.

In this case, without specific law to tell doctors at what stage they are allowed to go to abortion, it's a matter of a judgement call. That is, up to a certain point, the woman's health is at risk, but her life isn't*, so the doctor will continue without abortion. At a certain point, a line is crossed and the risk to the woman's health becomes an unacceptable risk to her life, and abortion can proceed.

But without clear legislation the doctor risks his entire livlihood if he makes the wrong call, so doctors are naturally going to err on the side of self-preservation, and push the risk further than it needs to go.

In Savita's case, clear legislation would have allowed a doctor to say at 24 hours that the failure of the miscarriage to proceed represented a clear risk of serious infection, which in turn has a serious risk of death, therefore the best course of action is to proceed with abortion, given that the foetus was unviable.
Instead the current limbo position meant that the doctor had to look at her case, and while acknowledging the risk of infection, decided that didn't represent enough of a risk to her life to run the possibility of being hauled up in court for doing what a monkey could see was medically necessary.

Really it boils down to one question:

Which course of action had the higher chance of a fatal outcome for the mother?

If a failure to abort represents a higher risk than aborting, then abortion should be available, regardless of circumstance.

*Her life is always "at risk", but up to a point that risk is acceptable

what are the risks to a women of death when having a miscarriage??
i dont no the number but i am sure loads of women have them every year but how many die?

southsiderosie

sean200 wrote: »

what are the risks to a women of death when having a miscarriage??
i dont no the number but i am sure loads of women have them every year but how many die?

On average, one in five pregnancies will end in miscarriage, but many happen very early in the first trimester. The risk of death happens when there is severe bleeding, or as in this case when the miscarriage is partial, meaning that the cervix opens and there is bleeding, but the body is unable to eject the fetus. Most women in developed countries do not die from this condition because doctors will remove fetal tissue from the uterus if the body does not do so by itself after 24 hours. But at the point when a woman is experiencing chills and fever - i.e. signs of blood poisoning - extraction and treatment should happen immediately.

Let's think about this a bit differently: if this woman presented after a motorcycle accident with an open wound that had pieces of gravel and dirt stuck to it, what doctor on earth would not move to clean the wound and close it immediately? But because this poor woman's 'open wound' involved a fetus, she was left vulnerable to infection, and this clearly did not have to happen.

Belfast

Ireland's abortion ban: a history of obstruction and denial

The horrific case of a woman dying in Galway underlines the need for reform, but any change in the law carries political risk

"An amendment to Ireland's constitution in 1983 states that the embryo, even at the point of conception, is an Irish citizen enjoying the full rights of every man, woman and child living in the republic."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/14/ireland-abortion-ban-history

1 the constitution does not say life start at conception and
2 does not grant citizenship on conception.

Ash.J.Williams

southsiderosie wrote: »

What other side is there? Please explain it to us, because it seems pretty straightforward to me.

I too was waiting for the facts, i really cannot fathom how this could happen in this day and age. TO me it looks like a doctor made massive f** up. It's not even abortion to induce labour when a woman is miscarrying and there is a risk. Apparently it happens a few times a year and "indiction/termination" is the solution.

PhoenixParker

I remain unconvinced that legislation would have changed this outcome.
Legislation would imply have regularised what already happens in Irish hospitals with respect to termination, but the overall outcome would more than likely have been exactly the same.



We need a constitutional change.

Oscorp

creepellai wrote: »

I must say that is the best argument I have seen so far to do with this case and in favour of abortion in certain cases. I don't think anyone could argue that!

Christianity - boards.ie

yore

southsiderosie wrote: »

What other side is there? Please explain it to us, because it seems pretty straightforward to me.

Perhaps not. It's a terribly sad story but we are being presented with the story that the woman was told her baby would not survive and that she would miscarry. She then apparently explicitly asked for an "abortion". The doctor seems to have wrongly concluded that she should wait for nature to take it's course rather than inducing.

I don't necessarily see that this is 100% an "abortion" issue per se. It may just be that it is being moulded as one. Perhaps the doctor legitimately concluded that that was the safest way to proceed? On the balance of probabilities. Perhaps (s)he would reach the same conclusion even if abortions were available on request for any whim.

I'm only making the point that there might be more sides! Not saying there are or aren't. Only that we don't know yet

28064212

PhoenixParker wrote: »

I remain unconvinced that legislation would have changed this outcome.
Legislation would imply have regularised what already happens in Irish hospitals with respect to termination, but the overall outcome would more than likely have been exactly the same.



We need a constitutional change.

You're missing something from the left hand side of the image. "If necessary, are you willing to go through a long, expensive court case while your career is put on hold. If not, providing an abortion may or may not end up with you in jail. Not providing it, you may be covered by law. Or you might be fired and sued. Flip a coin". Without legislative protection, it is a total minefield for doctors

antoobrien

southsiderosie wrote: »

What other side is there?

The actual medical facts of the case, not just hearsay being reported as fact and the statements of the husband, who is grieving and will naturally believe that if there was earlier intervention she will be alive (which we will probably not ever know).

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1115/1224326605885.html

Despite her making a number of requests for the pregnancy to be terminated – given the distress she was in and the fact the baby could not be saved – this was repeatedly refused because the foetal heartbeat was still present, her husband said.

The question here is whether or not the mothers life is in danger. With hindsight this is an easy question, but at the time, they may not have had reason to believe that this was the case.

Asked whether, if there had been a termination he thought things could have been different, he said: “Yes of course. She was perfectly all right the day she went in, until Wednesday. I think, and it’s just my take, I think on the Tuesday night things got worse, when she picked up that fever, when she started shivering, I think the infection was already taking hold and taking over her entire body. It was too late then.”

She went to hospital on Sunday 21st, so the Tuesday will be the day before the foetus was removed (wednesday). If there's any validity to the assessment above, the infections that she picked up may have ended up killing her anyways.

How did she get the infections - was it as a result of the miscarriage, or the surgery to remove the foetus or was there another cause?

All part of "the other side" you're asking about.

therewillbe

Just watched 6 news Indian Foreign minister threatens us!

yore

therewillbe wrote: »

Just watched 6 news Indian Foreign minister threatens us!

He might want to take a look at how they treat the poor people in his own backyard first.

PhoenixParker

28064212 wrote: »

You're missing something from the left hand side of the image. "If necessary, are you willing to go through a long, expensive court case while your career is put on hold. If not, providing an abortion may or may not end up with you in jail. Not providing it, you may be covered by law. Or you might be fired and sued. Flip a coin". Without legislative protection, it is a total minefield for doctors

If you look at the maternal mortality statistics, they are the same as countries across Europe where abortion is freely available. Considering how common life threatening conditions are in pregnant women, (pre-eclampsia, hypertension, ectopic pregnancies) it is clear that Irish doctors are regularly performing terminations to save the life of pregnant women.

There has never been such a court case in 30 years in Ireland.
Well not to my knowledge, I'm open to correction.
Legislative protection would be an excellent thing, but it wouldn't have changed this outcome.

rodento

Does anyone really think that any of the reports will blame the hospital or the HSE for this event

southsiderosie

yore wrote: »

Perhaps not. It's a terribly sad story but we are being presented with the story that the woman was told her baby would not survive and that she would miscarry. She then apparently explicitly asked for an "abortion". The doctor seems to have wrongly concluded that she should wait for nature to take it's course rather than inducing.

I don't necessarily see that this is 100% an "abortion" issue per se. It may just be that it is being moulded as one. Perhaps the doctor legitimately concluded that that was the safest way to proceed? On the balance of probabilities. Perhaps (s)he would reach the same conclusion even if abortions were available on request for any whim.

I'm only making the point that there might be more sides! Not saying there are or aren't. Only that we don't know yet

antoobrien wrote: »

The actual medical facts of the case, not just hearsay being reported as fact and the statements of the husband, who is grieving and will naturally believe that if there was earlier intervention she will be alive (which we will probably not ever know).

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1115/1224326605885.html



The question here is whether or not the mothers life is in danger. With hindsight this is an easy question, but at the time, they may not have had reason to believe that this was the case.



She went to hospital on Sunday 21st, so the Tuesday will be the day before the foetus was removed (wednesday). If there's any validity to the assessment above, the infections that she picked up may have ended up killing her anyways.

How did she get the infections - was it as a result of the miscarriage, or the surgery to remove the foetus or was there another cause?

All part of "the other side" you're asking about.

The bottom line here is, we would not be having this conversation if the government had not dilly-dallied on putting forth clear legislation to guide doctors on how to deal with these situations. Perhaps this would not have been an issue at another hospital where the doctors take a different position. But a woman facing a pregnancy-related medical crisis shouldn't have to rely on the luck of the draw when it comes to who is on staff when they are experiencing a miscarriage.

If the doctors had treated this woman within the first 24 hours and she still died of an infection, we would not be having this conversation. If abortion in the case of the mother's life being at risk was legal, and the doctors withheld treatment because they thought the woman would self-abort, then we would probably not be having this conversation, because it would be a straightforward question of whether or not this is a medical malpractice case. But because of the allegation that this family requested extraction when it was clear that she was having a miscarriage and were denied, this puts the legislature's refusal to clarify the issue front and center - it is their inaction that has muddied the waters here.

28064212

PhoenixParker wrote: »

If you look at the maternal mortality statistics, they are the same as countries across Europe where abortion is freely available. Considering how common life threatening conditions are in pregnant women, (pre-eclampsia, hypertension, ectopic pregnancies) it is clear that Irish doctors are regularly performing terminations to save the life of pregnant women.

There has never been such a court case in 30 years in Ireland.
Well not to my knowledge, I'm open to correction.

All of which ignores our "Irish solution to an Irish problem": we export our problems to the UK

PhoenixParker wrote: »

Legislative protection would be an excellent thing, but it wouldn't have changed this outcome.

Unless of course the doctor in question didn't proceed because he didn't have legislative protection and/or guidelines

yore

southsiderosie wrote: »

The bottom line here is, we would not be having this conversation if the government had not dilly-dallied on putting forth clear legislation to guide doctors on how to deal with these situations. Perhaps this would not have been an issue at another hospital where the doctors take a different position. But a woman facing a pregnancy-related medical crisis shouldn't have to rely on the luck of the draw when it comes to who is on staff when they are experiencing a miscarriage.

If the doctors had treated this woman within the first 24 hours and she still died of an infection, we would not be having this conversation. If abortion in the case of the mother's life being at risk was legal, and the doctors withheld treatment because they thought the woman would self-abort, then we would probably not be having this conversation, because it would be a straightforward question of whether or not this is a medical malpractice case. But because of the allegation that this family requested extraction when it was clear that she was having a miscarriage and were denied, this puts the legislature's refusal to clarify the issue front and center - it is their inaction that has muddied the waters here.

Look, from what I read above, this lady presented to the hospital on a Tuesday. She was told about the baby not having a chance and "apparently" immediately asked for an abortion. Her "asking" for an immediate abortion should and would not come into it in any case. She would obviously be making an emotional decision on the spot after receiving terrible and shocking news. That would surely not be allowed under any circumstances. That responsibility must fall on the doctors. So her asking is just an emotive slant being put on the story.
She died the following day. Not a week later. That is not to excuse anything. Just to point out that it wasn't as if she had been pleading and thinking about it for weeks.

I don't like the slant on the way this story is being presented.

The only way in my mind that this story is relative to abortion legislation is if the doctor wanted to induce her right away but was strictly prevented from doing so because of the law.

southsiderosie

yore wrote: »

Look, from what I read above, this lady presented to the hospital on a Tuesday. She was told about the baby not having a chance and "apparently" immediately asked for an abortion. Her "asking" for an immediate abortion should and would not come into it in any case. She would obviously be making an emotional decision on the spot after receiving terrible and shocking news. That would surely not be allowed under any circumstances.

Yes it would - this is exactly what happens in places where abortion is clearly legal - even in limited circumstances - and a woman is told that she is having a miscarriage and there is nothing that the doctors can do.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Dirk Gently

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Interesting. Would it have been acceptable if it was a private catholic hospital refusing to terminate? I've seen you argue before that private institutions, including hospitals should be able refuse service based on their own beliefs. Are you ok for the private sector to discriminate but not the public sector or have you recently embraced universal human rights?

yore

southsiderosie wrote: »

Yes it would - this is exactly what happens in places where abortion is clearly legal - even in limited circumstances - and a woman is told that she is having a miscarriage and there is nothing that the doctors can do.

So you are telling me that a person in obvious emotional distress, who asks for an immediate operation, would be granted that operation once requested even if it were against the doctors professional opinion?
My point is that whether or not she made this "request for an abortion" is irrelevant.
I don't believe she asked for an "abortion". I believe she may have requested an inducement to understandably get over the process as soon as possible. I don't believe that the current law prevented this.


http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/david-quinn-media-rushes-to-judge-but-we-dont-know-facts-3294515.html


And I think it is sick that the pro-abortion people are jumping on the tragic story of the poor woman in order to push their own agenda.

RJGMovie

Very sad to see the Pro Abortion lobby using this sad story to promote their own cause. It is not yet clear why this woman died.

Macha

RJGMovie wrote: »

Very sad to see the Pro Abortion lobby using this sad story to promote their own cause. It is not yet clear why this woman died.

Pro-choice, thanks very much. It seems we have a double standard where one side is allowed to use images of dead foetuses and anedotes and the other side isn't even allowed to draw conclusions from a tragic event.

This blogpost by a respected Ob/gyn is very informative as to what the possible causes could have been down, including malpractice:

http://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2012/11/14/did-irish-catholic-law-or-malpractice-kill-savita-halappanavar/

wes

A terrible tragedy, and I already emailed my local TD in regards to this, and got replies from 2 out of 4 of them. The 2 replies were from Labour TDs incidentally.

While I understand there are differing views on abortion, the fact remains that we have had referendums, a supreme court decision, and ECHR decision, and on that basis the government should legislate. The failures of multiple governments on this is ridiculous.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

southsiderosie

yore wrote: »

So you are telling me that a person in obvious emotional distress, who asks for an immediate operation, would be granted that operation once requested even if it were against the doctors professional opinion?

In what universe is an extraction against a doctor's opinion once they have told the patient that she is having a miscarriage and there is nothing they can do to save the baby? This is standard procedure. The key issue here is that a woman can have the choice - she can ask for an extraction or ask to wait to eject the fetus and tissues naturally. According to the husband, his wife made the former request.

yore wrote: »

point is that whether or not she made this "request for an abortion" is irrelevant.
I don't believe she asked for an "abortion". I believe she may have requested an inducement to understandably get over the process as soon as possible. I don't believe that the current law prevented this.


http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/david-quinn-media-rushes-to-judge-but-we-dont-know-facts-3294515.html

They are the same thing. A medical induction forces the uterus to eject the fetus chemically. A surgical abortion involves direct extraction by a doctor. The legal issue, again, according to the husband, is that doctors could do neither because the fetus still had a heartbeat.

yore wrote: »

And I think it is sick that the pro-abortion people are jumping on the tragic story of the poor woman in order to push their own agenda.

As are anti-abortion activists who support abortion when the life of the mother is at risk.

I cannot imagine being in the middle of an active, painful miscarriage and being told that I just have to grit my teeth until the fetus' inevitable death. It's sick.

Mr.Micro

RJGMovie wrote: »

Very sad to see the Pro Abortion lobby using this sad story to promote their own cause. It is not yet clear why this woman died.

Indeed. The poor woman could have died no matter what. It has to be established yet if best practices were applied or not. In this day and age doctors should not be constricted from doing what is best for the patient, and the whole abortion issue has been left in limbo by successive Governments. Too much of a hot potato that would be politically damaging to the cowardly political parties..... so they left it on the shelf.

Godge

yore wrote: »

Look, from what I read above, this lady presented to the hospital on a Tuesday. She was told about the baby not having a chance and "apparently" immediately asked for an abortion. Her "asking" for an immediate abortion should and would not come into it in any case. She would obviously be making an emotional decision on the spot after receiving terrible and shocking news. That would surely not be allowed under any circumstances. That responsibility must fall on the doctors. So her asking is just an emotive slant being put on the story.
She died the following day. Not a week later. That is not to excuse anything. Just to point out that it wasn't as if she had been pleading and thinking about it for weeks.

I don't like the slant on the way this story is being presented.

The only way in my mind that this story is relative to abortion legislation is if the doctor wanted to induce her right away but was strictly prevented from doing so because of the law.

You are way wrong here. Everything I have read says that she died nearly a week after requesting the termination. Can you provide a link to a reputable news story that says she died the day after going to hospital?

yore

Macha wrote: »

Pro-choice, thanks very much. It seems we have a double standard where one side is allowed to use images of dead foetuses and anedotes and the other side isn't even allowed to draw conclusions from a tragic event.

This blogpost by a respected Ob/gyn is very informative as to what the possible causes could have been down, including malpractice:

http://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2012/11/14/did-irish-catholic-law-or-malpractice-kill-savita-halappanavar/

Interesting link in one of the comments there. It was daily mail link so I searched for the same story on an Irish website

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/further-mistakes-emerge-in-baby-scan-fiasco-2212400.html

yore

Godge wrote: »

You are way wrong here. Everything I have read says that she died nearly a week after requesting the termination. Can you provide a link to a reputable news story that says she died the day after going to hospital?

That was based on the posts I'd read above. I may have misintrepreted them. I did state it was based on what I'd read on thread. If that was wrong, I admit it freely.

Macha

yore wrote: »

Interesting link in one of the comments there. It was daily mail link so I searched for the same story on an Irish website

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/further-mistakes-emerge-in-baby-scan-fiasco-2212400.html

Sorry, I don't see the relevance of that story. Keep on twisting though.

Stheno

yore wrote: »

That was based on the posts I'd read above. I may have misintrepreted them. I did state it was based on what I'd read on thread. If that was wrong, I admit it freely.

SHe went into the hospital on a Sunday initially, was discharged, came back, the foetus was removed on the following Wed. and she died the following Sat.