The Woman Who Died

Faith

seenitall wrote: »

Why dislike something that will bring more attention where it's needed?

I disagree that it's bringing attention to where it's needed. That's my fundamental objection to it. Why is Savita's case more deserving of attention than any other similar case?

seenitall

Faith wrote: »

I disagree that it's bringing attention to where it's needed. That's my fundamental objection to it. Why is Savita's case more deserving of attention than any other similar case?

Well, there really is no comeback to that, Faith. I give up.

Faith

seenitall wrote: »

Well, there really is no comeback to that, Faith. I give up.

There's no need to have a comeback. It's perfectly acceptable to have different points of view

seenitall

Oh, but I love a good discussion, I could keep going all night!

In truth though, what you wrote in your last post is completely alien to me. I could try and explain myself again, except I'm starting to get that "going round in circles" feeling now... could be bed-time, so!

Morag

Faith wrote: »

But she was not the only person to die because of our laws. She was simply the only one who caught the attention of the media. If she was the first person that it happened to, I might understand it.

The catalyst was the X case. The main aim of the Savita's Laws group is:

Which I support 110%. But if this is the aim, why don't they call it X's laws? It's because, in my opinion, that won't attract as much attention. And that's what makes me dislike it.

Because legislating for the High Court's X Case ruling is not enough, that is only to do with the risk to life and not the risk to health and won't cover the women who have to travel to due to fatal fetal abnormalities and it certainly will not cover abortion on demand or social abortion or what ever term people are using to call a woman having a choice.

That groups has been set up by the people behind the 'unlike youth defence' facebook page. There is a national campgain in the works atm, it's being set up but there is not a name for it as yet as it is a tricky thing to name.

Morag

Faith wrote: »

I disagree that it's bringing attention to where it's needed. That's my fundamental objection to it. Why is Savita's case more deserving of attention than any other similar case?

Because of the timing, it happened while the government had been told by the EU court of human rights to stop procrastinating, and they had put in the program for goverment to legislate for the X case and they have to also take into consideration the rulings in the A,B,C cases as well.

The fact that it was not an irish woman means that there is international pressure, and that her family and her husband have come out and said that they want the legal position on abortion here revised in the wake of her death.

Going public in this country is very hard, could you imagine an irish woman's husband and family doing that? It was hard when Lavinia Kerwick spoke about her rape and in the end she had to leave the country.

So it's the timing, a perfect storm of events and wanting to honour the courage of Savita's husband and family.

By the way tomorrow is the 21st anniversary of the high court X case ruling
and it is still yet legislated for, how on earth we are getting the EU presidency and a seat on the UN council for Human Rights is baffling.

seenitall

^^ Yup, that's it! (Sorry, had to come back when I saw this excellent post)

But also, and what completely threw me in your post, Faith, is the mention of a similar case. What similar case?? And how could Savita's case NOT be more deserving of attention than a "similar case" that we don't know about?? It's not Savita's family's fault that no one has ever spoken up about a similar case before, it's not their fault that we don't know if there has in fact been a similar case at all! So, yes, this case is, as it stands, more deserving of our attention than a similar case that has for all we know never happened.

Morag

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1122/1224326952282.html

The Irish Times - Thursday, November 22, 2012
State settled with cancer patientThe State has paid substantial compensation to a woman who was forced to travel to Britain for an abortion despite being terminally ill with cancer.

The case was settled in just three months, her solicitor, Michael Boylan, said yesterday.

Michelle Harte, Ardamine, Co Wexford, sued for violation of her human rights last year after a hospital ethics forum had decided against authorising an abortion on the basis that her life was not under “immediate threat”.

“This was resolved very, very quickly, which is unusual in my dealings with the State,” Mr Boylan said. Ms Harte, a former nurse from London, has since died of her cancer.

In 2010, after she became unintentionally pregnant while suffering from a malignant melanoma, doctors at Cork University Hospital advised her to terminate her pregnancy because of the risk to her health.

Mr Boylan said her obstetrician was willing to perform a termination but was “hamstrung” by legal issues. The issue was referred to the hospital’s “ad hoc” ethics committee.

Appalling delay

He said there was an absence of clear guidelines about what to do and an “appalling delay” ensued. After the committee refused the termination, there were further delays because Ms Harte did not have a passport.

“I couldn’t believe the decision [to refuse an abortion in Ireland] when it came,” Ms Harte, who was then 39, told The Irish Times in December 2010. “Apparently my life wasn’t at immediate risk. It just seemed absolutely ridiculous.”

Her condition worsened significantly during this time and she was not able to receive cancer treatment because she was pregnant. She eventually travelled to Britain for an abortion; she had to be helped on to the aircraft due to a deterioration in her condition.

Mr Boylan of Augustus Cullen Law then sued the State on her behalf for infringing her rights under the ABC case, in which the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Ireland had breached the human rights of a woman with cancer who had to travel abroad to get an abortion.

In that case, the woman – “C” – had a rare form of cancer and feared it would relapse when she became unintentionally pregnant. However, the woman said she was unable to find a doctor willing to make a determination as to whether her life would be at risk if she continued to term.

Ms Harte’s lawyers served a statement of claim in May 2011 against the HSE, Ireland and the Attorney General. It was settled by July 2011. Mr Boylan declined to specify the amount but said it was substantial. Ms Harte died that November.

Mr Boylan said his client, a mother of one, was delighted not to have to go through the trauma of a court case and was pleased some compensation was available for her family.

The word abortion does need to be de stigmatised. The notion that 'good' abortions are called terminations or medical procedures, is away of trying to stop people using the word, so that 'good' women never have abortions. It's spin and it does need to stop but we are not there just yet as a country but hopefully soon.

Handsome Bob

Sometimes people need to put a face to an issue in order to connect or relate to it. Distasteful in this case it may be, but the reality is that it seems to be working as I've observed a few people softening their stance towards the issue.

panda100

WindSock wrote: »

Yeah I think at the time it was fine to highlight what is wrong, but to continually use her as a poster girl to further a cause doesn't sit well with me.

+1. I am friends with lots of pro choice groups and people on facebook, and they all still have a picture of Savita as their profile picture. Personally, I think we do not know the ins and outs of her individual case, and she shouldn't be held up as some sort of poster women for abortion legislation in this country.

RoseBlossom

Czarcasm wrote: »

I did a quick google just now as I wanted to try and find the phrase "laws based on emotion are bad laws", I couldn't find exactly who said it but it's a phrase that has common use.

"Hard cases make bad law" maybe?

Czarcasm

panda100 wrote: »

+1. I am friends wit lots of pro choice groups and people on facebook, and they all still have a picture of Savita as their profile picture. Personally, I tink we do not know the ins and outs of her individual case, and she shouldn't be held up as some sort of poster women for abortion legislation in this country.

I'm not on facebook myself so I wouldn't really be up to date with the trends and stuff that do be going around, but when I read something like that, I have to ask myself "are these people for real? or are they just doing it because it's seen as the latest "cause" to be au fait with?".

I hadn't even thought of an example like that previous posters example but it's a classic example of when you personalise something and over-expose it. People will eventually get sick and tired of hearing about it and they'll end up turning on that cause because the media usually (before social networking became the norm for this stuff) ran every minute little detail "in the public interest", and people soon LOST interest, because they became over-exposed and indifferent to whatever was the particular cause of the day.

Macha

Faith wrote: »

I disagree that it's bringing attention to where it's needed. That's my fundamental objection to it. Why is Savita's case more deserving of attention than any other similar case?

As someone involved in advocacy work, my take on it is that making a cause personal and human is how you get support. Humans react to personal, human stories far more than statistics or raw data. These stories help illustrate a point: even if I am in a meeting discussing something very technical, I always try to use concrete examples to show how a particular legislative change will have a tangible impact.

That's not to say Savita's case is any more deserving of attention than any other but for the people trying to bring about change in this country, I understand why they are latching onto her story. Events like these are gamechangers, if that isn't too callous a way of putting it, and they would be mad not to make the most of this surge in public outcry.

ted1

panda100 wrote: »

+1. I am friends with lots of pro choice groups and people on facebook, and they all still have a picture of Savita as their profile picture. Personally, I think we do not know the ins and outs of her individual case, and she shouldn't be held up as some sort of poster women for abortion legislation in this country.

I've been talking to some doctor friends and they are amazed at the attention that this is getting with regards abortion. They reckon that an abortion wouldn't have saved her.

eviltwin

The pro choice group aren't the first to use a personal story to futher their cause and they won't be the last. I feel uncomfortable when I see Savita's face as people's profile pic or people using her name in their sigs but I can understand the reasons why people are doing it. The story seems to have gone away and the urgency that was there about making provisions for abortion seems to have lost traction. Meanwhile women are still going to get pregnant and need abortion so something has to be done. I don't know what the right thing to do in this situation is.

fits

ted1 wrote: »

I've been talking to some doctor friends and they are amazed at the attention that this is getting with regards abortion. They reckon that an abortion wouldn't have saved her.

I am not sure if it would have either, but we wont know the facts until the results of alll the enquiries coming up.

Either way, it was pretty brutal and dangerous to leave her to miscarry for three days with an unviable foetus. This cant continue.

Morag

eviltwin wrote: »

The pro choice group aren't the first to use a personal story to futher their cause and they won't be the last. I feel uncomfortable when I see Savita's face as people's profile pic or people using her name in their sigs but I can understand the reasons why people are doing it.

I also don't get the putting personal profiles to her image, I'd never do it, I do find it odd.

eviltwin wrote: »

The story seems to have gone away and the urgency that was there about making provisions for abortion seems to have lost traction. Meanwhile women are still going to get pregnant and need abortion so something has to be done. I don't know what the right thing to do in this situation is.

It is a serious contentious issue and one with the majority party in government being so conservative wants to kick further down the road.
It is in the program for government but the more of a fuss the anti abortion side kicks up (and they are very active and some are very extreme ie how they are targeting politicians) the more of a hot topic it is seen to be.
And they get a massive ammount of funding from the USA for posters leaflets ect.

The pro choice/legislate for health & life side just doesn't have that same resources, even with the most recent polls saying 84% of people want legislation to safe guard women's life and health.

Using Savita as a 'brand' I agree is very problematically and while one group has done that they are not representing everyone and there is a campaign in the works with won't be using that, but it is bring assembled, worked on and funded by people donating their spare time and what money they can.

The thing is I was at a meeting back over the summer and that fact this issue might bring down the government was raised and tbh it might just.

Nonoperational

Even if the X-case was legislated for, it probably would have made very little difference to the tragic death that occurred in Galway. The problem was that the people involved didn't rate the threat to her life as highly as it ultimately proved to be.

Nobody knows exactly what happened and there's been some pretty amazing things said in the media/in general that personally I'd be pretty sure are not true. Terminations can and do happen if there is a threat to the mothers life. Unless there's a much more radical change I can't see how legislating for what's there already is going to make much of a difference.

meeeeh

fits wrote: »

I am not sure if it would have either, but we wont know the facts until the results of alll the enquiries coming up.

Either way, it was pretty brutal and dangerous to leave her to miscarry for three days with an unviable foetus. This cant continue.

It's not uncommon. Around the same date on friday night I ended in hospital with heavy bleeding after giving birth a week earlier. I was admitted, given antibiotics and kept in over the weekend. I had ultrasound on Monday and D&C on Tuesday evening. I got out on Wednesday. I'm pretty sure that unless your bleeding is really heavy, you often have to wait three days and I think they prefer it if the procedure is not needed at all and you miscarry naturally.

The problem is that the lady isn't here to precisely state her stance on the issue in its entirety.

She may have been very pro choice in the circumstances that led to her tragedy, and very anti abortion if over 12 weeks, or very pro abortion to 16 weeks, or any number of shades inbetween. She may even have been vehemently opposed to abortion in all cases except were the mothers life is under threat. We just don't know, we just have hearsay.

She may be appalled at how her name and image are being used to front campaigns. I've always had a problem with personal tragedies being used like this, even though I know it can be very effective, I think its sometimes an intrusion and often takes liberties.

Unless she's on public record putting her position in the public domain, I don't think its fair to assume she would be okay with all aspects of how she's being used as a promotional device (putting it baldly), in the public domain.

I'm not comfortable with it, although I know she's being used in this way with the best of intentions.

fits

meeeeh wrote: »

It's not uncommon. Around the same date on friday night I ended in hospital with heavy bleeding after giving birth a week earlier. I was admitted, given antibiotics and kept in over the weekend. I had ultrasound on Monday and D&C on Tuesday evening. I got out on Wednesday. I'm pretty sure that unless your bleeding is really heavy, you often have to wait three days and I think they prefer it if the procedure is not needed at all and you miscarry naturally.

I am sorry, I don't understand the mechanics of these things but that's not a miscarriage. I don't think it would be that comparable.

meeeeh

fits wrote: »

I am sorry, I don't understand the mechanics of these things but that's not a miscarriage. I don't think it would be that comparable.

Yes it is. In both cases there is a danger of infection and you need to be on antibiotics (not always if misscarrying ). Show up in the hospital bleeding with mischarriage on Friday afternoon and you'll see when you will have procedure. I had three (plus D&C after birth) and that is why I am a bit sceptical the heartbeat is the only reason they didn't act. Most miscarriages are left to pass naturally and very often women even don't know they are having one.

Morag

Well at last the government has said it will be drafting legislation to cover the x case and the abc rulings. http://sharrowshadow.wordpress.com/2012/12/18/government-unveils-plans-to-address-abortion-ruling/

pwurple

meeeeh wrote: »

Yes it is. In both cases there is a danger of infection and you need to be on antibiotics (not always if misscarrying ). Show up in the hospital bleeding with mischarriage on Friday afternoon and you'll see when you will have procedure. I had three (plus D&C after birth) and that is why I am a bit sceptical the heartbeat is the only reason they didn't act. Most miscarriages are left to pass naturally and very often women even don't know they are having one.

Oh gosh, So sorry you had three meeeh. Absolutely heartbreaking and difficult physical experience for you. I had a miscarriage around the time this was going through the media circus and I hope I never ever have another. I had the exact same experience as you. They wait and see rather than starting an ERPC for a few days to see if your body will progress naturally. My cervix was also dilated for weeks, I was scanned every 3 days to see how it was progressing.

Miscarriage is rarely discussed, very taboo in general to speak about it out loud. Even in the hospital it was all hushed tones and whispers, as you are treated in the maternity hospital, right beside people with pregnancies. People are expected to keep it to themselves and some never even tell their families. I suspect this general lack of knowledge has led to some of the outrage. 3 days in agony headlines and the rest. Miscarriages are extremely painful, or at least mine was. The infection this woman got was tragic, and it is terrible it was not detected and treated fast enough. But apart from that infection, her treatment and miscarriage experience sounds like the norm.

I find it awful to see her being used for this.

Morag

It maybe the norm here but it's not in most western countries and leaving women to miscarry for days or even weeks is horrendous.

meeeeh

Morag wrote: »

It maybe the norm here but it's not in most western countries and leaving women to miscarry for days or even weeks is horrendous.

That is complete nonsense. My first miscarriage was in my home country. I went to see my doctor who did the pregnancy check and the only difference was that I was asked if I want abortion even before the scan. That was after couple of days of bleeding on Friday and I had a procedure on Monday. The abortion is perfectly legal there and the health service is of decent standard. The only time D&C was done straight away was in Ireland, one Saturday, when bleeding was so bad I passed out and needed blood transfusion later (those things always happen to me outside working hours).

Miscarriage can be emotionally draining although I'm fairly OK with it but physically in most cases isn't an urgent procedure. They are done under general anesthetic, which has certain risks, so you could be advised not to do it and let it pass naturally.

RubyWoo83

Nonoperational wrote: »

Even if the X-case was legislated for, it probably would have made very little difference to the tragic death that occurred in Galway. The problem was that the people involved didn't rate the threat to her life as highly as it ultimately proved to be.

Nobody knows exactly what happened and there's been some pretty amazing things said in the media/in general that personally I'd be pretty sure are not true. Terminations can and do happen if there is a threat to the mothers life. Unless there's a much more radical change I can't see how legislating for what's there already is going to make much of a difference.

Your post is a bit contradictory, in the first paragraph you seem to assume you know what was going through the consultants mind when they came to their decision. In the second you go on to say that nobody knows what happened.

It is true that nobody knows what happened or what the consultant was thinking, and it is also true that terminations can happen if there is a threat to the mothers life. BUT, there is no clear legislation, there is no definition for what constitutes a threat to the mothers or who has the authority to make that decision and there is a very real possibility that this grey area had an impact on the decision making process for the consultant.

If Savita's husband is happy for his wife to be used as a symbol to champion this cause then I don't think it really matters what anyone else thinks to be honest.

meeeeh

RubyWoo83 wrote: »

Your post is a bit contradictory, in the first paragraph you seem to assume you know what was going through the consultants mind when they came to their decision. In the second you go on to say that nobody knows what happened.

It is true that nobody knows what happened or what the consultant was thinking, and it is also true that terminations can happen if there is a threat to the mothers life. BUT, there is no clear legislation, there is no definition for what constitutes a threat to the mothers or who has the authority to make that decision and there is a very real possibility that this grey area had an impact on the decision making process for the consultant.

If Savita's husband is happy for his wife to be used as a symbol to champion this cause then I don't think it really matters what anyone else thinks to be honest.

I think what she (or he) is trying to say that maybe the people dealing with her did not realize how bad the situation was. The reason investigation is important isn't just regarding the abortion aspect of the debate but it is also important that "we couldn't act because of the abortion legislation" is not used as an excuse for the plain malpractice regarding D&C procedures.

People here seem to have pretty mistaken impression that D&C is preformed immediately. Unless you are diagnosed as urgent for whatever reason, the ultra sound is done during the working hours and I suspect they are in most hospitals 9-5, Monday - Friday, the same goes for the procedures. And secondly there are some dangers attached to the D&C. Savita's pregnancy was quite far gone so I don't know what should be done in that situation.

RubyWoo83

meeeeh wrote: »

I think what she (or he) is trying to say that maybe the people dealing with her did not realize how bad the situation was. The reason investigation is important isn't just regarding the abortion aspect of the debate but it is also important that "we couldn't act because of the abortion legislation" is not used as an excuse for the plain malpractice regarding D&C procedures.

People here seem to have pretty mistaken impression that D&C is preformed immediately. Unless you are diagnosed as urgent for whatever reason, the ultra sound is done during the working hours and I suspect they are in most hospitals 9-5, Monday - Friday, the same goes for the procedures. And secondly there are some dangers attached to the D&C. Savita's pregnancy was quite far gone so I don't know what should be done in that situation.

I am actually very aware of the procedures around D&C, having had 2 myself. One was in very similar circumstances to Savitas situation and took place at 13.5 weeks, late on a Saturday night. This was after numerous scans over a 3 day period, the latest which was earlier on a that Saturday. It was carried out because like Savita, my condition worsened and I was at risk. I count myself lucky that my consultant made that decision. I am not sure where you have gotten the impression that scans, and evacuation procedures only happen during office hours

homerjay2005

biko wrote: »

I don't think so. She is recent in memory and a very good example of what can happen when things go wrong.

we dont know if anything actually went wrong yet, so unless youve seen the report, i dont think your in a position to say that something went wrong.

all we know is she died, this may or may not have been preventable.