Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Woman Who Died

Options
13»

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    meeeeh
    Registered Users Posts: 11,624 ✭✭✭✭meeeeh


    RubyWoo83 wrote: »

    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 :confused:
    It might depend on the hospital and if your case is urgent. I think it's perfectly clear Savita was not deemed urgent enough for them to do anything. But I am very familiar with the times scans happen in my hospital (unless deemed urgent) because I had to wait for them and was told when not to come to the hospital. I'm not a complete moron you know especially considering I had one procedure on Saturday myself. You were clearly in a little bit more danger than an average woman miscarrying.


  • Options
    #63
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 26,052 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    RubyWoo83 wrote: »

    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 dunno. I don't think its ok to have a man speaking for his wife when she's alive, so I'm not keen on a man speaking for his wife when she's dead either.

    I don't think she should be used for anything unless we know her position, from the horses mouth. She was a human being, not a figurehead.


  • Options
    #64
    pwurple
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,449 ✭✭✭✭pwurple


    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.

    Morag, sorry, but you are wrong here. Miscarriages take days and weeks. It is a natural process the body goes through. Ask anyone who has had one.

    The alternative is going for the ERPC immediately, which is not risk free by any means. The procedure is done 'blind', and under a general anesthesic, with risks from both the anesthesia and from the blades used. When the D&C was done by default for all miscarriages, there were women left infertile, incontinent and with a whole host of unneccessary after effects from the operation, for something which needed no intervention in a lot of cases.


  • Options
    #65
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    Candie wrote: »
    I dunno. I don't think its ok to have a man speaking for his wife when she's alive, so I'm not keen on a man speaking for his wife when she's dead either.

    I don't think she should be used for anything unless we know her position, from the horses mouth. She was a human being, not a figurehead.

    Well, we know she wanted a termination.

    I don't see what's wrong with one partner carrying on the fight for justice on behalf of another. That has nothing to do with gender.


  • Options
    #66
    The Big Red Button
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,390 ✭✭✭The Big Red Button


    Candie wrote: »
    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.

    This is a very good point.

    While it is clear, from what her husband has said, that she wanted a termination after being told that the foetus was unviable, it's true that she may possibly have been very much opposed to the idea of abortion by choice - where there is a viable foetus.

    I'm very much pro-choice, but to be perfectly honest, I'd hate the idea of my name and face being used as 'poster child' for anything after I died (even the pro-choice campaign.) It's not how I'd want to be remembered. It wouldn't matter if they'd my family's consent. (In fact, if they did, my family would be anti-choice, if anything, and it's scary that, depending on the circumstances, my death could potentially be used in such a way!!)

    Savita's death was certainly a horrible worst-case-scenario, where a woman lost her life due to (apparent) uncertainty around the legalities involved. But the point has been made now, and awareness has been raised. It's not doing anyone any good to keep her in the public eye.

    My opinion would be that we should continue to fight for the right to choose, for all the right reasons, without bringing any individual cases into it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    FoxT
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,204 ✭✭✭FoxT


    Some great points made in this thread - We do not know this woman, nor do we know the details of what happened, or why.
    Nevertheless, her death is acting as a catalyst for some movement on the abortion question.

    The Government can be expected to introduce legislation which will attempt to deal with this narrow issue - ie risk to mother's life, as opposed to her health.
    By taking this line, it will minimise confrontation with the so-called pro-life lobby, and, for the Govt., this is the easiest short-term measure.

    However, I expect that this will lead to further complications in the future. The line of demarcation between a 'health risk' & a' risk to life' is not always very clear, and I have no doubt that this lack of clarity may well lead to avoidable fatalities in the future.

    No doubt, further human sacrifices will be necessary before we see Irish society taking a mature approach to issues such as foetal abnormalities, pregnancies caused by rape or incest, and the fact that 4000 or so abortions to Irish mothers take place annually.


  • Options
    #68
    LittleBook
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,716 ✭✭✭LittleBook


    Macha wrote: »
    I don't see what's wrong with one partner carrying on the fight for justice on behalf of another.

    Or their parents:

    Savita Halappanavar parents want abortion law in her name


  • Options
    #69
    RubyWoo83
    Registered Users Posts: 118 ✭✭RubyWoo83


    Candie wrote: »
    I dunno. I don't think its ok to have a man speaking for his wife when she's alive, so I'm not keen on a man speaking for his wife when she's dead either.

    I don't think she should be used for anything unless we know her position, from the horses mouth. She was a human being, not a figurehead.

    I really don't think this is a gender issue :confused: If I was unable to speak for myself then I would most certainly want my life partner to do it.

    I mean it's not like Savita's husband could have any hidden agenda here, he has nothing to gain from this. Obviously he has much more insight into Savitas thoughts on the matter than any of us would. It's also clear that she did want to have an abortion at the time.

    Regardless, Savita is dead now and its really not going to make a difference to her.

    If this helps her husband and family through the grieving process and makes them feel her death was not in vain then who is anyone else to question it??


Advertisement