Hospital sought court order to force C Section

Morag

pwurple wrote: »

Yes, cos that's exactly what I said... that all babies die in water births. :rolleyes:
They can't get insurance precisly because there is a history of water births unnecessarily resulting in newborns drowning. These are children who would be alive today if their mother had not taken that risk. How educated they were about it, I don't know. But instead of birthday parties and babygrows there was a funeral with a tiny white casket, and a cemetary plot to visit.

Do you know the people who lost thier child in that indecent, by chance?

Many women the world over have waterbirths, anyone who has an interest I suggest they go find out as much information as they can themselves and make up their own minds, don't be put off by one person on the internet saying your a nutter for considering it.

gcgirl

This was the woman's 2nd pregnancy and going on 2 weeks overdue, pretty much what I went through with my first and 2nd, my first one was an emergency section and tbh I was happy 20 hours in labour and stuck on 3cm and herself going in to distress I can't stress how brilliant the team I had with me that day,my mid wife was super and the doctors as well,I have an excellent 12 year old today when it could have been so different,3 years later I was overdue my son 12 days over high blood pressure and a son that hasn't even engaged they had giving me the chance of trying to do it naturally but himself was fairly big 10 pounder so he was a pound heavier than no 1 I had another section, I had accepted that I had a pelvis that was on the small side but after I got out one or two women made me feel like I had failed somehow because I couldn't give birth the natural way oh csection, too posh to push crap, I think sometimes other women judge other women and therefore put a lot of pressure on women to give birth a certain way, I don't believe the hospital were heavy handed at 2 weeks overdue there is a far greater risk than at 39 weeks for a csection.

meeeeh

Morag wrote: »

Lack of terminations for fatal fetal abnormalities or for inevitable miscarriage to start with.

That doesn't mean they don't know how to do it, they just don't do it. So the country is behind in legalislating and not in technical knowledge how to do it.

Morag

meeeeh wrote: »

That doesn't mean they don't know how to do it, they just don't do it. So the country is behind in legalislating and not in technical knowledge how to do it.

Actually many don't which is why Irish medical students have to self fund going to other countries to get the medical training relative to those cases.

https://sites.google.com/site/medstudents4ireland/train

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/doctors-offered-uk-abortion-training-219561.html

Doctors offered UK abortion training

Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Two Irish medical students have applied for a course offering training in abortion care at a London clinic. The one-week externships, at the largest London clinic of the British Pregnancy Advisory Services in Richmond, will allow students witness how abortion procedures are carried out.

According to Medical Students For Choice, which supports the BPAS programme, it gives students the opportunity to learn about aspects of women’s healthcare that are not part of routine medical training courses in Ireland.

“At the moment in Ireland, there is a lot of stuff they don’t go over [in medical education] such as how to do it [abortions] and the circumstances in which an abortion can be performed,” said MSFC member Amelia Reid. “A lot of medical students are scared about finding themselves in a situation where they need to know what to do to save a life.”

The Richmond clinic carries out approximately 200 abortions a week, both surgical and medical.

A BPAS spokeswoman said the only criteria for taking part in the course was that the medical student had completed one year of medical school, had a basic medical knowledge, an understanding of confidentiality and ethics, and was able to explain in writing why they wanted to take part. She said they were not looking for students “at an advanced point in their studies”, although such students would not be excluded.

The spokeswoman said students would get a “complete overview” of the patient’s experience at the clinic, from pre-abortion counselling to choices for contraception afterwards.

She said BPAS opened the course to applicants in Irish medical schools after last year’s course — the first British course run by BPAS — attracted considerable attention from Ireland. As part of the course, students will also work with Antenatal Choices and Results, a charity that supports parents whose unborn baby is diagnosed with foetal anomaly.

Richard Lyus, who will mentor students on the BPAS scheme, said they were looking ahead “to a time when the law enables doctors in Ireland to provide abortion care to all women who need it”.

“We hope these placements will give Ireland’s next generation of doctors important insight into the needs of women in this situation, which they can make use of in the course of their careers,” said Dr Lyus.

Ms Reid said MSFC has a presence in all of the medical schools in Ireland, with the exception of University College Cork.

She said approximately 250 students in Ireland joined MSFC’s database since it set up here two years ago and that it hoped to provide financial assistance to Irish students accepted on the BPAS course. The educational aspect of the course is provided free of charge, courtesy of BPAS.

meeeeh

Morag wrote: »

Actually many don't which is why Irish medical students have to self fund going to other countries to get the medical training relative to those cases.

https://sites.google.com/site/medstudents4ireland/train

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/doctors-offered-uk-abortion-training-219561.html

Well if the lack of knowledge can bi sorted with one week course after a year of medical training... I wonder how much they charge for the wonder course? And they are not looking for students at advance point in their studies. I wonder why that would be.

Morag

The intensive courses are offered for free, students still have to cover travel, accommodation, food and general expenses.

meeeeh

Morag wrote: »

The intensive courses are offered for free, students still have to cover travel, accommodation, food and general expenses.

And only two took them up???!! Have medical students no desire to learn what is needed for their professional success? Or is the corse only a PR excercise considering they are not ofering them to medical students with a bit of study behind them?

Morag

meeeeh wrote: »

And only two took them up???!! Have medical students no desire to learn what is needed for their professional success? Or is the corse only a PR excercise considering they are not ofering them to medical students with a bit of study behind them?

Two took up the most recent one, many have taken them up before some take up ones in the USA. They are offered to those with more years study, 1 year is the minimal requirement, but often those who are further along are snowed under with their course work here and those are volunteer external training not part of their official studies here.

Tbh this will be my last reply to you in this thread as I am find your tone increasingly antagonistic and bombastic.

meeeeh

No it's just sarcastic, because while I think the lack of abortion is absolutely scandalous in this country, people like to make sweeping statements about things that are just not true. Maternity care in Ireland is at a high standard. I can't believe I'm actually defending health service but some arguments in this thread are without foundation and just pure scaremongering.

clairefontaine

I have a question about the great reputation of Irish maternity care. Is that based on the maternity hospitals in Dublin or is that based across the entire nation of regional hospitals?

wolfpawnat

Not wanting to get into a "rights of the unborn vs the rights of the mother" debate, but if a woman decides to carry a pregnancy, she needs to accept that her body is not entirely hers for the next few months. As much as women declare the "My Body, My Choice" malarkey, if you are pregnant and want to have the baby, then no, it's not entirely yours, there is another person within you. And as the mother you have to make the right choices regarding the well being of the child as well as yourself, even if it means you have to do things you personally don't want to. But I will reiterate, this is when a woman chooses to keep a baby. I am not getting into any more grey topics here as they would be OT. The women in question chose the pregnancy, ergo, she needs to accept the consequences of such.

A full term foetus is a completely viable human being capable of independent life and as such doctors should, if the mother is not willing, have to make decisions to ensure the survival of all viable lives, in a full term pregnancy case, then the baby too should be considered. In cases of pre-term, well then a "save who you can" ideal should be most obvious, in many cases that is only the mother, in many others, that is both of them.

I had an emergency section and was not consulted, merely informed I was getting it, my baby was choking and the doctors made the right decision. The baby would have been severely mentally disabled or dead without their fast decision. I was lucky, no long term issues other than a nasty looking scar, but a healthy child thank goodness. Any mother who would put herself above the healthy delivery of her child would scare me and make me question her as a mother. If there was long term negative effects for her, I would understand, of course. MRSA is a risk in ANY hospital, in ANY patient. A small tear or episiotomy can contract it as easily as a c-section.

clairefontaine

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Not wanting to get into a "rights of the unborn vs the rights of the mother" debate, but if a woman decides to carry a pregnancy, she needs to accept that her body is not entirely hers for the next few months. As much as women declare the "My Body, My Choice" malarkey, if you are pregnant and want to have the baby, then no, it's not entirely yours, there is another person within you. And as the mother you have to make the right choices regarding the well being of the child as well as yourself, even if it means you have to do things you personally don't want to. But I will reiterate, this is when a woman chooses to keep a baby. I am not getting into any more grey topics here as they would be OT. The women in question chose the pregnancy, ergo, she needs to accept the consequences of such.

A full term foetus is a completely viable human being capable of independent life and as such doctors should, if the mother is not willing, have to make decisions to ensure the survival of all viable lives, in a full term pregnancy case, then the baby too should be considered. In cases of pre-term, well then a "save who you can" ideal should be most obvious, in many cases that is only the mother, in many others, that is both of them.

I had an emergency section and was not consulted, merely informed I was getting it, my baby was choking and the doctors made the right decision. The baby would have been severely mentally disabled or dead without their fast decision. I was lucky, no long term issues other than a nasty looking scar, but a healthy child thank goodness. Any mother who would put herself above the healthy delivery of her child would scare me and make me question her as a mother. If there was long term negative effects for her, I would understand, of course. MRSA is a risk in ANY hospital, in ANY patient. A small tear or episiotomy can contract it as easily as a c-section.

I think the issue of consent in these situations is incredibly fuzzy. Right, you accept that your body isn't just yours anymore, but do you accept it's the HSE's?

To what extent do you have to accept relentless intervention when they don't even conduct dating scans anymore?

xLexie

It's not the HSEs, it's common sense that you'd do the best to save the child

username123

Having read the entire thread the most thought provoking post on it was iguanas regarding the thought experiment of a mother refusing to give bone marrow to her child and should she be forced. Of course not.

I personally do not believe that any person should be subjected to surgery without their consent, even if it is to save another person.

The situation for women and reproductive rights is bad enough in this country without surgeons deciding to cut women open without consent also.

clairefontaine

username123 wrote: »

Having read the entire thread the most thought provoking post on it was iguanas regarding the thought experiment of a mother refusing to give bone marrow to her child and should she be forced. Of course not.

I personally do not believe that any person should be subjected to surgery without their consent, even if it is to save another person.

The situation for women and reproductive rights is bad enough in this country without surgeons deciding to cut women open without consent also.

I'm surprised he had to go to the high court, given the status if the unborn and the Childrens Referendum, especially given what wolfpawnut said about her own experience of not being asked for consent.

It would appear to me, that they can do this anyway.

wolfpawnat

clairefontaine wrote: »

I think the issue of consent in these situations is incredibly fuzzy. Right, you accept that your body isn't just yours anymore, but do you accept it's the HSE's?

To what extent do you have to accept relentless intervention when they don't even conduct dating scans anymore?

But they do. You get a minimum of two. One at your first appointment to date it, which they double check again at the anomaly scan. Many women also have other scans for different reasons, including 3D and 4D private ones.

As for whose body it is, it is not the HSE's or any member of the HSE's, but when a mother is doing something that will ultimately negatively impact the child's life or kill it when it can be prevented, then they should try to save it. The HSE does not take these cases lightly. A woman is told for the successful delivery of twins, the highest successful birth rates is with a section, she can refuse it and attempt to go naturally, it is not recommended, but her health team will not intervene unless they have to. Same with breech births, the safest way is with section, but unless the child is at great risk, or indeed the mother, they will respect her wishes as much as they can. But when a child is able to be saved but a mother is refusing it, they have to intervene.

The only three cases of this I have seen on boards regarding cases like this, are the JW with the blood transfusion, a woman with HIV and this lady. So many children are born in Ireland I refuse to believe that these were the only three cases of highly complicated births, but these are the three I am aware of that made it to a judge, who ultimately made the decision that since the women decided to carry these pregnancies, the children, who were viable lives, should be saved from what I believe are the mothers selfish actions.

Morag

clairefontaine wrote: »

I'm surprised he had to go to the high court, given the status if the unborn and the Childrens Referendum, especially given what wolfpawnut said about her own experience of not being asked for consent.

It would appear to me, that they can do this anyway.

In critical and acute cases yes, and when you are already admitted to hospital and their care.

But forcing you to turn up for one is another story altogether, there have already been cases were women have been threatened in other countries that if they don't show up they will be arrested and forced to attend the hospital or were court orders were gotten to keep them on enforced bed rest against their wishes.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/florida-court-orders-pregnant-woman-bed-rest-medical/story

As the 'unborn' is a term utterly undefined under law I worry that a judgement which favored the argument the hospital's barrister as going to present using the 8th amendment it will open the door to court orders to remove the rights of women.


http://www.nationalpartnership.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=34237&news_iv_ctrl=0&abbr=daily3_

http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v1n2/pregnant.html

clairefontaine

You know I am very much on the fence about this. One side of me thinks that the bottom line should lay with the patient, they get to decide and so surgeon should get to cut you open without consent.

The other side of me, which knows what its like to be drugged and exhausted in a hospital, and knows what its like not only to be a health care proxy for someone else who is deranged on medication, but also having passed out and had a section myself, wonders about the validity of consent in certain circumstances.

Even if I had not passed out [my health care proxy consented for me-no problem with that], being so drugged and exhausted, does consent have any kind of validity when you are out of your mind in pain and drugs and fatigue?

I just don't know.

wolfpawnat

clairefontaine wrote: »

I'm surprised he had to go to the high court, given the status if the unborn and the Childrens Referendum, especially given what wolfpawnut said about her own experience of not being asked for consent.

It would appear to me, that they can do this anyway.

In many cases, if you turn up to hospital unconscious from a car crash, etc they will provide emergency surgery without your consent to save your life. A friend of mine collapsed at home and was rushed to hospital where they found the problem and cut him open asap. Saved his life. Emergency surgery is just that, an emergency.

With me, the machine was beeping, the doctor was called and said the baby was suffocating, the beeping was its oxygen saturation levels and it needed to get out right away, we're going to have to give you a C-Section. I signed consent forms in the OR as the tools were being laid out to perform the surgery. They had to do it. A child was going to die or suffer severe mental disabilities unnecessarily if they did not. And as I stated already, as I had chosen to carry the child, it was their duty to save those they could, in this case, the baby and in the longer term, perhaps me. Death in childbirth is extremely rare in western society these days, but still possible.

Doctors are forced to save who they can, even the biggest scumbag of a drug lord if he lands on the table in front of them. It is their job. I don't think forcing a person to have surgery is fair, but when the life of another within that person is at risk unnecessarily, then you have to think of everyone. That is what those doctors and the judge were forced to do.

IvyTheTerrible

wolfpawnat wrote: »

But they do. You get a minimum of two. One at your first appointment to date it, which they double check again at the anomaly scan. Many women also have other scans for different reasons, including 3D and 4D private ones.

I thought the dating scans in Ireland were done too late to be fairly accurate. (ie to get a "reliable" date, the scan has to be done in the first twelve weeks, most women in Ireland don't get scans so early). Correct me if I'm wrong, that's just my understanding.

Morag

Some women only get 1or 2 scans at 20/22 weeks due to the lateness of booking in with the maternity hospitals due to demand on services, we have been in a baby boom.

IvyTheTerrible

Morag wrote: »

Some women only get 1or 2 scans at 20/22 weeks due to the lateness of booking in with the maternity hospitals due to demand on services, we have been in a baby boom.

I think it's more due to the dearth of services than the baby boom, France has the second highest level of fertility at the moment after Ireland, and it is routine for woman to get their first scan at 10 weeks. (I did).
EDIT: Of course, that could be due to a difference in agenda...you get an anomaly scan at 10 weeks, which gives you time to have an abortion if something turns up in the scan.

username123

wolfpawnat wrote: »

In many cases, if you turn up to hospital unconscious from a car crash, etc they will provide emergency surgery without your consent to save your life.

But if you were unconscious would they operate on you without your consent to save someone elses life?

lazygal

I know women in Cork and Louth who got only one scan at 34 weeks. No dating or anomaly scans before then were offered.

meeeeh

username123 wrote: »

But if you were unconscious would they operate on you without your consent to save someone elses life?

From Rte:

The hospital said the woman is 13 days overdue and if she gave birth naturally there would be a grave risk to both her and the baby.

clairefontaine

meeeeh wrote: »

From Rte:

The hospital said the woman is 13 days overdue and if she gave birth naturally there would be a grave risk to both her and the baby.

Her dispute was with the due dates.

Given the dearth of dating scan appointments available this is an understandable dispute.

username123

meeeeh wrote: »

From Rte:

The hospital said the woman is 13 days overdue and if she gave birth naturally there would be a grave risk to both her and the baby.

Are you allowed to refuse surgery when there is grave risk to you (and only you) and you are conscious and not mad?

meeeeh

username123 wrote: »

Are you allowed to refuse surgery when there is grave risk to you (and only you) and you are conscious and not mad?

You were implying that it was only to save another person. I didn't object to anything else.

lazygal

meeeeh wrote: »

From Rte:

The hospital said the woman is 13 days overdue and if she gave birth naturally there would be a grave risk to both her and the baby.

A private early dating scan provided my due dates. If I'd gone by the hospital's last menstrual period method I'd have been classed as overdue at eight months gestation as I don't ovulate on day 14 of a 28 day cycle like I'm 'supposed' to.

clairefontaine

lazygal wrote: »

A private early dating scan provided my due dates. If I'd gone by the hospital's last menstrual period method I'd have been classed as overdue at eight months gestation as I don't ovulate on day 14 of a 28 day cycle like I'm 'supposed' to.

I was not able to get a dating scan at all, private or public,and unaware of private clinics at the time.

As it turned out I feel they entirely got the due date wrong and interference was done too early, my guess is about a month too early. And yes there were consequences to that, that I wont go into here.

What I learned was that obstetrics is experimental medicine.