Consultant 'refused abortion plea'

Kenny Gofuk

Consultant 'refused abortion plea'

08 April 2013
A consultant has been accused of refusing an Indian woman's demands for an abortion as she miscarried on the grounds that it is "a Catholic country".

While I have been following this story, I have had mixed feelings regarding the husband in question - however, don't get me wrong I'm extremely sorry for his loss.

Is it just me, or does anyone else get the feeling he is now trying to cash in on this bigtime? He has got a lot of front!
I'm sorry, but if the above statement is true, why was it that they did not travel to the UK for this to happen?

Excuse my ignorance if you feel I have got the wrong end of this matter!

Seachmall

Kenny Gofuk wrote: »

Is it just me, or does anyone else get the feeling he is now trying to cash in on this bigtime? He has got a lot of front!

I think he's trying to publicise a perceived injustice. He claims she was refused an abortion on religious grounds instead of medical ones. Hence the inquest.

why was it that they did not travel to the UK for this to happen?

Long way to go when you're having a miscarriage...

Gatling

I watched his act on telly months ago ,
One thing stood out for me "I'm not Irish so Irish laws don't apply to me"
The whole situation has been over hyped

Seachmall

Gatling wrote: »

One thing stood out for me "I'm not Irish so Irish laws don't apply to me"

She was entitled to an abortion if her life was deemed to be in sufficient danger.

His qualm is that her being refused neglected to take the law and medical professionalism into account and instead rejected it on religious grounds.

Gatling

Seachmall wrote: »

She was entitled to an abortion if her life was deemed to be in sufficient danger.

His qualm is that her being refused neglected to take the law and medical professionalism into account and instead rejected it on religious grounds.

That's hear say
I believe none of this should have been made public before a full investigation was carried out ,
No public appearance's no media interviews the whole thing is skewed to his claims ,

kneemos

The consultant denies saying "this is a catholic country"

WayneMolloy

Gatling wrote: »

That's hear say
I believe none of this should have been made public before a full investigation was carried out ,
No public appearance's no media interviews the whole thing is skewed to his claims ,

Kitty Holland is to blame for that, she saw her name in lights and ran with a very one sided story. Praveen became a pawn in a game that he never fully understood. In years to come, I believe he will regret ever bedding down with the groups and people that he did, in the immediate aftermath.

Kenny Gofuk

Seachmall wrote: »

I think he's trying to publicise a perceived injustice. He claims she was refused an abortion on religious grounds instead of medical ones. Hence the inquest.

Long way to go when you're having a miscarriage...

Ok! But its Ireland, it's widely know that abortion is a huge taboo subject here.
I believe time did allow for other considerations to have been made, for the wifes greater good.

Shint0

WayneMolloy wrote: »

Praveen became a pawn in a game that he never fully understood.

This may not necessarily be true. Until all the facts emerge it is best to keep an open mind about the case.

hatrickpatrick

No matter where you stand on abortion, if the "this is a Catholic country" quote is genuine, it should sicken everyone. As a Catholic myself, there is nothing more important for democracy than a total separation of church and state; Laws can be based on morality if they must, but using religious to justify anything is absolutely moronic and should never happen IMO.

WayneMolloy

Shint0 wrote: »

This may not necessarily be true. Until all the facts emerge it is best to keep an open mind about the case.

I am speaking from a similar experience. When a significant other passes, people should have enough humanity to allow you grieve. Anyway. His recent plea for privacy, was very telling.

My opinions on abortion are pretty mute - if it came to a referendum, I would probably abstain. But anyone with a brain can see that Praveen was played.

I hope he can find peace. He seems a decent skin.

My heart goes out to him.

Pushtrak

WayneMolloy wrote: »

My opinions on abortion are pretty mute - if it came to a referendum, I would probably abstain. But anyone with a brain can see that Praveen was played.

That's your prerogative, of course, but I will say one thing. A vote in favour of abortion doesn't necessarily mean that you like abortion. It can just mean that we don't have the right to stand in the way of someone from having one. It's a subtle, non-trivial distinction. I bring it up because of the amount of people who feel their religion/politics should dictate how everyone else acts, or their rights.

Jesus Christ

It's "moot".

Pushtrak

Jesus Christ wrote: »

It's "moot".

If you are saying that to the person I responded to, I don't think that is so. Mute, as in, to the question nothing to say. As opposed to the discussion being moot, for instance. Moot would be there is nothing to come from the conversation... Eh, I'm kinda crappy at describing/explaining things, but in short, I don't think moot is an appropriate substitution.

Rosy Posy

Kenny Gofuk wrote: »

Ok! But its Ireland, it's widely know that abortion is a huge taboo subject here.
I believe time did allow for other considerations to have been made, for the wifes greater good.

The woman was miscarrying and in agony. She died of septicemia as a result of having an open wound. Do you honestly think that her husband should have made the call to get her on a plane to England and into an abortion clinic in this state? No airline would have taken her- it would have had to have been by helicopter. It would be totally alien to most people, Irish or not, to expect that their life would be placed in danger like this over a legal technicality. The foetus was not viable- there was no question of the baby being saved, only that the heart was still beating they would not do a d&c.

I believe that there was a more basic negligence on the part of the hospital staff. When I was having my first baby my waters broke but I did not go into labour straight away. Once I had an open wound for more than 24 hours I was placed on iv antibiotics to avoid the risk of septicemia. Had this basic precaution been taken this woman would still be alive today,

Cavehill Red

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

if the "this is a Catholic country" quote is genuine...

BIG if. The consultant denies saying it. I found it unlikely at the time that any doctor in Ireland would say such a thing. I remain even more convinced today that it was never said.

Jesus Christ

Pushtrak wrote: »

If you are saying that to the person I responded to, I don't think that is so. Mute, as in, to the question nothing to say. As opposed to the discussion being moot, for instance. Moot would be there is nothing to come from the conversation... Eh, I'm kinda crappy at describing/explaining things, but in short, I don't think moot is an appropriate substitution.

It would be incorrect even if it was moot, however it's the context in which most people conflate the two. Anyway, the point is moot; or rather it isn't...

CaraMay

I do agree with the op and hope I am never in their situation but I suspect he can fallen in with people who may see this as an option to make a few €€€€€.

Where is he living now?

crusher000

CaraMay wrote: »

I do agree with the op and hope I am never in their situation but I suspect he can fallen in with people who may see this as an option to make a few €€€€€.

Where is he living now?

Ah, does it matter where he's living ? He's wife died here in Ireland and they both had lived here for over 12 years. So when someones spouse dies due to a perceived negligence their partner only wants the truth because of the money. Some lovely people around here. Maybe he arranged her death for the publicity and the money. Get a grip people. Put yourselves in his shoes. Not everything being reported is true and unless anyone on here were part of the group that put the report together we don't know all the FACTS. FACTS is what should come out of an inquest.

CaraMay

We can only comment based on the 'facts' we have at han and are entitled to our opinions

He wanted media attention at the start and now wants privacy... It's interesting he wAnts to change the laws of a land he no longer lives in.

I feel very sorry for him but do think people around him are pushing him and maybe not always for genuine reasons.

crusher000

CaraMay wrote: »

We can only comment based on the 'facts' we have at han and are entitled to our opinions

Why does it matter where he currently is living ?

hardCopy

Gatling wrote: »

That's hear say
I believe none of this should have been made public before a full investigation was carried out ,
No public appearance's no media interviews the whole thing is skewed to his claims ,

We wouldn't have had a full investigation of he hadn't gone public

wolfpawnat

Rosy Posy wrote: »

The woman was miscarrying and in agony. She died of septicemia as a result of having an open wound. Do you honestly think that her husband should have made the call to get her on a plane to England and into an abortion clinic in this state? No airline would have taken her- it would have had to have been by helicopter. It would be totally alien to most people, Irish or not, to expect that their life would be placed in danger like this over a legal technicality. The foetus was not viable- there was no question of the baby being saved, only that the heart was still beating they would not do a d&c.

I believe that there was a more basic negligence on the part of the hospital staff. When I was having my first baby my waters broke but I did not go into labour straight away. Once I had an open wound for more than 24 hours I was placed on iv antibiotics to avoid the risk of septicemia. Had this basic precaution been taken this woman would still be alive today,

I find peoples idea that she was in agony odd, painkillers were on her leaked chart, so she was not in agony, she may have been in a little pain, that is plausible, but agony is hyped-dramatics!

From what has been leaked/said do far, the hospital seems to have been negligent, that is clear. But I refuse to believe for a minute that any consultant is a religious nut, he may have said it in disgust, but I doubt that too. There is one case in my direct family alone where to save my step-mother, her baby was terminated. So this "oh they never put the mother first claim is BS"

Evidence based medicine practice, which is compiled by the WHO, recommends letting nature take its course and allowing the foetus to pass naturally as a medical termination would have increased the risk of infection, that said, the poor woman was clearly very much in a state of sepsis, but to add to that is not recommended either.

Same with my friend who was left for 3/4 days in a bed waiting to have her child, sure she was given anti-biotics, but I do think to this day 36/48 hours would have been long enough without medical intervention, as is recommended, but that is her issue with them not mine.

The abortion debate is something that should be discussed on the correct platform by the relevant professionals to give people an education on all the information to make an informed decision in a democratic referendum, and not via smear campaigns by either side!

I don't think Praveen was thinking straight when the Pro-choice fanatics (and both sides have fanatics) took over. He was grieving and thought they cared for his wifes life and not for their own agenda. It is clear now that the dust has settled that that was their only objective. Using the personal pain of that man and his beautiful wife to get their own agenda brought forward and thrusted into the media.

Medicine is not perfect, there will always be casualties, and doctors screw up, that is human error. And they should be made accountable for their errors, and I do believe, regardless of whether his place of residence now is in Ireland, the EU, or back in India, if the hospital is liable, he should be given compensation.

May Savita RIP and may we get a clear report as to what happened. Not that it should have ever been such a public matter. It was a private matter and should have remained such!

seamus

hardCopy wrote: »

We wouldn't have had a full investigation of he hadn't gone public

Exactly. "He's doing it for money" - exactly how much money has he gotten so far?

Its no secret that he has made serious effort to go public with this, because otherwise his wife's death would be ruled as simple septicaemia.

Ignoring the "Catholic" issue for the moment, even from initial reports it was clear that something was seriously lacking in her care and if nothing else we should be thanking Praveen for bringing this into public focus and forcing a public debate on it.

wolfpawnat

hardCopy wrote: »

We wouldn't have had a full investigation of he hadn't gone public

Not true, I had issue with that hospital before and I asked for an investigation. Every doctor and nurse involved was brought in on it, and none of it was in the media to get me that. It was a small investigation because the matter was not a life threatening one, but it was double figure pages long and in depth. ALL the hospitals have this, people don't realise what paperwork takes so many doctors so long to complete, but they're are several reports to be done on any one day.

Pompey Magnus

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

No matter where you stand on abortion, if the "this is a Catholic country" quote is genuine, it should sicken everyone. As a Catholic myself, there is nothing more important for democracy than a total separation of church and state; Laws can be based on morality if they must, but using religious to justify anything is absolutely moronic and should never happen IMO.

If it was said (and I am far from convinced) then the significance depends on the context. If the consultant was a non-Catholic and said it with a roll of the eyes and a sigh then it becomes a much less sinister phrase.

My own reaction when I first heard it was this seems to be a more plausible explanation for the phrase than the way the media have portrayed it. Just because someone says "This is a Catholic country" does not require the person to approve with the sentiment, it could suggest the exact opposite depending on how it was said.

crusher000

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

If it was said (and I am far from convinced) then the significance depends on the context. If the consultant was a non-Catholic and said it with a roll of the eyes and a sigh then it becomes a much less sinister phrase.

My own reaction when I first heard it was this seems to be a more plausible explanation for the phrase than the way the media have portrayed it. Just because someone says "This is a Catholic country" does not require the person to approve with the sentiment, it could suggest the exact opposite depending on how it was said.

This is a very good point. Doctors decisions are not governed by religious beliefs but by their medical training on all matters. We see this time and time again when Jehovah Witnesses refuse blood transfusions and it ends in the courts. Doctors made decisions on the medical evidence at hand not a higher power.

seamus

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

If it was said (and I am far from convinced) then the significance depends on the context. If the consultant was a non-Catholic and said it with a roll of the eyes and a sigh then it becomes a much less sinister phrase.

My own reaction when I first heard it was this seems to be a more plausible explanation for the phrase than the way the media have portrayed it. Just because someone says "This is a Catholic country" does not require the person to approve with the sentiment, it could suggest the exact opposite depending on how it was said.

Indeed, from the testimony Mr. Halappanavar gave yesterday, it would appear that it wasn't said in an "How dare you ask for abortion, this is a good Catholic country", it was more matter-of-factly;

“Dr Astbury said ’unfortunately I cannot. This is a Catholic country, we are bound by the law. We can’t terminate because the foetus is still alive’.”

Context is everything, but of course at the time the media courted the least favourable interpretation of the words.

A poor choice of words from the doctor, certainly, but not quite the bible-bashing nutjob the media would have us believe.

Clareman

If her life was in such danger why did he drive his inlaws to the airport in Dublin and go back to work? I don't think anyone thought she was in any serious danger.

IMVHO this is a terrible accident and a poor lady and unborn child has lost their lives, the fact that there was potential medical negligence and an infection picked up in the hospital are being ignored because of something someone has claimed to have heard.

PlainP

Cavehill Red wrote: »

BIG if. The consultant denies saying it. I found it unlikely at the time that any doctor in Ireland would say such a thing. I remain even more convinced today that it was never said.

So there's all those doctors voting against abortion (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056919458) and you think it wasn't said.......

HondaSami

crusher000 wrote: »

Ah, does it matter where he's living ? He's wife died here in Ireland and they both had lived here for over 12 years. So when someones spouse dies due to a perceived negligence their partner only wants the truth because of the money. Some lovely people around here. Maybe he arranged her death for the publicity and the money. Get a grip people. Put yourselves in his shoes. Not everything being reported is true and unless anyone on here were part of the group that put the report together we don't know all the FACTS. FACTS is what should come out of an inquest.

I thought they came to live here in 2008.

He overplayed the ''catholic country'' bit imo. It's tragic what happened but you cannot change the laws of any country to suit your own agenda.
It's natural he wants answers as anyone would but he has not come across very well in the media but i blame this on the people representing him.

wolfpawnat

PlainP wrote: »

So there's all those doctors voting against abortion (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056919458) and you think it wasn't said.......

I very much doubt it is because they are religious. Contrary to the belief of many, the vast majority of pro-lifers are not religious nuts wielding rosary beads!

crusher000

He is not campaigning for abortion. Firstly he wants the truth around why his wife passed away in the circumstances she did.

It was turned into an abortion issue by

A. Irish Media , they jumped on the whole Catholic Country remark.
B. Demand by pro abortion groups for the Government to bring the issue to a close after 20 years since the X case.

HondaSami

crusher000 wrote: »

He is not campaigning for abortion. Firstly he wants the truth around why his wife passed away in the circumstances she did.

It was turned into an abortion issue by

A. Irish Media , they jumped on the whole Catholic Country remark.
B. Demand by pro abortion groups for the Government to bring the issue to a close after 20 years since the X case.

He was the one who kept on about the Catholic Country issue, he repeatedly mentioned the doctor told him ''This is a catholic country'' he wanted people to believe this.

wolfpawnat

HondaSami wrote: »

He was the one who kept on about the Catholic Country issue, he repeatedly mentioned the doctor told him ''This is a catholic country'' he wanted people to believe this.

He was/is grieving. Yes it appears his attitude was "But we aren't Catholic" but when you have the media with huge front page articles saying it over and over, it sticks more, otherwise it is just the rants of an understandably angry husband. I feel the media has a lot to answer for in this situation.

PaulieC

Gatling wrote: »

I watched his act on telly months ago ,
One thing stood out for me "I'm not Irish so Irish laws don't apply to me"

This really stood out for me too at the time. Surely you are subjected to the laws of the land that you live in ? You can't import the laws that suit you from your own land.
I put it down to him being grief-stricken at the time, but afterwards I realised that all of the TV interviews happened sometime after her death, so he was more likely to have been more emotionally stable and fully aware of what he was saying (no doubt, as other have pointed out, was being played in some way)

wolfpawnat

PaulieC wrote: »

This really stood out for me too at the time. Surely you are subjected to the laws of the land that you live in ? You can't import the laws that suit you from your own land.
I put it down to him being grief-stricken at the time, but afterwards I realised that all of the TV interviews happened sometime after her death, so he was more likely to have been more emotionally stable and fully aware of what he was saying (no doubt, as other have pointed out, was being played in some way)

It angered me at first too. Doesn't matter what nationality you are, or religious beliefs for that matter. If you are in Ireland, you abide by Irish laws. If you don't like certain laws, tough tiddles. I don't drink, but if I wanted one I like the option of having one, ergo I am not going to go to the Middle East and demand that since I am Irish I should be allowed. But again, the man had people whispering in his ear and grief is a terrible thing, it can last a while.

Red Pepper

I do voluntary work with retired people in Galway and I cant get over how 90%+ of them have no time for Savita's husband whatsoever. I would even go as far as to say they hate him now. There was sympathy at the start but now they just want him to shut up and move on. I think it's largely to do with the fact that he is Indian which of course makes them racist. I have argued their biased points on a few occasions but I cant exactly figure out why they dislike the guy so much.They are always giving out about him and yet are reluctant to talk about the actual cause of death and ideas to prevent similar deaths in future. If it was an Irish man trying to find justice it would be different I feel. Many of them think he is lying and "after the money" but I don't see evidence of that yet.

VinLieger

Just curious seeing the constant remarks about "people whispering in his ear", do people mean family members, his solicitor, pr team or (hate starting this argument) pro-choice people?

syklops

Wolfpawnat wrote:

It angered me at first too. Doesn't matter what nationality you are, or religious beliefs for that matter. If you are in Ireland, you abide by Irish laws.

Yes, but what about when those laws have been created with religious bias? According to the Would you believe program last night, the law that makes abortion illegal is the offences against the person act of 1861. Thats 1861 not 1961.. Things have changed in the country in over a hundred years. Attitudes have changed. Why has the law not changed? Its a valid question.

Wolfpawnat wrote:

I find peoples idea that she was in agony odd, painkillers were on her leaked chart, so she was not in agony, she may have been in a little pain, that is plausible, but agony is hyped-dramatics!

This is just ridiculous. Your telling me you never took a pain killer but still felt pain? If your arm got chopped off, you're saying you wouldn't be in pain because you took two neurofen?

the_syco

hardCopy wrote: »

We wouldn't have had a full investigation of he hadn't gone public

Under the rug it would have gone. For anyone who says otherwise, the recent report about the X case only came out when sh|t hit the fan.

Links234

syklops wrote: »

This is just ridiculous. Your telling me you never took a pain killer but still felt pain? If your arm got chopped off, you're saying you wouldn't be in pain because you took two neurofen?

Oh please, that's just a flesh wound

VinLieger

syklops wrote: »

Yes, but what about when those laws have been created with religious bias? According to the Would you believe program last night, the law that makes abortion illegal is the offences against the person act of 1861. Thats 1861 not 1961.. Things have changed in the country in over a hundred years. Attitudes have changed. Why has the law not changed? Its a valid question.

Your right far too many laws are well over 100 years old, i think it was only in 2006 that the fine for possession of fireworks was adjusted from being something ridiculous like 3 pennies.
However the law is still the law and whatever about irish people complaining about it and wanting it changed, foreigners coming here and expecting to not to be governed by it is incredibly arrogant

wolfpawnat

VinLieger wrote: »

Just cruous seeing the conctant remarks about "people whispering in his ear", do people mean family members, his solicitor, pr team or (hate starting this argument) pro-choice people?

I would feel it would be a mix of the solicitors, a bit of the family and the Pro-choice fanatics.

Family would of course want to know what happened, that is natural, and feel that pushing the matter, since they are getting a national platform to do so.

Solicitors have a vested financial interest.

Pro-choice fanatics will do anything to push their personal agenda, including push a grieving husband into being their poster case. Now I have a few choice things to say about Pro-Life fanatics too, so it is not a one way rage against one side!

wolfpawnat

syklops wrote: »

Yes, but what about when those laws have been created with religious bias? According to the Would you believe program last night, the law that makes abortion illegal is the offences against the person act of 1861. Thats 1861 not 1961.. Things have changed in the country in over a hundred years. Attitudes have changed. Why has the law not changed? Its a valid question.



This is just ridiculous. Your telling me you never took a pain killer but still felt pain? If your arm got chopped off, you're saying you wouldn't be in pain because you took two neurofen?

Irish abortion laws were made by the Irish people in a referendum in the 90's. If people wish to put it to referendum again, then that is something they have to take to Leinster House. I sometimes wonder do Irish people realise we chose these laws, not our government. Should the X case be defined, Hell Yes! Doctors can only do what is right if they know exactly what is covered by law.

I have had uterine surgery, I know the discomfort you suffer. It is not just two nurofen and off with you now, it is a mixture of strong medications. If a woman is miscarrying, it is law to ensure she is at least in no discomfort from pain, if they did not provide her with the adequate pain relief, well then, they better answer for it. But if what was on the leaked charts is to be believed, there was pain medication prescribed.

VinLieger

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Pro-choice fanatics will do anything to push their personal agenda, including push a grieving husband into being their poster case. Now I have a few choice things to say about Pro-Life fanatics too, so it is not a one way rage against one side!

Well put, i would be of the same opinion that both sides have their lunatics who will take advantage of any situation to achieve their own agenda and its exactly the screaming match i was hoping not to start.

Rosy Posy

wolfpawnat wrote: »

I find peoples idea that she was in agony odd, painkillers were on her leaked chart, so she was not in agony, she may have been in a little pain, that is plausible, but agony is hyped-dramatics!

It is generally reported in the media that she was in a lot of pain. A quote from her husband in the Irish Times,

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

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

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

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

There was obviously something very wrong with her treatment, abortion aside. It was also reported in the Indian media that the heater in room was broken and the nurse wrongly attributed her shivering to the cold.

Tiddlypeeps

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Pro-choice fanatics will do anything to push their personal agenda, including push a grieving husband into being their poster case. Now I have a few choice things to say about Pro-Life fanatics too, so it is not a one way rage against one side!

I don't get this at all. There seems to be that people have a serious issue with anybody who is pro choice using Salvitas story to push for legislation. Why is that a problem?

If there are actually people in the background manipulating the husband into saying things that aren't true to push their agenda then that would be a disgrace. But I see no evidence of that.

Why is it an issue to use a story of what could have been an avoidable death to push for legislation that will prevent it from happening again in the future?

wolfpawnat

VinLieger wrote: »

Well put, i would be of the same opinion that both sides have their lunatics who will take advantage of any situation to achieve their own agenda and its exactly the screaming match i was hoping not to start.

Both sides have their fanatics with their own personal agendas, and they both sicken me to the core. I have kept well away from the Abortion threads and the Savita discussions because they usually descend into the madness of the two side extremists as opposed to the adult and mature discussion of a tragic case.

wolfpawnat

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

I don't get this at all. There seems to be that people have a serious issue with anybody who is pro choice using Salvitas story to push for legislation. Why is that a problem?

If there are actually people in the background manipulating the husband into saying things that aren't true to push their agenda then that would be a disgrace. But I see no evidence of that.

Why is it an issue to use a story of what could have been an avoidable death to push for legislation that will prevent it from happening again in the future?

Pro choice using her story is fine, if they use facts of course. But the fanatics smearing her picture in human faeces and sticking it to the Youth Defence Offices (http://www.thejournal.ie/pro-life-group-condemns-attack-on-office-as-grotesque-and-vile-805327-Feb2013/) is beyond disgusting. Fanatics ruin any sides case.

People seem to forget this happens in America and England too, far more often than here, and they have the legislation for abortion. The evidence based medicine for this particular case is to let nature take its course. This time a life that should have not been lost, was. But through negligence, not abortion legislation.

wolfpawnat

Rosy Posy wrote: »

It is generally reported in the media that she was in a lot of pain. A quote from her husband in the Irish Times,



There was obviously something very wrong with her treatment, abortion aside. It was also reported in the Indian media that the heater in room was broken and the nurse wrongly attributed her shivering to the cold.

And yet the leaked files state she was given the medication. The report will clear this all up (hopefully) if she was in significant pain, well then there should be hell to pay. Losing a child is tragic enough, going through pain doing it is nigh on inhumane IMO.

With everything that has happened I would not be surprised if the claims were false at the beginning, but I think part of me hopes they are as I would not like to think of a woman suffering like that in 21st century Ireland.

I think the hospital has a lot of answers to give and I genuinely hope that everything is put out there truthfully.