Consultant 'refused abortion plea'

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.

Tiddlypeeps

wolfpawnat wrote: »

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.

That is pretty disgusting alright :mad:

seamus

wolfpawnat wrote: »

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.

There's still contention over that.

Standard procedure in Ireland is to let nature take its course. Standard procedure elsewhere would have terminated the pregnancy when it was clear that the miscarriage was not progressing and the risk of infection was increasing massively.

This is why abortion legislation is part of the argument - the contention is that if there was clearer guidelines on procuring an abortion to save the life of the mother, Savita would probably not have succumbed to infection.

It's not a case that the abortion argument is irrelevant to this case. It's a simple medical procedure which could have saved her life but which was continually denied due to legal uncertainty.

aidan24326

kneemos wrote: »

The consultant denies saying "this is a catholic country"

It's unlikely a consultant would say such a thing in a situation like this. Isn't it? Surely? Or are we still living in 1950?

VinLieger

aidan24326 wrote: »

It's unlikely a consultant would say such a thing in a situation like this. Isn't it? Surely? Or are we still living in 1950?

She may easily have said it but context is key here.
The way that the media reported it was in a contextual kind of sneering way like "of course you cant have an abortion ireland is catholic how dare you suggest such a thing".
But in reality it most likely was "im sorry we cant give you an abortion this is a catholic country and our laws are very strict on this issue" which is much more sympathetic and explanatory

Nabber

Sad that she died.


Shame they brought in Indians to consult on the report, completely different culture. Not one I'd like to emulate in Ireland. Just Ireland as always afraid to have any foreign political policy. It wasn't a concern for India, the law is the law. Just because it's not the same as their law.

Abortion over there is out of control. They have skewed their male to female population ratio over it.

My only fear is that abortion will become a form of contraception and disabled babies will be looked at as economically not viable.

Tis a shame we can talk so candidly about choosing life or no life for child waiting for it's chance to live, I'm glad I got my chance.

crusher000

This is just the inquest. They are looking at cause of death. The Dr. that carried out the autopsy is not concerned with what was or wasn't said. Also he is not concerned wheter the Country should have abortion or not. The legal team are looking for answers to questions that aren't relevent at this juncture.

aidan24326

Nabber wrote: »

My only fear is that abortion will become a form of contraception and disabled babies will be looked at as economically not viable.

Sometimes a foetus isn't viable. Get over it.

Take anencephaly for example. A baby with that affliction will never experience anything remotely like a normal human life and will certainly die within weeks to months of being born, if not before. To terminate in a case like that is absolutely the right thing to do. And where the mother's life is at risk it should be straightforward, mother first. It's a disgrace that doctors have to deny necessary medical procedure for fear of legal repercussions.

Uriel.

PopePalpatine wrote: »

It has already been pointed out in this thread that she was already miscarrying.

The Halappanavars probably believed that it was better to go to the nearest hospital - having assumed that the pregnancy would be terminated either due to non-viability or the risk to Savita's life - than to face a 150-minute drive to Dublin, spend ~90 minutes in Dublin Airport, spend another ~90 minutes on a plane, spend ~45 minutes at the airport in which they arrived, and finally up to another hour getting to a hospital which would provide abortions - all while suffering a miscarriage! :mad:

hmmm.. I don't think you read the post you quoted correctly. Either that or you saw the word airport and just made up your own interpretation to have a rant

opinion guy

Nabber wrote: »

Shame they brought in Indians to consult on the report,

What Indians did they bring in to consult on the report ???

Uriel.

aidan24326 wrote: »

Sometimes a foetus isn't viable. Get over it.

Take anencephaly for example. A baby with that affliction will never experience anything remotely like a normal human life and will certainly die within weeks to months of being born, if not before. To terminate in a case like that is absolutely the right thing to do. And where the mother's life is at risk it should be straightforward, mother first. It's a disgrace that doctors have to deny necessary medical procedure for fear of legal repercussions.

I think that's a sad response to a legitimate concern to be honest, even if you don't agree with the extent of the concern.