Consultant 'refused abortion plea'

_Puma_

Really is sickening to see this case being used to the advantage of both sides of the abortion debate and the vilification of the husband and the staff. The way I see it is the Hospital screwed up due to its policies, I don't blame the doctors entirely as their hands were tied by the ineptitude of the legislation, this is why it needs to be clarified. However I think the doctor should have shown some Initiative and provided a duty of care to Savita regardless of policies. If they then have to defend themselves in front of an inquest then so be it.

The way I see it once it was clear on the Tuesday that Savitas life was in danger due to the open wound and the un-viability of the Fetus the doctor should have carried out the procedure. Angers me so much that people think that the poor girl should be left to suffer needlessly, because that is what it was needless.

What also angers me is the witch hunt that is now being carried out on the doctors and nusrses of the hospital. UCHG is a badly managed hospital, always has been. There is little accountability by management in there and power is being taken out of the people hands who care for the patients. This is the result of HSE policies in response to Archaic(and sometimes Religious) Legislation in this country. It is about time we looked at shaking up the Health Service and bringing its policies more in line with modern medical practices.

I am not neccesarily in Favour of abortion but in this case it is clear to me that the procedure should have been carried out. The fact that the doctors were constraint by religious policies is simply disgraceful.

VinLieger

Uriel. wrote: »

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.

No its a sad reality that some people simply refuse to accept

Uriel.

VinLieger wrote: »

No its a sad reality that some people simply refuse to accept

What's the "sad reality" exactly?

You don't think a an individual's concern regarding the potential for freely open abortion is legitimate?

VinLieger

Uriel. wrote: »

What's the "sad reality" exactly?

You don't think a an individual's concern regarding the potential for freely open abortion is legitimate?

I agree with the concern, but i dont think its realistic considering the legislation being proposed. I was responding to your comment that its a sad response by saying that it is an unfortunate reality in some cases that a foetus simply is unable to survive outside the womb and that some people are simply ignoring this fact for the sake of their own beliefs on abortion.

wmpdd3

While 'letting it take it course' is the phrase used in Irish hospitals, inducing labour happens earlier than seems to have happened in Galway. Every consultant must know this.

Originally Posted by Wolfpawnat
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!

There is a big difference in the painkillers you are given when you are pregnant and when you are not. If they considered her still pregnant, she would have gotten the minimum available to her. Once they confirmed no heartbeat her pain management would have totally changed.

Anyone who's passed out from pain during pregnancy knows this.

Uriel.

VinLieger wrote: »

I agree with the concern, but i dont think its realistic considering the legislation being proposed. I was responding to your comment that its a sad response by saying that it is an unfortunate reality in some cases that a foetus simply is unable to survive outside the womb and that some people are simply ignoring this fact for the sake of their own beliefs on abortion.

To be fair though, the poster with the concern, at least in the post in question seems to refer to babies born with a disability rather than a non viable foetus/one likely to die soon after birth.

I would agree with you though that the legislation on the table at present will not open a free for all

wolfpawnat

seamus wrote: »

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.

Indeed, many would argue after 24 hours more intervention should have taken place, I myself do believe if a foetus is not viable, then abortion should at least be on the cards. Though with her already having had septicemia, would it have been best. But then again, death seldom happens from this. It happens quite regularly from what I have read, though the end result is seldom so tragic (thank goodness) it really is a can of particularly controversial worms.

opinion guy wrote: »

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

I assume they mean the HSE asking Professor Sir Sabaratnam Arulkumaran who is head of obstetrics and gynaecology at St George's Hospital, University of London to head the investigation. I would think it a good decision to have an independent international observer who is head of a hospital in the EU personally.

sean200

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.

Have to agree
They should be investigating the people who failed to treat the infection that she had when she presented at the hospital. That is the main reason that she died.
Also what is the difference between this case and the other case that is in today papers that there is nothing about
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/mum-who-died-of-septic-shock-urged-staff-to-adjust-iv-line-29182711.html
I tell you what it is, an agenda and they are using savita to push the agenda

wolfpawnat

wmpdd3 wrote: »

While 'letting it take it course' is the phrase used in Irish hospitals, inducing labour happens earlier than seems to have happened in Galway. Every consultant must know this.



There is a big difference in the painkillers you are given when you are pregnant and when you are not. If they considered her still pregnant, she would have gotten the minimum available to her. Once they confirmed no heartbeat her pain management would have totally changed.

Anyone who's passed out from pain during pregnancy knows this.

Hence why I said I find myself hoping it is not true as opposed to white washing it. But with a miscarrying foetus, there are different rules. My own Step-mother could attest to that. She experienced a similar tragic loss herself, thankfully she is alive to talk about it.

The law states to save who we can, if the foetus is not viable/miscarrying naturally, then I truly believe, hand on heart, that a mother should not have to suffer physical pain. As I stated previously, I pray it is over-hyped as I would not wish it on my worst enemy to ensure emotional and physical hardship!

denhaagenite

Just been reading this:

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/inquest-hears-evidence-from-savitas-friend-590645.html

This part really stood out to me:

Mrudula said the midwife checked with the doctor and told them there was no way of saving the baby.

It is her evidence that both she and Savita asked about stopping the heartbeat and the midwife replied: "We don't do that here dear, its a Catholic thing."

So now it's a friend and the midwife? Until I read this, and taking into consideration the vote this week, I was completely appalled by the situation and never considered that there was anything to it other than utter confusion about when abortion is and is not allowed. If the above is now the story and where the refusal of abortion took place I'm not sure wtf went on... The last part especially sounds like a complete fabrication- nobody talks like that, and in any case it's not something that would have been discussed with anyone except Praveen.

aidan24326

Uriel. wrote: »

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.

That it's a sad response doesn't make it the wrong one.

I appreciate that it's an emotive issue, and there isn't really a right or wrong answer.

There will never be a consensus on this, but what is clear right now is that we need legislation that deals with those grey areas where a mother's life is clearly at risk, and where, sad as it might be, the foetus is not viable anyway. I know it sounds cold to say it like that but sometimes reality is just that. cold and unsympathetic.

Full-scale a-la-carte abortion is an argument for another day but for now we need to make sure that at the very least it's available where necessary, and especially to protect the life of the mother.

Pushtrak

CaraMay wrote: »

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.

What precisely is interesting here? That he has preferences or that he actually wants to do something to try to bring about such preferences? I mean, I'm sure most people here would have things they'd think other nations could do well to change, stoning women and female genital mutilation amongst them. Would you object to someone from here having a preference on such a matter or being an advocate for change in such a scenario?

Morag

crusher000 wrote: »

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.

They are how ever governed by law, and policies and proceedures of the hospital were they work in and both the hospital and the teaching section of NUIG have been the stomping grounds for decades of Professor Eamon O’Dwyer, MAO, LLB, FRCPI, FRCOG. Professor Emeritus, Gynaecology and Obstetrics, NUI Galway for years who is well known as being extremely pro life and he would have had a hand in the crafting of polcies, procedures, best practices and the culture with in the OB/GYN wards.

Currently the practice is in all maternity hospitals and wards that unless a woman is in immediate life threatening condition they will not intervene if there is a fetal heartbeat. The fetal heartbeat has to stop or she was to be in a life threatening condition, this time they erred on the wrong side of caution.

wolfpawnat

Morag wrote: »

They are how ever governed by law, and policies and proceedures of the hospital were they work in and both the hospital and the teaching section of NUIG have been the stomping grounds for decades of Professor Eamon O’Dwyer, MAO, LLB, FRCPI, FRCOG. Professor Emeritus, Gynaecology and Obstetrics, NUI Galway for years who is well known as being extremely pro life and he would have had a hand in the crafting of polcies, procedures, best practices and the culture with in the OB/GYN wards.

Currently the practice is in all maternity hospitals and wards that unless a woman is in immediate life threatening condition they will not intervene if there is a fetal heartbeat. The fetal heartbeat has to stop or she was to be in a life threatening condition, this time they erred on the wrong side of caution.

Indeed, the one good thing from all of this is finally putting to paper exactly what is going to be covered by the X case. We have danced around that far too long.

opinion guy

CaraMay wrote: »

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.

Has he moved away ?

Morag

wolfpawnat wrote: »

the Pro-choice fanatics.

22 years of pro choice activism and I have never meet a pro choice fanatic, what are they ment to be like?

wolfpawnat wrote: »

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.

It is very hard to get laws amended and changed in this country, esp considering we still don't have the law stemming from that referndum in 1992 or the one in 2002 on this matter.

We should have laws which respects the health and life of women but it is hard to get TDs to make that happen.

wolfpawnat wrote: »

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.

What pain meds a woman who is miscarrying is limited by her own allergies and also by the fact they won't want to give her anything which may adversely effect the fetus and bring an earlier end to the fetal heart beat as legally that can be termed as an abortion. When you are pregnant they can't really medicate you and not medicate the fetus, so what pain relief a woman gets during miscarriage is going to be different then that for uterine surgery.

Morag

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?

The passing of XCase legation won't cover women who are miscarrying and the risk to their health.

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

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?

It looks like we will have to repeal or amend the 8th amendment so that we have have legislation that will make legal the right to an abortion where there is a grave risk to the health of women.

Morag

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.

There is no proof that any abortion activists did that.

It's well known that the photo copies of the paper were but up on the red shutters two days before YD reported it and image went up on the broad sheet and that image is very different then the one YD presented two days later.

wolfpawnat

opinion guy wrote: »

Has he moved away ?

According to RTE news he had.

Morag wrote: »

22 years of pro choice activism and I have never meet a pro choice fanatic, what are they ment to be like?

Well smearing pics of the woman covered in human faeces on the front of the Youth Defence offices would be a start. Like with the Pro-Life fanatics, they are violently in your face about their beliefs and ram them down your throat and anything you say that may differ from their opinion is wrong and you are stupid! Both sides have them.

Morag wrote: »

It is very hard to get laws amended and changed in this country, esp considering we still don't have the law stemming from that referndum in 1992 or the one in 2002 on this matter.

We should have laws which respects the health and life of women but it is hard to get TDs to make that happen.

We are far too slowly getting the X case legislation cleared up, when that is sorted, we can talk about elective abortions, but I would see what would be viewed as essential basics covered first. I personally belief non viable foetus's have to be included.

Morag wrote: »

What pain meds a woman who is miscarrying is limited by her own allergies and also by the fact they won't want to give her anything which may adversely effect the fetus and bring an earlier end to the fetal heart beat as legally that can be termed as an abortion. When you are pregnant they can't really medicate you and not medicate the fetus, so what pain relief a woman gets during miscarriage is going to be different then that for uterine surgery.

I am aware, but I was a breast feeding mother, what I had, my baby had, so that meant I suffered a bit more discomfort than mothers without that added stress as they did not want to drug my child via my milk.

As I previously stated, when my stepmother was on deaths door, they did provide her with the swift care she needed that directly resulted in the foetus's death. But as you stated too, since Savita was not a emergency case in the eyes of the hospital, as it is a common enough occurrence, they arsed around and failed to deal with the problem effectively.

Morag

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Indeed, many would argue after 24 hours more intervention should have taken place, I myself do believe if a foetus is not viable, then abortion should at least be on the cards.

I think most people would agree with you, it's the sensible thing to do to safe guard the health and life of a woman in that sad situation.

Unfortunately we have no idea how long it will be before we get a change in the constitution and laws to allow for the right to an abortion when a woman finds herself in that sad situation.

Given how successive governments have dragged their heels on X case legislation, I dread to think that they would take another decade before we have abortion rights to cover fatal fetal abnormalities and inevitable miscarriage of a non viable fetus.

wolfpawnat

Morag wrote: »

I think most people would agree with you, it's the sensible thing to do to safe guard the health and life of a woman in that sad situation.

Unfortunately we have no idea how long it will be before we get a change in the constitution and laws to allow for the right to an abortion when a woman finds herself in that sad situation.

Given how successive governments have dragged their heels on X case legislation, I dread to think that they would take another decade before we have abortion rights to cover fatal fetal abnormalities and inevitable miscarriage of a non viable fetus.

It is one of the things I disagree with the recent IMO vote on. Non viable foetus's prolong horrifically emotionally and physically draining ordeal, the option should be there if the mother wants it. But as you stated, this will take a long time to sort. It is the only good thing I can see to this personal tragedy going public is that it lit a fire under the current government's ass to at least start defining it.

Morag

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Like with the Pro-Life fanatics, they are violently in your face about their beliefs and ram them down your throat and anything you say that may differ from their opinion is wrong and you are stupid! Both sides have them.

I really don't know what type of a nutball you encountered tbh, I do understand that people can be passionate, but I can honestly but my hand on my heart and say I've never meet a pro choice person who was as rabid as some of the pro lifers I have encountered over the years.

I certainly haven't encountered anyone like that over the last 9 months of being very involved with action on X ICN and ARC, but I a sorry to hear you've been rounded on by whom ever it was.

wolfpawnat wrote: »

We are far too slowly getting the X case legislation cleared up, when that is sorted, we can talk about elective abortions, but I would see what would be viewed as essential basics covered first. I personally belief non viable foetus's have to be included.

But I don't think that will be possible with out another referendum to amend the constitution and there does not seem to be be the political will or impetuous for that to happen.

They government are under a mandate to get X Case legislation passed from the EU court of human rights, we only know that they are aiming for July due to a letter send to the courts in Strassburg, they didn't even let us the Irish people who have voted on this issue nationally twice know the time frame.

I think they are hoping to pass some legislation and that the issue will be shelved and we will go back to stagnancy on the issues of abortion rights.

wolfpawnat

Morag wrote: »

I really don't know what type of a nutball you encountered tbh, I do understand that people can be passionate, but I can honestly but my hand on my heart and say I've never meet a pro choice person who was as rabid as some of the pro lifers I have encountered over the years.

I certainly haven't encountered anyone like that over the last 9 months of being very involved with action on X ICN and ARC, but I a sorry to hear you've been rounded on by whom ever it was.




But I don't think that will be possible with out another referendum to amend the constitution and there does not seem to be be the political will or impetuous for that to happen.

They government are under a mandate to get X Case legislation passed from the EU court of human rights, we only know that they are aiming for July due to a letter send to the courts in Strassburg, they didn't even let us the Irish people who have voted on this issue nationally twice know the time frame.

I think they are hoping to pass some legislation and that the issue will be shelved and we will go back to stagnancy on the issues of abortion rights.

I have been rounded on by both sets of nutters, (I tend to keep my own views tight to my chest, so I fob off either side when they approach me) I do not take them or their extremist views to heart, nor do I assume either group to be indicative of the more rational people on either side. It would be foolish too. I personally would love an educated, well rounded educated debate from both sides, sadly that is not very likely, it doesn't make good television!

I think FG/Lab are going to go for a basic what is and is not covered tactic, then say to people they will discuss elective abortions after the budget, then something else to do with anything else will arise and it will be put to the long finger for as long as they can. FG are pro-life so they do not want to be the party that deals with that very controversial issue. No one does.

Neyite

I miscarried in January and presented at that same hospital. Nothing has changed policy-wise as far as I can see. They are still blissfully unconcerned with infection, and especially as an outpatient.

I firstly rang them, and told them I was bleeding, I was told to go to my GP for a referral letter so I rang my GP, and thankfully due to my GP's efficiency, a referral letter was faxed to them about an hour after I rang UHG. They rang me back later that day and scheduled me in for an appointment 8 days later- this was not a backlog, this was procedure. Presumably the idea being that the unpalatable decision of whether a fetus is viable or not is settled by then, one way or the other.

For my appointment, no scan was done to see if any tissue remained. It is policy once a pregnancy test tested negative by the midwife, not to scan the patient.

Then I waited for the doctor to speak to me. She came in and told me that I had "probably" passed all the tissue, and that it was "unlikley" that I would develop an infection, but "to keep an eye on it" and come back in if there was an infection.

When I asked how I would know if there was an infection (how do you keep an eye on a uterine infection), I was told I would have

a foul smelling discharge

, be in pain, and have a temperature (presumably by that stage I'd be well septic)

At no stage did the doctor examine me physically. My temperature was not taken, nor were bloods drawn. The only time I was physically touched at any stage during the whole process was when I started to cry outside in the hallway after speaking to the doctor and the midwife who had initally spoke to me saw me and hugged me.

I had a positive experience in that same hospital when I gave birth last year. My antenatal visits were excellent. I understand its cheaper not to offer a scan, or to limit the amount of blood tests, but I also feel that when you have a viable pregnancy, they will do whatever it takes to ensure your baby is safe, but if your pregnancy seems unviable, there is very much a hands off, let nature take its course kind of approach. Probably because of the legal grey area that they find themselves in.

I dont for one minute fault the staff - they are tied by legalese and HSE policy.

Lastly, I dont care if this man has returned to his own country, but as I understand he is still working in Galway. I am glad that before he did go anywhere, if he did, he put the spotlight on services that I and the vast majority of women in Galway have no choice but to use. The next nearest hospital is hours away, and generally if problems arose you'd get referred to UHG anyway due to the consultants there.

By the way, I got paracetamol and Diefene for my C-section. 5 days after, still hobbling, I was told that paracetamol was sufficient. Thats the pain relief UHG offer - it took the edge off, but I was by no means pain free.

crusher000

opinion guy wrote: »

Has he moved away ?

No he hasn't still living and WORKING in Galway.

Morag

Sorry for your loss Neyite, thank you for sharing your experiences.

wolfpawnat

Neyite wrote: »

By the way, I got paracetamol and Diefene for my C-section. 5 days after, still hobbling, I was told that paracetamol was sufficient. Thats the pain relief UHG offer - it took the edge off, but I was by no means pain free.

Jesus, I had my son by section in the Rotunda in Dublin, even with breastfeeding I was on strong meds for three days. I cannot remember the name but my partner had studied pharmacology in his course and informed me it was a morphine derivative for the first 3 days, then slowly put onto difene and then paracetamol. It sounds like they put you through the mill. Sorry for your loss

As I stated, though it was not the maternity department, I had issues with that hospital too. As did my partner with his dying father. I think that hospital in general seems to need a review!

RATM

kneemos wrote: »

The consultant denies saying "this is a catholic country"

And so the usual Irish Catholic cover-up begins. it wdouldn't be the first time the Irish medical profession have engaged in cover-ups either.

Are we seriously meant to believe that the husband is making it up ?

I see that the inquiry has been adjourned today because now a staff roster has 'gone missing'. The cover up continues.....

opinion guy

crusher000 wrote: »

No he hasn't still living and WORKING in Galway.

Yeah I thought so. Not that it matters. However when people make these kinds of ignorant claims on here I think they should be questioned
Thanks for clarifying

padd b1975

CaraMay wrote: »

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.

I hate to think this , but in my opinion I think he may have started to embrace the media attention.

He turned up yesterday at the inquest wearing a massive pair of sunglasses FFS.:(