Consultant 'refused abortion plea'

Uriel.

Gatling wrote: »

Touch is a bit wonky sorry

Lol. Makes more sense now except the first part. Typing on a phone is a pain. I'm doing the same myself

GCU Flexible Demeanour

seamus wrote: »

- The obstetrician has admitted that Savita was denied standard practice treatment (i.e. a termination) for 48 hours because of Irish law (or the lack thereof)

Did she? I thought the reason she said treatment was delayed was because she was unaware of the results of an initial blood test taken at the time of admission. I thought she said that, if she'd been aware of the results of that test, she would have accelerated her approach to the case.

Can you substantiate what you are saying?

Kiwi in IE

Pushtrak wrote: »

Did you know in 1995, the narrow margin in favour of divorce? Seriously... 50.28% in favour. Skin of the teeth.

Please tell me you are messing? 1995? and 49.72% were against divorce? Why? Did they want to see others in the wonderful situation where a couple have been separated for 35 years but on death the 'new' partner of 30 years has no rights because they are still 'married'? That is unbelievable!

Morag

Gatling wrote: »

And yet the we voted against abortion in 2 referendums

Nope, only in 1 which was when the 8th amendment was put in place 30 years ago, the 2 referendum after that were in relation to the X case ruling and both times it was voted that it was to be kept and legislated for which 21 years later they have still failed to do.

And recent pools have show that attitudes to the availability of abortion esp when needed to safe guard the health and lives of women and in cases of rape and fatal fetal abnormalities is very different to what it was 30 years ago.

Morag

Uriel. wrote: »

Did she die as a result of religious values? To me it seems to suggest So far that negligence more of a factor.

Are you even aware of the 8th amendment?

Uriel.

Morag wrote: »

Are you even aware of the 8th amendment?

exceptionally aware.

Madam_X

I feel awfully sorry for the woman who said the catholic country thing - clearly she was just explaining something and never meant anything heartless by it.

Fuseman wrote: »

I would take a lot of what Praveen said with a pinch of salt.

Why?

LizT wrote: »

Some people just have to find fault with everything and everyone.

Provided it fits in with their agenda of course.

Uriel.

Morag wrote: »

Nope, only in 1 which was when the 8th amendment was put in place 30 years ago, the 2 referendum after that were in relation to the X case ruling and both times it was voted that it was to be kept and legislated for which 21 years later they have still failed to do.

And recent pools have show that attitudes to the availability of abortion esp when needed to safe guard the health and lives of women and in cases of rape and fatal fetal abnormalities is very different to what it was 30 years ago.

Leaving aside the issue of rape and fetal abnormalities for a moment.
Do you think the Constitute as it stands today severely negatively affects the protection of a woman's life in respect to the life of the unborn? I don't believe it does to be perfectly honest, the failure to legislate properly may of course have a an overarching impact.

I think the Constitutional law would have been sufficiently open to allow for an abortion in the case at hand (saying that with the caveat of not being qualified in the medical field)

Flier

Uriel. wrote: »

Leaving aside the issue of rape and fetal abnormalities for a moment.
Do you think the Constitute as it stands today severely negatively affects the protection of a woman's life in respect to the life of the unborn? I don't believe it does to be perfectly honest, the failure to legislate properly may of course have a an overarching impact.

I think the Constitutional law would have been sufficiently open to allow for an abortion in the case at hand (saying that with the caveat of not being qualified in the medical field)

Said from the comfort of your computer screen, with no possibility of ever being in that Doctors position, who, by her own account, felt that terminating the pregnancy would have been contrary to law.

Edit: To be clear - it makes not one iota of difference what you or anybody else thinks. The fact is that Dr Astbury (a well respected doctor and professional to the core) felt that an abortion would not have been legal. If there is a difference of opinion on what is allowed by the constitution, as evidently there is, then that is a further endorsement for legislation to reflect the constitution.

rainbow kirby

Uriel. wrote: »

Do you think the Constitute as it stands today severely negatively affects the protection of a woman's life in respect to the life of the unborn?

Consider the wording

The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother

for a minute, the implication there is that the unborn will be defended first and "due regard" will be paid to the mother's right to life. This directly affects how medical treatment can be applied during pregnancy - Savita's case being one example of that, Sheila Hodgers and Michelle Harte being others, and countless more besides. That's before we look at the very grey line between when a case is a risk to health (not covered under the X case judgement) vs a risk to life - how is that point to be defined?

Uriel.

Flier wrote: »

Said from the comfort of your computer screen, with no possibility of ever being in that Doctors position, who, by her own account, felt that terminating the pregnancy would have been contrary to law.

Edit: To be clear - it makes not one iota of difference what you or anybody else thinks. The fact is that Dr Astbury (a well respected doctor and professional to the core) felt that an abortion would not have been legal. If there is a difference of opinion on what is allowed by the constitution, as evidently there is, then that is a further endorsement for legislation to reflect the constitution.

Yeah we are all discussing this from the "comfort of our computer screens" so get over yourself. If you don't want to discuss something then fine.

But it would appear to me, that the Dr. in question is suggesting that had she had more accurate medical information, which would have been available had policy and procedure matters she would have been able to carry out an abortion in line with the Constitution some 5 hours earlier at least. Would that have saved the poor woman... I don't know, but perhaps.

Uriel.

rainbow kirby wrote: »

Consider the wording



for a minute, the implication there is that the unborn will be defended first and "due regard" will be paid to the mother's right to life. This directly affects how medical treatment can be applied during pregnancy - Savita's case being one example of that, Sheila Hodgers and Michelle Harte being others, and countless more besides. That's before we look at the very grey line between when a case is a risk to health (not covered under the X case judgement) vs a risk to life - how is that point to be defined?

The wording is fine or relatively so in my opinion. the matter then is legislative one and/or interpretation issue. And clear legislation/guidelines should be put in place and they should largely be based on medical expertise in my view.

As far as I can see so far, the Constitution hasn't inherently failed here

EDIT: I am also not convinced that the failure to legislate in this case was the main culprit either, though it played a part.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

rainbow kirby wrote: »

This directly affects how medical treatment can be applied during pregnancy - Savita's case being one example of that

I'm not sure that's correct. Clearly, medical practice has to be impacted by the Constitution. But the details emerging suggest that there were many operational mistakes in handling the case. The Constitution certainly doesn't require people to make mistakes.

Now, a suite of issues still arises - and probably a suite of issues that would require a referendum to resolve. One issue is simply why a pregnancy needs to be prolonged if a miscarriage is next to inevitable (apart, of course, from any genuine medical reasons for not intervening). But we have to be very clear-headed in assessing the evidence, and avoid the temptation to merge every fact into a political point.

The information emerging from the inquest is good. Finally, a lot of the obvious questions are being answered. Yet, I feel a certain sadness for the family as I read through it - which I'll admit can be just a superficial reaction to blanket media coverage. This case is of tremendous importance; these are pivotal events, whatever happened. Yet, its just one couple's awful tragedy at the same time.

If you donated your body for medical science, there would be ethical protocols about how it should be handled. Unfortunately, there's no similar system for situations where the details of someone's life and death become the subject of political science. There's no protocol for how we should treat these facts with respect. Yet, we should.

Kiwi in IE

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

If you donated your body for medical science, there would be ethical protocols about how it should be handled. Unfortunately, there's no similar system for situations where the details of someone's life and death become the subject of political science. There's no protocol for how we should treat these facts with respect. Yet, we should.

I completely agree. Some of the details published of the more graphic signs of sepsis are undignified, uneccessary and disrespectful. Reporting that 'obvious signs of sepsis' were not reported would be entirely sufficient without describing the intimate details.

Pushtrak

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Please tell me you are messing? 1995? and 49.72% were against divorce? Why? Did they want to see others in the wonderful situation where a couple have been separated for 35 years but on death the 'new' partner of 30 years has no rights because they are still 'married'? That is unbelievable!

I wish that was a joke... Well, it is a joke, I wish it were untrue. We're... A bit behind the curve, to put it delicately.

seamus

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Did she? I thought the reason she said treatment was delayed was because she was unaware of the results of an initial blood test taken at the time of admission. I thought she said that, if she'd been aware of the results of that test, she would have accelerated her approach to the case.

Can you substantiate what you are saying?

Dr Astbury denied three requests were made for a termination, and insisted that when she told Mrs Halappanavar she could not abort the baby on the Tuesday she used the words “in this country it is not legal to terminate a pregnancy in grounds of poor prognosis of the foetus” and never mentioned religion.

The doctor agreed that in other jurisdictions, like England, her patient would have been offered a termination if the prognosis of her foetus was poor.

“The law in Ireland does not permit termination even if there’s no prospect of viability,” she added.

“That would be my understanding of the legal position based on the legal judgement in the X-case and the Medical Council guidelines.”

The "48 hours" came from a news report I heard yesterday, I'll see if I can dig up a source on that.

homerjay2005

opinion guy wrote: »

I believe that by the time this is done Praveen will have done more for women's health and indeed the Heath service in ireland in general than generations of hse managers, politicians and medical councils will have done. The guy is a national hero without doubt. I have nothing but admiration for the guy.

the same health service that has one of the best records in the world for child mortality?

one death like this in 17 years at this hospital and while there will be lessons learned and were mistakes made, there is no evidence yet to suggest that these mistakes directly lead to her death. the doctors didnt believe her life was a risk as they didnt know what virus/infection she had.

VinLieger

homerjay2005 wrote: »

the same health service that has one of the best records in the world for child mortality?

one death like this in 17 years at this hospital and while there will be lessons learned and were mistakes made, there is no evidence yet to suggest that these mistakes directly lead to her death. the doctors didnt believe her life was a risk as they didnt know what virus/infection she had.

As has been stated since that "statistic" came out the numbers are completely skewed thanks to the ready availability of abortions across the irish sea.

Rasheed

Madam_X wrote: »

I feel awfully sorry for the woman who said the catholic country thing - clearly she was just explaining something and never meant anything heartless by it.

Oh stop, me too. The poor midwife was just trying to explain to a grieving, confused, frustrated woman why she had to continue with the torture of her situation. Wrongly put surely, but I think she meant well.

rainbow kirby

homerjay2005 wrote: »

the same health service that has one of the best records in the world for child mortality?

Only because they are reported differently here to how they are reported in the UK, US and most of Europe. Also doesn't take adverse maternal health outcomes into account.

Anita Blow

rainbow kirby wrote: »

Only because they are reported differently here to how they are reported in the UK, US and most of Europe. Also doesn't take adverse maternal health outcomes into account.

Ireland uses the International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Injuries and Causes of Death, a WHO framework, in classifying child/infant mortality, as does the US, UK and I'd imagine most of Europe.

Stark

http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=21361 . Maternal deaths underreported by a factor of 2.

Gatling

Stark wrote: »

http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=21361 . Maternal deaths underreported by a factor of 2.

Deaths from cancer ,suicide ,car accident ,lung diseases,
Most were not direct causes from child birth or miscarriage complications

Gatling

Stark wrote: »

http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=21361 . Maternal deaths underreported by a factor of 2.

Deaths from cancer ,suicide ,car accident ,lung diseases,
Most were not direct causes from child birth or miscarriage complications

Stark

But are included in statistics for maternal deaths in other countries. So Ireland can't claim it has the best system in the world when it's using different criteria for reporting.

homerjay2005

Stark wrote: »

But are included in statistics for maternal deaths in other countries. So Ireland can't claim it has the best system in the world when it's using different criteria for reporting.

ye can twist the stats what ever way you want, even including what you say is missing, its still the best. there is no reason to argue otherwise, cases like Savita happen one in a generation.

now compare that to her own country.

eireannBEAR

i am totally against abortion on demand and for people at risk of suicide,i am not sexist or catholic.
i just dont agree with it. it offends me full stop.

now in saying that have i no problem with terminations where the mothers life is at risk.

we need to invest our money in better sex education and making the pill a mainstay in mens wallets and womens handbags.

abortion on selfish grounds go against human nature it amazes me that people can fight for the right to abort their own children.

in my case i was a drugs addict i was in no position to get a girl pregnant but sending my gf to england never once entered my mind i will admit i cost the tax payer 2 years of welfare but now i have a good job,amazing son and perspective in life. if we can educated people and make them understand the joys of parent hood they will utterly oppose abortion.

somen women tend to think fathers have no right on this issue that they dont have to live with it.
well i had to give up everything partying,alone time,money and even SLEEP! but you know what when i look at my son i dont miss it for a second!

i wish people understood what they were giving up...

Gatling

Child mortality rates are pretty damn good here ,
What ever way you calculate it ,
Natural causes
Accidents
Suicide
Just show there's a lot of things out maternity services have no control over

lynski

My problem with this case, and with Irish law and or medical practice, is that if a pregnant woman presents to hospital miscarrying and there is no chance that the baby will survive, at 5 wks or 35 wks, then she should be treated humanely. Being left in agony - and no amount of pain relief except epidural takes the pain of labor away - for 3 hrs or 3 days when you do not want to be is not humane.
All women should be treated with respect and have the first say on their care; if a medical professional recommends a different route for reasons of better health they should take the advise or not if they want to. Women's bodies should be firstly our own; even when pregnant.
This is not an issue of abortion or right to life, this baby, much wanted, was dead or dying, there was no way she could survive, her mother should have been allowed to choose to end her physical and mental torture. This is standard medical practice the world over for animals never mind humans.
Catholic/irish/hindu/rastafarian should not come into it.

homerjay2005

is there any indication/evidence yet which confirms that having the abortion earlier would definitely have saved her life?

for me, had they treated the infection 3 days earlier may have saved her, and even if she had received the termination, this issue would still needed to be addressed.

the failure here so far looks like is a medical one and not one due to laws/church. her condition/infection still needed to be treated.