Consultant 'refused abortion plea'

Ash.J.Williams

homerjay2005 wrote: »

thats some statement to make. have you access to the report and/or inquest that none of us have seen?

right now, even the husband has said he does not know how she died. to say somebody killed her, is f8cking insane to be honest and just shows how much people have been caught up in this case since that original misleading headlines was printed.

people should relax a while until the inquest delivers a verdict. i will repeat the question i asked earlier, is there any evidence yet to suggest that her abortion being done earlier, would 100% have saved her life as this appears to not have been clarifed yet...maybe it will in the coming days.

I didn't mention abortion

HondaSami

Morag wrote: »

Very hard to do in this 'catholic' country even with me not being catholic and even with that I know two women who still went on to have kids after they had their tubes clamped.

rainbow kirby wrote: »

Have you any idea how difficult it is to get this done in this country? Gynaes are extremely reluctant to do it unless women are well into their late 30s with large families.

I never knew this was a problem in Ireland. i know several women who had their tubes tied,some over twenty yrs ago and these women were only late 20's early 30's.
My sister had it done when she was 29yrs after her 4th child was born but the surgeon did want to meet with her and her husband together to discuss it first but he did it no problem.

Timistry

I have been following this case with much interest and most of all, disgust. Luckily my mind does not venture into the dark depravity that is this money grabbing theory. The story is far worse than the perceived bandwagon which he apparently jumped on. If I was in his position and money permitting I would have been looking at all legal avenues including the european court of human rights.

Since the" its a catholic country" quote has been confirmed and talk of a paper trail coverup of sorts has surfaced you have to wonder WTF is going on behind the scenes in this country. The catholic churches roots have weaved their way into the very fabric of the irish health and educational systems and indeed the social construct. The fact that people are still staunchly anti abortion in any circumstances after this aberration is frankly shocking. People would have their dog looked after better than this.

And alas, Im unfortunately convinced that NOTHING will come of this. There will be no policy changes, no change of the law or legislation re the x case, no one will step down (in Ireland would would have to shoot someone in the face to do this). I hope he takes the HSE and the whole system to the cleaners, not for monetary gain but to bring shame and force change upon the HSE

wolfpawnat

homerjay2005 wrote: »

thats some statement to make. have you access to the report and/or inquest that none of us have seen?

right now, even the husband has said he does not know how she died. to say somebody killed her, is f8cking insane to be honest and just shows how much people have been caught up in this case since that original misleading headlines was printed.

people should relax a while until the inquest delivers a verdict. i will repeat the question i asked earlier, is there any evidence yet to suggest that her abortion being done earlier, would 100% have saved her life as this appears to not have been clarifed yet...maybe it will in the coming days.

Though I do believe judgement on the matter should wait until after the inquiry, that poster is correct. It has been revealed that yes, the hospital did do blood tests, found she seemingly presented with broader range anti-biotic resistant strain of e-coli infection, and somehow through lack of communication, the test results were not read and the infection grew leading to her deteriorating state and resulting death.

Would an abortion have guaranteed her life? No, anyone with sepsis can remain ill or perhaps in some rarer cases even more ill after a termination of pregnancy if they have infection. But the case now seems to hinge more on the whole "why did no one read the test findings" argument since that appears to be what killed her. If she had had the correct anti-biotics, they would have killed the foetus and she would have had an abortion via life saving drugs that would have increased her survival chances exponentially, though still not guaranteeing her survival.

homerjay2005

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

I didn't mention abortion

i never said you did, so stop deflecting and answer where you came up with this accusation?

are you expecting criminal/manslaughter charges to be brought here so, seen as you believe she was killed?

wolfpawnat

HondaSami wrote: »

I never knew this was a problem in Ireland. i know several women who had their tubes tied,some over twenty yrs ago and these women were only late 20's early 30's.
My sister had it done when she was 29yrs after her 4th child was born but the surgeon did want to meet with her and her husband together to discuss it first but he did it no problem.

And there is a woman I know with 3 kids and is being told she will have to wait until her thirties to get it done. I know a woman who never wants to have children and because she has none, they want her to wait until 37. I believe a lot of this is to do with the doctors. I get that some women may change their minds and regret the surgery, but surgery can be reversed! Or if it cannot, they have the right to freeze some eggs and pop them in if they change their mind.

homerjay2005

wolfpawnat wrote: »

It has been revealed that yes, the hospital did do blood tests, found she seemingly presented with broader range anti-biotic resistant strain of e-coli infection, and somehow through lack of communication, the test results were not read and the infection grew leading to her deteriorating state and resulting death.

Would an abortion have guaranteed her life? No, anyone with sepsis can remain ill or perhaps in some rarer cases even more ill after a termination of pregnancy if they have infection.

for what it is worth, i agree here that failings have been made.

however for most people, this was never, until now about how she died, it was about abortion, the catholic church and a reason to slam the lack of legislation in this country.

WayneMolloy

rainbow kirby wrote: »

Honestly? Both.

You will never get abortion on demand in this country.

drkpower

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Ah retrospect! We screwed up, so lets add it in now!:rolleyes:

In any other field to fiddle with official notes like that would mean severe consequences for all involved. I would love to know how many thousands of cases have been fiddled with. Because that is what is it, tampering.

Retropective notes are extremely common and when identified as such do not represent tampering and are not 'fiddling with the notes'. Particularly where time did not allow for a complete note to be written contemporaneously, writing a retrospective note is considered best practice.

Morag

WayneMolloy wrote: »

You will never get abortion on demand in this country.

I think we will have the abortion pill made legal eventually, it might take 20 years but I think it will happen.

Pompey Magnus

homerjay2005 wrote: »

however for most people, this was never, until now about how she died, it was about abortion, the catholic church and a reason to slam the lack of legislation in this country.

It almost looks like some are engaged in their own little inadvertent cover up, beginning with the media and quickly trickling down into broader society where there has been a deflecting of attention away from the real issue so as to push certain agendas and to score a cheap shot on the Catholic Church.

WayneMolloy

Morag wrote: »

I think we will the the abortion pill made legal eventually, it might take 20 years but I think it will happen.

If you can get up the pole after nine minutes, you can wait nine months to come down it again.

lynski

This is not about abortion it is about relevant, appropriate, timely medical care and how if you are a woman the law is against you receiving this in a case of miscarriage. It is about choice of options in suffering and pain and it is about how religion can supersede a woman's right to autonomy over her body. I am politically pro- choice because it is none of my business how others conduct their lives as long as it is legal. I am personally anti-abortion at this time of my life I would not have one. But would I have in the future? I can see circumstance in which I would.
We HAVE abortion here already they are just performed, at a rate of 15 or more a week every week, in other countries. It is time we look after ourselves.

pl4ichjgy17zwd

It always amazes me how many people believe thier precious church is being oppressed.

drkpower

wolfpawnat wrote: »

But the case now seems to hinge more on the whole "why did no one read the test findings" argument since that appears to be what killed her. If she had had the correct anti-biotics, they would have killed the foetus and she would have had an abortion via life saving drugs that would have increased her survival chances exponentially, though still not guaranteeing her survival.

That isnt correct.

Antibiotics will not kill the foetus. The treatment for chorioamnionitis (which appears to have then caused sepsis) is antibiotics and evacuation of the uterus. So antibiotics and a termination were needed to treat the patient. One, without the other, would be less than optimal care.

The relevance of the blood tests being acted upon earlier is twofold:
1. it may have affected Dr Astbury's assessment as to whether Savita's life was at a real and substantial risk (and therefore may have allowed a termination at an earlier time);
2. it may have prompted earlier antibiotic treatment

WayneMolloy

Kristopher Rancid Chairlift wrote: »

It always amazes me how many people believe thier precious church is being oppressed.

It always amazes me that those who are pro abortion, think that those who arent - must be a bunch of bead rattlers.

eireannBEAR

WayneMolloy wrote: »

It always amazes me that those who are pro abortion, think that those who arent - must be a bunch of bead rattlers.

top class comment. its belittles the pro-choice argument as they seem to be more against the church than the abortion laws!

im only against abortion on demand and for mental health reasons and i aint no catholic.

LizT

Mod

This thread isn't about abortion on demand, if you want to discuss that, there's plenty of other threads on boards where you can do so.

rainbow kirby

WayneMolloy wrote: »

If you can get up the pole after nine minutes, you can wait nine months to come down it again.

eireannBEAR wrote: »

top class comment. its belittles the pro-choice argument as they seem to be more against the church than the abortion laws!

im only against abortion on demand and for mental health reasons and i aint no catholic.

Oh look, men spouting judgemental crap again. Anything to stop women from exercising their rights to bodily integrity.

pl4ichjgy17zwd

WayneMolloy wrote: »

It always amazes me that those who are pro abortion, think that those who arent - must be a bunch of bead rattlers.

My comment wasn't regarding abortion. It was to those in the thread who seem to think the church and catholics are being oppressed because it's 'trendy' now or that people are using this as an excuse to hop on an 'anti-catholic' bandwagon.

Nonoperational

Timistry wrote: »

I have been following this case with much interest and most of all, disgust. Luckily my mind does not venture into the dark depravity that is this money grabbing theory. The story is far worse than the perceived bandwagon which he apparently jumped on. If I was in his position and money permitting I would have been looking at all legal avenues including the european court of human rights.

Since the" its a catholic country" quote has been confirmed and talk of a paper trail coverup of sorts has surfaced you have to wonder WTF is going on behind the scenes in this country. The catholic churches roots have weaved their way into the very fabric of the irish health and educational systems and indeed the social construct. The fact that people are still staunchly anti abortion in any circumstances after this aberration is frankly shocking. People would have their dog looked after better than this.

And alas, Im unfortunately convinced that NOTHING will come of this. There will be no policy changes, no change of the law or legislation re the x case, no one will step down (in Ireland would would have to shoot someone in the face to do this). I hope he takes the HSE and the whole system to the cleaners, not for monetary gain but to bring shame and force change upon the HSE

That's a really irritating post.
This whole thing has nothing to do with "Catholic roots". This is a case of doctors not following up properly on a patient that deteriorated much more quickly then anyone thought would happen. If the situation had been followed up properly and everyone knew all the important details then this would not have happened.

And to say nothing will come of this is not true either. Galway University Hospital have already implemented new sepsis guidelines, and the fallout of this won't be easily forgotten.

Like FFS, this was a mistake, a tragic mistake, but it need not have happened. Your making it sound like it had to happen because the HSE and the Church are taking part in some sort of cover-up. Complete nonsense.

Can you find me the hundreds of cases per year where mothers die in Ireland because they are refused terminations? No. You can't.
Ireland has one of the lowest maternal mortality rates in the world.

But don't let that get in the way of all the ranting about the church and abortion etc etc.

WayneMolloy

Kristopher Rancid Chairlift wrote: »

My comment wasn't regarding abortion. It was to those in the thread who seem to think the church and catholics are being oppressed because it's 'trendy' now or that people are using this as an excuse to hop on an 'anti-catholic' bandwagon.

Who claimed that the church is being oppressed?

And lol at you claiming it being trendy to defend the church. These days, its almost a revolutionary act for a young person to openly state that they they support the church or that they are anti abortion. Much more trendy for young people to set their FB profile pic to an image of savita, shout pro abortion slogans and slate the church ( and also slate those that slate islam!).

homerjay2005

Kristopher Rancid Chairlift wrote: »

My comment wasn't regarding abortion. It was to those in the thread who seem to think the church and catholics are being oppressed because it's 'trendy' now or that people are using this as an excuse to hop on an 'anti-catholic' bandwagon.

so you honestly think this hasnt happened at all?

If the original article didnt contain the following headline "Woman 'denied a termination' dies in hospital" with reference to Catholic Country in the sub heading, her name would be known by very few people in this country.

Seachmall

eireannBEAR wrote: »

im only against abortion on demand and for mental health reasons and i aint no catholic.

Can you explain why you're against abortion in other cases?

To tie it in with the thread topic, why should Savita have been refused an abortion when she requested it?

mikom

God help the poor ould church being oppressed.
They have the choice to fuck off out of it if they don't like it.
Plenty of developing countries with poorly educated peoples out there for them to latch on to.
It's no coincidence that the new selection for pope is Latin American.

eireannBEAR

Seachmall wrote: »

Can you explain why you're against abortion in other cases?

To tie it in with the thread topic, why should Savita have been refused an abortion when she requested it?

i never said savita should have been denied a termination!!

as far as im concerned no man has the right to force an abortion on a women and no women has the right to an abortion.

the only exceptions should be if the birth puts the mothers life at high risk. after all why should both mother and child die. in those circumstance you are not protecting the child by allowing his/hers mother to die along with him/her.

Morag

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/savita-doctor-law-was-factor-in-termination-decision-29187443.html

When asked why she had approached a second member of staff to discuss carrying out a termination, Dr Astbury said she considered it good practice if going to do something out of the ordinary that you would seek the opinion of a second senior member of staff.

When asked by the coroner, "Did you think it might be a question of law?" Dr Astbury replied; "Yes."

She said later she felt inhibited and constrained by the legal laws in Ireland when it came to Savita's case.

wolfpawnat

homerjay2005 wrote: »

for what it is worth, i agree here that failings have been made.

however for most people, this was never, until now about how she died, it was about abortion, the catholic church and a reason to slam the lack of legislation in this country.

By the media yes. As I said time and again, it was all about sensationalist headlines and the want for some reason to make Ireland seem like some third world back water living in the middle ages. Yes we need to further separate church and state in many aspects, but they were not even waiting for facts, merely spouting BS.

drkpower wrote: »

Retropective notes are extremely common and when identified as such do not represent tampering and are not 'fiddling with the notes'. Particularly where time did not allow for a complete note to be written contemporaneously, writing a retrospective note is considered best practice.

Yes, at the end of a working shift or just before the patient is released. I know this personally. But never after a death unless something important is remembered, like perhaps a request for more medication, etc.

drkpower wrote: »

That isnt correct.

Antibiotics will not kill the foetus. The treatment for chorioamnionitis (which appears to have then caused sepsis) is antibiotics and evacuation of the uterus. So antibiotics and a termination were needed to treat the patient. One, without the other, would be less than optimal care.

The relevance of the blood tests being acted upon earlier is twofold:
1. it may have affected Dr Astbury's assessment as to whether Savita's life was at a real and substantial risk (and therefore may have allowed a termination at an earlier time);
2. it may have prompted earlier antibiotic treatment

My stepmother was given anti-biotics while pregnant that were going to kill the already dying foetus. Her life was seen as I dunno would you call it suitably at risk, but at risk enough for them to think it the best plan of action, and yes, then the foetus was as you say evacuated. I have said in many of my posts that this should have been done for Savita too. Whatever drugs necessary to deal with her infection, make her comfortable and bring her deteriorating health somewhat under control, then deal with the dead/dying foetus. And then allow her to make full recovery. As I have also stated, the failure of the medical parties involved to read/obtain her blood test results is what failed in this situation. As you have stated too, with the correct information, her doctor would have been able to make a better call and more than likely Savita would still be alive today.

mikom

eireannBEAR wrote: »

i never said savita should have been denied a termination!!

as far as im concerned no man has the right to force an abortion on a women and no women has the right to an abortion.

the only exceptions should be if the birth puts the mothers life at high risk. after all why should both mother and child die. in those circumstance you are not protecting the child by allowing his/hers mother to die along with him/her.

Would you allow a (no notion of quitting) female heroin addict the opportunity to request an early abortion?

Pompey Magnus

mikom wrote: »

Would you allow a (no notion of quitting) female heroin addict the opportunity to request an early abortion?

Why should that be an exception?