Protection of Life in Pregnancy: heads of bill published

maringo

Can't see any woman putting herself through what is proposed if she has the money to go abroad. It also doesn't seem to address the position of pregnant women whose baby is diagnosed by their medical doctors as very damaged and unsurvivable outside the womb. All their doctors can do is give them information instead of medical treatment. Shocking that this is not addressed and they cannot get the medical termination they need in their own country and have to trek abroad for a termination. It must be desperate to be in that situation knowing their baby is not able to survive. But that's Ireland for you - exporting our problems as usual.

Cody Pomeray

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Sure, but they are not in the heads of this law.

There is this:

In this regard, it is important that professional guidance is developed by the relevant professional Colleges for their members on the operation of this legislation. In order to facilitate this and to ensure its timely development, the Department of Health will support and work very closely with all the relevant professional bodies (particularly, the Institute of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, the Royal College of Physicians and the Irish College of General Practitioners) in developing guidelines for their members on the implementation of the legislation following enactment of the Protection of Life during Pregnancy Bill. Steps have already been taken to establish the willingness of these Professional Medical bodies to work with the department on such guidance

Yes, I think the expectation is that the RCPI and the other colleges will write the specific guidelines.

I guess that is ideal to an extent - you don't want Government legislating for current developments in medical practice.

Of course, the aforementioned ban on terminations over a certain period of gestation would be something that, it appears, cannot be regulated. Either by the colleges or by anybody else.

maringo wrote: »

Can't see any woman putting herself through what is proposed if she has the money to go abroad. It also doesn't seem to address the position of pregnant women whose baby is diagnosed by their medical doctors as very damaged and unsurvivable outside the womb. All their doctors can do is give them information instead of medical treatment. Shocking that this is not addressed and they cannot get the medical termination they need in their own country and have to trek abroad for a termination. It must be desperate to be in that situation knowing their baby is not able to survive. But that's Ireland for you - exporting our problems as usual.

I heard Pat Kenny make an excellent point this morning to the effect that Government could have managed this by defining the unborn as "the unborn which is viable outside of the womb". An interesting suggestion.

Did anybody listening to that interview this morning get the impression James Reilly was being handed notes?

On two occasions, questions were put to Reilly which he could not answer satisfactorily.

Then, in the process of answering the subsequent question, he would suddenly, inexplicably return to the previous question with a rational, procedural answer or extra official information.

wolfpawnat

Lemming wrote: »

The whole thing amounts to the following conversation:

"I'm suicidal".
"Prove it".

I have never studied psychology, yet it strikes me as "what-not-to-do 101" captain-obvious stuff, and I would be deeply concerned at any medical professional espousing such a stance. And yet, here we are ...

It is like saying, describe what you see in the dark. Describe depression. There is no right or wrong answer, it varies in every person.

It scares me that there is a chance a truly suicidal woman could be put through that sort of interview process, how is she supposed to keep any way composed through all that.

Zubeneschamali

Lemming wrote: »

The whole thing amounts to the following conversation:

"I'm suicidal".
"Prove it".

There is always the possibility that the conversations will go:

"I'm suicidal and the cause is my pregnancy!"

"I doubt that that is your only issue, please make an appointment to see a counsellor after your termination. Next."

JRant

Where are all these psychiatrists going to come from?

"Basic specialist services (other than child psychiatry and psychiatry of old age) were generally not available outside Dublin, and availability within Dublin appeared to be contingent upon geographical proximity to specialist services. Dedicated adolescent psychiatric services were not available to 88% of the population. There was no specialist neuropsychiatric service available for the vast majority of the total population. Availability of eating disorder services was largely restricted to those domiciled in the Dublin area."

http://pb.rcpsych.org/content/28/10/364.full


Seems like this is either going to be completely unworkable or will swallow up vast resources that could be used in a far better way. One single case could conceivably take up to 4 separate psychiatrists at a time when they are a scarce resource.

So while these four professions are trawling through red-tape, real problems like men under the age of 35 accounting for 40% of all suicides are being put on the back-burner.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0910/suicidepreventionreport.pdf

JRant

wolfpawnat wrote: »

It is like saying, describe what you see in the dark. Describe depression. There is no right or wrong answer, it varies in every person.

It scares me that there is a chance a truly suicidal woman could be put through that sort of interview process, how is she supposed to keep any way composed through all that.

Another important aspect that seems to be overlooked is that it takes time for a psychiatrist to make a decision on a persons state of mind. The psychiatrist has to build up a rapport with the patient. I'm not sure it is at all workable.

Nodin

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

But that wasn't the point I was addressing.

I was addressing your point that the procedure is still so daunting that most women (except for those who cannot afford the procedure, or some equally serious reason) will travel to England.

Whether the deciding panel makes its decision by unanimous verdict or majority vote, the Constitutional position unchanged by the proposed legislation means any Irish procedure is inevitably going to be far more of an ordeal than the English procedure.
.

I don't see why. They're obligated to legislate for suicide. The structure of that legislation is entirely down to them.

Jrant wrote:

Where are all these psychiatrists going to come from?

Consultants, remember, not just a plain psychiatrist. Likewise the obstetricians. Will they rotate? If one of of the few specialised people on the panel is unambigously anti-abortion in all circumstances, will they be obliged to recuse themselves?

Lemming

Nodin wrote: »

Consultants, remember, not just a plain psychiatrist. Likewise the obstetricians. Will they rotate? If one of of the few specialised people on the panel is unambigously anti-abortion in all circumstances, will they be obliged to recuse themselves?

I believe there are - if recent newspaper articles are to be believed - also only three obstetricians in the country; all located in the Dublin region. Unworkable before diving into whatever religious views any of those three may or may not hold to.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

There is always the possibility that the conversations will go:

"I'm suicidal and the cause is my pregnancy!"

"I doubt that that is your only issue, please make an appointment to see a counsellor after your termination. Next."

But that's not how this whole farce has been constructed. Three opinions all reaching unanimous consensus are required. And the general impression I am left with from all the various political commentary regarding the structure of all of this is that it is intended to be as obstructive & daunting as possible for any woman desperate enough to submit herself to the process.

So, you're right ... the conversation could go that way; but such a process that requires unanimous agreement has been concocted with the original dialogue in mind, i.e. "we/I don't believe you". That's all it takes, one member of the panel, or subsequent appeals panel to say "I don't believe you" for whatever reason they want, with very little legal comeback if a suicide does result, and that's that.

As I've said, this has nothing to do with women or medical practitioners. It has everything to do with spineless cretins without any ounce of conviction sitting in Leinster House trying to ensure their own self-interest by refusing to act on the X case in any meaningful or compassionate manner, or provide clear guidance to medical practitioners to avoid another tragic Sativa case.

BluntGuy

maringo wrote: »

Can't see any woman putting herself through what is proposed if she has the money to go abroad.

And thus the status quo is maintained.

Lemming wrote:

As I've said, this has nothing to do with women or medical practitioners. It has everything to do with spineless cretins without any ounce of conviction sitting in Leinster House trying to ensure their own self-interest by refusing to act on the X case in any meaningful or compassionate manner

+1 It's disgraceful.

Sierra Oscar

I think the legislation is to be welcomed, for far too long now our politicians have sought to put this whole issue on the long finger. We should have legislated for X long ago. I don't think it goes far enough myself, but it is a starting point considering how long it has taken to get this far.

Also, I notice that there is some commentary about the lack of a time limit being outlined with the insinuation that an abortion could occur in a nine month pregnancy or the likes. That is clearly not the case, as delivery - not abortion - would be the intervention once the foetus has become viable. A pregnancy can be terminated through delivery, and not only through abortion.

K-9

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Also, I notice that there is some commentary about the lack of a time limit being outlined with the insinuation that an abortion could occur in a nine month pregnancy or the likes. That is clearly not the case, as delivery - not abortion - would be the intervention once the foetus has become viable. A pregnancy can be terminated through delivery, and not only through abortion.

I assume a delivered baby to a suicidal mother would be offered up for adoption. I suppose we are getting into extreme, unlikely cases, but they can still happen.

If the mother refuses to consent to give birth, therein lies the problem?

Gbear

If they'd legislated for this when they were supposed to we might've had proper abortion legislation by now.

Sierra Oscar

K-9 wrote: »

I assume a delivered baby to a suicidal mother would be offered up for adoption. I suppose we are getting into extreme, unlikely cases, but they can still happen.

If the mother refuses to consent to give birth, therein lies the problem?

Well obviously that would be an extreme case, whereby the mother refused to consent to birth. If that was the case, and the mother was found to be genuinely suicidal, then surely she would be involuntary admitted to a psychiatric hospital to safeguard the life of the unborn? In reality though it is unlikely that this situation would ever arise. If someone only sought to argue at the very end of a pregnancy that the pregnancy was the cause of their suicidal thoughts, then the question arises as to why they weren't affected throughout the pregnancy. The answer that immediately springs to mind is that the pregnancy is not the underlying cause of suicidal thoughts, and therefore the termination would be denied.

Your right though, there is plenty yet to be clarified as to how this will work in practice.

K-9

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Well obviously that would be an extreme case, whereby the mother refused to consent to birth. If that was the case, and the mother was found to be genuinely suicidal, then surely she would be involuntary admitted to a psychiatric hospital to safeguard the life of the unborn?

It might be extreme, but the right to life of the unborn comes into direct conflict with the right of the mother. A viable baby outside the womb is then in risk of being aborted. Unconstitutional?

jank

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

I think the legislation is to be welcomed, for far too long now our politicians have sought to put this whole issue on the long finger. We should have legislated for X long ago. I don't think it goes far enough myself, but it is a starting point considering how long it has taken to get this far.

Also, I notice that there is some commentary about the lack of a time limit being outlined with the insinuation that an abortion could occur in a nine month pregnancy or the likes. That is clearly not the case, as delivery - not abortion - would be the intervention once the foetus has become viable. A pregnancy can be terminated through delivery, and not only through abortion.

What is FF's position on this, they have been very quiet on this issue as of late.Was it mentioned in the Ard Feis?

The legislation is to be welcomed as it clears the air on what a doctor can and cannot do in case of an emergency.

Those who want abortion on demand, well this is not possible without a referendum. This legislation is in line with the x-case only, not some sweeping reform that makes abortion legal for all which was never on the cards. Looking at the polls I dont think Irish people want an abortion regime like they have in the UK. Will probably happen at some stage mind, then we can look forward to having this debate again!!

Zubeneschamali

jank wrote: »

Looking at the polls I dont think Irish people want an abortion regime like they have in the UK.

We already have an abortion regime like they have in the UK: 4000 abortions a year, abortion on demand.

We just outsource it to UK clinics.

jank

That is true to some extent yet why not put some effort into reducing those numbers by facilitating other options such as adoption?

wolfpawnat

jank wrote: »

That is true to some extent yet why not put some effort into reducing those numbers by facilitating other options such as adoption?

Though that is not the topic on discussion here, what I will say is it seems to be very difficult for a woman here to get information on that option too, and that is from my personal experience. It would seem the Irish government do everything to keep the mother with her child, even if it is not the best thing for either of them.

JRant

Nodin wrote: »

I don't see why. They're obligated to legislate for suicide. The structure of that legislation is entirely down to them.



Consultants, remember, not just a plain psychiatrist. Likewise the obstetricians. Will they rotate? If one of of the few specialised people on the panel is unambigously anti-abortion in all circumstances, will they be obliged to recuse themselves?

Good point, I assume that those psychiatrists who stated that suicide was not an option for abortion during the Oireachtas committee meetings will not be allowed on any panel dealing with such a case.

There's also the costs to consider, having 6 seperate consultant bills would soon add up to 1000's of euro quite easily. If you had that money a quick trip over the sea would save you a fortune.

For those who can't afford the fees or to travel then it becomes a craps shoot. Judging by the lack of consultant psychiatrists and obstetricians in the country the child could be about 9 years of age before the mother would be seen by all 6.

JRant

jank wrote: »

That is true to some extent yet why not put some effort into reducing those numbers by facilitating other options such as adoption?

Why don't we start acting like a civilised country and deal with the abortion issue ourselves? Instead of exporting our 'dirty little secret' across the Irish sea.

Anyway adoption is not the one stop shop that many seem to view it as either.

Macha

jank wrote: »

What is FF's position on this, they have been very quiet on this issue as of late.Was it mentioned in the Ard Feis?

The legislation is to be welcomed as it clears the air on what a doctor can and cannot do in case of an emergency.

They passed 3 pro-life motions opposing any liberalisation of abortion laws in Ireland, including legislating for the X case.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0427/386860-fianna-fail-ard-fheis/

jank wrote: »

Those who want abortion on demand, well this is not possible without a referendum. This legislation is in line with the x-case only, not some sweeping reform that makes abortion legal for all which was never on the cards. Looking at the polls I dont think Irish people want an abortion regime like they have in the UK. Will probably happen at some stage mind, then we can look forward to having this debate again!!

It is definitely true that we would need a referendum. This is what advocacy groups like TFMR (Terminations for Medical Reasons) are now calling for a referendum to repeal the 8th amendment:

https://www.facebook.com/ReferendumOnThe8thAmendmentNow?hc_location=stream

Here is a summary of some recent opinion polls on abortion in Ireland:

http://www.ifpa.ie/Hot-Topics/Abortion/Public-Opinion

jank

JRant wrote: »

Why don't we start acting like a civilised country and deal with the abortion issue ourselves? Instead of exporting our 'dirty little secret' across the Irish sea. .

Some would argue that a civilised country protects life. Its not as black and white as that.

JRant wrote: »

Anyway adoption is not the one stop shop that many seem to view it as either.

Never said it would but if either side of the argument spent around 10% of its time on the adoption option then there would be favourable outcome for many imo.

wolfpawnat

Like with abortion, there is a stigma with adoption too. "Oh you wouldn't keep it, you're just going to give it to strangers" judgement. I think for many the issue is stigma more than anything. I'd say we have no real way of knowing how many Irish women have had abortions. Many don't give Irish addresses or go to other EU areas other than Britain.

Zubeneschamali

jank wrote: »

Some would argue that a civilised country protects life.

That's what the Attorney General set out to do in the X case, and everyone was appalled, and we passed two amendments by referendum and rejected a third to stop him doing it again.

We don't want abortion to be legal here, but we don't want to stop anyone getting abortion information, or travelling to the UK for an abortion.

So it's a classic Irish "Not under my roof" issue.

jank

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

That's what the Attorney General set out to do in the X case, and everyone was appalled, and we passed two amendments by referendum and rejected a third to stop him doing it again.

We don't want abortion to be legal here, but we don't want to stop anyone getting abortion information, or travelling to the UK for an abortion.

So it's a classic Irish "Not under my roof" issue.

You may be shocked to know that Ireland does not have a monopoly in regards this thought process.

Zubeneschamali

jank wrote: »

You may be shocked to know that Ireland does not have a monopoly in regards this thought process.

And would you say that the countries who export their abortions like this are somehow more civilized than countries who allow them to be performed in their jurisdiction?

I certainly don't think adding a layer of hypocrisy, expense and pointless hoop-jumping to our abortion-on-demand system makes us more civilized.

Sierra Oscar

jank wrote: »

What is FF's position on this, they have been very quiet on this issue as of late.Was it mentioned in the Ard Feis?

The Parliamentary Party is holding a meeting today to decide as to whether the party will support the legislation or not. Everything is being considered very carefully, and I think it is wise to not rush any decisions.

The Ard Fheis passed motions reaffirming the party as a pro-life party, but that does not mean that the PP cannot support the legislation. A TD must represent his or her constituency, and cannot put party before country. TD's have a duty to protect the constitution, and the courts of this land have deemed that the risk of suicide are sufficient grounds to allow an abortion. Two referendums have been held to try and overturn that decision, and the people have spoken by striking down both referendums. The only option now is to legislate in my view, so I hope the PP do the right thing. I think it would be a mistake not to, but all the same considering the AF vote it would not surprise me if the PP come out against this.

Macha

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

The Parliamentary Party is holding a meeting today to decide as to whether the party will support the legislation or not. Everything is being considered very carefully, and I think it is wise to not rush any decisions.

The Ard Fheis passed motions reaffirming the party as a pro-life party, but that does not mean that the PP cannot support the legislation. A TD must represent his or her constituency, and cannot put party before country. TD's have a duty to protect the constitution, and the courts of this land have deemed that the risk of suicide are sufficient grounds to allow an abortion. Two referendums have been held to try and overturn that decision, and the people have spoken by striking down both referendums. The only option now is to legislate in my view, so I hope the PP do the right thing. I think it would be a mistake not to, but all the same considering the AF vote it would not surprise me if the PP come out against this.

Interesting. I thought members of the parliamentary party were obliged to be in line with party policy, especially when in opposition and not in a coalition. And especially when that policy was adopted so recently.

Edit: I've just realised this probably varies between political parties.

Cody Pomeray

Nodin wrote: »

The structure of that legislation is entirely down to them.

I'm afraid you're mistaken.

The structure of the legislation is not "entirely" down to the Government.

The Government is constrained by the Constitution and by Constitutional case law especially in respect of the X Case.

The final X Case judgement makes specific findings which affirms constitutional protection for the unborn, whereby it must be "established as a matter of probability that there is a real and substantial risk to the life, as distinct from the health, of the mother".

Since the X case hinged only on the opinion of one clinical psychologist, not even a medical practitioner, I have no doubt but a similar test of suicidal intent would be constitutionally acceptable under the proposed legislation. Therefore, the 3 doctors scenario would appear to be ideological or political on behalf of the Government.

However, speaking broadly, the fact remains that the test for access to an Irish termination must logically be one that is more rigorous to the one that currently applies in the UK, where "only" the health of the mother must be at risk.

In light of the 8th amendment, "Real and substantial risk" to maternal life is always going to be the test. Given that, or until that amendment is torn out and chewed up and spat out (as it should be) most women are always going to opt for the plane to England.

Nodin

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I'm afraid you're (..........)England.

I'd suggest that you're making that up as you go, given that you're agreeing with me and contradicting yourself there. They're obligated to legislate for abortion where theres a threat of suicide. Obviously there'd have to be some check in that regard, but its extent is entirely up to the Government.