Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Abortion Discussion
Options
Comments
-
That's a very misleading account there. The young woman made a suicide attempt at 16 weeks, and the doctor from Spirasi who saw her wrote to the centre where she was staying to ask that she not be left on her own. So she was known by the HSE to be suicidal at that point.You are incorrect on 2 (well, one and a half at least) of your points there;
1. The situation with this particular girl is that she wanted an abortion on suicide grounds, and indeed genuine suicidal ideation was identified by 2 psychiatrists, as per the legislation. Therefore it was decided the pregnancy should be terminated which was fully in accordance with the law. If it had been the case that aborting was the only way to save save the girl, an abortion would have been carried out. But the 3rd specialist opinion, the obstetrician, said the pregnancy could be terminated by delivering the baby early, and that's what happened.
2. If she had been let into the UK, there is no guarantee she would have got an abortion there, because a late term abortion is not a normal medical procedure in a modern civilised country. Even in the UK abortion after 24 weeks is very restricted, and this baby was delivered alive and well AFAIK in Ireland at 25 weeks.
As you only said "abortion is normal.." and not "late-term abortion is normal.." we'll count that as being half right.
And then there is the question of who accompanied her on the failed trip to the UK, where she had a few Euros in her pocket - so it seems very much as though it was another of those cases we learned of where HSE staff accompany pregnant minors for an abortion.
Also, you are wrong to think a suicidal woman would not have an abortion in the UK at any stage of her pregnancy, if the pregnancy was believed to be the cause of the suicide ideation. She would. A mentally ill woman was recently granted one, even though there was evidence that her decision to come off her medication because of the pregnancy may have been the cause of the problem, but it was decided that whatever the cause, the only cure was an abortion. And by that stage she was at 24 weeks, iirc.0 -
What tug of war exactly? The constitutional amendment placed the right to life of the unborn beyond legislative amendment, and also placed the right to travel and information beyond legislative amendment on foot of the elevation of the right to life. I don't see a tug of war there; I see a sensible progression. I voted to elevate the right to life and to protect the right to travel and information without any sense of conflict or changing my opinion.Of course not. But the current constitution is the result of a bizarre tug-of-war caused by referenda results reflecting changing opinions on abortion.
I can see how it confuses you when you mistake the basic premises in fairness.The constitution aims to make all abortion impossible except in extremely limited circumstances, based on the 8th amendment. However later we got constitutional protection not just for travel to abort, but for information on how to do so.
If you consider that the constitution actually aims to protect the life of the unborn, and we later added constitutional protection for the right to travel and information so that the right to life of the unborn could not interfere with them, it probably makes much more sense, and even doesn't appear so perversely hypocritical.
We could. And we've covered just how impracticable it would be to do so over many pages in this thread already. Nevertheless, you are correct in saying we don't want to. Nor do we have to want to; it's quite acceptable to say we don't want to have abortion in the state we reside in, but we don't need to enforce our law in other jurisdictions.Maybe we can't control laws in other jurisdictions, but we could easily ban information on abortion, and we could also (if we were really so anti-abortion) make it a crime to have an abortion overseas, with possible legal sanctions back in Ireland. But we don't. We don't want to.
Amazing isn't it? It's almost as if those who oppose abortion in Ireland don't support your argument that they must therefore legislate to prevent abortion in other jurisdictions.There are many thousands of Irish women having "on demand" abortions abroad every year. I have yet to hear any mainstream group demand that these women should be criminalised, in fact the opposite would appear to be the case.
Or, you've created your own strawman argument which requires the entire population (or at least the majority) of a nation to be consciously adopting a hypocritical attitude which benefits them to no degree whatsoever, just so that you can feel you're right. Hmmm.So yes, legally, Ireland has a hypocritical and inconsistent attitude to abortion.
I'm not convinced it would be defeated at all. But let's not confuse speculation containing the word 'definitely' with anything that is actually definite, eh?The 8th passed by 67%. I'm pretty convinced that were the same referendum to be offered to the people today, it would definitely be defeated. Let's not confuse the will of the people in 1983 with the will of the people today.
I don't see why you think it's a nonsense that we should protect the right to life of the unborn, and protect the right to travel and information from interference by that right. Makes perfect sense to me.It's nonsensical to enshrine constitutional protection for the unborn yet also enshrine constitutional protection for a legal loophole that allows those same abortions to go ahead, a few miles away. Pretending to have a more sophisticated and complex way of looking at it doesn't make it any less crazy.
Funny then that it's not 'those who pretend that it's all about protecting the unborn' (I mean really, those who pretend? Way to cheapen your entire argument...) that are making a big deal about it? It seems the majority of the people who have a problem with not asserting the right to life of the unborn in other jurisdictions are those who have a problem with asserting it in our own. Altogether peculiar...Why abortion abroad is really such a non-issue, when abortion within the country is such a big deal, is simply one of those questions that keeps coming up because it is such a glaring inconsistency for those who pretend that it's all about protecting the unborn.
I don't think you think that at all; I think you're just saying it to get away from the fact you were moving the goalposts away from Volchistas assertion whilst trying to defend it.I don't think you understand the concept of root cause, or else you are willfully pretending not to.
Oh, I'm happy to stipulate a majority instead of all. And I think a majority would still vote to provide a constitutional protection for the right to life of the unborn today. With the benefit of thirty odd years of hindsight we might well phrase it better, but I doubt a majority would vote to abandon any constitutional protection whatsoever.Agreed, that was the intention, but I disagree strongly that we all wanted that. One in three people voted against it. In 1983. What do you think the numbers today would be?
I think you're missing the purpose of the PoLDPA then. The government had to draft legislation which would be compliant with the constitution, and provide the required guidance on when an abortion would be legal, again in accordance with the constitution. They had no mandate to 'prevent any abortions at all ever happening' (which the constitution clearly precludes them from doing), or to liberalise abortion (which the constitution also prevents them from doing, that was the point of the 8th). They could only legislate for the options the constitution permits, which they did.The government could have drafted the PoLDPA in a number of ways, they chose the most limited and restrictive options available to them. Partly because they are still trying to prevent any abortions at all ever happening, rather than actually dealing with what would really be medical best practice.
Of course, there was hope from some quarters that claiming suicidality would be a perfect loophole to allow abortion on demand; say you're suicidal and get an abortion, nice and legal. As really medical best practice goes however, maybe not so much. The outrage expressed when it was pointed out that suicidality would have to be assesed by doctors competent in assessing sucicidality is a good indication of just how much real medical best practice those quarters really wanted to see.....
How about the sense of defining the conditions under which an abortion may legally (and constitutionally) be performed, and the penalties for performing abortions outside of those conditions? In that sense it seems to fit the purpose quite admirably. And, let's be honest, that is the purpose of the Act.The only sense in which the PoLDPA is fit for purpose is from the perspective of hardcore pro-lifers.
Ah now, that's somewhat hyperbolic, isn't it? Women make huge and important decisions about their bodies all the time; the current legislation and constitution only restricts their say when it comes to fairly specific things. So, it's illegal for them to use the bodies to stab people to death, for instance. They can't legally require a doctor to assist them to kill themselves, or someone else (including an unborn someone else). Except of course, when that someone else threatens their life, where they have a bit of an advantage over an unborn someone else vs a born someone else.Never mind the fact that women themselves seem to be excluded from huge and important decisions about their own bodies. Nowhere in the current constitution or legislation does the woman involved ever get a say as to what happens.
Never's a rather misleading word there don't you think? In almost all decisions regarding a womans life and health, when she is mentally competent, she has a say in the decisions. It's when the decisions affect someone else's life (if not necessarily health) that a woman is not the sole consideration for the doctors lawyers and judges (and even the woman herself, in a lot of cases).Decisions with massive impact on her life and health are made by doctors, lawyers, judges, but never by the women themselves.
Well, I don't know about 'this birth-at-all-costs attitude' since I've never met anyone who expressed it. I'm sure if there's anyone around who espouses it they'll discuss it with you if they feel like it.That is another reason why this birth-at-all-costs attitude is anti-woman, it really is (to use another tired but true cliché) treating women as incubators, incubators who cannot be trusted to make their own decisions.0 -
If you are saying that HSE staff denied a certifiably suicidal woman an abortion here, and instead tried to take her to England, that would not be something supported by Irish law.
AFAIK there is an ongoing investigation, so maybe more details of the case will emerge which would be relevant to the overall abortion/medical malpractices/medico-legal debate.
Here's what I actually said;Also, you are wrong to think a suicidal woman would not have an abortion in the UK at any stage of her pregnancy....
2. If she had been let into the UK, there is no guarantee she would have got an abortion there...0 -
Amazing isn't it? It's almost as if those who oppose abortion in Ireland don't support your argument that they must therefore legislate to prevent abortion in other jurisdictions.
I don't see why you think it's a nonsense that we should protect the right to life of the unborn, and protect the right to travel and information from interference by that right. Makes perfect sense to me.
So you wouldn't see any problem with bringing in a law that banned child sex abuse in Ireland, but instituted the right for people to take Irish children out of the country for that purpose, and allowed them to access material to that end?0 -
-
Advertisement
-
AFAIK at the time she was certified by the two psychiatrists, it was just before the caesarean, only allowing for time to rehydrate and feed her. Probably not wise to perform either abortion or caesarean procedures on someone in a weakened state.
The question could be asked, why didn't they assess her before the failed trip to the UK, and perhaps someone is asking that in the inquiry.0 -
AFAIK at the time she was certified by the two psychiatrists, it was just before the caesarean, only allowing for time to rehydrate and feed her. Probably not wise to perform either abortion or caesarean procedures on someone in a weakened state.
The question could be asked, why didn't they assess her before the failed trip to the UK, and perhaps someone is asking that in the inquiry.
That's irrelevant to your claim that she might have fallen foul of UK date limits though. If she was found to be suicidal, she'd have had an abortion. And she'd have been well within the time limits anyway, if any normal criterion (such as, you know, an actual suicide attempt) had been used instead of some strange list of procedural box ticking which the HSe appear to believe required a court decision at pretty much every step of the way.
And please drop the hypocrisy that it might have been for her own good that they were rehydrating her, they actually wanted to force feed her as well. Instead of letting her have an abortion at 16 weeks. They also lied to her about it being too late for the UK. It was, but not on the grounds of medical emergency, which by that time she was.0 -
Isn't child sex abuse banned in Ireland?So you wouldn't see any problem with bringing in a law that banned child sex abuse in Ireland, but instituted the right for people to take Irish children out of the country for that purpose, and allowed them to access material to that end?
And isn't it legal to take children out of the country (even for the purpose of sexual abuse, aside from the much more specific offense of child trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation)?
And isn't it legal to access material to that end?
And haven't we been here before around about the 6000s posts on the thread.... is there actually something new to be added?
I think what you're proposing (if you want to maintain parity in your comparison) is amending the constitution to protect children from sexual abuse, and further amending the constitution so that the aforesaid protection can not be used to prevent people from travelling or accessing information.
Personally, I'd vote for that (subject to seeing the specific wording of course).
I should point out however, that 'if you're ok with this then you must be ok with this' is a bit of a nonsense though; I'm not overly interested in defending positions that you think I should hold, only the ones I actually do hold.0 -
Isn't child sex abuse banned in Ireland?
And isn't it legal to take children out of the country (even for the purpose of sexual abuse, aside from the much more specific offense of child trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation)?
And isn't it legal to access material to that end?
And haven't we been here before around about the 6000s posts on the thread.... is there actually something new to be added?
I think what you're proposing (if you want to maintain parity in your comparison) is amending the constitution to protect children from sexual abuse, and further amending the constitution so that the aforesaid protection can not be used to prevent people from travelling or accessing information.
Personally, I'd vote for that (subject to seeing the specific wording of course).
I should point out however, that 'if you're ok with this then you must be ok with this' is a bit of a nonsense though; I'm not overly interested in defending positions that you think I should hold, only the ones I actually do hold.
It's legal to access material in Ireland about child abuse abroad? I think not. Interesting to hear that you would vote for it though. Are you sure that is what you meant to say?
The rest of your post just claims the right to hypocrisy. Which is fine.0 -
Pretty clearly it doesn't even require a majority. Setting aside the details of the "windows into men's souls" aspect (while noting how keen you are to dispute that), let's look at it more in terms of the psephology. Consider the "hypothetical" case where, say, 1/3 of the electorate favours the "theocratic" line (no abortion anyway where we have any ability to try to prevent it), 1/3 the "liberal" line (or more liberal than the 8th, at least, with some (greater) provision for domestic terminations), and 1/3 the "hypocritical" one (have the good manners to have your abortions somewhere else, please).Or, you've created your own strawman argument which requires the entire population (or at least the majority) of a nation to be consciously adopting a hypocritical attitude which benefits them to no degree whatsoever, just so that you can feel you're right. Hmmm.
But this too (among much else in this Absolam Classic post -- it's almost a relief, was beginning to wonder if the account had been hacked by someone instead favouring rude, non-responsive one-liners) comes under the category of 'things extensively previously covered in this thread'.0 -
Advertisement
-
It's legal to access material in Ireland about child abuse abroad? I think not. Interesting to hear that you would vote for it though. Are you sure that is what you meant to say?
I think A. is attempting to construct as precise as possible an analogy with the 8th situation. Thus you'd have a "This subsection shall not limit freedom to obtain or make available, in the State, subject to such conditions as may be laid down by law, information relating to services lawfully available in another state." clause tacked on to the hypothetically specific "right not to be abused as a child". The hazard (or point?) of such precision is obscuring the original point of the analogy, though...
While that wouldn't technically say anything about the constitution and law more generally, the courts do seem rather willing to infer from the electoral intent. But equally, they might well conclude (as they have in the past) that the electorate didn't intend to strike down existing law or ban existing practice.0 -
"Even in the UK" is a curious choice of words, because the UK doesn't guarantee access to abortion at any point. Unlike several continental European jurisdictions, where early(ish) abortions are indeed available without formal restriction. (I think the implications of Roe v Wade are similar in some respects, but good luck with the "access" aspects of that in the US.)If she had been let into the UK, there is no guarantee she would have got an abortion there [...] Even in the UK abortion after 24 weeks is very restricted[...]
I'm not sure you'd on mature reflection want to either try to set yourself up as the "scorer" of correctness, or indeed have us track your own score...[...]we'll count that as being half right.0 -
"Archbishop Eamon Martin said: "I want to bring to your attention a consultation document which proposes that totally innocent and terminally ill babies in the womb will no longer have an absolute right to life, nor the right to all the care and medical support that we would expect and wish for any child or adult who is terminally ill."
I assume Archbishop Martin Minor (anyone else remember the Yes, Prime Minister joke about a "job lot" of preferments?) is now about to be severely scolded by certain posters about his loose use of terminology is asserting "rights" not actually legally established in his archdiocese. (On either side of the border, come to that, but very clearly not on the Norn one, which is at issue here.)0 -
I don't think it's why we have the PoLDPA; we have that because the government got around to putting proper legislation defining obligations under the 8th in place as demanded by the European Courts (and everyone else, in fairness, probably even the hypocrites with attitudes).
Clearly not "everyone", since not only were successive governments foot-dragging over it to a horrendous degree, several people stormed out of government over it happening even when it did. (Somewhat topically, though on this very site people are complaining about no-class interviewers having the poor taste to bring this up with a certain L. Creighton...)
I seem to recall some rather prominently prelate-manned protests, too...
(And while some were correspondingly instead demanding another referendum (third time's the charm!), apparently some others were pretty content with 'do nothing and keep doing it'. (IIRC Binchy had latterly ended up in that camp, though I may have lost track of his strategic switches at some key point.))0 -
I do see an obligation to provide appropriate medical care for people with medical problems, [...]
On the face of it this goes well beyond the scope of the 8th and the PoLDPA. (Polish women going blind as a result of their pregnancy, etc.) But before we start the more rejoicing in atheist heaven, I'm sure you're about inform us of various implied restrictions in the scope of what's "appropriate". (And/or of an implied broadening of "people", of course.)0 -
Interesting. What law prevents it? For the purposes of clarity; material to the end of taking Irish children out of the country for the purpose of child abuse (being information about child abuse) is not the same as depictions of child abuse (being pornography).It's legal to access material in Ireland about child abuse abroad? I think not.
I'm pretty certain it's not what I said. Would you like to reread?Interesting to hear that you would vote for it though. Are you sure that is what you meant to say?
"I think what you're proposing (if you want to maintain parity in your comparison) is amending the constitution to protect children from sexual abuse, and further amending the constitution so that the aforesaid protection can not be used to prevent people from travelling or accessing information.
Personally, I'd vote for that (subject to seeing the specific wording of course)."
It does? So if I don't defend the points you make on my behalf I'm a hyopcrite? It's a novel assertion, but I can't say I see much merit in it....The rest of your post just claims the right to hypocrisy. Which is fine.0 -
Well, in fairness if you're claiming the majority acted hypocritically, it does kind of need a majority to have acted....alaimacerc wrote: »Pretty clearly it doesn't even require a majority.
I can't say I noted the aspect being pointed out, so I don't think I demonstrated any keenness to dispute it.. Anyway, I don't think any psephology will show evidence of hypocrisy in the polls; just evidence of the opinion of hypocrisy from those who didn't get what they wanted.alaimacerc wrote: »Setting aside the details of the "windows into men's souls" aspect (while noting how keen you are to dispute that), let's look at it more in terms of the psephology.
And having considered it, what light do you think your hypothetical shines on the psephology of the actual referenda? Given the lack of, well, psephology, it seems like you're just shoehorning an opportunity to soapbox a couple of snarky characterisations?alaimacerc wrote: »Consider the "hypothetical" case where, say, 1/3 of the electorate favours the "theocratic" line (no abortion anyway where we have any ability to try to prevent it), 1/3 the "liberal" line (or more liberal than the 8th, at least, with some (greater) provision for domestic terminations), and 1/3 the "hypocritical" one (have the good manners to have your abortions somewhere else, please).
That's a pretty true to form attack on the poster rather than the post, but was it intended to make any sort of point as well?alaimacerc wrote: »But this too (among much else in this Absolam Classic post -- it's almost a relief, was beginning to wonder if the account had been hacked by someone instead favouring rude, non-responsive one-liners) comes under the category of 'things extensively previously covered in this thread'.
It's hard to imagine that making an analogy as analagous as possible obscures the point of the analogy, but for the sake of discussion, how is my analogy less to the point than Volchitsas?alaimacerc wrote: »The hazard (or point?) of such precision is obscuring the original point of the analogy, though...
Meh.. happy to say 'everyone interested in bringing clarity to the matter'. Nor am I saying that it suited everyone who wanted clarity brought to the matter; only that they demanded something be put in place, even if the something they wanted was quite different from the something they got.alaimacerc wrote: »Clearly not "everyone", since not only were successive governments foot-dragging over it to a horrendous degree, several people stormed out of government over it happening even when it did.
Of course it does, it goes beyond the scope of the right to life question entirely. I oughtn't to be a problem for anyone I think though, most people probably think the state has at least some obligation to provide appropriate medical care for people with medical problems.alaimacerc wrote: »On the face of it this goes well beyond the scope of the 8th and the PoLDPA.
Are you? Why? I wan't planning it, though if you want to introduce the topic, I suppose you could create a self fulfilling prophecy. If you make it interesting enough.alaimacerc wrote: »But before we start the more rejoicing in atheist heaven, I'm sure you're about inform us of various implied restrictions in the scope of what's "appropriate". (And/or of an implied broadening of "people", of course.)0 -
http://constitutionproject.ie/?p=380 Repealing the Eighth Amendment: As Simple as it Sounds?
January 5, 2015 by
Dr Conor O’Mahony
"There would be something of a blank canvas on the question of when that right must give way to other rights. The legislature could seek to fill in that canvas, and the courts would probably be highly deferential to legislative choice in such a sensitive and divisive field. However, the precise scope of this deference cannot be guaranteed, and legislation providing for a more liberal abortion regime would remain susceptible to constitutional challenge. The history of this debate in Ireland suggests that such a challenge would be almost inevitable."0 -
What claim? There are no date limits for abortion in either UK or Ireland.That's irrelevant to your claim that she might have fallen foul of UK date limits though. If she was found to be suicidal, she'd have had an abortion.
In late term abortions as the foetus becomes "viable", it gets more restrictive and they will always prefer to dissuade the person. If its a choice between delivering a baby alive, or killing it in the womb, do you think the latter is the best choice?
If she had got in, the UK authorities would have had their own chat with her re her mental state, her motives for travelling to UK, why she decided to abort at a relatively late term etc..
Even alaimacerc agrees that abortion is not guaranteed in the UK;
And how do you know she would have gone ahead with the abortion after gaining entry to the UK? What are their rules re citizenship when somebody gives birth on UK soil?alaimacerc wrote: »"Even in the UK" is a curious choice of words, because the UK doesn't guarantee access to abortion at any point. ...0 -
You clearly don't have a clue what you are talking about. You're a complete spoofer, in fact!What claim? There are no date limits for abortion in either UK or Ireland.
In late term abortions as the foetus becomes "viable", it gets more restrictive and they will always prefer to dissuade the person. If its a choice between delivering a baby alive, or killing it in the womb, do you think the latter is the best choice?
If she had got in, the UK authorities would have had their own chat with her re her mental state, her motives for travelling to UK, why she decided to abort at a relatively late term etc..
Even alaimacerc agrees that abortion is not guaranteed in the UK;
And how do you know she would have gone ahead with the abortion after gaining entry to the UK? What are their rules re citizenship when somebody gives birth on UK soil?
There are time limits in the UK, 24 weeks. After that it's not a question of "having a chat" with her about why she was outside the dates. If you're outside the dates that's that. No abortion.
Except in cases where the woman's health is at very severe risk by the continuation of the pregnancy.
I don't imagine they have ever had to deal with a woman who was basically confined against her will in a place where she could not access an abortion until she had passed the legal delays, so one imagines that had she finally turned up in the UK then her case would have been very difficult for them. I don't know what the procedures might be.
But since she was certified as suicidal by two psychiatrists in Ireland at that stage, it's unlikely that UK psychiatry is harsher in that respect. And since a woman whose suicidality was caused not by the pregnancy but by her stopping her medication, was still allowed an abortion, it's hard to imagine that this young woman wouldn't have been.
I don't understand what you're getting at with your question about giving birth on UK soil. She didn't want to give birth, she wanted an abortion.0 -
Advertisement
-
What claim? There are no date limits for abortion in either UK or Ireland.
In late term abortions as the foetus becomes "viable", it gets more restrictive and they will always prefer to dissuade the person. If its a choice between delivering a baby alive, or killing it in the womb, do you think the latter is the best choice?
If she had got in, the UK authorities would have had their own chat with her re her mental state, her motives for travelling to UK, why she decided to abort at a relatively late term etc..
Even alaimacerc agrees that abortion is not guaranteed in the UK;
And how do you know she would have gone ahead with the abortion after gaining entry to the UK? What are their rules re citizenship when somebody gives birth on UK soil?
She was well within the time limit for abortion when she travelled to the uk, and the clinics there are well used to treating desperate Irish women with the compassion they're denied at home. The problem here was a visa issue, it's desperately sad that she got so far only to be turned back.0 -
I don't imagine they have ever had to deal with a woman who was basically confined against her will in a place where she could not access an abortion until she had passed the legal delays, so one imagines that had she finally turned up in the UK then her case would have been very difficult for them. I don't know what the procedures might be.She was well within the time limit for abortion when she travelled to the uk, and the clinics there are well used to treating desperate Irish women with the compassion they're denied at home. The problem here was a visa issue, it's desperately sad that she got so far only to be turned back.
Well said, both of you. Nothing further to add, your honour.0 -
Except?? So, ultimately there are no time limits as I said; it depends on the assessed risk to the mother, hence they would have needed to have a chat with her about that.There are time limits in the UK, 24 weeks. After that it's not a question of "having a chat" with her about why she was outside the dates. If you're outside the dates that's that. No abortion.
Except in cases where the woman's health is at very severe risk by the continuation of the pregnancy.
But was she certified as suicidal at that early stage? Or was she extremely depressed, and unsure about what she wanted to do. This is the 10 or 11 week stage we are talking about now, when she discovered that she would not be able to go to UK. Where are you getting your info from?But since she was certified as suicidal by two psychiatrists in Ireland at that stage, it's unlikely that UK psychiatry is harsher in that respect.
A preliminary HSE draft report is described here by a journalist (not an inquiry) Lets look at the timeline....
23rd April/@11 weeks pregnant;
(to the UK)“Ms Y appeared extremely upset at the prospect of not being able to travel.”
21st May/@15 weeks;
So she was told how to get finance for the abortion and also asked to get passport photos for the visa for a trip to the Netherlands. If she still wanted one.“Counsellor 2 indicated . . . there were still some issues to be sorted out and that Ms Y was ‘stressed’. The co-ordinator formed the view that Ms Y might have changed her mind about travelling as it was the co-ordinator’s experience that this could happen.” "Counsellor 2 contacts staff nurse 1 and explains she will give Ms Y visa application documents. She says Ms Y will need to fill them in and get passport photographs signed by a garda. Counsellor 2 advises Ms Y to speak to a community welfare officer about financial help.
22nd May
Now correct me if I am wrong, but it appears everything necessary for an abortion in the Netherlands was being handed to her on a plate there? Travel arrangements, finance, visa applications. All she had to do was sign on the dotted line. She was not certified as being suicidal, nor at risk from any other substantial risk to life resulting from the pregnancy itself, so no abortion in Ireland was available.Ms Y has a third counselling session with IFPA. During the two-hour session the counsellor suggests she consider adoption. Ms Y says she “would rather die than have this baby”. Counsellor 2 fills out travel application documents with her. She tells Ms Y she will need €120 to accompany the application. They go through costs, including €300 for a flight to the Netherlands and €700 for a termination at the Casa Clinic in Leiden, that total €1,300. IFPA does not receive the completed application for travel documents from Ms Y. She does not return to IFPA.
Why didn't she want to go to the Netherlands? Why only the UK?
2nd June;
While this is somewhat ambivalent, it does say she was not suicidal. A reasonable interpretation of this account is that she had suffered rape and torture, and was extremely depressed with life to the point where she did not care whether she lived or died. That does not necessarily mean that she was actively considering ways to kill herself, or that an abortion would solve her psychological problems.The Spirasi doctor finds Ms Y “was sad and depressed but not . . . actively suicidal”. The doctor writes to GP in Ms Y’s accommodation with concerns about Ms Y. The doctor says she is concerned about Ms Y being in a room on her own but is satisfied Ms Y is seeing the IFPA. The doctor writes a report for the medical unit at the Reception and Integration Agency (RIA), which operates direct provision centres, saying Ms Y “had been abducted in February 2014 and beaten and raped repeatedly” and is pregnant as a result. The doctor records that “Ms Y was very traumatised and . . . was being referred urgently for psychological support”.
“Ms Y was very distressed and had a strong death wish,” the doctor says. She strongly recommends Ms Y not be moved from her accommodation until the baby is born and Ms Y is more “psychologically robust”.
17th July/@ 23 weeks, foetus becoming viable outside the womb;
At 22 or 23 weeks pregnant she makes an appointment with a GP and announces that she wants an abortion.Ms Y presents at her new GP for an appointment. She says she wants to see a psychologist as she wants an abortion. The GP refers her for an outpatient psychiatric assessment. He contacts staff nurse 1 and learns Ms Y is 22 weeks pregnant.
22nd July/@24 weeks,
The new GP apparently thinks she has lost the plot.Ms Y attends the new GP again. She tells him “she did not wish to go ahead with her pregnancy and that she would rather be dead”. The GP believes she needs a psychiatric assessment. He writes a referral letter and calls the manager at Ms Y’s new accommodation asking them to arrange transport for her to a mental health hospital.
23nd July/@24 weeks
This is the first diagnosis of suicidal ideation as far as I can see, at 24 weeks pregnant. The next day, she started on the hunger strike.Ms Y is assessed by consultant psychiatrist 1. When told it is too late for an abortion she starts to cry and “and stated that she was going to commit suicide and that she had a plan and . . .
Psychiatrist 1 tells her if she attempts this she will have to be detained under mental health legislation. “There was no evidence of psychosis.”
A scan establishes she is 24 weeks pregnant, with a due date of November 12th. She is aware she will be detained under mental health legislation if she tries to leave, so she agrees to stay.. . . There was evidence of suicidal intent.
23nd July
At this point the hospital may be on dodgy ground, because suicidal intent has already been diagnosed. Therefore Miss Y needs to be protected from that risk. The two main options would be abortion or early delivery. Both of these options are possible but both are compromised; it is a bit late for one and a bit early for the other. A third option arises; protect the girl from herself by constant supervision and forced rehydration for another week, after which time the baby, while still premature, would be much stronger and healthier, and so consume far less of the hospitals resources. It would be interesting to know what a court judgement would be on the "reasonableness" of the hospital behaviour, balanced against the "reasonableness" of Miss Y's behaviour, and whether it was an appropriate solution to the crisis that had slowly developed.Liaison psychiatric team and consultant obstetrician decide there are insufficient grounds for early delivery. Ms Y is told a meeting will discuss her case the next day. She continues to refuse food and fluids.“The hope was that Ms Y could be maintained on the ward for as long as possible and hopefully to 30 weeks so that the baby could be delivered appropriately.”
23nd July
So there we have a difference in medical opinion, psychiatrist #2 now wants the pregnancy terminated ASAP. The obstetrician wants to keep it going a bit longer. The obstetrician is obviously more concerned with the rights of the baby, who risks incurring lasting health problems due to being premature. As opposed to the relatively minor inconvenience to the mother of being force fed for another week or two.She continues to refuse food and fluids. Consultant obstetrician X reviews her, explains the implications of her refusal to eat and drink, including cardiac arrest, renal failure and uraemia and says she would be medically unfit to undergo delivery of the baby. Consultant X tells her the staff may have to apply to the courts if she does not resume eating and drinking.
Ms Y is reviewed by consultant psychiatrist 2.
Following the assessment, consultant psychiatrist 2 records that Ms Y “presented as a significant risk of suicide which was directly related to her unsuccessful efforts to secure an abortion and . . . the ongoing pregnancy was a reminder of Ms Y’s traumatic experience”. It is their view “that the baby should be delivered”.
An interesting legal aspect to this is whether an effective "suicide watch" removes the threat of suicide. Or is this false imprisonment. Or do the rights to life and health of the soon to be born baby justify the captivity of the mother for a short period.
25th July
If she is legally detainable under the mental health act, then her captivity is not false imprisonment.Consultant psychiatrist 1 assesses Ms Y. Clinical impression document says she is detainable under the Mental Health Act, that she wants the baby dead, “that this is not based on a mental health disorder, this was a choice”
5th Aug
This HC judgement would be interesting to read.Ms Y has had no fluids for 40 hours. She is met by consultant psychiatrist 4 who records: “Ms Y was an ongoing suicidal risk.” HSE legal team attends High Court. Ms Y agrees to a Caesarean section under anaesthetic the next day
6th Aug @ 26 weeks
Hopefully Miss Y is happy now, but somehow I think it will take her a while to get over her numerous problems.Caesarean section performed. Neonatal team is on standby. Baby boy taken to neonatal unit and into HSE care.0 -
Except?? So, ultimately there are no time limits as I said; it depends on the assessed risk to the mother, hence they would have needed to have a chat with her about that.
But was she certified as suicidal at that early stage? Or was she extremely depressed, and unsure about what she wanted to do. This is the 10 or 11 week stage we are talking about now, when she discovered that she would not be able to go to UK. Where are you getting your info from?
A preliminary HSE draft report is described here by a journalist (not an inquiry) Lets look at the timeline....
23rd April/@11 weeks pregnant;(to the UK)
21st May/@15 weeks; So she was told how to get finance for the abortion and also asked to get passport photos for the visa for a trip to the Netherlands. If she still wanted one.
22nd May
Now correct me if I am wrong, but it appears everything necessary for an abortion in the Netherlands was being handed to her on a plate there? Travel arrangements, finance, visa applications. All she had to do was sign on the dotted line. She was not certified as being suicidal, nor at risk from any other substantial risk to life resulting from the pregnancy itself, so no abortion in Ireland was available.
Why didn't she want to go to the Netherlands? Why only the UK?
2nd June;
While this is somewhat ambivalent, it does say she was not suicidal. A reasonable interpretation of this account is that she had suffered rape and torture, and was extremely depressed with life to the point where she did not care whether she lived or died. That does not necessarily mean that she was actively considering ways to kill herself, or that an abortion would solve her psychological problems.
17th July/@ 23 weeks, foetus becoming viable outside the womb;
At 22 or 23 weeks pregnant she makes an appointment with a GP and announces that she wants an abortion.
22nd July/@24 weeks, The new GP apparently thinks she has lost the plot.
23nd July/@24 weeksThis is the first diagnosis of suicidal ideation as far as I can see, at 24 weeks pregnant. The next day, she started on the hunger strike.
23nd July At this point the hospital may be on dodgy ground, because suicidal intent has already been diagnosed. Therefore Miss Y needs to be protected from that risk. The two main options would be abortion or early delivery. Both of these options are possible but both are compromised; it is a bit late for one and a bit early for the other. A third option arises; protect the girl from herself by constant supervision and forced rehydration for another week, after which time the baby, while still premature, would be much stronger and healthier, and so consume far less of the hospitals resources. It would be interesting to know what a court judgement would be on the "reasonableness" of the hospital behaviour, balanced against the "reasonableness" of Miss Y's behaviour, and whether it was an appropriate solution to the crisis that had slowly developed.
23nd July
So there we have a difference in medical opinion, psychiatrist #2 now wants the pregnancy terminated ASAP. The obstetrician wants to keep it going a bit longer. The obstetrician is obviously more concerned with the rights of the baby, who risks incurring lasting health problems due to being premature. As opposed to the relatively minor inconvenience to the mother of being force fed for another week or two.
An interesting legal aspect to this is whether an effective "suicide watch" removes the threat of suicide. Or is this false imprisonment. Or do the rights to life and health of the soon to be born baby justify the captivity of the mother for a short period.
25th July If she is legally detainable under the mental health act, then her captivity is not false imprisonment.
5th Aug
This HC judgement would be interesting to read.
6th Aug @ 26 weeksHopefully Miss Y is happy now, but somehow I think it will take her a while to get over her numerous problems.
That's a lot of trouble to go to to copy and paste various quotes from a draft report that not only contradicts itself but contains glaring omissions such as her visit to the UK where she was stained and then sent back to the HSE's care!
And also her reported suicide attempt which the people at Spirasi say they informed the HSE of.
So it's really worth nothing as a reliable record of what happened.
I really don't see what point you think you are making anyway - if she had been able to go the UK,as she tried to, at 16 weeks, she would have had an abortion. Wouldn't she?
And even given that she hadn't managed to get there then, at 24 weeks she would presumably (because of the one slightly similar case we know of) also have been allowed one, on the basis of it being an emergency.
The reason there are no similar cases of course is that in the UK this just couldn't happen - pregnant women who express a constant desire for a termination beginning at 8 weeks will have had one long before 24 weeks, and probably long before 16 weeks. Only in Ireland would she be forced to wait until she became actually suicidal about her pregnancy, rather than just deeply distressed.
So what exactly are you querying? Do you think she would have had the same treatment in the UK?0 -
...Conveniently ignoring that they had the trip to the Netherlands for an abortion all arranged for her, but she decided not to go.pregnant women who express a constant desire for a termination beginning at 8 weeks will have had one long before 24 weeks, and probably long before 16 weeks. Only in Ireland would she be forced to wait..
Anyhow, as you believe your gossip to be far more reliable than a HSE preliminary report that is "worth nothing" lets wait for the results of the inquiry to be published.0 -
Where does anyone suddenly get hold of over a thousand euro, let alone an asylum seeker on 15 euro a week?0
-
Sorry, where is this trip to the Netherlands coming from? She decided not to go because she couldn't pay, or for some other reason?
I'm aware of a visit to Liverpool, not to the Netherlands.
And my "gossip" as you call it, included direct quotes from the records held by Liverpool customs service where she was arrested. How could a HSE report which left that out be considered accurate?0 -
-
Advises being the key word....
and then what happened?
Do you really think community welfare is going to pay for abortion? They might be getting a few thousand more requests if that news gets out.0 -
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement