Abortion Discussion

Shrap

A most excellent question. Sadly, these payments are discretionary enough without the "I've been advised I could go to a hospital in England" scenario. In my experience, any payment by a CWO depends on how jobs worth they are about what qualifies as an emergency.

lazygal

Shrap wrote: »

A most excellent question. Sadly, these payments are discretionary enough without the "I've been advised I could go to a hospital in England" scenario. In my experience, any payment by a CWO depends on how jobs worth they are about what qualifies as an emergency.

No communion dress=emergency (until a few years ago anyway).
Need termination for FFA=get away out of that, sure aren't the maternity services here brilliant altogether.

Absolam

Deleted User wrote: »

They didn't need to facilitate an illegal action. They could have done the following;

I'm sure if you recall the circumstances under which the HSE facilitated women having abortions in the UK, you'll understand why they couldn't have done that?

Deleted User wrote: »

Understood, but I took umbrage at Absolam requiring the State to facilitate an illegal action in order to assist. There was another avenue available, which has been used in the past. That Mrs. Y wasn't eligible for monetary assistance (surely asylum seekers are wards of the state btw?) is an issue of course, but providing monetary assistance would be exceptional but not illegal.

I didn't require the state to faciliate an illegal action to assist. It was illegal for her to have an abortion in this jurisdiction unless her life was endangered by the pregnancy; this was an obstacle put in her way by the Irish State, as obplayer complained. Simply put, what she wanted was illegal. The avenue of assistance to obtain an abortion in the UK was provided to wards of the state who had no sustenance other than the state, and who, by virtue of being found to be suicidal, were constitutionally able to avail of an abortion, even though abortions weren't being provided within the State. An action rendered unnecessary by the PoLDPA (in force by the time of the Miss Y case), as such cases can obtain legal abortions within the jurisdiction. I didn't say (or imply) it was illegal to provide funds for abortion, only that the obstacles placed in Miss Ys way by the Irish State were due to the fact that she wanted to do something which was illegal; have an abortion.

As to speculation on whether women/girls were 'assessed' as being suicidal purely in order to facilitate providing them with abortions; it's that kind of thinking that would make one wary of rapid diagnoses of suicidal ideation to the point that the idea of a panel of doctors making the diagnosis rather than just one starts to seem eminently sensible......

Shrap

lazygal wrote: »

From reading what women who travel for FFA have experienced, it seems as though doctors' hands are tied in terms of referring them specifically for abortion services abroad. They can mention 'a hospital in Liverpool' but the women seem to have to research, organize and fund the process themselves. These women have to get substantial money together (four figure sums are mentioned) at short notice, not to mention the emotional cost of having to travel for such medical treatment. I wonder what the response of a CWO or HSE rep would be to a request for financial assistance in such cases? And if it would be put in writing?

A spokeswoman for the Department of Social Protection said it had no role in the provision of support services for women in crisis pregnancies.
“Under the supplementary welfare allowance scheme, the department may make a single exceptional needs payment [ENP] to help meet essential, once-off, exceptional and unforeseen expenditure,” the spokeswoman said.
“While there is no departmental guidance under the scheme that would exclude providing assistance to a person incurring travel expenses – such as when visiting a family member in hospital – ENPs are not paid in relation to medical treatment or any other need that comes under the responsibility of another Government department or agency.”

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/chief-executive-of-dublin-well-woman-says-no-state-aid-to-help-low-income-women-travel-for-abortions-1.1903058

alaimacerc

lazygal wrote: »

I would think state funded abortions abroad would be legally questionable at the very least. I donate to a UK based organization because from what I've heard and read an Irish based charity providing money for the purposes of.travelling for abortions would be on dodgy ground. At the very least the pro-life groups would be all over them like a rash, look at how they portray the IFPA.

Don't doubt that last...

Legally questionable on what grounds? I'm not aware of any law they'd be breaking, though equally they're under no constitutional protection, either (our SC hasn't, as far as I know, decided a la Citizens United, that "money is information"). Perhaps dodgiest in the area of their charitable status? Too "political"?

lazygal

alaimacerc wrote: »

Don't doubt that last...

Legally questionable on what grounds? I'm not aware of any law they'd be breaking, though equally they're under no constitutional protection, either (our SC hasn't, as far as I know, decided a la Citizens United, that "money is information"). Perhaps dodgiest in the area of their charitable status? Too "political"?

On the grounds that providing money to travel for the purpose of doing something that is illegal here might not be legal. I don't know, I'm speculating that it might be seen that actually handing a woman cash so she can travel to kill the unborn which has constitutional protection in Ireland might be open to challenge.
I mean, doctors feel they can't refer women to services outside the state directly (going on what the women who travelling for FFA reasons said) because they aren't sure its legal to do so. Providing money for the purposes of travel might well be seen by some as not being legal, as only the right to travel and information is protected. No one seems to have the right to money to travel (unless they are a ward of court) for abortion.

Shrap

alaimacerc wrote: »

Don't doubt that last...

Legally questionable on what grounds? I'm not aware of any law they'd be breaking, though equally they're under no constitutional protection, either (our SC hasn't, as far as I know, decided a la Citizens United, that "money is information"). Perhaps dodgiest in the area of their charitable status? Too "political"?

Might it not constitute actually procuring an abortion? Like with the 14 yrs imprisonment for buying abortion pills.

alaimacerc

lazygal wrote: »

On the grounds that providing money to travel for the purpose of doing something that is illegal here might not be legal. I don't know, I'm speculating that it might be seen that actually handing a woman cash so she can travel to kill the unborn which has constitutional protection in Ireland might be open to challenge.

I'd be inclined to doubt it, but equally, I can see the uncertainty all right. There's that mysterious point at which legal "material preparation" becomes (potentially) illegal "attempt" or "conspiracy". Or whatever other offence I've failed to think of.

I mean, doctors feel they can't refer women to services outside the state directly (going on what the women who travelling for FFA reasons said) because they aren't sure its legal to do so.

I'd assumed they were more concerned about their status regarding acting as doctors here. Getting fired, getting struck off, getting on the wrong side of hospital "ethos". Is there a potential criminal law angle?

lazygal

alaimacerc wrote: »

I'd be inclined to doubt it, but equally, I can see the uncertainty all right. There's that mysterious point at which legal "material preparation" becomes (potentially) illegal "attempt" or "conspiracy". Or whatever other offence I've failed to think of.



I'd assumed they were more concerned about their status regarding acting as doctors here. Getting fired, getting struck off, getting on the wrong side of hospital "ethos". Is there a potential criminal law angle?

Yes, but for me the issues are linked. At what point is telling a woman 'hospital X in Liverpool can help you to terminate your pregnancy' a legal no no? Is that providing information or helping to procure an abortion? And is telling a woman 'the abortion support network can give you money to travel' information? Or helping a woman to procure an abortion? Was the 'right to travel' and the 'right to information' addressed in legislation at all?

alaimacerc

Shrap wrote: »

Might it not constitute actually procuring an abortion? Like with the 14 yrs imprisonment for buying abortion pills.

I think with abortion pills the abortion would have to be actually carried out, and on Irish soil. Otherwise one is simply in possession of rogue progesterone (ant)agonists, etc, as with the Coppinger train stunt.

Good point, though, perhaps it would. I'm not at all up on how territoriality factorises across the elements of an "offence" in circumstances like this. I'd be amazed if such a thing were to actually be prosecuted... but any possible uncertainty and threat would still work against such actions.

alaimacerc

lazygal wrote: »

Yes, but for me the issues are linked. At what point is telling a woman 'hospital X in Liverpool can help you to terminate your pregnancy' a legal no no? Is that providing information or helping to procure an abortion? And is telling a woman 'the abortion support network can give you money to travel' information? Or helping a woman to procure an abortion?

Dunno! I'm moderately confident it's not criminal conspiracy as currently defined. That doesn't rule out it being the whole "acting in concert" ball of wax.

Was the 'right to travel' and the 'right to information' addressed in legislation at all?

Don't think so. AFAIK the only formal, direct effect is that the courts aren't able to infer restrictions of travel and information from the 8th's text itself. It doesn't directly rule out such restrictions being drawn from elsewhere. OTOH, the courts might consider the electorate's intent (as was argued in the NP case). And importantly, there's the EU's Four Freedoms.

Brian Shanahan

Shrap wrote: »

I just finally read through yesterdays discussion and what really stood out for me was recedite's theory that there was something fishy about Ms Y not following through with the Netherlands option, and the subsequent explanation from others that 1,300 euro is not an option.
Clearly, there are people who think that 1,300 would just be handed straight over by the CW officer in an emergency (as if they don't ask you what the emergency is..) - Sorry recedite. for a usually sensible poster, you know sweet FA about social welfare, which is nice for you, but you seem to be guilty of thinking people on SW can actually get more money if they need more?

I have been fortunate enough never to have had to approach a CW about an emergency payment but I have met a few officers, some lovely, others very much of the "computer says no" variety. I also know a number of people who have had to ask for an emergency payment, in one case for help towards a child's coffin and funeral which as you can imagine would be somewhat similar than the 1,300 question. They got 400 towards it, and the CW (although very nice) explained how his hands were tied and he couldn't give any more than that. Just an example. Of course, in the past, the communion dresses were a special case, this being a "catholic country" and all that.

This may actually go some way towards explaining why there are so many births to girls from deprived areas btw. There currently is no option to raise an approx 1,000 to go to the UK for an abortion for anybody on social welfare, especially if the family already invariably have a credit union loan for a car or similar. Banks won't touch them at all.

I remember having to go to one because the social stopped my payments over one of their own employees failing to file my signing card properly (she never entered in that I had signed on on the correct date). Even though it was completely their fault I still had to wait three weeks for them to sort it (and that was quick as I knew a couple of the senior officers in Cork at the time) and was dependant on the charity (no other word can adequately describe it) of the CWO. I'd hate to have to go to one if my (currently hypothetical) girlfriend needed an abortion and I were on the social.

Absolam

lazygal wrote: »

it seems as though doctors' hands are tied in terms of referring them specifically for abortion services abroad. They can mention 'a hospital in Liverpool' but the women seem to have to research, organize and fund the process themselves.

lazygal wrote: »

I mean, doctors feel they can't refer women to services outside the state directly (going on what the women who travelling for FFA reasons said) because they aren't sure its legal to do so.

alaimacerc wrote: »

I'd assumed they were more concerned about their status regarding acting as doctors here. Getting fired, getting struck off, getting on the wrong side of hospital "ethos". Is there a potential criminal law angle?

lazygal wrote: »

Yes, but for me the issues are linked. At what point is telling a woman 'hospital X in Liverpool can help you to terminate your pregnancy' a legal no no? Is that providing information or helping to procure an abortion? And is telling a woman 'the abortion support network can give you money to travel' information? Or helping a woman to procure an abortion? Was the 'right to travel' and the 'right to information' addressed in legislation at all?

alaimacerc wrote: »

Dunno! I'm moderately confident it's not criminal conspiracy as currently defined. That doesn't rule out it being the whole "acting in concert" ball of wax.

The Constitution prevents the right to life of the unborn being used to restrict access to information about abortion.

However, the Regulation of Information (Services outside the State for Termination of Pregnancies) Act 1995 controls the provision of information about abortion outside the State, and effectively prohibits the advocation or promotion of abortion, and the provision of information for financial gain. The construction of the act makes it illegal, or at least legally very difficult, for someone like a doctor, who is being paid for their services, to provide information or assistance in arranging an abortion, as they benefit financially from doing so, which is prohibited. That's why the specific information is generally disseminated through services such as the IFPA who are not paid by the patient/client to provide it.

alaimacerc

Absolam wrote: »

However, the Regulation of Information (Services outside the State for Termination of Pregnancies) Act 1995 controls the provision of information about abortion outside the State, and effectively prohibits the advocation or promotion of abortion, and the provision of information for financial gain.

Thanks for the reference -- I'd honestly never heard of that bill, which itself alarms me. A casual read through makes its scope seem alarmingly wide, though the illegality is pretty mild on scale of these things. (Class F slap on the wrist, in US terms!) Will have to study more closely.

What's especially odd is that what little commentary I can find on this is of the gist of how alarmingly liberal it is. (One site refers to it as the "abortion information act", bizarrely.) What on earth was the position between '92 and '95 that could possibly support such a conclusion? Or is this just "folk song about how good the old days before 14th was passed" kvetching?

lazygal

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/ms-y-plans-legal-action-against-hse-and-other-agencies-1.2074504

Ms Y is to take legal action against HSE and other agencies.

recedite

Comparing this reported info from the solicitor to the info from the draft HSE report which I compiled into a timeline in an earlier post, a few interesting differences emerge;

1. The solicitor now says of the Spirazi doctor

"...In June a doctor there, in a report for Ms Y’s asylum application, documented she was “very distressed and had a strong death wish.."

BUT according to the HSE the same doctor did say that, but also added

" she was sad and depressed but not . . . actively suicidal”

If this doctor had given the opinion that she was suicidal, it would still not mean the girl was entitled to a HSE abortion, but it would indicate that she should be referred on to the 3 specialists as per the legislation.

The solicitor as reported is likely to be wrong on two separate grounds then; that the Spirazi doctor said she was suicidal, and even if that was the case, that she was entitled to an abortion as soon as she expressed suicidal thoughts to one person.

In June a doctor there, in a report for Ms Y’s asylum application, documented she was “very distressed and had a strong death wish”..
...Ms Y’s solicitor, Caoimhe Haughey, confirmed personal injuries actions were planned against these statutory and non-statutory agencies.
“It is clear my client was legally entitled to an abortion under the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act as soon as she expressed suicidal thoughts.”

Of course a solicitor can take on a client whether or not they believe the case can succeed. If costs are awarded on the basis of the case having been judged to have some public interest merit, as they were in the brain-dead pregnancy case, it could be quite lucrative whether they win or lose.

2. Solicitor says

She came to the attention of HSE psychiatric services five weeks later at about 22/23 weeks’ gestation. She was assessed by three experts - two psychiatrists and an obstetrician - under the terms of the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act. They agreed she was suicidal. She was refused an abortion, however, and her baby was delivered by Caesarean section at about 26 weeks, on August 6th.

According to the HSE timeline, after being out of contact for some time, she presented to a (new) GP at 23 weeks and asked for an abortion, saying she was suicidal, not the HSE psychiatric services. He then referred her on to HSE services. It was not until 24 weeks that she "came to the attention of HSE psychiatric services". At this stage she was told it was too late, apparently because in the opinion of the obstetrician the foetus was becoming viable, or was already viable.
The legislation allowed for the pregnancy to be terminated then because of the suicide risk, but it does not say an abortion is always preferable to a live (but premature) delivery.

Frito

I dont think Ms Y is taking action against Spirasi, as per lazygal's link.

recedite

The link doesn't actually mention Spirasi, it is a NGO and probably has no money, so there is no point suing it.

It does mention the Reception and Integration Agency, among others. It is a state organisation, and the state, as we all know, has unlimited coffers filled with gold coin.

Frito

Check para 7.

recedite

It says

The organisation is not implicated in any planned legal action by Ms Y.

OK I think I misunderstood your post. I thought you were making the statement "I dont think Ms Y is taking action against Spirasi" as per lazygal's link, as if the link was saying the opposite. I'm confusing myself now.

Frito

No bother - could've been my phrasing or recklessly placed comma.

Frito

What's interesting is the Spirasi doctor and the GP appear to have had similar info ie an expressed death wish, yet one chose to refer to panel and the other didn't. It's a superficial observation, perhaps there was more evidence in the GP consultation.

volchitsa

recedite wrote: »

It says
OK I think I misunderstood your post. I thought you were making the statement "I dont think Ms Y is taking action against Spirasi" as per lazygal's link, as if the link was saying the opposite. I'm confusing myself now.

recedite wrote: »

It says
OK I think I misunderstood your post. I thought you were making the statement "I dont think Ms Y is taking action against Spirasi" as per lazygal's link, as if the link was saying the opposite. I'm confusing myself now.

Yes, you are confused, but that is because you are still desperately trying to fit the facts into the HSE's draft report, when it contradicts itself as well as Miss Y's version of events.

Contrary to your nasty insinuations, the reason she isn't taking action against Spirasi is because she appears to have no reason to include the Spirasi doctor in the list of those who caused her problems, or blocked her from getting an abortion despite her mental state. I can only suggest you reread Kitty Holland's and Paul Cullen's various articles for a clearer idea than you currently have.

One example is that the draft report says the Spirasi worker said she had a death wish but was "not suicidal" - Umm, how would that work? The draft report contradicts itself, as well as logic. The IT says Spirasi told them that their employee called the Direct Provision Centre to express worries about her mental state, and to ask that she not be left in a room on her own. Does that sound like they didn't think she was suicidal?

When you claim that money is the reason she is suing some organisations and not others, are you now saying that she is trying to profit from what happened to her?

If so, is she in the wrong to do so, or is it possible that a huge wrong was done to her, not by Spirasi, but by agents of the Irish state?

aloyisious

Frito wrote: »

What's interesting is the Spirasi doctor and the GP appear to have had similar info ie an expressed death wish, yet one chose to refer to panel and the other didn't. It's a superficial observation, perhaps there was more evidence in the GP consultation.

For what it's worth, the Spirasi doctor may have had no legal standing in any referring of Miss Y to the panel, being an NGO doctor and not her primary medical consultant. I can't see the GP being referred-to in the report.

recedite

volchitsa wrote: »

One example is that the draft report says the Spirasi worker said she had a death wish but was "not suicidal" - Umm, how would that work? The draft report contradicts itself, as well as logic.

I assume there is a point at which a person might think "I wish I was dead" or "I wish I was never born" but at the same time, maybe they are not quite willing to undergo the possibly painful or gruesome process of killing themselves.
But I don't know, you would have to ask the Spirasi doctor.

Unless of course, you are already convinced that the Sprirasi doctor never said that Miss Y wasn't suicidal, and it was just a lie inserted into the HSE draft report.

I'm not supporting one or the other view, I am simply pointing out some of the inconsistencies between what the solicitor is saying and what the HSE draft report said. And how they would have a critical effect on the success of any future legal action.

volchitsa

recedite wrote: »

I assume there is a point at which a person might think "I wish I was dead" or "I wish I was never born" but at the same time, maybe they are not quite willing to undergo the possibly painful or gruesome process of killing themselves.
But I don't know, you would have to ask the Spirasi doctor.

Unless of course, you are already convinced that the Sprirasi doctor never said that Miss Y wasn't suicidal, and it was just a lie inserted into the HSE draft report.

I'm not supporting one or the other view, I am simply pointing out some of the inconsistencies between what the solicitor is saying and what the HSE draft report said. And how they would have a critical effect on the success of any future legal action.

It's not something I have just thought up all by myself though. What I am saying is that several journalists pointed out various inconsistencies within the draft report itself and with other information available such as what Spirasi told them - and that a report which is both illogical and contradicted by other parties is not reliable.

As for your hypothetical explanation about suicidality, whether or not it is plausible, it's not relevant here, because you omit the fact that the Spirasi doctor was worried, because s/he called the DP centre to request that Miss y not be left alone.

Frito

aloyisious wrote: »

For what it's worth, the Spirasi doctor may have had no legal standing in any referring of Miss Y to the panel, being an NGO doctor and not her primary medical consultant. I can't see the GP being referred-to in the report.

Yes you're right, Spirasi as an 'other' care provider would need to refer to GP, perhaps this did in fact happen. Was more interested in the difference in significance of the expressed death wish.
I mention the GP as referenced by recedite in his timeline of events post.

--edit--
Spirasi did make contact with GP's clerk to express concern about Ms Y's mental health, and followed up with a letter though the GP states they didn't receive said letter.

The Black Oil

It's going to be an interest year ahead given some of what's going on in US legislatures.

redfacedbear

Anybody watching Spiral, the rather entertaining French crime series, currently showing on BBC4 on Saturday nights?

The main female cop is pregnant and does not want to be. However as she is past 15 weeks gestation she cannot avail of an abortion in France. Her solution? 'Do what everyone else does' and go to Holland.

Probably unsurprising but interesting that we are not the only country to cynically export our 'problem' abortion issues.

Shrap

redfacedbear wrote: »

Anybody watching Spiral, the rather entertaining French crime series, currently showing on BBC4 on Saturday nights?

The main female cop is pregnant and does not want to be. However as she is past 15 weeks gestation she cannot avail of an abortion in France. Her solution? 'Do what everyone else does' and go to Holland.

Probably unsurprising but interesting that we are not the only country to cynically export our 'problem' abortion issues.

Yeah, great tv drama! The acting is superb. I loved it when her ex (that she works with)

found out she was pregnant and kept banging on about it being "a gift" and 5 mins later in the same episode

, another male team member was getting slagged off for being an exhausted Dad. They're bang on target on that show. Missed it last Sat actually, ta for the reminder.