Is it still 1971 in Ireland? The contraceptive train still runs - Under another name.

One eyed Jack

strobe wrote: »

Yes she does, it's called adoption. A (single, or married if the child isn't her husband's) woman can place a child up for adoption if she so wishes, relinquishing all responsibilities and rights, this essentially is a 'paper abortion'. The father doesn't have that option either. Any suggestion that a father be allowed a right to a 'paper abortion' is fundamentally just a suggestion that men should have the same right as women currently do in terms of giving a child up for adoption.

That term 'paper abortion' is just silly, there's no two ways about it, as it diminishes the complexity and significance of an abortion. I shouldn't have to explain this but when a woman has an abortion, there is no longer any possibility of her giving birth to that unborn child.

My point in saying that a woman had no right to relinquish all rights and responsibilities to her child was to point out that only that would be the same as a father wanting to do the same. So now your argument isn't about preventing a woman from having an abortion, but rather preventing her from giving the child up for adoption, or is your argument that a father should have the right to put his child up for adoption regardless of the mother's wishes?

I can't see that flying among father's rights groups either tbh, it's just a spurious argument for gender equality in one area where because there are fundamental physiological and biological differences between the genders, there is no equality and therefore it will never be legislated for. It's right up there with the sort of thinking I'd expect from one of those academic ivory tower think tanks that have a very poor grasp on reality.

strobe

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That term 'paper abortion' is just silly, there's no two ways about it, as it diminishes the complexity and significance of an abortion. I shouldn't have to explain this but when a woman has an abortion, there is no longer any possibility of her giving birth to that unborn child.

My point in saying that a woman had no right to relinquish all rights and responsibilities to her child was to point out that only that would be the same as a father wanting to do the same. So now your argument isn't about preventing a woman from having an abortion, but rather preventing her from giving the child up for adoption, or is your argument that a father should have the right to put his child up for adoption regardless of the mother's wishes?

I can't see that flying among father's rights groups either tbh, it's just a spurious argument for gender equality in one area where because there are fundamental physiological and biological differences between the genders, there is no equality and therefore it will never be legislated for. It's right up there with the sort of thinking I'd expect from one of those academic ivory tower think tanks that have a very poor grasp on reality.

My argument is that you were wrong in claiming a woman has no right to relinquish her rights and responsibilities to her child. Why not just admit you were mistaken? And that the suggestion that a man be permitted a 'paper abortion' is simply a suggestion that men should have the same legal rights as women when it comes to adoption.

Speaking as a pharmacist, Ruth Coppinger is an idiot. She took an "abortion pill". Was she pregnant? Has she no respect for prescription laws? What doctor wrote the script for her? I would be very interested in knowing as this contravenes the medicines act 1968. What was the abortion pill? I see no ingredients mentioned in the article.

volchitsa

The One Doctor wrote: »

No, I'm not a doctor. We're actually agreeing on this topic, I simply didn't express myself very well. I simply substituted the phrase 'the woman wants to kill the fetus' for the word 'abortion'. It's a more emotive phrase, I accept, but it is essentially true. The woman makes a decision that will end a the fetuses life.

As I mentioned earlier, I'm pro abortion if the abortion can be done medically (i.e, chemically by prostaglandin analogues etc) rather than surgically. Frankly, surgical abortion is utterly barbaric and hasn't changed in 3000 years. Well it has, but the only difference now is that the woman is virtually guaranteed to survive a surgical abortion.

I think you are confusing a surgical abortion with a late abortion. An early surgical abortion is no more barbaric than a miscarriage.

And no, what you are doing is replacing the usual term by a more emotive one for a reason - to make it sound worse.

In fact if a woman wanting an abortion had the option of instead getting the fetus transplanted into a woman who would then adopt it, do you think many would refuse because they actually wanted it dead? So they don't (usually) want the fetus dead, they want not to be pregnant.

Hotblack Desiato

Deleted User wrote: »

Speaking as a pharmacist, Ruth Coppinger is an idiot. She took an "abortion pill".

She more than likely took an aspirin, paracetamol or vitamin pill that she'd put into an abortion pill box.

According to (I think) Nell McCafferty, the chemists they went to in 1971 ran out of contraceptive pills, so most of the pill packets they were waving around in Connolly Station were aspirin.

Was she pregnant? Has she no respect for prescription laws?

Laws that deny treatment to patients on the basis of a dubious morality rather than clinical considerations don't deserve any respect.

One eyed Jack

strobe wrote: »

My argument is that you were wrong in claiming a woman has no right to relinquish her rights and responsibilities to her child. Why not just admit you were mistaken?

Because my point was more concerned with pointing out a like for like comparison rather than comparing abortion to a man's right to abdicate his responsibility towards his child. I think when read in context that much would have been obvious. If I were actually arguing the point in front of a panel of judicial experts, then yes, I would have been more careful in my wording, but this being the Internet and all, I hadn't taken account of the fact that "someone is wrong on the internet" was actually a thing.

And that the suggestion that a man be permitted a 'paper abortion' is simply a suggestion that men should have the same legal rights as women when it comes to adoption.

It's not a paper abortion though, and no amount of euphemisms and quote unquotes is going to disguise the reality of what is actually being suggested. The argument that men should have the same legal rights as women when it comes to adoption has nothing to do with a woman's right to an abortion. The 'equal rights wiith regard to adoption' argument is for another thread.

Hotblack Desiato

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

She more than likely took an aspirin, paracetamol or vitamin pill that she'd put into an abortion pill box.

According to (I think) Nell McCafferty, the chemists they went to in 1971 ran out of contraceptive pills, so most of the pill packets they were waving around in Connolly Station were aspirin.




Laws that deny treatment to patients on the basis of a dubious morality rather than clinical considerations don't deserve any respect.

I would think so. Uterine contractions aren't particularly pleasant. The clinical consideration is why a non pregnant woman would take an abortion pill (or claim to)? Was is misoprostol or another abortifacient such as methotrexate (used off licence for treating ectopic pregnancy?

Hotblack Desiato

Assuming that she wasn't in fact pregnant, the reason she claimed to take an abortion pill is obvious, it is to publicise the issue and draw parallels with the contraceptive train of 1971.

Geuze

Lapin wrote: »

Today's protest on the 2nd anniversary of the death of Savita Halappanavar is a stark reminder of that.
.

tHIS woman's death was due to the medical mismanagement of sepsis, nothing directly to do with abortion.

Frito

strobe wrote: »

My argument is that you were wrong in claiming a woman has no right to relinquish her rights and responsibilities to her child. Why not just admit you were mistaken? And that the suggestion that a man be permitted a 'paper abortion' is simply a suggestion that men should have the same legal rights as women when it comes to adoption.

I'm a bit unsure as to the specific adoption rights. Can a mother offer her child for adoption where the father is known, objects and asserts responsibility for the child?

volchitsa

Geuze wrote: »

tHIS woman's death was due to the medical mismanagement of sepsis, nothing directly to do with abortion.

This is just not true. She needed an abortion, nothing else was going to cure her.

If she had had an abortion when she asked for one, Dr Boylan and Prof Arulkumaran both say that she would probably have lived.

The fact that Irish law made it illegal to carry out an abortion unless her life was at risk has a great deal to do with her death. GUH then went on to mess up the "care" they were meant to give her while waiting for her life to be identified as being at risk, but that is secondary to the original refusal to terminate.

Hotblack Desiato

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Assuming that she wasn't in fact pregnant, the reason she claimed to take an abortion pill is obvious, it is to publicise the issue and draw parallels with the contraceptive train of 1971.

So essentially she lied. Isuppose par for the course for a td. love how she said it was safer than sildenafil. Like it is the complete ignorance of the woman that guiles me.

shruikan2553

So has anyone managed to come up with another method of ending the pregnancy when the woman doesn't want to be?

volchitsa

volchitsa wrote: »

This is just not true. She needed an abortion, nothing else was going to cure her.

If she had had an abortion when she asked for one, Dr Boylan and Prof Arulkumaran both say that she would probably have lived.

The fact that Irish law made it illegal to carry out an abortion unless her life was at risk has a great deal to do with her death. GUH then went on to mess up the "care" they were meant to give her while waiting for her life to be identified as being at risk, but that is secondary to the original refusal to terminate.

Abortions cure septicaemia? Are you actually saying that? How does it do that?

volchitsa

Deleted User wrote: »

Abortions cure septicaemia? Are you actually saying that? How does it do that?

Not if you're not pregnant. Obviously.

But if the source of the infection is inside the uterus, as it was for Savita Halappanavar, than ending the pregnancy without delay is the only sure way to treat septicaemia, yes. It's like having a splinter in your finger that gets infected, if you don't get rid of the splinter, you may end up with blood poisoning. First get rid of the splinter, then disinfect. It's basic science.

volchitsa

volchitsa wrote: »

Not if you're not pregnant. Obviously.

But if the source of the infection is inside the uterus, as it was for Savita Halappanavar, than ending the pregnancy without delay is the only sure way to treat septicaemia, yes. It's like having a splinter in your finger that gets infected, if you don't get rid of the splinter, you may end up with blood poisoning. First get rid of the splinter, then disinfect. It's basic science.

The reason that she died is that she wasn't treated with antibiotic prophylactics when she was first diagnosed on admission. This was a failing of doctors and pharmacists in the hospital. Your analogy has a flaw(actually, a few). You seem to think that an abortion can cure a bacterial infection. An abortion isn't an antibiotic. You also wouldn't wait till the abortion is over to start antibiotics.

volchitsa

Deleted User wrote: »

The reason that she died is that she wasn't treated with antibiotic prophylactics when she was first diagnosed on admission. This was a failing of doctors and pharmacists in the hospital. Your analogy has a flaw(actually, a few). You seem to think that an abortion can cure a bacterial infection. An abortion isn't an antibiotic. You also wouldn't wait till the abortion is over to start antibiotics.

Have you actually read the testimony by Boylan and the report by Arulkumaran?

Antibiotic treatment without an abortion would not have been enough.

She needed ultra wide spectrum antibiotics that are not given to pregnant women, for one thing, and anyway, as I said, without a D&E the source of the infection would remain.

And I do know the difference between an antibiotic and an abortion. :roll:
Nor did I say they had to wait until it was completed before starting stronger antibiotics than she got, just that waiting around for days repeatedly checking on the fetal heartbeat was not a treatment at all - and she needed urgent treatment.

This has all been discussed at the time, I suggest you read it up rather than ask me to go back over it correcting your mistakes.

What treatment exactly, do you think Savita Halapannavar needed that would have saved her?

obplayer

Deleted User wrote: »

The reason that she died is that she wasn't treated with antibiotic prophylactics when she was first diagnosed on admission. This was a failing of doctors and pharmacists in the hospital. Your analogy has a flaw(actually, a few). You seem to think that an abortion can cure a bacterial infection. An abortion isn't an antibiotic. You also wouldn't wait till the abortion is over to start antibiotics.

Dr Peter Boylan, former Master of the National Maternity Hospital in Dublin, disagrees.

A leading obstetrician claimed the inability to end Savita Halappanavar's pregnancy until there was a substantial and real risk of her death ultimately cost the 31-year-old her life. Peter Boylan revealed that by the time she was sick enough to justify an abortion on the morning of Wednesday October 24 last year, she was already suffering from sepsis blood infection.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news...-29201735.html

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-22185690


Halapannavar’s husband maintains that her death could have been prevented if hospital officials had intervened earlier to terminate her non-viable fetus. Now, after a two-week review of the coroner’s report, that position has been confirmed by an Irish jury

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013...abortion-care/

SAVITA Halappanavar would most likely have lived had she received a termination within two days of her admission to Galway Hospital.

http://www.herald.ie/news/courts/abo...-29205695.html

Perhaps you should contact him and tell him how your qualifications are superior to his.

One eyed Jack

Frito wrote: »

I'm a bit unsure as to the specific adoption rights. Can a mother offer her child for adoption where the father is known, objects and asserts responsibility for the child?

It's not quite that simple -

Consent

The consent of the parents/guardians of the child to the adoption is a legal requirement. If the child is born outside marriage and the father has no guardianship rights, only the mother's consent is needed, but the father is entitled to be consulted (if possible). However, the consent of the father is required if he marries the mother after the birth of the child or he is appointed guardian or is granted custody of the child by court order.

The mother, father (where he is guardian) or other legal guardian must give an initial consent or agreement to the placing of a child for adoption by the Child and Family Agency or an approved adoption service. They must then give their consent to the making of an adoption order. This consent may be withdrawn any time before the making of the adoption order.

If the mother either refuses consent or withdraws consent already given, the adopting parents may apply to the High Court for an order. If the court is satisfied that it is in the best interests of the child, it will make an order giving custody of the child to the adopting parents for a specified period and authorising the Adoption Authority to dispense with the mother's consent to the making of the adoption order.

If a mother changes her mind about adoption before the making of the adoption order, but the adopting parents refuse to give up the child, she may then institute legal proceedings to have custody of her child returned to her.

Birth Father Register

A birth father, with no guardianship rights, is entitled to be consulted about the adoption of his child. If you are concerned that your partner or former partner intends placing your child for adoption without letting you know, you can ask the Adoption Authority to notify you by recording your details on the Birth Father Register. You can do this even before your child is born, if necessary. This register is checked against all applications for adoption.

Assessment

Applicants being considered for adoption will undergo a detailed assessment. The assessment is carried out by an adoption society or Child and Family Agency social worker. It includes a number of interviews and home visits. Where the application is in respect of a married couple, there will be both individual and joint interviews.

The social worker will discuss such areas as previous and/or current relationships, motives for adopting, expectations of the child and the ability to help a child to develop his/her knowledge and understanding of his/her natural background. All applicants are required to undergo a medical examination.

The social worker then prepares a report which goes before the local adoption committee and a recommendation is made.

Declaration of eligibility and suitability

Your application for assessment, the report and the local adoption committee’s recommendations are sent to the Adoption Authority. If all documents are in place and correct, and the recommendations are positive, the Adoption Authority will grant a declaration of eligibility and suitability.

The declaration is granted for a period of 2 years from the date it is issued. It may include in it a statement relating to the age or state of health of a child whom you are considered suited to parent – this is based on information provided in the assessment report..

Adoption order

The period of time between the granting of the declaration of eligibility and suitability to the making of an adoption order differs from one case to another depending on the type of adoption application being made and the particular circumstances of the applicants and the child.

In the case of a step-parent adoption where the child is in situ, it is expected that the application for the adoption order will progress during the lifespan of the declaration of eligibility and suitability. Where it is a domestic infant adoption, there is no guarantee that a couple will be matched with a child during the lifetime of the declaration. Before making an adoption order the Adoption Authority must be satisfied that the child is eligible to be adopted.

You can find information on the issues that may arise after the declaration is issued on the Authority’s website.

Adoption hearing

When the adoption order is finally being made, you will go before the Board of the Adoption Authority with the child and give sworn evidence as to your identity and eligibility. You will have previously completed a form indicating the name that you want on the adoption order for the child. This can be changed at the adoption hearing but it is preferable for this to have been agreed on before the date of the hearing.

Find out more about the adoption hearing here.

Adoption certificate

At the adoption hearing, you will be given information on how to go about getting a new birth certificate for the child. The new birth certificate (adoption certificate) will normally be available through the Registrar General's Office within 4 weeks. Although it is not an actual birth certificate, it has the status of one for legal purposes. It gives the date of the adoption order and the names and addresses of the adoptive parents and is similar in all aspects to a birth certificate.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/birth_family_relationships/adoption_and_fostering/adopting_a_child.html

volchitsa

volchitsa wrote: »

Have you actually read the testimony by Boylan and the report by Arulkumaran?

Antibiotic treatment without an abortion would not have been enough.

She needed ultra wide spectrum antibiotics that are not given to pregnant women, for one thing, and anyway, as I said, without a D&E the source of the infection would remain.

And I do know the difference between an antibiotic and an abortion. :roll:
Nor did I say they had to wait until it was completed before starting stronger antibiotics than she got, just that waiting around for days repeatedly checking on the fetal heartbeat was not a treatment at all - and she needed urgent treatment.

This has all been discussed at the time, I suggest you read it up rather than ask me to go back over it correcting your mistakes.

What treatment exactly, do you think Savita Halapannavar needed that would have saved her?

Prophylactic antibiotic regime starting when she first fell ill. It's that simple. The sepsis wouldn't have taken hold then.

Also should have been treated iv rather than oral. I'm not aware what sensitivities the ladies bloods showed. Patient should have received antibiotics to treat the septicaemia immediately ultra wide spectrum or not.

The treatment she received was appalling to be honest. It wasn't an antiquated abortion law that killed this patient but inappropriate clinical decisions.

obplayer

obplayer wrote: »

Dr Peter Boylan, former Master of the National Maternity Hospital in Dublin, disagrees.

A leading obstetrician claimed the inability to end Savita Halappanavar's pregnancy until there was a substantial and real risk of her death ultimately cost the 31-year-old her life. Peter Boylan revealed that by the time she was sick enough to justify an abortion on the morning of Wednesday October 24 last year, she was already suffering from sepsis blood infection.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news...-29201735.html

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-22185690


Halapannavar’s husband maintains that her death could have been prevented if hospital officials had intervened earlier to terminate her non-viable fetus. Now, after a two-week review of the coroner’s report, that position has been confirmed by an Irish jury

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013...abortion-care/

SAVITA Halappanavar would most likely have lived had she received a termination within two days of her admission to Galway Hospital.

http://www.herald.ie/news/courts/abo...-29205695.html

Perhaps you should contact him and tell him how your qualifications are superior to his.

I don't disagree with any thing that he said. The poster I quoted said that the abortion would cure the septicaemia. I just pointed out that this wasn't true. Also, the fact that Savita was an Indian national led her to obtaining this antibiotic resistance due to the endemic use of antibiotic there.

If I had been the pharmacist on the ward that day, I would have made sure she had been treated prophylactically as per local guidelines which would have had a more favourable outcome.

obplayer

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't disagree with any thing that he said. The poster I quoted said that the abortion would cure the septicaemia. I just pointed out that this wasn't true. Also, the fact that Savita was an Indian national led her to obtaining this antibiotic resistance due to the endemic use of antibiotic there.

If I had been the pharmacist on the ward that day, I would have made sure she had been treated prophylactically as per local guidelines which would have had a more favourable outcome.

What part of this

Peter Boylan revealed that by the time she was sick enough to justify an
abortion on the morning of Wednesday October 24 last year, she was already
suffering from sepsis blood infection

do you disagree with? This expert is stating that an earlier abortion would have saved her life. Please tell us your qualifications for disagreeing with him.

volchitsa

Deleted User wrote: »

Prophylactic antibiotic regime starting when she first fell ill. It's that simple. The sepsis wouldn't have taken hold then.

Also should have been treated iv rather than oral. I'm not aware what sensitivities the ladies bloods showed. Patient should have received antibiotics to treat the septicaemia immediately ultra wide spectrum or not.

The treatment she received was appalling to be honest. It wasn't an antiquated abortion law that killed this patient but inappropriate clinical decisions.

No it really is not "that simple". Do you claim that no abortion was needed at all, and that antibiotics would have been enough on their own?

If so, you are talking nonsense. She needed a termination, and well before she was clinically ill enough to be at risk of dying. It was already too late by then. Extra tests would almost certainly not have made enough difference to the speed with which the decision to abort was made, according to Boylan. Do you know better than him?

volchitsa

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't disagree with any thing that he said. The poster I quoted said that the abortion would cure the septicaemia. I just pointed out that this wasn't true. Also, the fact that Savita was an Indian national led her to obtaining this antibiotic resistance due to the endemic use of antibiotic there.

If I had been the pharmacist on the ward that day, I would have made sure she had been treated prophylactically as per local guidelines which would have had a more favourable outcome.

You either misunderstand or misrepresent what I am saying. It was an essential part of the treatment she needed. I never said it was enough on its own.

Do you think that an abortion could actually have been avoided altogether?

Frito

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's not quite that simple

I would imagine that the outcome of any petition regarding parity of both parents in adoption would result in birth fathers having their status legally acknowledged, ie their consent required for the adoption process rather than their ability to hand the child over to the state with only consultation offered to the mother. In effect, birth fathers become responsible rather than abdicate responsibility, so perhaps not quite the equality under law initially sought.

It's the difficulty that emerges when trying to compare abortion rights with parental rights (or abdication thereof). In the first instance there is no child to support, in the second instance there is. The child is entitled to financial support from both parents, regardless of which parent it lives with. So a mother may make a claim on behalf of the child to the father and vice versa.

It's a tricky one, I'm not sure paternal/paper abortion/adoption can be achieved easily. It would be unlike abortion or adoption, and a similar provision would be then be needed for women, ie for women to 'paper abort' a child by handing it to the father and bearing no legal responsibility (I doubt this is already the case but open to correction).

One eyed Jack

Frito wrote: »

I would imagine that the outcome of any petition regarding parity of both parents in adoption would result in birth fathers having their status legally acknowledged, ie their consent required for the adoption process rather than their ability to hand the child over to the state with only consultation offered to the mother. In effect, birth fathers become responsible rather than abdicate responsibility, so perhaps not quite the equality under law initially sought.

These are exactly what's being proposed in the Children and Family Relationships Bill 2014. As it stands at the moment, only the mother has automatic guardianship of the child, the father doesn't, and what this new bill proposes is that both parents will have automatic guardianship. It still doesn't mean that either the father or the mother will be automatically entitled to apply to give up the child for adoption regardless of the other parents wishes, as was suggested by some posters earlier.

It's the difficulty that emerges when trying to compare abortion rights with parental rights (or abdication thereof). In the first instance there is no child to support, in the second instance there is. The child is entitled to financial support from both parents, regardless of which parent it lives with. So a mother may make a claim on behalf of the child to the father and vice versa.

That's why the whole 'paper abortion' concept is a ridiculous comparison to abortion, because neither parent has that right on their own, whereas in terms of an abortion, then neither party has any obligation to a child that doesn't exist.

It's why advocates of 'paper abortions for men' tie themselves up in knots trying to argue that a man should be allowed to abdicate his responsibility towards a child he doesn't want, while at the same time trying to maintain that this is a father's rights issue!

It's a bit like saying "Well she wanted to have the child, I didn't, so now I have no responsibility for that child". Their attitude doesn't negate the fact that a child now exists, and they have a duty towards that child. They can hardly argue father's rights while ignoring father's responsibilities.

It's a tricky one, I'm not sure paternal/paper abortion/adoption can be achieved easily. It would be unlike abortion or adoption, and a similar provision would be then be needed for women, ie for women to 'paper abort' a child by handing it to the father and bearing no legal responsibility (I doubt this is already the case but open to correction).

It's never going to happen in reality, when most legal systems are based around acting in the best interests of the child, and not in the best interests of parents that want to abdicate their responsibilities towards that child.

The whole 'paper abortion for men' is nothing more than a poorly thought out specious strawman that always gets thrown in with abortion, that actually bears no similarity to abortion whatsoever, and is merely a poor attempt at so-called 'gender equality' for men.

Squeedily Spooch

Earl Turner wrote: »

Will surely be a very distant thought when you are holding your child for the first time.

Do you think women's bodies just snap back into a pre-pregnancy state once the baby comes out? Incontinence, tearing, bowel problems, bleeding, stretch marks, then postnatal depression on the mental side of things to name but a few common problems from pregnancy. It's not all sunshine and rainbows during or after giving birth. A woman's body is changed forever.

JupiterKid

I can't believe the number of ferverent so called "pro-lifers" on this thread. Surely this country should have learned something after the X case, the C case and the unnecessary death of Savita Halapannavar?

Abortion wouldn't exist in an ideal world. But we don't live in an ideal world and in the case of rape or risk to a woman's health abortion is a no-brainer. To make a woman continue with a pregnancy when in those circumstances or if the fetus is non-viable is simply barbaric.

I believe in a woman's right to choose.

In the case of this particular train protest, I think it was rather irresponsible of Ms Coppinger and others to ingest the pills when they really must be administered under strict medical supervision. But I do see the point of the protest.

RobertKK

JupiterKid wrote: »

I can't believe the number of ferverent so called "pro-lifers" on this thread. Surely this country should have learned something after the X case, the C case and the unnecessary death of Savita Halapannavar?

Abortion wouldn't exist in an ideal world. But we don't live in an ideal world and in the case of rape or risk to a woman's health abortion is a no-brainer. To make a woman continue with a pregnancy when in those circumstances or if the fetus is non-viable is simply barbaric.

I believe in a woman's right to choose.

In the case of this particular train protest, I think it was rather irresponsible of Ms Coppinger and others to ingest the pills when they really must be administered under strict medical supervision. But I do see the point of the protest.

X case - abortion not a treatment for a mental illness.
C case - woman didn't want an abortion, she wanted her baby adopted but had her unborn killed against her will.
Savita Halappanavar - poor treatment by hospital staff, lack of treatment and lack of treatment that was allowed, incompetence. Findings showed the legislation brought in by the government as wanted by pro-choice people would not have saved Savita.

Grayson

Deleted User wrote: »

The reason that she died is that she wasn't treated with antibiotic prophylactics when she was first diagnosed on admission. This was a failing of doctors and pharmacists in the hospital. Your analogy has a flaw(actually, a few). You seem to think that an abortion can cure a bacterial infection. An abortion isn't an antibiotic. You also wouldn't wait till the abortion is over to start antibiotics.

have you read the HIQA report? there were over 20 points of failure in her treatment. Each one, if it had not of occurred, probably would have resulted in her survival.

At the time she was admitted if she had received correct treatment there's a good chance that she might have survived.
However that didn't happen and at the time she asked for a termination (or even beforehand), if she had of received one, she probably would have survived. You can say that's not the case and that the original reason was the lack of antibiotics etc but if that's the case and you want to regress, lets just say it's her own fault for getting pregnant in Ireland, a country that gives substandard care to women and has dark age reproductive laws.

The treatment Savita received was horrendous. She was given substandard care and died because of it. It's not the the first time it's occurred. The HIQA report detailed other occasions and detailed the recommendations they'd made at the time of these previous incidents. Recommendations which had not then and still aren't implemented. Women have died and will continue to die because of this.

And what's just as bad are all the pro life idiots who are able to revise history to suite their narrative. "An abortion wouldn't have saved her" Really, well both her and the foetus died so I guess we'll never know if that's the truth. Unless of course we loot at other situations in other countries where an abortion in similar occasions did save a womans live. And we could listen to the overwhelmingly vast majority of doctors who agree.