Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

Nodin

Unfortunately what you think would be right and what the law is may well conflict. We shall see, though given the states tendency to fight to the last breath, that may be years down the road.

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

You'd expect, wouldn't you?
Remember all that fuss at the time about whether she'd had a termination of pregnancy or not, as per the act? The Act doesn't actually say the word abortion, but otoh, it doesn't say termination either. IIRC it says a medical procedure (ending in) the death of the baby. Which is not what happened.
So I'd say the HSE are quite likely hoist on their own petard there. But they are so brazen about rigging investigations that it's hard to be sure there won't be some carpet around to sweep it all under all the same.

Wasn't the fuss because people like yourself felt the Act required that she be given an abortion if she was suicidal, and created a fuss on discovering this was not in fact the case? A further correction to your point of view would be that the Act doesn't require that the termination of the pregnancy result in the death of the baby; only that it may. Odd that anyone would think it malpractice not to cause the death of a baby, but I suppose it takes all sorts.

volchitsa wrote: »

That seems to be about the height of it, doesn't it? Again, a problem of their own making that's swung round and hit them square in the face, because she had to be mentally competent for her "consent" for the C-section to have any value. So they can't also claim that she was on hunger/thirst strike because the balance of her mind was disturbed (the usual justification for force feeding anorexics for example).

So... if her being suicidal was a response to the care she received from the HSE, it wasn't due to her being pregnant, so she shouldn't have been given a termination? Interesting point of view.

volchitsa wrote: »

But then, anorexics don't actually want to die, they just don't believe they will. Whereas Miss Y did, or at least, had chosen death as preferable to remaining pregnant. Which IMO is a valid choice in the circumstances. I don't see how they have a leg to stand on, to be perfectly frank.

It was also her preference to allowing her child to remain alive remember; she went on hunger strike rather than have a c section, if the timeline is to be believed. I have a sneaking suspicion that any factual analysis of events will find that the HSE could have had better communication links with the various bodies involved at the time, but acted correctly on the information available and in accordance with the law.

Dan_Solo

Absolam wrote: »

So... if her being suicidal was a response to the care she received from the HSE, it wasn't due to her being pregnant, so she shouldn't have been given a termination? Interesting point of view.

Where do you get this stuff from? So if you're given aspirin for lung cancer that's the cancer's fault so it isn't malpractice? Er, sure.

Absolam

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Where do you get this stuff from? So if you're given aspirin for lung cancer that's the cancer's fault so it isn't malpractice? Er, sure.

I got it from Volchitsa. Ask her?

Dan_Solo

Absolam wrote: »

I got it from Volchitsa. Ask her?

She was made suicidal by the pregnancy. She continued to be suicidal as the HSE refused to treat her or follow Irish law.

robdonn

Absolam wrote: »

I got it from Volchitsa. Ask her?

But that is not what Volchitsa said, she referred to a conflicting account of Miss Y's level of mental competency.

According to her post, the doctors:

a) Saw her as mentally competent enough to give consent to having a C-section

and, contradictorily,

b) Saw her as mentally incompetent enough to force-feed her fluids.

I didn't see her mention the cause of her state of mind in the paragraph that you quoted, or in the full post that you linked to.

MrPudding

Absolam wrote: »

Aren't the organisations already a matter of public record? As for people... perhaps it would be prudent to see if there's any evidence of wrongdoing by anyone before they're subjected to a witch hunt?

I expect the organisation are, yes. As for people, not sure what your point is here. Are you suggesting that the way in which court proceeding are taken should be changed? Should the names of defendants be kept secret unless they are found guilty?

Dan_Solo wrote: »

She was diagnosed as suicidal but not mentally impaired? That's admitting that being suicidal is an appropriate response to the "care" she received from the HSE!

I may have missed something... I thought she was suicidal because she was carrying the child/embryo/foetus/clump of cells of one of her rapists? Was that not the underlying cause of her suicidal ideation? Clearly her care will have had an impact, but only insofar as it was preventing her from getting rid of the thing causing her to be suicidal.

Also, I think it is perfectly reasonable to be suicidal but not mentally impaired, in certain circumstances. When one is looking at down the barrel of a horrific and painful death, for example, suicide may well be the reasonable course of action, accepting untold suffering as acceptable would seem to me to be an indication of mental impairment.

MrP

Absolam

Dan_Solo wrote: »

She was made suicidal by the pregnancy. She continued to be suicidal as the HSE refused to treat her or follow Irish law.

So you're saying her being suicidal wasn't a response to the "care" she received from the HSE? It was caused by something else? That was a quick turnaround.

Dan_Solo

Absolam wrote: »

So you're saying her being suicidal wasn't a response to the "care" she received from the HSE? It was caused by something else? That was a quick turnaround.

I see you don't want to address that she continued to be suicidal due to HSE malpractice. So yes, the HSE did cause her to be suicidal as they refused her the treatment she was legally entitled to. Again, that's like blaming the cancer if the HSE gives you aspirins.

Absolam

MrPudding wrote: »

I expect the organisation are, yes. As for people, not sure what your point is here. Are you suggesting that the way in which court proceeding are taken should be changed? Should the names of defendants be kept secret unless they are found guilty?

You seem to have skipped the court proceedings between my presenting of evidence and the arrival of a verdict, but no I'm not; I'm suggesting that any naming of individuals involved before it's determined that there is sufficient evidence for court proceedings would be unjust, prejudicial, and potentially place such people in danger from less civilised activists.

eviltwin

If she was feeling suicidal over the pregnancy the treatment she got from the authorities probably made her even more distressed. It's not that hard to understand.

Absolam

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I see you don't want to address that she continued to be suicidal due to HSE malpractice. So yes, the HSE did cause her to be suicidal as they refused her the treatment she was legally entitled to. Again, that's like blaming the cancer if the HSE gives you aspirins.

So if there was no HSE malpractice (and there's been no evidence so far that there was) would she not have continued to be suicidal?

MrPudding

Absolam wrote: »

You seem to have skipped the court proceedings between my presenting of evidence and the arrival of a verdict,

??? How and where?

Absolam wrote: »

but no I'm not;

OK.

Absolam wrote: »

I'm suggesting that any naming of individuals involved before it's determined that there is sufficient evidence for court proceedings would be unjust, prejudicial, and potentially place such people in danger from less civilised activists.

Um, so you are saying the way in which court proceedings are taken should be changed? I thought you weren't?

MrP

Absolam

MrPudding wrote: »

??? How and where?

I said " it would be prudent to see if there's any evidence of wrongdoing"
You said "Should the names of defendants be kept secret unless they are found guilty"
between finding evidence and producing a verdict there is (usually) a court proceeding.

MrPudding wrote: »

Um, so you are saying the way in which court proceedings are taken should be changed? I thought you weren't?

Correct, I'm not; court proceedings don't usually name people until the legal process commences. Naming people before evidence has been gathered to determine those court proceedings should even occur would be unjust, prejudicial, and potentially place such people in danger from less civilised activists.

Absolam

robdonn wrote: »

But that is not what Volchitsa said, she referred to a conflicting account of Miss Y's level of mental competency.
According to her post, the doctors:
a) Saw her as mentally competent enough to give consent to having a C-section
and, contradictorily,
b) Saw her as mentally incompetent enough to force-feed her fluids.
I didn't see her mention the cause of her state of mind in the paragraph that you quoted, or in the full post that you linked to.

"Quote:
Not sure how this works. She was diagnosed as suicidal but not mentally impaired? That's admitting that being suicidal is an appropriate response to the "care" she received from the HSE!
That seems to be about the height of it, doesn't it?"
That's the part of Volchitsas post I responded to.

robdonn

Absolam wrote: »

"Quote:
Not sure how this works. She was diagnosed as suicidal but not mentally impaired? That's admitting that being suicidal is an appropriate response to the "care" she received from the HSE!
That seems to be about the height of it, doesn't it?"
That's the part of Volchitsas post I responded to.

Ah, I see. The first part of that quote is itself a quote of Dan_Solo:

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Not sure how this works. She was diagnosed as suicidal but not mentally impaired? That's admitting that being suicidal is an appropriate response to the "care" she received from the HSE!

She didn't mention the cause of Miss Y's mental state in her post, and the content of her reply seemed more like it was commenting on the "She was diagnosed as suicidal but not mentally impaired?" bit.

Edit:
I should point out that I'm not trying to counter your argument about the whole "HSE made her suicidal" thing, just that I don't think Volchitsa was commenting on that part of Dan_Solo's post.

MrPudding

Absolam wrote: »

I said " it would be prudent to see if there's any evidence of wrongdoing"
You said "Should the names of defendants be kept secret unless they are found guilty"
between finding evidence and producing a verdict there is (usually) a court proceeding.

Hmmm. Lazygal asked if the people or organisations involved in her care would be named, and this seemed to me to be in response to the posts talking about the (potentially) upcoming proceedings to be issued by the woman. My comment was in relation to any proceeding that might happen as a result. For the avoidance of doubt, if she issued proceeding against organisations or people then those organisations or people would be detailed on the court papers and be a matter of public record. I still don't see how you have gone from what I said to a presumption of guilt on my part. Neither lazygal nor myself mentioned anything about guilt.

Absolam wrote: »

Correct, I'm not; court proceedings don't usually name people until the legal process commences.

But issuing a personal injury claim would be the commencement of the legal process, and those named in that personal injury claim would be a matter of public record.

Absolam wrote: »

Naming people before evidence has been gathered to determine those court proceedings should even occur would be unjust, prejudicial, and potentially place such people in danger from less civilised activists.

Surely it is up to the person that wants to issue a personal injury claim, and his or her legal advisors, if court proceeding should occur? Who are you suggesting should gather the evidence and decide if court proceedings should occur? Initially they will lodge papers with the court, which would for part of the public record. What you have said here does not tally with your claim that you don't want anything to change. If a person want to sue someone for personal injury as it currently stands they need to name that person when they issue proceedings, otherwise how do we know who is getting sued. You seem to be saying that naming someone is unjust and prejudicial, which seems a little silly, and is also inconsistent with saying you don't want anything to change.

If this is simply another one of your boring, timewasting pedant trips then please tell me know so I can disengage now before wasting any more of my time.

I think it was pretty clear what I was responding to, what my response meant and that I was not presuming anyone was guilty of anything.

MrP

robindch

Haven't traced this story back to an original source for verification, but if true as described, it certainly seems to be an appalling abuse of legal power:

Woman in El Salvador Sentenced To 30 Years For Having A Miscarriage

http://churchandstate.org.uk/2015/01/conservative-dream-come-true-woman-sentenced-to-30-years-behind-bars-for-having-a-miscarriage/

Absolam

MrPudding wrote: »

Hmmm. Lazygal asked if the people or organisations involved in her care would be named, and this seemed to me to be in response to the posts talking about the (potentially) upcoming proceedings to be issued by the woman.

I think you're right, it was in response to those. But she didn't ask if the people or organisations Miss Y was taking a case against would be named (which would be a rather redundant question anyway, since Nodin said "Ms Y <...> will issue personal injury proceeding against 11 named respondents"; so we knew those involved in the proceedings would be named), she asked if those involved in Miss Ys care would be named.

MrPudding wrote: »

My comment was in relation to any proceeding that might happen as a result. For the avoidance of doubt, if she issued proceeding against organisations or people then those organisations or people would be detailed on the court papers and be a matter of public record.

Well yes; the named respondents will be named. However, those involved in her care, not necessarily being named respondents, ought not to be, for the reasons I gave.

MrPudding wrote: »

I still don't see how you have gone from what I said to a presumption of guilt on my part. Neither lazygal nor myself mentioned anything about guilt.

I never mentioned anything about a presumption of guilt, that's your own insertion. I said "you seem to have skipped the court proceedings between my presenting of evidence and the arrival of a verdict". Though it's fair to say you did mention guilt; you said "Should the names of defendants be kept secret unless they are found guilty?"

MrPudding wrote: »

But issuing a personal injury claim would be the commencement of the legal process, and those named in that personal injury claim would be a matter of public record.

Indeed it would and as I said, any naming of individuals involved before it's determined that there is sufficient evidence for court proceedings would be unjust, prejudicial, and potentially place such people in danger from less civilised activists.

MrPudding wrote: »

Surely it is up to the person that wants to issue a personal injury claim, and his or her legal advisors, if court proceeding should occur? Who are you suggesting should gather the evidence and decide if court proceedings should occur? Initially they will lodge papers with the court, which would for part of the public record.

You don't think they'd gather evidence before they lodge any claims with the court? Whether proceedings should occur is up to the Court, but I never said that they shouldn't, only that people involved ought not to be named before the evidence for the proceedings is even gathered; that would be unjust, prejudicial, and potentially place such people in danger from less civilised activists.

MrPudding wrote: »

What you have said here does not tally with your claim that you don't want anything to change. If a person want to sue someone for personal injury as it currently stands they need to name that person when they issue proceedings, otherwise how do we know who is getting sued. You seem to be saying that naming someone is unjust and prejudicial, which seems a little silly, and is also inconsistent with saying you don't want anything to change.

Not at all; I'm not looking to change anything. As I said at the beginning, it would be prudent to see if there's any evidence of wrongdoing by anyone before they're subjected to a witch hunt.

MrPudding wrote: »

If this is simply another one of your boring, timewasting pedant trips then please tell me know so I can disengage now before wasting any more of my time.

With all due respect, you're the one who replied to my post, and extrapolated notions from it. If you think I'm wasting your time pedantically pointing that out, no one is stopping you disengaging.

MrPudding wrote: »

I think it was pretty clear what I was responding to, what my response meant and that I was not presuming anyone was guilty of anything.

It is; you responded to my post about witch hunts with an extrapolation about court proceedings. You skipped from not naming people before evidence is gathered to asking should the names of defendants be kept secret unless they are found guilty, claimed you never mentioned guilt, then imagined I said you made a presumption of guilt. Fair summary?

Absolam

robdonn wrote: »

Ah, I see. The first part of that quote is itself a quote of Dan_Solo:

It is indeed, which is why I think Dan_Solo elected to weigh in on my reply.

robdonn wrote: »

She didn't mention the cause of Miss Y's mental state in her post, and the content of her reply seemed more like it was commenting on the "She was diagnosed as suicidal but not mentally impaired?" bit.

'That seems to be about the height of it, doesn't it?' appears to me to jibe more with Dan_Solos statement rather than his question, but I take your point; she could have been more specific about what she was replying to and it could be either or.

MrPudding

Absolam wrote: »

I think you're right, it was in response to those. But she didn't ask if the people or organisations Miss Y was taking a case against would be named (which would be a rather redundant question anyway, since Nodin said "Ms Y <...> will issue personal injury proceeding against 11 named respondents"; so we knew those involved in the proceedings would be named), she asked if those involved in Miss Ys care would be named.

Well yes; the named respondents will be named. However, those involved in her care, not necessarily being named respondents, ought not to be, for the reasons I gave.

I never mentioned anything about a presumption of guilt, that's your own insertion. I said "you seem to have skipped the court proceedings between my presenting of evidence and the arrival of a verdict". Though it's fair to say you did mention guilt; you said "Should the names of defendants be kept secret unless they are found guilty?"
Indeed it would and as I said, any naming of individuals involved before it's determined that there is sufficient evidence for court proceedings would be unjust, prejudicial, and potentially place such people in danger from less civilised activists.

You don't think they'd gather evidence before they lodge any claims with the court? Whether proceedings should occur is up to the Court, but I never said that they shouldn't, only that people involved ought not to be named before the evidence for the proceedings is even gathered; that would be unjust, prejudicial, and potentially place such people in danger from less civilised activists.
Not at all; I'm not looking to change anything. As I said at the beginning, it would be prudent to see if there's any evidence of wrongdoing by anyone before they're subjected to a witch hunt.

With all due respect, you're the one who replied to my post, and extrapolated notions from it. If you think I'm wasting your time pedantically pointing that out, no one is stopping you disengaging.
It is; you responded to my post about witch hunts with an extrapolation about court proceedings. You skipped from not naming people before evidence is gathered to asking should the names of defendants be kept secret unless they are found guilty, claimed you never mentioned guilt, then imagined I said you made a presumption of guilt. Fair summary?

All you had to say was "yes it is" to my last question.

MrP

Absolam

MrPudding wrote: »

All you had to say was "yes it is" to my last question.

But to do so would leave my reply open to boring, timewasting, pedantic misinterpretation. And none of us want that, do we?

Cabaal

I'm betting the church are worried, if farmers who represent the biggest rural mass going group want change then the church's out of date views are not getting through to one of their largest demographics

MrPudding

Cabaal wrote: »

I'm betting the church are worried, if farmers who represent the biggest rural mass going group want change then the church's out of date views are not getting through to one of their largest demographics

Any chance you could find a bigger picture? I have a little bit of my second monitor that isn't being used.

MrP

robdonn

It does make it a little awkward when trying to sneakily check out Boards in work... :P

The Black Oil

What's the main Planned Parenthood video I should be checking out? I searched the other day and wasn't sure, there were links to pro-life sites suggesting 17 hours of footage?!

volchitsa

robdonn wrote: »

Ah, I see. The first part of that quote is itself a quote of Dan_Solo:

She didn't mention the cause of Miss Y's mental state in her post, and the content of her reply seemed more like it was commenting on the "She was diagnosed as suicidal but not mentally impaired?" bit.

Yes exactly, Robdonn.

My point was simply that it is nonsensical to claim, as the HSE are effectively doing when they defend their actions, that Miss Y was both sufficiently mentally competent to give consent for the C-section, and that sedating her in order to forcibly hydrate her would be a possible alternative course of action if she refused to give that consent.

They just can't have it both ways : a court can legally order that someone be force fed (or hydrated) if the balance of their mind is disturbed so that they appear not to understand the consequences of not eating, or drinking, ie death. But such a person can't possibly also give informed consent to surgery, that makes no sense at all.

So if, as has been suggested, Miss Y was presented with a "choice" between major surgery and being forcibly hydrated for days or weeks, that is not something that any democratic legal system based on individual rights can possibly condone. That circle cannot be squared.

I suspect that what will happen is that Miss Y will at some point be offered pretty much whatever it takes for her to drop her case. Because I can't see how the HSE can mount any real legal defence, due entirely to the fact that either way they have undermined their own legal "logic".

I didn't comment on the cause of her suicide ideation either way. I didn't see Absalom's original post about this, but if he has an issue with what was said, he needs to take it up with the poster who made the comment.

Dan_Solo

volchitsa wrote: »

They just can't have it both ways : a court can legally order that someone be force fed (or hydrated) if the balance of their mind is disturbed so that they appear not to understand the consequences of not eating, or drinking, ie death. But such a person can't possibly also give informed consent to surgery, that makes no sense at all.

While I agree with all of this, I don't think the court order was ever granted? Does this then come down to malpractice that the HSE were even applying?

volchitsa

Dan_Solo wrote: »

While I agree with all of this, I don't think the court order was ever granted? Does this then come down to malpractice that the HSE were even applying?

I presume it would be malpractice for a doctor to obtain what is supposed to be voluntary informed "consent" - especially consent for physical mutilation which is not medically required by the patient herself by threatening her with physical restraint and forced hydration/feeding if she doesn't obey.

And illegally obtained consent (ie invalid consent) very probably means the medically unnecessary surgery itself then becomes some form of GBH/assault.

Had the court order been granted and carried out, that would have opened up another can of worms altogether, possibly leading to the Irish Justice system itself being condemned - again - at the ECHR, but this time for the sort of physical abuse and mental torture that only countries such as China or Iran tend to use. However the MoH had a little more wit than that.

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

My point was simply that it is nonsensical to claim, as the HSE are effectively doing when they defend their actions, that Miss Y was both sufficiently mentally competent to give consent for the C-section, and that sedating her in order to forcibly hydrate her would be a possible alternative course of action if she refused to give that consent.

There is however a world of difference between what someone might imagine the HES are effectively doing, and what they are doing though. For instance, the HSE has given no indication whatsoever that the above is even an approximate rendition of what occured, has it?

volchitsa wrote: »

They just can't have it both ways : a court can legally order that someone be force fed (or hydrated) if the balance of their mind is disturbed so that they appear not to understand the consequences of not eating, or drinking, ie death. But such a person can't possibly also give informed consent to surgery, that makes no sense at all.

They can't have it both ways? As far as I can see it's only one way; both actions were taken with a view to saving Miss Ys life. The Court ruled that Miss Y lacked the capacity to make a decision about her life and allowed the hospital to make that decision (if it became neccasary, though it didn't) on her behalf. But the three required doctors were already empowered by legislation to decide to terminate her pregnancy if doing so would save her life; and Miss Y had consented to that termination on Monday 28th. She went back on hunger strike when she was told the termination would be delayed; resulting in the HSE legal team seeking permission to sedate and hydrate her on the 2nd. If she intended to revoke her consent to the termination, surely she would have stopped protesting against not receiving it and there would have been no need to obtain the Court order?
If we look at the facts according to the timeline, that all seems pretty clear:
Tuesday 22nd: Ms Y attends new GP and tells him “she did not wish to go ahead with her pregnancy and that she would rather be dead”. GP believes she needs a psychiatric assessment; she is assessed by a consultant psychiatrist that evening and is admitted as a voluntary inpatient. A presenting symptom "determined to end her life rather than have baby”.
Wednesday 23rd Assessed by consultant psychiatrist 1. On being told it is too late for an abortion she stated that she was going to commit suicide and that she had a plan. Psychiatrist 1 tells her she will need to see an obstetrician. Ms Y continued to state that the only way she could be helped was by carrying out a termination . . . and if this did not happen she would kill herself.” She refuses offers of help from mental health services and “stated she would not stay in hospital and that she would go home to ‘end it’ ”. Psychiatrist 1 tells her if she attempts this she will have to be detained under mental health legislation. “There was no evidence of psychosis.” Ms Y’s conversation is “very fixed . . . There was evidence of suicidal intent.” Ms Y is transferred to a maternity hospital, she is aware she will be detained under mental health legislation if she tries to leave, so she agrees to stay.
She is seen by a consultant obstetrician who tells her the baby is viable. She tells of her “plan to kill herself if the pregnancy continued”.
Thursday 24thMs Y refuses her supper at 7.30pm and refuses fluids, telling staff she “just wanted to die”.
Friday 25th Consultant psychiatrist 1 assesses Ms Y. Clinical impression document says she is detainable under the Mental Health Act. Ms Y continues to refuse food and fluids.
Consultant obstetrician X states: “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.”
Saturday 26th Ms Y continues to refuse fluids.
Sunday 27th Liaison psychiatric team and consultant obstetrician decide there are insufficient grounds for early delivery. Ms Y continues to refuse food and fluids.
Monday 28th 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. 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”. A plan to deliver the baby early, on Monday, August 3rd, is made. Ms Y is told. She agrees to eat and drink.
Tuesday 29th Ms Y is assessed by consultant psychiatrist 3, who believes “if the pregnancy went to term that Ms Y presented as a major suicide risk” and the plan to deliver early was “entirely appropriate”.
Thursday 31st
Ms Y is visited by hospital’s clinical director and consultant obstetrician X. She is told the hospital is seeking legal advice and that “this might result in changes to the plan”. Ms Y becomes very distressed and refuses food and fluids and does not communicate with staff.
It should be noted the HSE clarified that the advice sought was as to the legal position of a termination under the new Act, and the advice was sought by the hospital legal team, not Miss Ys doctors.
Friday 1stMs Y continues to refuse food and fluids. Consultant psychiatrist 2 says Ms Y is at “ongoing risk of suicide and she was likely to be at increased risk if she was told that delivery was not going to take place as planned”.
Saturday 2nd The HSE applies to the High Court for permission to sedate Ms Y and rehydrate her.
Sunday 3rd
Ms Y is reviewed by obstetrician X and later by consultant psychiatrist 2. She is eating little. She becomes distressed when told the Caesarean section will not take place on Monday as planned, due to legal proceedings. “Ms Y remained adamant she would kill herself if the plan put in place the previous week did not proceed on Monday.” Her solicitor visits but Ms Y does not engage. She refuses food and fluids after 5pm.
Tuesday 5th
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.

volchitsa wrote: »

So if, as has been suggested, Miss Y was presented with a "choice" between major surgery and being forcibly hydrated for days or weeks, that is not something that any democratic legal system based on individual rights can possibly condone. That circle cannot be squared.

So there's no evidence in the above that Miss Y actually was presented with a "choice" between major surgery and being forcibly hydrated for days or weeks. Miss Y went on hunger strike when told her pregnancy would be terminated by a live delivery rather than the death of her child, and having become reconciled to that fact, went on hunger strike again when told that delivery would be delayed.

volchitsa wrote: »

I suspect that what will happen is that Miss Y will at some point be offered pretty much whatever it takes for her to drop her case. Because I can't see how the HSE can mount any real legal defence, due entirely to the fact that either way they have undermined their own legal "logic".

Well there are 11 named respondents in the action she has taken; the HSE, the IFPA, Spirasi, the Reception and Integration Agency, the Minister for Justice, the Attorney- General, the psychiatric hospital where she was assessed, the hospital where her baby was delivered, a doctor, and Ireland just for good measure. Her solicitor is casting quite a wide net, and I don't think a single one of those respondents will say they offered the legal 'logic' you offered on their behalf, never mind undermined it.