Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

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.

There's a lot of leeway when it comes to what constitutes informed consent in Ireland, but I think trying to claim consenting to a c section is consenting to physical mutilation is fairly extravagant; you may claim she consented to physical mutilation (and therefore every other woman who ever consented to a c section), the hospital will certainly say she consented to a termination of her pregnancy. Nor was she threatened with physical restraint and forced hydration/feeding if she didn't 'obey'; a doctor is supposed to give a patient all information material to their decision before they decide which option to choose, and to make the patient aware of any potential harm that may come from delay, without pressurising them into making a decision.
The doctors in this case did make it clear that since the baby was viable, her options were termination by C section, or proceed to term, and she obviously chose termination. We're all aware it's not the kind of termination she would have preferred, but she wasn't (according to the timeline) threatened with physical restraint or forced hydration/feeding if she didn't 'obey'; the obstetrician explained the implications of her refusal to eat and drink, including cardiac arrest, renal failure and uraemia and said she would be medically unfit to undergo delivery of the baby and that staff might have to apply to the courts if she did not resume eating and drinking.
That sounds very like making her aware of potential harm that might come from delay to me.

volchitsa wrote: »

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

I'm utterly unconvinced that her consent was obtained illegally; she certainly wanted a termination, so given a choice between termination and proceeding to term I think it would be hard to argue she would have chosen to go to term. That she would have preferred a termination that resulted in the death of the child I don't think means she would have preferred to go to term. And the surgery was considered to be medically necessary by the required three doctors in order to save her life, was it not?

volchitsa wrote: »

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.

Well, the Court order to sedate and hydrate her was granted, just never put into effect. Though such orders have been put into effect in other cases, without Ireland being hauled before the ECHR and compared to China and Iran. The Court order the hospitals legal team intended to seek but didn't, related to whether those involved required the formal consent of a court to carry out the termination of a pregnancy by way of early delivery; once it was ascertained (with the intervention of the DoH) that a termination of pregnancy under the Protection of Life in Pregnancy Act was being certified by the relevant clinicians the Court action was deemed unnecessary.

recedite

Cabaal wrote: »

Can't say I blame her for taking a case, hope she wins it

I hope she loses, and I blame the "free" legal aid industry for pushing this case. She has already claimed more from the Irish taxpayer in 2 or 3 years of health and legal care claims than the average Irish person claims in their whole life.
I wonder what sort of care would she have got if she had stayed in the country where she became pregnant?

There's a few anomalies in this story which I teased out in the old part of this thread, by creating a timeline of the events (now deleted sadly). But central to the issue was her breaking off contact with the doctor until near the end of the pregnancy, and then reappearing to a different doctor and demanding an abortion when it was deemed by the obstetrician to be too late. Because at that stage a live birth was becoming viable, as was proved when the birth occurred.

Cabaal

recedite wrote: »

I hope she loses, and I blame the "free" legal aid industry for pushing this case. She has already claimed more from the Irish taxpayer in 2 or 3 years of health and legal care claims than the average Irish person claims in their whole life.
I wonder what sort of care would she have got if she had stayed in the country where she became pregnant?

How is any of that relevant exactly?
:rolleyes:

You don't decide the outcome of a legal case based on how much legal or health costs they "might" have incurred during their life in a country. I'd point out that had they allowed an abortion all such costs would be alot less.

You decide it on the facts of what happens, I'm thankful you are not involved in making such legal decisions if this is your mindset.

alaimacerc

recedite wrote: »

I hope she loses, and I blame the "free" legal aid industry for pushing this case. She has already claimed more from the Irish taxpayer in 2 or 3 years of health and legal care claims than the average Irish person claims in their whole life.

Ah yes, the "industry". All a plot by Big Humans Rights and the Military-Abortion Complex. This is indeed becoming like the other "megathreads". Next we'll be using "scam" and "toxic quango" as punctuation in otherwise innocuous sentences.

The "average Irish person" hasn't had their rights as set out in international treaty obligations to a massive extent -- or so I'd like to think, at least. So why would this be in any way a meaningful or valid question?

I wonder what sort of care would she have got if she had stayed in the country where she became pregnant?

You mean the country she was raped in, and was fleeing from? Are you familiar with the concept of "refugee"? It's been in one or two news stories recently. As a piece of moral relativism, or just plain expectation management, this is pretty remarkable stuff. Even by the often breathtaking standards of this thread.

But central to the issue was her breaking off contact with the doctor until near the end of the pregnancy, and then reappearing to a different doctor and demanding an abortion when it was deemed by the obstetrician to be too late.

Going to a different doctor after being sustainedly filibustered and given the runaround by the first one? Such disgraceful venue-shopping! And the shocking poor manners involved in "demanding". Don't young people of today know to use pleases and thank-yous while being denied their fundamental rights?

lazygal

Bloody foreigners fleeing their countries, coming here looking for their 'rights' and 'medical care' and to avail of 'legally permitted medical treatment for suicidal pregnant women'.

recedite

Cabaal wrote: »

How is any of that relevant exactly?
:rolleyes:

You don't decide the outcome of a legal case based on how much legal or health costs they "might" have incurred during their life in a country.

Lets wait and see what arguments the solicitor Ms Haughey comes up with.
In the meantime, you and I can both have our different "hopes" on whether she wins a big payout from the taxpayer.

lazygal wrote: »

Bloody foreigners fleeing their countries, coming here looking for their 'rights' and 'medical care' and to avail of 'legally permitted medical treatment for suicidal pregnant women'.

Yes, well there is also the question of who, if anybody, assisted with her attempted illegal move from Ireland to the UK, after she was unable to get all she wanted here. Maybe she should have gone there originally for her initial asylum application. Although its not so easy to get there directly in the last few years, not since they started searching the lorries in Calais.

alaimacerc

recedite wrote: »

Lets wait and see what arguments the solicitor Ms Haughey comes up with.
In the meantime, you and I can both have our different "hopes" on whether she wins a big payout from the taxpayer.

"A big payout", indeed. Is the Daily Mail writing your posts? It's remarkably unselfconscious you can first hope she loses, and then say we should be waiting on the proceedings. Having it both ways much?

Yes, well there is also the question of who, if anybody, assisted with her attempted illegal move from Ireland to the UK, after she was unable to get all she wanted here. Maybe she should have gone there originally for her initial asylum application. Although its not so easy to get there directly in the last few years, not since they started searching the lorries in Calais.

How thoughtless of her, not using a crystal ball to anticipate having this particular right violated here. Refugees obviously need to plan their flight from persecution better, regardless of doing so involving knowledge they're not actually in possession of at the time.

As for "getting what she wanted"... I think the "compassion" mask is at this point not so much "slipping" as down a deep mineshaft somewhere. Would you ever give the relentless vilification a rest?

volchitsa

recedite wrote: »

I hope she loses, and I blame the "free" legal aid industry for pushing this case. She has already claimed more from the Irish taxpayer in 2 or 3 years of health and legal care claims than the average Irish person claims in their whole life.

Whereas if she'd been given a pregnancy termination when she requested it, well within the first trimester, how much would she have cost the taxpayer?

Anything she is going to cost (and I think you're right in that it will probably cost us dear - but unfortunately most of that will go into Lawyers' and Experts' pockets: we're good at that in this great little country of ours!) will be entirely because of the inhumane and possibly illegal, considering our freely-contracted international Human Rights obligations, way that she was treated here.

I wonder what sort of care would she have got if she had stayed in the country where she became pregnant?

[/QUOTE]
Words fail me. That is one truly sickening post. And that's not even the end of it...

lazygal

recedite wrote: »

Yes, well there is also the question of who, if anybody, assisted with her attempted illegal move from Ireland to the UK, after she was unable to get all she wanted here. Maybe she should have gone there originally for her initial asylum application. Although its not so easy to get there directly in the last few years, not since they started searching the lorries in Calais.

Wow. Just.....wow.

Dan_Solo

recedite wrote: »

Yes, well there is also the question of who, if anybody, assisted with her attempted illegal move from Ireland to the UK, after she was unable to get all she wanted here.

That is indeed a question. I've no idea how it exonerates the HSE though. In fact, just bringing up the fact she was resorting to this damns them even more.
Why does "who" it was matter anyway? Is that important for some reason?

alaimacerc

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Why does "who" it was matter anyway? Is that important for some reason?

It matters because "look! over there!"

Much like in the aftermath of the Halappanavar case, there was a sudden outbreak of diagnosis of massive widespread medical incompetence and coverup, from a base of "best little country in the world to bask in the Dublin Declaration".

lazygal

Dan_Solo wrote: »

That is indeed a question. I've no idea how it exonerates the HSE though. In fact, just bringing up the fact she was resorting to this damns them even more.
Why does "who" it was matter anyway? Is that important for some reason?

http://www.thejournal.ie/asylum-seekers-ireland-visa-abortion-1633750-Aug2014/

Sometimes the HSE helps women travel. For abortion. As other women who have the means and ability to travel can do without worrying about not being able to access abortion because they can't leave the country because they are in the asylum system.

lazygal

alaimacerc wrote: »

It matters because "look! over there!"

Much like in the aftermath of the Halappanavar case, there was a sudden outbreak of diagnosis of massive widespread medical incompetence and coverup, from a base of "best little country in the world to bask in the Dublin Declaration".

Usually from those who claim Abortion Is Never Necessary To Save A Woman's Life, Except When It Is But We Do Not Call That Abortion It Is Medical Treatment That Does Not Target The Unborn At All At All So Ireland Is Safe To Have A Baby, Look At PP Selling Baby Parts Is That What We Want Here?

volchitsa

Dan_Solo wrote: »

That is indeed a question. I've no idea how it exonerates the HSE though. In fact, just bringing up the fact she was resorting to this damns them even more.
Why does "who" it was matter anyway? Is that important for some reason?

It may well matter in a court case where the HSE defence is that they weren't aware of her mental state if, as appears likely, HSE staff facilitated the trip, or even accompanied her there.

lazygal

One factor may be that she could have been 17 during one part of the whole mess and then turned 18 and therefore moved into a different category for asylum and HSE purposes.

Dan_Solo

volchitsa wrote: »

It may well matter in a court case where the HSE defence is that they weren't aware of her mental state if, as appears likely, HSE staff facilitated the trip, or even accompanied her there.

I just still have no idea why this gets the HSE off the hook for not carrying out the abortion in the first place is all, which is the way it was seemingly presented above... covering their arses more like.

volchitsa

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I just still have no idea why this gets the HSE off the hook for not carrying out the abortion in the first place is all, which is the way it was seemingly presented above... covering their arses more like.

That whole rant was just an attempt at smearing Miss Y with anything that could conceivably be dragged up for use against her. It doesn't matter whether it's relevant, so long as it enables the poster to cast aspersions on Miss Y in some way, it's all good. So making it sound like she was overly demanding of her "rights"/requirements vis a vis the poor, overburdened HSE is as good as anything else apparently.

And implying that she's not interested in obeying the law while he's at it, of course. Unlike the HSE.

recedite

lazygal wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/asylum-seekers-ireland-visa-abortion-1633750-Aug2014/

Sometimes the HSE helps women travel. For abortion. As other women who have the means and ability to travel can do without worrying about not being able to access abortion because they can't leave the country because they are in the asylum system.

Right, but they had already looked into the matter of getting the necessary travel documents, and been informed it would take some time. And then it turned out Miss Y didn't bother filling in the application form anyway. So they knew she could not travel legally to the UK (for immigration reasons; nothing to do with the possible abortion).
If some official tried to take her there illegally on a one way trip and then offload her permanently onto the British system, it would not look good for the HSE. Hence there is a whiff of a cover-up about that whole episode.

lazygal wrote: »

One factor may be that she could have been 17 during one part of the whole mess and then turned 18 and therefore moved into a different category for asylum and HSE purposes.

No, its because as an asylum seeker in Ireland she did not have the right to travel freely to other EU countries, unless a special travel document is issued by the Irish immigration service. If asylum is granted, the right to travel within the EU comes automatically.

volchitsa wrote: »

That whole rant was just an attempt at smearing Miss Y with anything that could conceivably be dragged up for use against her. It doesn't matter whether it's relevant...
And implying that she's not interested in obeying the law while he's at it, of course. Unlike the HSE.

Eh, no. I'm still waiting to hear what the actual case against the HSE is.
It seems to centre on whether somebody threatening self-harm is considered sane enough to be restrained against their will. If that is so, then its not actually about abortion per se.
But there are a few side issues that might end up being aired too, if it goes to court.

Like the Romanian guy who got off a drunk driving charge this week because his blood alcohol print-out was not given in the Irish language as well as English, a crafty solicitor can often win a case for reasons that are not really directly relevant to the person at the centre of the case.

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

That whole rant was just an attempt at smearing Miss Y with anything that could conceivably be dragged up for use against her. It doesn't matter whether it's relevant, so long as it enables the poster to cast aspersions on Miss Y in some way, it's all good. So making it sound like she was overly demanding of her "rights"/requirements vis a vis the poor, overburdened HSE is as good as anything else apparently.
And implying that she's not interested in obeying the law while he's at it, of course. Unlike the HSE.

Well, in fairness, she had no right to an abortion when she requested one; she did not present as, or claim to be, suicidal, her life was not threatened. When she decided to go to the UK for an abortion she certainly was showing an interest in not obeying the law, or at very least in avoiding the law by leaving it's jurisdiction to commit an act that is illegal within the jurisdiction.

Absolam

lazygal wrote: »

Sometimes the HSE helps women travel. For abortion. As other women who have the means and ability to travel can do without worrying about not being able to access abortion because they can't leave the country because they are in the asylum system.

Let's not misrepresent the situation though. There were occasions when the HSE helped women travel; when the women had a legal entitlement to an abortion in Ireland, but the facilities weren't there to provide them. On those occasions, with the sanction of the Courts, the HSE assisted by providing the abortion in another country. We don't want to give the impression that the HSE were running some sort of underground railroad to help women without means avoid the law, do we? That would be misleading....
Whereas in Miss Ys case the facilities were there; the POLDPA had been passed and the HSE, having been involved in the legislation were aware that where in previous situations they had to get a Court order and then bring the patient abroad they now no longer had to do so. Hence the advice they gave the hospital when the hospital sought a Court order.

volchitsa wrote: »

It may well matter in a court case where the HSE defence is that they weren't aware of her mental state if, as appears likely, HSE staff facilitated the trip, or even accompanied her there.

Of course, there's no evidence that the HSE would have any reason to say they weren't aware of her mental state before they were made aware of it. Still less to imagine they might have facilitated her trip, particularly since they were so involved in the legislation that made such trips no longer necessary.

lazygal wrote: »

One factor may be that she could have been 17 during one part of the whole mess and then turned 18 and therefore moved into a different category for asylum and HSE purposes.

Though there's no evidence of that either, is there? She has variously been described as a teenager and a young woman, but since her identity is protected, any speculation about her age, and extrapolation from that speculation, is literally unfounded, isn't it?

Absolam

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I just still have no idea why this gets the HSE off the hook for not carrying out the abortion in the first place is all, which is the way it was seemingly presented above... covering their arses more like.

I think they're pretty much off the hook because the HSE wasn't aware (and why they weren't aware is a whole discussion to itself) she was entitled to a termination until she was 22 weeks pregnant. Initially, she wasn't entitled to a termination, subsequently when she presented herself as being suicidal to the IFPA they tried to assist her in having a termination overseas; she seems to have been under the impression she was being given the abortion, then backed out when it became apparent she would have to pay for it (presumably she did not have the money to do so). When later assessed by a Spirasi doctor, she was considered to have a strong death wish but not to be actively suicidal by the doctor (which would mean that according to the doctor her life was not at risk, so no abortion entitlement). Anyway her GP at the time (who would have been her HSE contact point) says (s)he never received this information from Spirasi, so was not aware of her even potentially being suicidal. Just over two weeks later Miss Y attended a new GP, and interestingly at her first appointment said she wanted to see a psychologist as she wanted an abortion. Within a matter of days from her (new) GP referring her for psychological assessment (that very day) it was agreed that her pregnancy should be terminated due to her being suicidal.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

Right, but they had already looked into the matter of getting the necessary travel documents, and been informed it would take some time. And then it turned out Miss Y didn't bother filling in the application form anyway. So they knew she could not travel legally to the UK (for immigration reasons; nothing to do with the possible abortion).
If some official tried to take her there illegally on a one way trip and then offload her permanently onto the British system, it would not look good for the HSE. Hence there is a whiff of a cover-up about that whole episode.

To avoid any confusion; the IFPA looked at obtaining travel documents with the assistance of the immigrant council for Miss Y to travel to the Netherlands. The application was never completed, I suspect because Miss Y could not afford to pay the costs involved.
Miss Y was assisted in travelling to the UK for an abortion a little over a month later by persons unspecified, who neglected to provide her with the money to obtain the abortion, and don't seem to have been present when she was detained by UK police. Some people have speculated that it was HSE staff who accompanied her, but that seems to be rather unfounded speculation.

Hotblack Desiato

I posted this before but then the thead was split into a new one,



March for Choice tomorrow (Sat) 2pm, Garden of Remembrance, Dublin 1

So are any other A&Aers going?

Timberrrrrrrr

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I posted this before but then the thead was split into a new one,



March for Choice tomorrow (Sat) 2pm, Garden of Remembrance, Dublin 1

So are any other A&Aers going?

Didn't know it was on but will be in town around then, will move a few things around and join up I think

eviltwin

Going in with the husband and kids - yet again....I long for the day we no longer have to do it. If you get in its a great event, there is always a good buzz and lots of post march events.

Dan_Solo

I still think the abortion rights campaign has to pick their target very, very carefully. If they go all guns blazing for abortion on demand they'll die a death. One step at a time...

rainbow kirby

If I was in Dublin this weekend I'd go!

eviltwin

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I still think the abortion rights campaign has to pick their target very, very carefully. If they go all guns blazing for abortion on demand they'll die a death. One step at a time...

It's focus is on repealing the 8th, nothing more

Hotblack Desiato

Exactly. Repeal the 8th and then allow legislators to, y'know, legislate rather than hiding behind the 'in accordance with the constitutional prohibition' BS.

It really shouldn't be beyond a 21st century western society to have a rational discussion about abortion - but this is Ireland unfortunately. The same sex marriage referendum result gave a lot of people internationally a false perception of where we really are as a country. Most politicians still thinking within the rigid box in their heads built for them by the Christian Brothers from age 4.

Nodin

eviltwin wrote: »

Going in with the husband and kids - yet again....I long for the day we no longer have to do it. If you get in its a great event, there is always a good buzz and lots of post march events.

Face painting, balloons, free abortions, devil worship, candyfloss, 'attackin de holy church'.......