The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Annasopra

end of the road wrote: »

again this is inaccurate.

It isn't inaccurate. Womens lives are endangered by the 8th amendment. That is a fact.

One eyed Jack

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

It isn't inaccurate. Womens lives are endangered by the 8th amendment. That is a fact.

It's entirely inaccurate, and it's certainly not a fact. It's an opinion.

It's only when a pregnant woman's life is already in immediate danger that the conditions of the 8th amendment become relevant, and even then the priority is to save the life of the pregnant woman.

That's why allegations that racism and sexism in this fùcking country killed Savita are a matter of opinion, and why the allegation that the 8th amendment caused the death of Malak Kuzbary Thawley is a matter of opinion, both of which ignore the failure of numerous systems that should have been in place in the hospitals which, had they been properly implemented, would more likely have prevented their unfortunate deaths and prevented any future risk to pregnant women from substandard practices and incompetence in how these hospitals are run.

222233

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's entirely inaccurate, and it's certainly not a fact. It's an opinion.

It's only when a pregnant woman's life is already in immediate danger that the conditions of the 8th amendment become relevant, and even then the priority is to save the life of the pregnant woman.

That's why allegations that racism and sexism in this fùcking country killed Savita are a matter of opinion, and why the allegation that the 8th amendment caused the death of Malak Kuzbary Thawley is a matter of opinion, both of which ignore the failure of numerous systems that should have been in place in the hospitals which, had they been properly implemented, would more likely have prevented their unfortunate deaths and prevented any future risk to pregnant women from substandard practices and incompetence in how these hospitals are run.

You say it doesn't endanger women's lives, I would say you would possibly find that to be untrue, if we could measure the scope of injury caused by the eight amendment, much of which is probably undocumented given how far back it would go. Consider just for example those who have had abortions carried out illegally.

You are correct in saying that it's only when a woman's life is in "immediate danger" that the eight kicks in which is a VERY sad reality as it stems from an ideation that until or unless the problem becomes urgent it should be allowed to fester.

NuMarvel

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's entirely inaccurate, and it's certainly not a fact. It's an opinion.

Here's where you do that thing of just repeating the same thing over and over again.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's only when a pregnant woman's life is already in immediate danger that the conditions of the 8th amendment become relevant, and even then the priority is to save the life of the pregnant woman.

Nice attempt at a swerve, but no dice. The point was the dangers the 8th puts women in, not what happens after they're put in danger.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's why allegations that racism and sexism in this fùcking country killed Savita are a matter of opinion, and why the allegation that the 8th amendment caused the death of Malak Kuzbary Thawley is a matter of opinion, both of which ignore the failure of numerous systems that should have been in place in the hospitals which, had they been properly implemented, would more likely have prevented their unfortunate deaths and prevented any future risk to pregnant women from substandard practices and incompetence in how these hospitals are run.

Mrs Thawley was only in surgery because the 8th denied her the option of a non-invasive treatment. A non-invasive treatment that would have had the same outcome as surgery, yet she was force to undergo surgery, which even at the best of times is never risk free. None of this is opinion, it is fact.

I have stated more than once that the hospital and doctors bear responsibility for the effects of the surgery, but the 8th, and it supporters, bear responsibility for her being in surgery in the first place.

It'd be interesting to see how Ireland's rate of surgeries for ectopic pregnancies compares internationally. Do we have a higher rate, and if so, how do we justify continuing the use of surgery when there are other, less invasive options available? How would we continue justifying the use of valuable staff and infrastructural resources at a time when the health service is stretched to the limit when a more efficient means are available?

B0jangles

Say you have severe indigestion and for some completely incomprehensible reason (possibly rooted in religion) you can't be given a couple of rennies; the only legal option is gastric surgery to remove the excess acid.

The surgery is botched and you die on the operating theatre.

Is the root problem the specific instance of botched surgery or the insane requirement to have the surgery in the first place?

One eyed Jack

NuMarvel wrote: »

Here's where you do that thing of just repeating the same thing over and over again.

Nice attempt at a swerve, but no dice. The point was the dangers the 8th puts women in, not what happens after they're put in danger.

I think Joey was pretty explicit in his claim that the 8th puts women's lives in danger. I'm not twisting anything or wilfully misinterpreting anything in that statement.

Mrs Thawley was only in surgery because the 8th denied her the option of a non-invasive treatment. A non-invasive treatment that would have had the same outcome as surgery, yet she was force to undergo surgery, which even at the best of times is never risk free. None of this is opinion, it is fact.

Before the 8th existed, the Offences Against the Person Act of 1861 would have been in play. That's why hypotheticals are just that. There's simply no way of knowing how it would have played out in any given circumstances where there are a number of factors to be considered.

I have stated more than once that the hospital and doctors bear responsibility for the effects of the surgery, but the 8th, and it supporters, bear responsibility for her being in surgery in the first place.

I hope you aren't expecting me to dignify that particular comment.

It'd be interesting to see how Ireland's rate of surgeries for ectopic pregnancies compares internationally. Do we have a higher rate, and if so, how do we justify continuing the use of surgery when there are other, less invasive options available? How would we continue justifying the use of valuable staff and infrastructural resources at a time when the health service is stretched to the limit when a more efficient means are available?

I was immediately going to suggest that the beancounters will already have done their homework, but then that would have ignored the more obvious answer - politics.

dr.fuzzenstein

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

You've been doing this for the entire thread and it's getting ridiculous at this point. Any time a point is made against you that you know you can't refute, you just say it's wrong. No attempt at a rebuttal of the argument, just literally sticking your head in the sand.

I think EOTR may believe this thread is a Panto.

One eyed Jack

B0jangles wrote: »

Say you have severe indigestion and for some completely incomprehensible reason (possibly rooted in religion) you can't be given a couple of rennies; the only legal option is gastric surgery to remove the excess acid.

The surgery is botched and you die on the operating theatre.

Is the root problem the specific instance of botched surgery or the insane requirement to have the surgery in the first place?

In my opinion, it's the botched surgery.

For example, I recently had a hip replacement operation, and there are any number of it's and buts and possible scenarios with potential consequences -

If the surgeon had nicked an artery I would simply have bled to death.

If the surgery had been performed at another hospital where they have the equipment to recycle blood during surgery it would have immediately reduced my risk of exposure to any number of other outcomes.

If I hadn't had steel pins put in 20 years ago it would have made the hip replacement procedure much more straightforward.

If a click hip had been detected during a routine examination which was carried out on all babies at birth, then I might never have had to have a hip replacement now. It would simply have been a question of being put in a cast for a few months as opposed to having been missed out on completely. I don't know why it was missed out on, but I can't look back now at all the what if's, because each permutation presents it's own set of further possibilities, and there's no way of truly knowing anything with any degree of certainty.

B0jangles

One eyed Jack wrote: »

In my opinion, it's the botched surgery.

For example, I recently had a hip replacement operation, and there are any number of it's and buts and possible scenarios with potential consequences -

If the surgeon had nicked an artery I would simply have bled to death.

If the surgery had been performed at another hospital where they have the equipment to recycle blood during surgery it would have immediately reduced my risk of exposure to any number of other outcomes.

If I hadn't had steel pins put in 20 years ago it would have made the hip replacement procedure much more straightforward.

If a click hip had been detected during a routine examination which was carried out on all babies at birth, then I might never have had to have a hip replacement now. It would simply have been a question of being put in a cast for a few months as opposed to having been missed out on completely. I don't know why it was missed out on, but I can't look back now at all the what if's, because each permutation presents it's own set of further possibilities, and there's no way of truly knowing anything with any degree of certainty.

Could your recent hip issue have been treated entirely with medication instead of surgery?

If you could have had same result simply by taking a pill, would you have chosen to undergo surgery?

Would you be happy to have that decision made for you?

One eyed Jack

B0jangles wrote: »

Could your recent hip issue have been treated entirely with medication instead of surgery?

I know why you're asking that question, but I hope you'll appreciate how difficult it is to answer given that I'm not a medical professional. It could have been left as it was, and I would have managed fine. It could have been treated with medication, and I would have been fine, but it was determined by medical professionals at the time that I would be a good candidate for a procedure that had been successfully tried in the States.

If you could have had same result simply by taking a pill, would you have chosen to undergo surgery?

It would depend upon the outcome of taking the pill, which obviously if we were to draw a fair comparison, the outcomes wouldn't be the same. You might as well be asking me if I were experiencing an ectopic pregnancy and was told that I would not be given a pill but was told surgery was available, would I go for the surgery? Obviously I would. If I knew the conditions under which the surgery was to be performed, then I would likely say I wasn't willing to take that risk, and given the outcomes of previous cases and other cases I'm aware of which are cases of medical mismanagement in Ireland, I would be extremely hesitant.

Would you be happy to have that decision made for you?

Again, I'm happy to have some decisions made for me, such as what medical professionals with decades of experience in dealing with my condition would have over me, and then some decisions which place limitations on their options or place limits on the type of treatment available to me, I'm prepared to live with the consequences of those decisions.

The idea of maintaining that the 8th is responsible for any pregnant woman's death is to me at least the equivalent of suggesting that if a woman hadn't left her home, she wouldn't have been raped. It's an argument that completely ignores what actually caused her to be raped, in the same way that suggesting the 8th is responsible for the death of any pregnant woman ignores the actual cause of her death.

dr.fuzzenstein

What about having the decision made for you, forcing you to have surgery instead of medication.
And if that decision was not taken on scientific and medical grounds, but moral and religious grounds?
I would, like any sane person leave the country, because I don't believe in surgery for reasons of oogedy boogedy.

Kurtosis

B0jangles wrote: »

Say you have severe indigestion and for some completely incomprehensible reason (possibly rooted in religion) you can't be given a couple of rennies; the only legal option is gastric surgery to remove the excess acid.

The surgery is botched and you die on the operating theatre.

Is the root problem the specific instance of botched surgery or the insane requirement to have the surgery in the first place?

What you'd hope would happen in healthcare is a patient and their doctor would discuss available treatment options, the relative advantages and disadvantages of each, and decide on the option that provides the best balance of benefits and harms.

That doesn't seem to be possible for managing ectopic pregnancies as the available options are restricted by the eighth amendment. International experience shows medical management with methotrexate is the optimal treatment, but because this isn't an option here, we have a higher risk invasive alternative being used. The aim of both these strategies is the same (ending the ectopic pregnancy) so women are subjected to a riskier treatment with no potential benefit - the eighth clearly endangers (i.e. increases the risk to) womens' lives.

One eyed Jack

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

What about having the decision made for you, forcing you to have surgery instead of medication.
And if that decision was not taken on scientific and medical grounds, but moral and religious grounds?
I would, like any sane person leave the country, because I don't believe in surgery for reasons of oogedy boogedy.

Ah, that's probably where we differ dr. f! :pac:

Seriously though, I think you're ignoring the larger part that politics, rather than best practice plays in many of these decisions taken in relation to healthcare in Ireland. There's no question that it comes down to a question of politics, money and culture. For example there's been little mention of these cases in the Irish media, and it's a scandal IMO as big as the Hep C scandal -

Irish women take legal action over 'razor blade' vaginal mesh implants


A NUMBER OF Irish women are pursuing legal action over complications they suffered after receiving vaginal mesh implants.

The cases have emerged following reports of thousands of patients in the US, UK and Australia enduring similar issues with the devices.

Transvaginal mesh implants are used to treat stress incontinence and more recently pelvic prolapse – when a pelvic organ such as the bladder drops. Both of these conditions are common in women after childbirth. The mesh, a net-like implant, which comes in a number of forms and sizes, is inserted in order to support the weakened organ. Tissue then grows into the pores of the mesh to fortify the walls of the affected organ.

These devices have been used across Europe, the United States and Australia since the early 2000s and while short-term trials have found low complication rates for implants that are used to treat stress incontinence, there is growing evidence that the efficacy is lower for devices used in women with pelvic prolapse – and complication rates are higher.

The US Food and Drug Administration reclassified the transvaginal mesh implant as a high-risk device in 2012 and some 100,000 women there have filed lawsuits, but it is only in recent months that the issue was highlighted in the UK.

Legal representatives for women in Ireland who have undergone the procedure have said it was on seeing reports in the UK that some of their clients made the connection between their health issues and the device.

Pain, which is now believed to be related to the implants, can begin at any time – even years – after the procedure. The devices are still in use in Ireland though guidelines have been issued to clinicians in recent years.

B0jangles

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I know why you're asking that question, but I hope you'll appreciate how difficult it is to answer given that I'm not a medical professional. It could have been left as it was, and I would have managed fine. It could have been treated with medication, and I would have been fine, but it was determined by medical professionals at the time that I would be a good candidate for a procedure that had been successfully tried in the States.

It would depend upon the outcome of taking the pill, which obviously if we were to draw a fair comparison, the outcomes wouldn't be the same. You might as well be asking me if I were experiencing an ectopic pregnancy and was told that I would not be given a pill but was told surgery was available, would I go for the surgery? Obviously I would. If I knew the conditions under which the surgery was to be performed, then I would likely say I wasn't willing to take that risk, and given the outcomes of previous cases and other cases I'm aware of which are cases of medical mismanagement in Ireland, I would be extremely hesitant.

Again, I'm happy to have some decisions made for me, such as what medical professionals with decades of experience in dealing with my condition would have over me, and then some decisions which place limitations on their options or place limits on the type of treatment available to me, I'm prepared to live with the consequences of those decisions.

The idea of maintaining that the 8th is responsible for any pregnant woman's death is to me at least the equivalent of suggesting that if a woman hadn't left her home, she wouldn't have been raped. It's an argument that completely ignores what actually caused her to be raped, in the same way that suggesting the 8th is responsible for the death of any pregnant woman ignores the actual cause of her death.

You approach acknowledging that the heart of the problem is the 8th and then veer away wildly at the end.

If your condition could have not just have been maintained, but entirely resolved by taking a pill, you claim you'd still be content to have the surgery, but with the vital caveat that you'd do so if your medical advisors thought that surgery was the best option for you.

Malak Kuzbary Thawley was denied the option of medical, rather than surgical treatment because the developing embryo had a heartbeat. Her best interest was not the main consideration.

She was not even given the choice, unlike you.

She was forced to undergo surgery not because it was in her best interest, but because of legal restrictions created by the 8th amendment.

Imagine if all surgery had to be carried out in Ireland without the use of blood transfusions because Jehovah's Witness theology had a hand in writing the constitution!

One eyed Jack

B0jangles wrote: »

You approach acknowledging that the heart of the problem is the 8th and then veer away wildly at the end.

If your condition could have not just have been maintained, but entirely resolved by taking a pill, you claim you'd still be content to have the surgery, but with the vital caveat that you'd do so if your medical advisors thought that surgery was the best option for you.

Malak Kuzbary Thawley was denied the option of medical, rather than surgical treatment because the developing embryo had a heartbeat. Her best interest was not the main consideration.

She was not even given the choice, unlike you.

She was forced to undergo surgery not because it was in her best interest, but because of legal restrictions created by the 8th amendment.

Your summation of my position isn't entirely accurate, but that's not the more salient point. You're still ignoring the fact that if the 8th amendment weren't in place, the relevant act would be the Offences against the Person act, which would likely have prohibited the administration of the medication anyway.

Another doctor in that situation may have chosen to administer the medication and then argue with the Courts afterwards.

Imagine if all surgery had to be carried out in Ireland without the use of blood transfusions because Jehovah's Witness theology had a hand in writing the constitution!

That may not be entirely the bad thing you imagine it to be given we have a culture in the medical community in Ireland who are very quick to go for blood transfusions instead of other practices which are shown to have better outcomes and are less expensive -


Blood Transfusions Still Overused and May Do More Harm Than Good in Some Patients


I also don't imagine it would lead to the outcomes you think it would either -


Pregnant Jehovah's Witness' decision to refuse treatment 'harrowing' for hospital staff after mother and baby die

B0jangles

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Your summation of my position isn't entirely accurate, but that's not the more salient point. You're still ignoring the fact that if the 8th amendment weren't in place, the relevant act would be the Offences against the Person act, which would likely have prohibited the administration of the medication anyway.

Another doctor in that situation may have chosen to administer the medication and then argue with the Courts afterwards.


That may not be entirely the bad thing you imagine it to be given we have a culture in the medical community in Ireland who are very quick to go for blood transfusions instead of other practices which are shown to have better outcomes and are less expensive -


Blood Transfusions Still Overused and May Do More Harm Than Good in Some Patients


I also don't imagine it would lead to the outcomes you think it would either -


Pregnant Jehovah's Witness' decision to refuse treatment 'harrowing' for hospital staff after mother and baby die

So keep the 8th because the situation was just as bad before it was
enacted - is that the 'It was like that when I got here' principle?

And I really don't see the relevance of mentioning whether or not all blood transfusions are medically justified when we are discussing a situation where the medical justification for a treatment is not the deciding factor.

Malak Kuzbary Thawley was not treated with surgery instead of medication because her doctors thought the surgery was a better medical choice, it was because they feared the legal repercussions.

Because of the 8th.

Kurtosis

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Your summation of my position isn't entirely accurate, but that's not the more salient point. You're still ignoring the fact that if the 8th amendment weren't in place, the relevant act would be the Offences against the Person act, which would likely have prohibited the administration of the medication anyway.

I'm not familiar with the Offences Against the Person Act, could you explain how it would affect the use of methotrexate in the absence of the eighth amendment?

One eyed Jack

B0jangles wrote: »

So keep the 8th because the situation was just as bad before it was
enacted - is that the 'It was like that when I got here' principle?

That's not what I said. I'm just pointing out that if the 8th didn't exist, it's still just as likely she wouldn't have been given the option of medication in this country. Therefore it's not the case that simply the existence of the 8th is responsible for her death.

It would be like me arguing that if she hadn't been experiencing an ectopic pregnancy in the first place she wouldn't have died and her child would have been born. I don't use that argument though because it's entirely based upon presumptions that are in my favour, which would be biased. Instead I argue as to the actual cause of her death, which would be applicable in any number of circumstances, not just in the case of women who are pregnant.

And I really don't see the relevance of mentioning whether or not all blood transfusions are medically justified when we are discussing a situation where the medical justification for a treatment is not the deciding factor.

Eh? Of course the medical justification for any treatment is a deciding factor in terms of the potential outcomes of one treatment over another. That's why as much as it's been paraded about in this thread as some "magic bullet" solution, methotrexate is neither suitable in the treatment of all ectopic pregnancies, nor is it without it's complicating factors, and indeed surgery may be the better option in some cases -

Ectopic Pregnancy Treatment & Management


Medical therapy for ectopic pregnancy involving methotrexate may be indicated in certain patients. To determine acceptable candidates for methotrexate therapy, first establish the diagnosis by one of the following criteria:

Abnormal doubling rate of the beta–human chorionic gonadotropin (β-HCG) level and ultrasonographic identification of a gestational sac outside of the uterus

Abnormal doubling rate of the β-HCG level, an empty uterus, and menstrual aspiration with no chorionic villi

A number of other factors must also be considered once the diagnosis is established, as follows:

The patient must be hemodynamically stable, with no signs or symptoms of active bleeding or hemoperitoneum (must be met by every patient)
The patient must be reliable, compliant, and able to return for follow-up care (must be met by every patient)

The size of the gestation should not exceed 4cm at its greatest dimension (or exceed 3.5 cm with cardiac activity) on ultrasonographic measurement - Exceeding this size is a relative, but not absolute, contraindication to medical therapy

Absence of fetal cardiac activity on ultrasonographic findings - The presence of fetal cardiac activity is a relative contraindication

No evidence of tubal rupture - Evidence of tubal rupture is an absolute contraindication
β-HCG level less than 5000 mIU/mL - Higher levels are a relative contraindication


(bold emphasis my own)

Malak Kuzbary Thawley was not treated with surgery instead of medication because her doctors thought the surgery was a better medical choice, it was because they feared the legal repercussions.

Because of the 8th.

I don't see any mention made of that anywhere?


The court was told that Mr Thawley had discovered on the internet that an ectopic pregnancy without symptoms could be treated with a drug called methotrexate.

But he was told at the hospital that because the foetal sac had a heartbeat, this drug was not an option and the only option was surgical intervention.

Mr Reidy said Mr Thawley was disappointed that a conservative approach could not be taken, but the couple made a joint decision to follow the hospital's advice.

He said that was a decision Mr Thawley regretted to this day and had profound feelings of guilt about.


(again, bold emphasis my own)


Then there was this 'cascade of failures' in what should have been standard procedure for any surgery -


The court heard a blood sample had been taken from Mrs Thawley but was not cross-matched to check her blood type because this was not done at the hospital at weekends, meaning her blood type was not known and a supply of blood for her was not readily available. 

Mrs Thawley's Body Mass Index had not been measured, which would have shown that she was very lean and this would have had an effect on the operation.

There was a delay in contacting the consultant when it became clear there was a problem. He was not fully informed of what had happened and there was a delay while they tried to find the source of the bleeding.

There was also a delay when Mrs Thawley's blood pressure dropped as staff investigated whether there was a problem with the armband on her. There was a further delay in contacting a vascular team from St Vincent's Hospital, the court heard. 

January

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But he was told at the hospital that because the foetal sac had a heartbeat, this drug was not an option and the only option was surgical intervention.

This is because of the 8th amendment! If there was no 8th then they could have given the drug but because the fetus had a heartbeat, they couldn't do so, because of the 8th!

You also forgot to bold the bit where it said they could use the drug if the fetus measured less than 3.5cm with cardiac activity.

One eyed Jack

Kurtosis wrote: »

I'm not familiar with the Offences Against the Person Act, could you explain how it would affect the use of methotrexate in the absence of the eighth amendment?

Well that's the assumption upon which Bojangles argument is based, that because of the existence of the 8th amendment, doctors were prohibited from administering methotrexate because it would have killed the embryo.

However, that argument ignores two things -

1. In an ectopic pregnancy there's no way of saving the embryo anyway, and
2. It's not illegal to administer methotrexate anyway in any case

So quite how the 8th amendment is relevant at all in this case, I don't see it, but you appear to imagine it is -

Kurtosis wrote: »

What you'd hope would happen in healthcare is a patient and their doctor would discuss available treatment options, the relative advantages and disadvantages of each, and decide on the option that provides the best balance of benefits and harms.

That doesn't seem to be possible for managing ectopic pregnancies as the available options are restricted by the eighth amendment. International experience shows medical management with methotrexate is the optimal treatment, but because this isn't an option here, we have a higher risk invasive alternative being used. The aim of both these strategies is the same (ending the ectopic pregnancy) so women are subjected to a riskier treatment with no potential benefit - the eighth clearly endangers (i.e. increases the risk to) womens' lives.

Maybe this is what Bojangles was referring to?


Doctor was following guidelines in ectopic pregnancy, Medical Council inquiry told


A doctor accused of misdiagnosing an ectopic pregnancy and prescribing drugs to terminate it was following guidelines in what could have been an extremely risky situation, a Medical Council inquiry has been told.

The consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist told mother-of-three Laura Esmonde she could “die in her sleep” and “bleed to death” if she took no action in relation to her suspected ectopic pregnancy in January 2013.

The doctor, identified as Dr A, is accused of poor professional performance in his care of Ms Esmonde at South Tipperary General Hospital

The Medical Council inquiry has heard allegations Dr A wrongly diagnosed Ms Esmonde with an ectopic pregnancy on January 8, when in fact it was a normal pregnancy. He prescribed her two courses of methotrexate, a medication used to stop ectopic pregnancies from growing, which she took.

Nearly three weeks later, on January 26, subsequent ultrasound scans revealed the pregnancy was not ectopic, the inquiry heard. However at that stage, it was not viable and she miscarried on February 2.

...

Mr Mills pointed to evidence from Rotunda master, Professor Fergal Malone, and consultant obstetrician Dr Peter Lenehan, who appeared before the inquiry and who were “clear about the risks faced” in the case of a suspected ectopic pregnancy.

“These two Irish experts both say they would have proceeded in the same way, had they found themselves in Dr A's position,” Mr Mills said.


That's why I said earlier -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Another doctor in that situation may have chosen to administer the medication and then argue with the Courts afterwards.

One eyed Jack

January wrote: »

This is because of the 8th amendment! If there was no 8th then they could have given the drug but because the fetus had a heartbeat, they couldn't do so, because of the 8th!

You also forgot to bold the bit where it said they could use the drug if the fetus measured less than 3.5cm with cardiac activity.

Bojangles assertion was that their decision wasn't based on medical grounds, but because they were afraid of the legal implications, and I pointed out that they gave their decision on medical grounds, not on legal grounds.

I didn't forget to bold anything because I don't bloody know what size the embryo was or wasn't at the time. The salient point was the presence of foetal cardiac activity being a relative contraindication as to why the administration of methotrexate in Ms. Thawleys case may not have been considered even though she read about it on the internet.

I will post again, for one eyed Jack, I HAD to undergo surgery for an ectopic pregnancy because Of The 8th amendment.
There was not, not is there ever, the option of medical treatment in this country.
Because if the 8th.
I was told this afterwards by a midwife. The pills directly target the embryo, 'killing' it if you like. Operating is the only option as it is seen as emergency surgery to save the woman, the embryo is destroyed but not targeted directly.

Oh & before the 8th amendment, the offences against the person act would not have been in play as the unborn did not have equal right to life as the mother, therefore medical treatment, such as a pill, would have been perfectly OK.
It's not procuring abortion in that case.

So, why do you think it's OK to put women through unnecessary operations, when, as you said yourself, the embryo cannot survive anyway?

January

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Bojangles assertion was that their decision wasn't based on medical grounds, but because they were afraid of the legal implications, and I pointed out that they gave their decision on medical grounds, not on legal grounds.

How do you know that though? The doctor wouldn't just come out and say 'oh sorry we can't the 8th has our hands tied'

I didn't forget to bold anything because I don't bloody know what size the embryo was or wasn't at the time. The salient point was the presence of foetal cardiac activity being a relative contraindication as to why the administration of methotrexate in Ms. Thawleys case may not have been considered even though she read about it on the internet.

A fetus which is growing at a regular rate would be about 4cm at around 11 weeks. Ms. Thawley was 6 weeks pregnant, which, would put the fetus at less than 1.6cm in length. Which means that even with cardiac activity, methotrexate can be used, you quoted it yourself up there. Her fallopian tube was still intact, which means it can also be used.

Methotrexate would have been indicated for use in any other country, but not here, because of the 8th.

Trudiha

Kurtosis wrote: »

I'm not familiar with the Offences Against the Person Act, could you explain how it would affect the use of methotrexate in the absence of the eighth amendment?

I'm familiar with the Act, it's still in place in the UK. (The Abortion Act of 1968 is work around of the Offences Against The Person Act, which makes abortion in England and Wales lawful rather than legal, it's interesting but not really relevant in this context.)

What is relevant is that, while it is in force in England and Wales, it allows ectopic pregnancies to be managed medically rather than with surgery, in a way that the 8th doesn't while there is a heartbeat, this woman wouldn't have died in the UK.

One eyed Jack

bubblypop wrote: »

I will post again, for one eyed Jack, I HAD to undergo surgery for an ectopic pregnancy because Of The 8th amendment.
There was not, not is there ever, the option of medical treatment in this country.
Because if the 8th.
I was told this afterwards by a midwife. The pills directly target the embryo, 'killing' it if you like. Operating is the only option as it is seen as emergency surgery to save the woman, the embryo is destroyed but not targeted directly.

Yeah, people get told all sorts of misleading information all the time. This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.

Oh & before the 8th amendment, the offences against the person act would not have been in play as the unborn did not have equal right to life as the mother, therefore medical treatment, such as a pill, would have been perfectly OK.
It's not procuring abortion in that case.

I'll cite directly from the IFPA's rather handy Abortion in Ireland: Legal Timeline so I can't be accused of bias -


The Offences Against the Person Act 1861 is passed which criminalises women who "procure a miscarriage". The Act also makes it a crime to assist a woman to "procure a miscarriage". The punishment in both cases is life imprisonment. The Act also criminalises anyone who knowingly supplies the means to “procure a miscarriage”. These criminal laws remain on the Irish Statute books for more than 150 years and are interpreted to criminalise abortion in all circumstances. Subsequent amendments to the Constitution and court cases interpret further the dimensions of abortion, however, the 1861 Act remains the basis of criminal law on abortion in Ireland until the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013 comes into force.

So, why do you think it's OK to put women through unnecessary operations, when, as you said yourself, the embryo cannot survive anyway?

You'll have to quote me at least where I said anything like that rather than what you might have insinuated from my posts. There's been enough of that crap gone on in this thread already, so unless you can cite where I ever said, or even suggested that I thought it was ok to put women through any unnecessary procedures, I'll put that down to a misunderstanding on your part.

Trudiha

Are you just going to ignore that exactly the same law remains on the statute books in England and Wales without interfering with women's maternal care because it doesn't give an unviable (inviable?) foetus the same right to life as a woman?

One eyed Jack

January wrote: »

How do you know that though? The doctor wouldn't just come out and say 'oh sorry we can't the 8th has our hands tied'

How do I know that they are giving their medical opinion? Because it's written right there in black and white.

A fetus which is growing at a regular rate would be about 4cm at around 11 weeks. Ms. Thawley was 6 weeks pregnant, which, would put the fetus at less than 1.6cm in length. Which means that even with cardiac activity, methotrexate can be used, you quoted it yourself up there. Her fallopian tube was still intact, which means it can also be used.

I'll take the doctors at their word if it's all the same to you. I mean, undoubtedly you know your stuff and all, but given the choice between considering your opinion and the opinion of the medical professionals that were there, I'll take it they were acting according to what they believed was the best course of action in those circumstances.

The failures that were made after that decision was made though, there's no excuse for that level of incompetence, and if they were afraid of any legal implications, they sure as hell didn't show it!

Methotrexate would have been indicated for use in any other country, but not here, because of the 8th.

That document I linked to wasn't written in this country, and as I said methotrexate isn't the "magic bullet" that's been bandied about in this thread, and it's not without it's complications. I don't know what your medical qualifications are, but you have to agree it would be foolish to diagnose someone over the internet, let alone determine the best course of action for them in their circumstances.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I simply meant that I don't do insincerity very well - I can't pretend to feel something I don't, which is why I said nothing, rather than express sentiments I don't genuinely feel.

The last time I asked you on this thread if you just don't care about women who have to undergo unnecessary operations, this is what you replied.
Which basically means that you won't pretend to care that some women have to go through that.
In other words, you don't care about living breathing human women.

One eyed Jack

Trudiha wrote: »

Are you just going to ignore that exactly the same law remains on the statute books in England and Wales without interfering with women's maternal care because it doesn't give an unviable (inviable?) foetus the same right to life as a woman?

Am I going to ignore the law in another jurisdiction? Yes, yes I am.

I think it was the point at which you suggested that Ms. Thawley would be alive today were she in the UK that had me think "and if so many other things had or hadn't happened, something else may or may not have happened". There's simply no way you could guarantee any outcome.

Trudiha

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Am I going to ignore the law in another jurisdiction? Yes, yes I am.

I don't want to be tedious with my exoteric historical knowledge but it was the same jurisdiction when the Act came into law. It's exactly the same piece of law.