The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

thee glitz

emo72 wrote: »

i was shocked myself. put exactly that to a referendum. id bet me house on how it would go.

Maybe it's sabotage!

Outlaw Pete

Ronan Mullen is an idiot to say what he did. However, the following is equally as incredulous, if indeed not more so:

January wrote: »

The 8th amendment killed Savita.

Savita was admitted to hospital on the Sunday evening and it wasn't until the Wednesday morning that she was diagnosed with Sepsis. Her consultant said that on that morning she discussed with Savita the possibility that they still might yet consider a termination..... fetal heartbeat notwithstanding:

"I also informed Ms Halappanavar that if we did not identify another source of infection or if she did not continue to improve we might have no option but to consider a termination regardless of the foetal heart"

So, from the prescriptive of Savita's medical team at least, before Wednesday morning there was no medical reason for Savita to undergo a termination. Two hours later, 10:30am, Savita was diagnosed with Sepsis and the consultant was called back in. At 1pm (after speaking with her colleagues) she made the decision that Savita should undergo a termination. She was then however subsequently informed that there was no fetal heartbeat but that was after having already made the decision that Savita would be having a termination. It's simply nothing but self serving speculation to say that the 8th Amendment killed Savita. There is no evidence to support such a claim.

The Coroner's inquest, HIQA investigation and HSE report all suggest the failings lay elsewhere:

HIQA Investigation:

HIQA released their report on their investigation into the standard of services provide to Savita Halappanavar on Wednesday, 9 October 2013.

The Terms of Reference had been approved by the Board of the Authority on 27 November 2012 and the Investigation Team was announced on 19 December 2012. The Authority identified, through a review of Savita Halappanavar’s healthcare record, a number of missed opportunities which, had they been identified and acted upon, may have potentially changed the outcome of her care.

In all they identified 13 different points at which interventions could have made a difference to saving Savita’s life.

In summary, of the care provided there was a:

• general lack of provision of basic, fundamental care, for example, not following up on blood tests as identified in the case of Savita Halappanavar
• failure to recognise that Savita Halappanavar was at risk of clinical deterioration
• failure to act or escalate concerns to an appropriately qualified clinician when Savita Halappanavar was showing the signs of clinical deterioration.

Coroner’s Inquest:

On 19 April 2013, after seven days of evidence from 36 witnesses, Dr. Ciarán McLoughlin returned a verdict of medical misadventure in the case of Savita Halappanavar. He highlighted deficiencies in her care which included:

• Blood tests indicating possible infection were not collected
• Savita’s pulse rate was elevated at 114 but the on-call doctor was not aware of this
• Savita’s vital signs were not checked for more than nine hours, in breach of hospital guidelines
• Although Savita’s pulse rises to 160, with a fever and a foul smelling discharge, the discharge was not relayed to Savita’s consultant
• Compounding these system failures was the presence of E.coli ESBL bacteria.

The Coroner made 9 National Recommendations in his report including:

• following up of blood samples,
• following protocols for the management of sepsis,
• proper and effective communication between staff,
• protocols for antibiotic use in sepsis,
• early communication with patients to ensure their treatment plan is understood and
• the use of warning scores to be used in all State hospitals.

And here's a letter collectively written by 11 consultants in response to how what the above findings were being ignored:

Sir,

– The recent inquest on Savita Halappanavar has raised important issues about hospital infection in obstetrics. Much of the public attention appears to have been directed at the expert opinion of Dr Peter Boylan who suggested that Irish law prevented necessary treatment to save Ms Halappanavar’s life. We would suggest that this is a personal view, not an expert one.

Furthermore, it is impossible for Dr Boylan, or for any doctor, to predict with certainty the clinical course and outcome in the case of Savita Halappanavar where sepsis arose from the virulent and multi drug-resistant organism, E.coli ESBL.

What we can say with certainty is that where ruptured membranes are accompanied by any clinical or bio-chemical marker of infection, Irish obstetricians understand they CAN intervene with early delivery of the baby if necessary. Unfortunately, the inquest shows that in Galway University Hospital the diagnosis of chorioamnionitis was delayed and relevant information was not noted and acted upon.

The facts as produced at the inquest show this tragic case to be primarily about the management of sepsis, and Dr Boylan’s opinion on the effect of Irish law did not appear to be shared by the coroner, or the jury, of the inquest.

Additionally there are many well-documented fatalities from sepsis in women following termination of pregnancy. To concentrate on the legal position regarding abortion in the light of such a case as that in Galway does not assist our services to pregnant women.

It is clear that maternal mortality in developed countries is rising, in the US, Canada, Britain, Denmark, Netherlands and other European countries. The last Confidential Enquiry in Britain (which now includes Ireland) recommended a “return to basics” and stated that many maternal deaths are related to failure to observe simple clinical signs such as fever, headache and changes in pulse rate and blood pressure. Many of the failings highlighted in Galway have been described before in these and other reports.

The additional problem of multi-resistant organisms causing infection, largely as a result of antibiotic use and abuse, is a serious cause of concern and may lead to higher death rates in all areas of medicine.

Ireland’s maternal health record is one of the best in the world in terms of our low rate of maternal death (including Galway hospital). The case in Galway was one of the worst cases of sepsis ever experienced in that hospital, and the diagnosis of ESBL septicaemia was almost unprecedented among Irish maternity units.

It is important that all obstetrical units in Ireland reflect on the findings of the events in Galway and learn how to improve care for pregnant women. To reduce it to a polemical argument about abortion may lead to more – not fewer – deaths in the future.

– Yours sincerely,

Dr. John Monaghan, DCH FRCPI FRCOG Consultant Obstetrician/Gynecologist

Dr. Cyril Thornton, MB BCh MRCOG Consultant Obstetrician/Gynecologist

Dr. Eamon Mc Guinness, MB BCh MRCOG Consultant Obstetrician/Gynecologist

Dr. Trevor Hayes, MB BCh FRCS MRCOG Consultant Obstetrician/Gynecologist

Dr. Chris King, MB DCH MRCOG Consultant Obstetrician/Gynecologist

Dr. Eileen Reilly, MB ChB MRCOG Consultant Obstetrician/Gynecologist

Prof John Bonnar, MD FRCPI FRCOG Professor Emeritus Obstetrics & Gynaecology

Prof Eamon O’Dwyer, MB MAO LLB FRCPI FRCOG Professor Emeritus Obstetrics & Gynaecology

Prof Stephen Cusack, MB BCh FRCSI Consultant in Emergency Medicine

Dr. Rory Page, MB BCh FFA RCSI Consultant Anaesthetist

Dr. James Clair, MB BCh PhD FRCPath Consultant Microbiologist

Zubeneschamali

January wrote: »

The foetus within Savita still had a heart beat. It was slow and getting slower each day but it was still there so even though Savita was getting sicker the doctors didn't know whether she was 'sick enough' that they could perform an abortion without being reprimanded for it.

Don't forget that this was before the horrific POLDPA legislation finally landed - all our doctors were in legal limbo. There was no, zero legislation on abortion in Ireland at the time, just the 8th amendment itself.

Arguably the 8th amendment, with no other legislation, would make terminating Savita's pregnancy murder. Killing Savita would obviously be murder, and the 8th says the "unborn" has an equal right to life, so...

RobertKK

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Don't forget that this was before the horrific POLDPA legislation finally landed - all our doctors were in legal limbo. There was no, zero legislation on abortion in Ireland at the time, just the 8th amendment itself.

Arguably the 8th amendment, with no other legislation, would make terminating Savita's pregnancy murder. Killing Savita would obviously be murder, and the 8th says the "unborn" has an equal right to life, so...

Dr Boylan used the Savita case incorrectly, and then said he couldn't think of any other case where the 8th amendment led to death.
The 8th amendment is a red herring.

thee glitz

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Don't forget that this was before the horrific POLDPA legislation finally landed - all our doctors were in legal limbo. There was no, zero legislation on abortion in Ireland at the time, just the 8th amendment itself.

What's wrong with the legislation?

Arguably the 8th amendment, with no other legislation, would make terminating Savita's pregnancy murder. Killing Savita would obviously be murder, and the 8th says the "unborn" has an equal right to life, so...

Not if her life was in danger though. If she died, wouldn't the unborn die too.

nozzferrahhtoo

Sheeps wrote: »

Calm down, its just a small statement of fact.

Is it though? If you had read my post at all you would have seen I questioned whether it is indeed a "fact".

But by all means show me the workings you are basing it on:

1) List out what you think the costs of an abortion are / would be in an Irish context.
2)Then list out what you think the costs of abortion are / would be in the UK, including the cost of travel and accommodation ect. Including the option many people would have if it was available here to bring a friend or partner with them.

Then compare and contrast the results and we will see if you are offering "a small statement of fact" or in fact an egregious statement of unsubstantiated fantasy nonsense.

Sheeps wrote: »

You're going to be placed on a waiting list, in which case you'll probably have the baby before you get the abortion.

That is a completely different point to the one you are failing to defend above. And one that is, at least, somewhat more coherent. HOW any choice based abortion in Ireland is built and implemented would indeed be interesting to see because it IS time sensitive and significant waiting lists is not really an option.

Delirium

RobertKK wrote: »

Dr Boylan used the Savita case incorrectly, and then said he couldn't think of any other case where the 8th amendment led to death.
The 8th amendment is a red herring.

So why didn't the doctors perform an abortion when it was requested by Savita?

.......

This post has been deleted.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Hotblack Desiato

thee glitz wrote: »

I thought there was some level of doubt amongst the doctors, that they were considering law rather than medicine.

As long as the 8th remains, that's what they're going to have to continue to do. Abortion is not legal until the woman's life (as opposed to 'merely' her health) is threatened and in some cases by then it will be too late.

ohnonotgmail

RobertKK wrote: »

Dr Boylan used the Savita case incorrectly, and then said he couldn't think of any other case where the 8th amendment led to death.
The 8th amendment is a red herring.

is one not enough? or was she an acceptable loss?

Outlaw Pete

Delirium wrote: »

So why didn't the doctors perform an abortion when it was requested by Savita?

An abortion was not deemed medically necessary at that point given that from her medical team's perspective there was no "real and substantial risk" to her life. Her consultant testified that had Savita’s blood results been in before Wednesday, she would have felt differently and ordered a termination.

From the letter posted above:

What we can say with certainty is that where ruptured membranes are accompanied by any clinical or bio-chemical marker of infection, Irish obstetricians understand they can intervene with early delivery of the baby if necessary. Unfortunately, the inquest shows that in Galway University Hospital the diagnosis of chorioamnionitis was delayed and relevant information was not noted and acted upon.

The facts as produced at the inquest show this tragic case to be primarily about the management of sepsis, and Dr Boylan’s opinion on the effect of Irish law did not appear to be shared by the coroner, or the jury, of the inquest.

It's worth noting that the Jury at the inquest did not agree with Dr.Boylan, as if they had they would not have returned a unanimous verdict of death by medical misadventure.

It's quite sad that after all this time the prochoice are still attempting to use Savita's death in this way.

baylah17

Truth is Ronan and and his Youth Defence militia are responsible for the killing of Savita.
She was told she had to die because because this is a Catholic country.
The only saving grace is that she and her baby were not thrown in the nearest septic tank.

jjmcclure

GarIT wrote: »

In something is in me and is a part of me I have control over it. When something detaches itself from me and is not inside me it has the right to autonomy IMO.

Also, I support abortion before life (the ability to have independent thoughts) begins but not after.

This is a nonsense argument. From the moment the child is born it will be entirely dependent on you until it is fully grown and independent. Should you have the right to "choose" to kill your six week old baby because it is totally dependent on you?

suicide_circus

baylah17 wrote: »

Truth is Ronan and and his Youth Defence militia are responsible for the killing of Savita.
She was told she had to die because because this is a Catholic country.
The only saving grace is that she and her baby were not thrown in the nearest septic tank.

The place for a fetus is a medical waste receptacle not a septic tank.

PopePalpatine

jjmcclure wrote: »

This is a nonsense argument. From the moment the child is born it will be entirely dependent on you until it is fully grown and independent. Should you have the right to "choose" to kill your six week old baby because it is totally dependent on you?

You missed the part where the six week-old baby is out of the womb.

Outlaw Pete

baylah17 wrote: »

She was told she had to die because because this is a Catholic country.

The midwife (in part of a larger discussion about how different cultures view pregnancies) mentioned how Ireland was a catholic country but that was not said to her as part of her medical care.

The only saving grace is that she and her baby were not thrown in the nearest septic tank.

Oh, so at 17-weeks a fetus is a "baby" now? I thought they were just "blobs of biological matter" or (on a good day) a "bunch of cells"?

Not that I'm complaining. Always nice to see the prochoice have epiphanies.

Delirium

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

An abortion was not deemed medically necessary at that point given that from her medical team's perspective there was no "real and substantial risk" to her life. Her consultant testified that had Savita’s blood results been in before Wednesday, she would have felt differently and ordered a termination.

From the letter posted above:



It's worth noting that the Jury at the inquest did not agree with Dr.Boylan, as if they had they would not have returned a unanimous verdict of death by medical misadventure.

It's quite sad that after all this time the prochoice are still attempting to use Savita's death in this way.

Which is a direct result of the 8th amendment.

nozzferrahhtoo

jjmcclure wrote: »

This is a nonsense argument. From the moment the child is born it will be entirely dependent on you until it is fully grown and independent. Should you have the right to "choose" to kill your six week old baby because it is totally dependent on you?

Did you only read part of the users post before you chose to reply. Firstly the user listed more than just dependence in what the user said. So the first half of your post missed the mark entirely.

Then the user offered a SECOND paragraph/sentence that directly pre-empted your last sentence.

So nothing in your post appears to actually reply to the post in question at all. It more appears that you saw some trigger word or other, and replied without actually reading any of it.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Oh, so at 17-weeks a fetus is a "baby" now? I thought they were just "blobs of biological matter" or (on a good day) a "bunch of cells"?

You are just being willfully misrepresentative and facetious here now.

It has been explained to you MANY times before that there is no issue in general with calling the fetus a "baby" if and when you want.

The issue only becomes an issue when the mis-use of the word baby is done with the intention of smuggling in meaning that the fetus does not warrant having, in the course of discussion or debate about abortion.

So no one needs to have an "epiphany" here at all. We are already aware of how you like to spin things.

January

You don't seem to get the fact that had Savita been granted the termination when she had first asked for it then the very thing that caused the sepsis would not have been there. The 8th amendment meant that her requests for a termination had been declines, her life shouldn't have had to be left hanging in the balance before a doctor could decide whether they could perform a termination or not.

kylith

thee glitz wrote: »

Surely it couldn't happen again though?

Oh no, never :rolleyes: These days we just put corpses on life-support, and restrain and force feed suicidal rape victims.

seamus

If the anti-choice crowd keep wheeling out the usual suspects at the front of their campaign, they'll be doing a great service for the pro-choice campaign.

All week they've been whinging about the apparent pro-choice bias in those chosen to speak at the committee and asking why there were so few pro-life speakers.

Then yesterday they fire out a tirade from Patricia Casey about why she declined to speak in front of the committee.

If your side refuses to speak, you don't get to complain that only one side of the argument is being heard.

Crea

January wrote: »

You don't seem to get the fact that had Savita been granted the termination when she had first asked for it then the very thing that caused the sepsis would not have been there. The 8th amendment meant that her requests for a termination had been declines, her life shouldn't have had to be left hanging in the balance before a doctor could decide whether they could perform a termination or not.

Exactly, she was admitted to hospital on the Saturday. Her waters broke on the Sunday, this increases the risk of infection in any pregnancy yet she had to wait until the Wednesday before they'd acr because the foetus had a heartbeat. This was directly because of the 8th. The report actually stated that some medical decisions were made because of current legislation.

Dotsie~tmp

PopePalpatine wrote: »

You missed the part where the six week-old baby is out of the womb.

The magical portal which bestows life.:rolleyes:

spookwoman

jjmcclure wrote: »

This is a nonsense argument. From the moment the child is born it will be entirely dependent on you until it is fully grown and independent. Should you have the right to "choose" to kill your six week old baby because it is totally dependent on you?

Biology 101 - when in the womb, nutrients, oxygen you know life sustaining stuff is transferred from the woman via the placenta.
At 6 weeks born baby is getting these direct from the outside world. Oxigen from the air it breaths and nutrients by Milk from bottle or breast and it might come come from the breast or a can. It doesn't require it's mother to provide these it can be provided by foster parents, hospitals, nurses social services etc thats basically anyone.

Press_Start

I'm partial to not using it as a form of birth control. There's enough education about sexual health and contraception, and there's plenty of affordable options, that just having an abortion because you're pregnant is just not sitting right with me.

I believe it should be available, and more available infact for women who are suffering from illness and the child will suffer as well, or if the mother/ child's health are at risk. As well as women who can be psychiatrically evaluated to the capacity of having a child.

spookwoman

sunshine and showers wrote: »

This is an anti-choice myth. Nobody turns around at 7 months pregnant and thinks, "actually, this isn't for me. I know longer want this baby that I wanted last week."

I'm not anti choice in fact I'm for abortion, be it i don't want it, I can't afford it, it's going to interfere with my life, it's got something wrong with it after tests, medical reasons. I do think there has to be a line drawn when there is not actually a problem with the foetus or woman later on in the pregnancy.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Mr. CooL ICE

Mod:

Somebody with a single-digit postcount enters the thread, posts a load of controversial nonsense... and people take the bait???

Thread has been cleaned up, in case anybody is wondering why posts are missing. Please use a bit of cop on in future.

January

spookwoman wrote: »

I'm not anti choice in fact I'm for abortion, be it i don't want it, I can't afford it, it's going to interfere with my life, it's got something wrong with it after tests, medical reasons. I do think there has to be a line drawn when there is not actually a problem with the foetus or woman later on in the pregnancy.

And there is, no doctor would terminate a foetus at 30 weeks because a woman just decided she wanted an abortion then. That would happen is the woman would be induced or a cesarean performed and the baby would be born alive, premature, but alive.